AGENDA #6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Village Plaza Theater Renovation – Application for Special Use Permit Modification (File No. 7.46.B.11 & 11B PIN# 9799242361, 9799148584)
DATE: June 30, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from June 21, 2004, regarding the Special Use Permit Modification application to amend the January 27, 2003, Special Use Permit and remove a portion of Stipulation #4 referring to the required improvements to this off-site driveway and to modify Stipulation #6 to provide a payment-in-lieu for the construction of the pedestrian connection.
Adoption of Resolution A would approve a Special Use Permit Modification application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution B would deny the request.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
¨ Cover Memorandum: Provides background information on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and offers recommendations for Council action.
¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, information provided at the June 21, 2004, Public Hearing, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments.
|
Background
On February 5, 2002, an application for a Special Use Permit was submitted, seeking approval to expand Village Plaza Theaters. The Council granted expedited review to Village Plaza Theaters for a Special Use Permit application on April 8, 2002. Public Hearings were conducted on the application starting in the fall. The Special Use Permit was approved on January 27, 2003, for both Phase I (demolition of the existing theater) and Phase II (construction of a 10-screen theater with 1,600 seats). A copy of the adopted resolution is attached (Attachment 5, p.135).
On January 26, 2004, the Council granted expedited review to Village Plaza Theaters for an application to modify the 2003 Special Use Permit. The Council also granted a reduction to the application fee and narrowed the scope to the review of modification to Stipulation #4 (Council Resolution attached as Attachment 7, p.163). The Community Design Commission reviewed a Concept Plan for the Special Use Permit Modification application (Attachment 19, p. 503) and the Council reviewed the Concept Plan on February 9, 2004. The Concept Plan proposed a modification to Stipulation #4 of the original Special Use Permit, which required improvements to Driveway “D,” an off-site driveway. Objections suggested that the parties meet for mediation to address their differences. A copy of the Council Concept Plan Review is attached (Attachment 18, p. 496).
An application for a Special Use Permit Modification was submitted which proposed deleting improvements to Driveway “D” in Stipulation #4 of the original Special Use Permit (Attachment 1, p.17). Mediation was conducted between owners. No agreements were reached.
Advisory Boards began review in May. On May 18, 2004, a Revised Statement of Justification was submitted that included a request to modify Stipulation #6 of the January 2003 Special Use Permit (Attachment 2, p.22). Stipulation #6 required an off-site connection to the Booker Creek Greenway from the rear of the theater on adjacent property. Agreement from the adjacent property owner has not been granted. The connection consists of a 30-foot wide easement (Attachment 22, p.506). The applicant is proposing a payment-in-lieu for the anticipated construction cost for the connection.
evaluation of the application
The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit Modification.
If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit Modification shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.
Tonight, based on the evidence presently in the record thus far, we provide evidence in support and opposition of the four findings of facts for this application that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification.
|
Finding #1: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (Attachment 1, p.17) and Revised Statement of Justification (Attachment 2, p.22) provide evidence in support of Finding #1. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “The modification of the Special Use Permit is for the limited purpose of removing the requirement to improve Driveway “D” along Elliott Road as set forth in Stipulation #4. The removal of the requirement will not jeopardize the public health, safety, or general welfare of the citizens of Chapel Hill.” [Applicant Statement]
· The Revised Statement of Justification which includes the modification of Stipulation #6 of the Special Use Permit; states that “The only greenway easement requiring a conveyance from an adjoining off-site owner is the Easement for Greenway purposes (Stipulation #6 of the Special Use Permit) for the pedestrian connection to the Booker Creek Greenway. The easement in draft has been submitted to the real estate attorney for Little & Cloniger Partnership, who is the adjacent owner. The easement would run in favor of the Town of Chapel Hill for a 30’pedestrian connection to the existing Booker Creek Greenway. The applicant would perform the minor construction necessary for the short connection. While we are hopeful of obtaining an agreed upon executed easement acceptable to the Town, the applicant must request that in event the easement cannot be obtained from the offsite adjoining owner that a payment in lieu for the anticipated construction cost for the 30’ pedestrian connection be approved by the Town and that the Town specify the amount of payment to be provided.” [Applicant Statement]
· Property owner of the Booker Creek Linear Park and Greenway stated that he will grant the Greenway Easement for the pedestrian connection from the rear of the proposed theater to the Booker Creek Greenway.
