Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-2014 PH2 Appeal of ARC Decision - Pacific Courtyards - Jenkins Appealcity Of san lui s OBI sPO Filing Fee Tree Appeal: $109.00 All Other Appeals: $273.00 Paid I? APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Date Received SEP 18 2014 SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION 51- a Cpl �,zvr�r 1 '� ��a Q �e�ll'(;►�S 1 33G' `340 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 9Or 1Wz5;R414-' 5-4.17 4 a 9 Phone Fax ,� �� � ,,ar l :se-k- ["1 r h S -5 cc vh 2 ��Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Iy�iak�ori cl h Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: p �: A R G do �� Ie��er g 2 o i a rc� "A ARe `t -I3 ��4C.rt;'cC"oA1 (Name of Officer, C mmittee or Co mission de son beinj appealed) r 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 1 2 X01 3. The application or project was entitled:_i 5 S t e 4. 1 discussed t platter with the following City staff member: .1i PL c e V v ue-6, r P.CL n1 r4c C- j on 2- E7 13 (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Ha. s #his matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom; K/ r -D a- SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action /s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued 5e-,e Arc G k e 1, SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $273, which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request forrenUaQnce. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at .scretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear or sen a resentative t appear on my behalf when sal' ppeal 's sc edul d f r public headi g b the City C until. (Signature ppellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisl s are $109. 2) The above -named appellant has already paid the City $273 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for cc: City Attorney City Manager Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) Page 2 of 3 07/13 'Appeal to Council of ARC approval of design, ARC 96 -13 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL of ARC approval of Project application of Mission Medical, LLC, File # 96 -13 design of proposed 8,050 office and condominium project covering 3 former Grace Church & Mission Medical parking lot entirely within the Old Town Historic District (1321 & 1327 Osos Street, and what should be 1326 Morro Street, with a deeded walkway to Pacific Street). Attachment 3. REASON FOR APPEAL: In 2008 and again in June 2014 the City Council subjected all of the parcels in the proposed site to be included in the Old Town Historic District. Thus the developmental standards for building new structures within the Old Town Historic District apply to the entire site. The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) has examined the proposed design twice. On November 25, 2013, the CHC unanimously recommended denial of the project by the ARC because the "massing" was not similar to the architecture within the historic district, because the project was not pedestrian friendly and of human scale (like the hallmark historic structures that make up the Old Town Historic District and because the architecture did not look to existing district architecture for design details. See attached 11 -25 -13 minutes of the CHC. The unanimous CHC was so concerned that they amended the staff proposed resolution from "inviting" return of the project to the CHC to say that the project was "required" to be returned for review to the Cultural and Historic Committee. Following approval of the Zoning flip by the Planning Commission and the Council, the slightly revised plan was resubmitted by Mission Medical, LLC, to the CHC June 23, 2014. The CHC voted, 5 to 1, to recommend denial of the project "based on a finding that the project is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because its massing and architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town Historic Distict." As observed by Commissioner Wynn two meetings ago, it is difficult to understand why the Architectural Review Commission has completely ignored the CHC's recommendation for complete denial. Protecting the character of the small 28 block Old Town Historic District by requiring new construction to have size, shape, style and rhythm that pulls into the new construction the best design examples of the Historic District does not prevent in -fill with new housing or commercial spaces. However, comments of members of the ARC during the three meetings we have attended make clear that a love for "contemporary" architecture has caused the full ARC to ignore the requirements for proposed new development within a Historic District to provide for sizing, shaping, rhythm and styling of structures that incorporate the best examples of historic styling. Applicant has shown in 2008 that it is capable of meeting that requirement; but having abandoned its plan for underground parking has simply floated the massing up on top of ground floor garages — removing the human scale and ground floor living spaces to make the site incompatible on Morro Street 1 Appeal to Council of ARC approval of design, ARC 96 -13 both in size and feel with the historic neighborhood. Addition of forth floor open decks where parties, noise, and resident installed lighting will generate neighborhood conflict is at odds with the quite residential character of the Old Town Historic District. That portion of the design should be denied by the Council. An alternative of placing parking and garages in the