Evidence in opposition: The adjacent property has commissioned a Traffic Impact Analysis by the firm PBS&J entitled “Reassessment of Traffic, Parking, and Circulation Impacts of Proposed Village Plaza Theater Redevelopment” (Attachment 12, p. 175) and “Executive Summary of Reassessment of Traffic, Parking, and Circulation Impacts of Proposed Village Plaza Theater Redevelopment” (Attachment 3, p. 23) which presents a traffic study of the Village Plaza Shopping Center driveways. This study presents information that concludes that Driveway “D,” without improvements, will drop to an unacceptable Level of Service E with the proposed theater during Friday PM.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #2: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 1, p.17) provides evidence in support of Finding #2. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “The modification of the Special Use Permit will not change the site as it relates to compliance with the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, and with all other applicable regulations. It is noted for the record that the Traffic Impact Analysis completed by RSH Architects-Engineers-Planners, Inc. for the Town of Chapel Hill in December 2001 only considered Driveways “C” and “D” although two other driveways exist on the project site. The study states “It should be noted that this analysis assigns all site traffic to the two site drives although existing traffic is likely to disperse to other drives if delays occur at site drives.” [Applicant Statement]
· The applicant’s Revised Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 2, p.22) states that “The Applicant asserts that the Amended Traffic Report completed by HNTB North Carolina, PC completely supports that the driveways serving the Applicant’s site, Driveways A. B, and C will fully accommodate the needs and requirements of the Project. The application for the SUP Modification therefore meets all legal tests for the modification to be approved. The Modification application does not in any manner jeopardize the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Chapel Hill. The application is in full compliance with the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance and with all other applicable regulations. The application will not negatively impact values of the contiguous properties and the Application conforms to the general plans for the physical development of the Town as contained in the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition: The Traffic Study performed by PBS&J maintains that Driveway “D” falls below the Town of Chapel Hill standards for Level of Service on Friday PM (Attachment 12, p. 175 and Attachment 3, p. 23).
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #3: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 1, p. 17) provides evidence in support of Finding #3. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “By removing the requirement of improving Driveway “D” there will be no loss of valuable parking spaces on the Ginn property and no loss of a sidewalk along Elliott Road that would result from the approximate six (6) foot widening of Driveway “D.” Therefore, it is not expected that the approval of the modification will have any negative impact on the values of any of the contiguous properties. Approving the modification of the Special Use Permit is in effect approving the intent of the Project approval granted January 27, 2003, in which the Council removed a cross-access easement that would have required an agreement from the adjacent property owner.,”[Applicant Statement]
· The Revised Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 2, p. 22) states that “the application will not negatively impact values of the contiguous properties and the Application conforms to the general plans for the physical development of the Town as contained in the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance.” [Applicant Statement]
· A business owner on adjacent shopping center property stated that he wanted the theater development to be completed. The current theater site, as a result of the theater demolition (Phase I), has left an eyesore that detracts from the appearance of the shopping center. Other unforeseen problems (trash collection, abandon cars, vagrants) exist with the unsightly fenced off area.
Evidence in opposition: Several property owners on the adjacent shopping center property stated that their businesses would be negatively impacted by a loss of parking with the proposed theater expansion. They stated that their customers will not be able to find adequate parking and therefore will not frequent their businesses.
The owner of the Staples property requests that Driveway “D” improvements be retained in Stipulation #4 as an effort to prevent motorists from using his egress onto Franklin Street should a traffic bottleneck occur at the Elliott Road Driveway “D.”
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #4: That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this Chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 1, p. 17) provides evidence in support of Finding #4. We note the following key point:
· “Lastly, the approval of the modification of the Special Use Permit to remove the off-site improvement of Driveway “D” conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town, as contained in the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition: No evidence was presented at the June 21, 2004, Public Hearing in opposition to Finding #4.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
key issueS RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
We summarize the following as Key Issues that were discussed at the June 21 Public Hearing, each followed by a staff comment.
Scope of Hearing: We reported in our June 21 memorandum that the Council had previously indicated intent to limit the scope of the Public Hearing to issues surrounding Driveway “D” (Attachment 4, p.1). The applicant asked for consideration of a second issue, the adjustment of a requirement for construction of a path connecting to a greenway. Citizens spoke at the Hearing addressing issues related to parking.
Staff Comment: Once a Public Hearing on an application to modify a Special Use Permit is open, testimony can be offered on any aspect of the Special Use Permit. The Council may determine whether or not it chooses to address the greenway issue, and/or revisit the parking decisions that it made last year.
Driveway “D”: The applicant requests deletion of a condition requiring widening of Driveway “D” stating that the driveway is not on their property and that agreement from the other property owner to allow the widening has not been available. Citizens spoke in favor of keeping the requirement. The Town commissioned a Traffic Impact Analysis which concluded that the widening of Driveway “D” would be desirable but not necessary (Attachment 3, p. 24 and Attachment 4, p. 33). A separate Traffic Impact Analysis was commissioned by the owner of the property on which Driveway “D” is located, which concluded that the widening of Driveway “D” is necessary (Attachment 12, p.175 and Attachment 3, p. 23).
Staff Comment: We believe that the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the independent consultant retained by the Town, HNTB, is correct and appropriate based on reasonable assumptions derived from facts and circumstances. The conclusions of the Analysis are that improvements to Driveways “C” and “D” would be desirable but not necessary. We continue to recommend deleting the requirement to widen Driveway “D” in Stipulation #4 of the original Special Use Permit (January 2003) with this modification request.
An alternate analysis was presented at the Hearing by the firm PBS&J, drawing different conclusions. We offer the following comments on the differences:
Comment #1: In the Traffic Impact Analysis (Attachment 3, p. 23) under Mitigation Measures and Recommendations, PBS&J indicated that Level of Service (LOS) E is not an acceptable Level of Service according to Town of Chapel Hill standards.
Response: We disagree with this comment. In 2001, the Council approved guidelines for preparation of Traffic Impact Analyses in Chapel Hill. The guidelines state that, for unsignalized intersections, the minimum level of service permitted for outbound left turns is Level of Service E.
Comment #2: At the June 21 Council meeting, PBS&J indicated disagreement with the Town’s Consultant, HNTB, for theater trip distribution, specifically to Driveway “D.”
Response: The intersection of Driveway “D” with Elliott Road is an unsignalized intersection, and Level of Service calculation mainly depends on the number of left-turning vehicles from the driveway onto Elliott Road. The PBS&J analysis assumed that approximately 20 percent of the trips from the theaters would be distributed to Driveway “D,” and we do not believe that this assumption reflects the actual traffic and driveway conditions.
Based on the existing conditions of the driveway (such as width and the surrounding parking conditions), HNTB assumed that most of the traffic using this driveway would be making right-turns to Elliott Road, approaching Franklin Street. It was also assumed that the left-turning vehicles going toward Fordham Boulevard would use the other driveways such as “A,” “B,” and “C.” We believe that HNTB assumptions for trip distribution reflect the actual conditions of traffic and they are reasonable.
Comment #3: At the June 21 Council meeting, PBS&J indicated that Town staff made the following inaccurate statement in the “Engineering Staff Report”:
The results from the most recent Town-commissioned study, by HNTB, conclude that with deletion of improvements to Driveway “D,” neither Driveway “C” nor Driveway “D” has a Level of Service that fails (Level of Service E and below) and that no roadway improvements are necessary after the theater expansion occurs
PBS&J also indicated that HNTB reports that Driveway “C” will have a Level of Service E on Friday night during peak theater operations.
Response: We believe that the Town staff statement was accurate and was referring to the LOS for Driveway “C” “approach”, not a particular movement. In both HNTB and PBS&J reports, LOS for the Driveway “C” “approach” was found to be D or better, and E for left-turning movements on a Friday peak hour. Please see the Table 15, PBS&J in Attachment 12, p.175 and Table 6, HNTB in Attachment 4, p.33.
Comment #4: At the June 21 Council meeting, PBS&J indicated that the following Town staff statement in the “Engineering Staff Report” is inaccurate:
The PBS&J analysis for Driveway “D” indicates Level of Service D for the build conditions. This Level of Service is acceptable for an unsignalized intersection in Chapel Hill.
PBS&J indicated that driveway D will have LOS E during the Friday PM peak hour of Elliott Road (4-6 pm) when theater traffic is added.
Response: We believe that the Town staff statement was accurate and was referring to the LOS criteria for “theater” peak hour conditions and not “Elliott Road” peak hour conditions. Based on the latest ITE trip generation manual, peak hours for trip generation by the proposed theaters are found to be between 6-10 pm on Friday or Saturday 6-10 pm. Please see the table E4 prepared by PBS&J in Attachment 3, p. 23.
Both HNTB and PBS&J analysis findings indicated that LOS for Driveway “D” is D for peak hour of theaters (Friday 6-10 pm and Saturday 6-10 pm). Please see the table E7 prepared by PBS&J in Attachment 3, p. 23. Also, please see the Table 6 prepared by HNTB in Attachment 4, p.33.
Greenway Connector: The 2003 Special Use Permit for Plaza Theaters requires construction of a 30-foot wide path to connect to a greenway. The path would be built on someone else’s property, and the applicant reported that agreement from that property owner to allow the construction had not been achieved. At the Hearing on June 21, the owner of that property reported that he would execute the agreement.
Staff Comment: Given that agreement is needed from an adjacent property owner, we believe that a condition requiring construction on that adjacent property is potentially problematic. We hope that agreement can be obtained as has been described, and that construction of the connector can follow. However, we believe it would be prudent to include language in the condition of approval authorizing a payment-in-lieu if agreements are not forthcoming and recommend making that adjustment to the Special Use Permit.
Parking: Citizens spoke at the Hearing expressing concern that if the theaters are built as was approved in January 2003, there would not be adequate parking available.
Staff Comment: We believe that the comments offered on June 21 about parking concerns are substantially the same as the comments offered and discussed in 2002 and 2003 while the original Special Use Permit application was being considered by the Town Council. The Council decided in January 2003 to approve the Special Use Permit, authorizing the construction of a 10-screen theater building accompanied by a total of 490 spaces on the Eastern Federal and Mark Properties sites, with parking to serve both sites. The Council explicitly modified regulations for this site in approving the Special Use Permit. We do not believe that circumstances have changed since 2003.
There are about 15 parking spaces along the southeast side of Driveway “D” that are partially on Eastern Federal Property and partially on the Ginn Property (Attachment 23, p.508). The applicant has indicated that those parking spaces will remain in use for Ginn Property businesses. These spaces would be lost if Driveway “D” is widened.
Current Conditions: A petition was offered (Attachment 1 p.14) that urge Council action so that current conditions on the site (demolished building) could be improved and a new building constructed.
Additional Questions: Subsequent to the June 21 Public Hearing, we received questions regarding this application for modification of the Special Use Permit: Was it known at the time of the 2003 approval that Driveway “D” is not on the applicant’s property? Did the applicant know prior to demolishing the former building that Driveway “D” would be problematic? Is parking appropriately a candidate for discussion now? How did this situation come about? We offer staff responses below:
Staff Comment: The stipulation was originally crafted when it was being reported to staff and Council that all the property owners involved were cooperating. At the final meeting when the Council took action, it was reported that cooperation could not be achieved, and asked that a cross-easement stipulation that would have required cooperation be deleted. It was deleted as requested. No one scanned the rest of the stipulations to see if there were other stipulations that required an adjacent property owner’s approval. If that had been brought to the attention of the Manager, we would have recommended that it also be deleted.
Staff Comment: At the time that the applicant was pursuing Phase I (demolition), it is our understanding that the applicant was not aware that there would be problems in securing a Zoning Compliance Permit for construction of the new building. After the demolition had occurred, and final plan review for the new building was underway (Phase II), the problem became clear.
Staff Comment: The applicant’s request for modification of the Special Use Permit is narrow, and does not include anything related to parking. The Council expressed its intent to keep the scope of review accordingly narrow. However, once a Public Hearing on an application to modify a Special Use Permit is open, testimony can be offered on any aspect of the Special Use Permit. The Council may determine whether or not it chooses to address and/or revisit the parking decisions that it made last year.
Staff Comment: We continue to believe that this situation came about because neither the Manager or any other staff member, nor the applicant or its representatives, realized the problem that would be created by failure to modify the stipulation. Changes made at the last hour of the process resulted in a process error.
Manager’s Recommendation: Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit Modification. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions. Resolution A would modify condition #4 of the original Special Use Permit to delete the required widening of Driveway “D”, and would modify condition #6 of the original approval to authorize a payment in lieu of construction of a greenway connection, in the event that agreement with an adjacent property owner cannot be reached.
Resolution B would deny the application.
Recommendations from Advisory Boards are summarized below. Please see the attached summaries of board actions and recommendations.
Planning Board’s Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this proposal on May 18, 2004, and voted 6-1 to recommend that the Council approve this application, with the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action (Attachment 13, p.491).
Community Design Commission’s Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this proposal on June 16, 2004, and voted 10-0 to recommend the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission Action (Attachment 19. p.496).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on May 25, 2004, and voted 7-0 to approve this application with the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (Attachment 16, p.494).
Greenways Commission Recommendation: The Greenways Commission met on May 26, 2004, and voted 5-0 to recommend a proposed payment-in-lieu for a trail connection through the Little property with the additional requirement that “the amount of the payment-in-lieu shall be approved by the Town Manager.” This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Greenways Commission Action (Attachment 15, p.493).
Transportation Board’s Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this proposal on June 15, 2004 and voted 4-2 to recommend adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action (Attachment 17, p.495).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this proposal on August 26, 2003, and voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the application. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (Attachment 16, p.494).
1. Village Plaza Business Owners and Representatives Petition Supporting Project (p. 15).
2. Power Point Presentation by PBS&J (p. 18).
RESOLUTION A
Manager’s Recommendation
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE VILLAGE PLAZA THEATER RENOVATION (2004-06-30/16a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Eastern Federal and Triangle V II L.P., on property identified as Chapel Hill township Tax Map 46, Block B, Lot 11 and 11B (PIN 9799-24-2361 and 9799-14-8584) if developed according to the condition listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit Modification for the Village Plaza property in accordance with the conditions listed below:
i. The applicant is authorized to adjust the internal parking lot layout at Driveway “C” to lengthen the internal driveway “throat.” If parking lot layout changes are proposed, the Town Manager shall review and approve the layout prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the Village Plaza Theater Renovation property in accordance with the condition listed above.
This the 30th day of June, 2004.
RESOLUTION B
(Denying the Application)
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE VILLAGE PLAZA THEATER RENOVATION (2004-06-30/R-16b)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Eastern Federal and Triangle V II L.P., on property identified as Chapel Hill township Tax Map 46, Block B, Lot 11 and 11B (PIN 9799-24-2361 and 9799-14-8584) if developed according to the condition listed below, would not:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
(INSERT ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR DENIAL)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application for the Special Use Permit Modification for the Village Plaza property as proposed by Eastern Federal and Triangle V II, L.P.
This the 30th day of June, 2004.