rear, putting living spaces on the first and second floors (without roof top decks); and providing access for residents to the "open space" deck on the Osos side of the project should be explored in a redesign. On Osos Street the proposed contemporary design simply violates the City's developmental design requirement for sizing, shaping, and styling of structures that incorporate the best examples of historic styling out of rhythm with the historic structures in the District on Osos and Pismo Streets. We incorporate by reference our letter to the ARC, attached, of September 8, 2014, as well as a hard copy power point presented at the 9 -8 -14 ARC hearing. Also presented is a 8 -31 -14 letter from Diane N. Duenow, a 9 -1 -2014 letter from Jim Duenow, and a 9 -3 -2014 email from James Lopes, Chair of Save our Downtown, and a 4 -8 -2014 letter from Niels Iversen and Corinna Engel pointing out design defects and incompatibilities of the project. Also presented are a 11 -23 -2013 letter from Alice Davis (owner of 1322 Morro Street), our own 11 -25 -13 letter to the CHC, a postcard from G.R. Flores,which articulately demonstrate how out of character the proposed project is. Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter. STEW JENKINS ATTORNEY 1336 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Phone: (805) 541 -5763 FAX: (805) 547 -1608 September 8, 2014 Michelle McCovey -Good, Chair Commissioners Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, and Wynn San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Atten: Pam Rici — Presenting Planner, Community Dev. Dept. 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 1327 Osos Street, ARC 96 -13 in general and Morro Street side of design proposal in particular. Objection and request to deny application. Chair McCovey -Good and Commissioners: Mission Medical, LLC's application proposal for a three story condominiums on the Morro Street side of the proposed development with a fourth story of roof decking remains out of character with the historic neighborhood of one and two story bungalows. 1. Instead of providing living space on the ground floor, it presents a dead zone with nothing but garages facing the residential neighbors. Even the current open parking lot has more life than the proposed design. At least it currently has people walking across it or stopping to shade themselves under the avocado tree. 2. No provision is included to prevent security lighting for the garages from glaring into the neighbors' bedroom windows and property. 3. The sharp cliff face of this tall massive structure walls off views of the historic neighborhood from the downtown, and walls off the downtown from the residences in old town. This sharp contrast breaks the rhythm of a neighborhood that has living on the ground, and in front yards. The classic craftsman and bungalow styles contemplated a seamless connection with nature and neighbors outside the house with the living inside the home. The second, third and fourth floor living, separated and hovering above nature and neighbors presents ano! /' elitist attitude which also sharply contrasts with the historic old town feel. 4. Placement of garages as the most prominent feature sharply contrasts with a neighborhood where garages exist away from the street behind the residential structures. The applicant has alternatives to design living structures on the ground, without requiring such mass, moving the parking/garages to the rear of the lot. www.stewienkins.com Osos Street. The Cultural Heritage Committee has objected to the whole project, and recommended complete denial of this project twice. Even though the City Council has twice voted when changing the zoning of these combined parcels to expand the Historic Old Town District to cover the entire site, the applicant persists in presenting to you a contemporary structure. No elements of the historic Old Town District are included in the design for the Osos Street side of the project. Please deny the project and send the applic www.stewienkins.com i 2 PACIFIC COURTYARDS PROPOSED PROJECT SITE IN 100°o OF THE OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT V y City of San Luis Obispo Historic Districts 'k Town' t ,.Downtown WIN soum COMMA w lkt7C 6M:DGI -� 4 r + 2 " 0 0.1 02 0-4 0.6. 0.6 IW4s �l OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES November 25, 2013 ROLL CALL: Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Thom Brajkovich, Jaime Hill, Patti Taylor, Victoria Wood, and Chair Bob Pavlik Absent: Vice -Chair Hemalata Dandekar Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Pam Ricci, and Recording Secretary Rachel Cohen ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of October 28, 2013 were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 1327" Osos Street, ARC 96 -13; Review plans for a mixed use project including nine (9) condominium units and 8,000 square feet of office space in the Old Town Historic District: R -3 -H; Mission Medical, LLC, applicant. Pam Ricci,, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the draft resolution which recommends that the ARC approve the project, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outline(J. Committee Member Hill asked staff if there was a difference in the square footage of the previously - approved plan and the current proposal. Staff commented that they were very similar and that the current proposed project provided less square footage. Committee Member Baer asked staff why there had been a drastic change between the two projects. Staff commented that a lot of time had passed, and the applicant had wanted to make some modifications. She also stated the applicant could more clearly answer the question. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The applicant team introduced themselves as Carol Florence, Hamish Marshall and Emily.Ewer. Mr. Marshall addressed the Committee's questions and stated that the reason they decided to alter the original proposal was to remove the underground parking, and to orient the offices to the busier Osos Street. He noted that the change in architecture Draft CHC .Minutes November 25, 2013 Page 2 was influenced by the applicant's project at Railroad Square and the favorable response the market has had on that property. Ms. Florence followed Mr. Marshall's comments with a brief presentation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Stew Jenkins, a resident and neighbor of the project on Morro Street, spoke against the project. He shared that he did not believe that the architecture proposed was appropriate to the neighborhood and asked the Committee to recommend that the ARC deny the project as it is currently designed. He added that many of his neighbors felt the same way and were unable to attend the meeting because they were away for the holiday. Diane Jenkins added that Morro Street indeed had consistent architecture. Aaryn Abbot, resident of Islay Street and local builder, shared he has worked on the project and that he really liked the contemporary architecture and felt that it helped to set the church apart from the new construction. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Wood shared that she was not comfortable with the design as it strays too far from the existing architecture. She added that the design should be something that assimiliates into the neighborhood. Committee Member Taylor concurred. Committee Member Baer also agreed and added that the proposed project stood out too much, used too many different types of materials, and would be better situated next to Railroad Square.. She also shared that she felt the 16 -foot driveway from Morro Street seemed confined. Committee Member Hill shared that the proposal should have looked to the historic structures in the neighborhood versus the 1970s architecture that exists. She commented that the subject property is different than Railroad Square, She felt that the above - ground square footage increased the massing of the structure. Hill also commented that the design should use more detail rather than more materials. Committee Member Brajkovich shared that the Historic Preservation Guidelines are somewhat contradictory. He also shared that he felt the proportion and composition of the structure, as well as the colors and materials of the project did not fit in and were distracting. He added that he liked the residential component of the design but, overall, the project needed work. Committee Member Taylor shared that the project detracted from the ambiance of the neighborhood. Draft CHC Minutes November 25, 2013 Page 3 Committee Member Pavlik commented that he thought flipping the location of the residential and the commercial was a good idea. He also appreciated the effort to make the parking area less conspicuous. He added that he went to a symposium, "Minding the Gap, " where they discussed mixing ofd and new architecture much like this project was attempting, but he felt that the contrast between the proposed project and the neighborhood was too great to bridge. On motion by Committee Member Taylor. seconded hy Committee Member Baer to deny the proiect to the ARC with the invitation that the a licant return to the CHC far approval of a new design Committee Member Hill re Nested an amendment to the motion to change "inyitation_to return to CHC " to "required to return to CHC." AYES: Committee Members Taylor, Baer, Brajkovich, Hill, Wood, and Pavlik NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Member Dandekar The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. Mr. Marshall requested guidance from the Committee on what items they would like to see changed in the plans. The Committee relayed the following: • Create a design that has massing more similar to existing architecture, i.e, pitchd roofs. • Use glass more proportionally to the rest of the structure. • Make the project more pedestrian friendly /human scale. • Keep the existing trees on Morro Street. • Look to existing architecture for design details. 2 Staff a. Agenda Forecast: Nothing on the agenda for the December meeting. Staff person Dunsmore recommended the CHC cancel the next meeting. The Committee concurred. b. Staff shared that the City Council endorsed the recently - completed Historic Guidelines, 3. Committee — There were no further comments made from the Committee. ADJOURNMENT: The, meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Rachel Cohen Recording Secretary SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES June 23, 2014 ROLL CALL: Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Thom Brajkovich, Hugh Platt, Patti Taylor, Victoria Wood, and Chair Bob Pavlik Absent: Vice -Chair Jaime Hill Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Planning Technician Kyle Bell, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented MINUTES: Minutes of April 28, 2014, were approved as amended, Minutes of May 27, 2014, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 1327 Osos Street. ARC 96 -13; Review plans for a mixed -use project including nine (9) condominium units and 8,000- square feet of office space in the Old Town Historic District; R -3 -H zone; Mission Medical, LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Senior Planner Ricci presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution, which recommends denial of the project to the Architectural Review Commission, based on a finding that the project is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because its massing and architectural design are not compatible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town Historic District. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carol Florence, Principal Planner, Oasis Associates, stated that substantial changes have been made in the project design since it was last before the CHC. She noted that the design is not an attempt to create an historical structure but to respect the adjacent historical buildings. She stated she feels the architects have complied with the concept of compatibility. She stated that she had asked Robert Chattel, a foremost California preservation architect, to review the project. She noted that he had positive things to say. She stated that there has been a 20% change in the volume of the project with a substantial increase in open space. CHC Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 2 Jonathan Wafts, architect, stated that, unlike Santa Barbara and Santa Monica, the City has no prevailing style but is an eclectic town with a great deal of style variation. He stated that mimicry would demean the adjacent church. The project complies with the City's guidelines almost to the letter, the height and scale are compatible with the church, and the project will create an edge to the church courtyard by replacing the ugly parking lot. He noted that the width of the building features, including windows, were designed to match those of the church and to continue the rhythm of the architecture along Osos Street; and that this is a very porous project with large voids that also continue the same rhythm. He stated that facing Morro Street, a more deliberately historical compatible approach was used, bringing the three -story building down to two stories adjacent to the street. He noted that he does not think this site needs a unified architecture and that the design deliberately splits the building in two because the streets are different: He stated that he wanted to create interest on the street and show how modern, contemporary design can be respectful and adhere to the guidelines. Hamish Marshall, with the architect team, noted that the original design was changed due to the economic downturn and the expense involved in building an underground garage. He stated that he has listened to input from the City Commissions and the City Council, and he believes in this design. Diane Jenkins, SLO, lives directly adjacent to the project on Morro Street. She stated that she supports infill and development downtown, and she supported the 2008 plan but that this plan is such a departure and does not contribute to the Old Town historical character. She stated that it looks like a 1970s apartment building. She noted that the 2008 design had less mass and more pitched roofs that fit in better with the many Victorians and bungalows. She stated that she hopes the project is denied. Stew Jenkins, SLO, noted the boxiness and flatness of the design. He stated that his house is actually much smaller than shown in the applicant's presentation and that open space is where you can hike and not a place on a roof. He noted that the First American Title building across the street was built to look like a one -story building, as was Jefferson's Monticello. He stated that the Morro Street side should be restricted to two - stories, the rooftop gardens should be eliminated, and the size and massing should be consistent with the two houses, including his own, right next to the project. He continued that, as a resident who lives adjacent to the project, he has a slightly different status than other City residents. Elisabeth Abrahams, SLO, stated that a podium building is inappropriate in an historic area, the bright colors and masses make the project dominant, parking for adjacent homes is a problem, residential units should be emphasized, and open space and limited heights must be maintained so important historical buildings retain their dominance. David Brodie, SLO, stated that any project that is considered good takes into account the entire surrounding context and, if that is not the case, the decisions made are arbitrary. He stated that the culture, history, and identity of the community are at stake and that anchor buildings must be protected visually and physically. He noted that a building that does not host special activities does not earn the right to be an anchor building and must be a background building. He stated that wayfinding is important and CHC Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 3 when you diminish or destroy part of that, you destroy navigating through the City. He applauded the model but noted that it should encompass the surrounding area. Cody George, SLO, stated that he cares about the view shed, enjoys the mixed use of this building, and sees the existing parking lot as underutilized space. He noted that this project would provide the opportunity to live and work downtown. Bryan Ridley, SLO, stated that he has been exposed to different urbanisms and that it is key to remember this project is appropriate based on zoning and the City's promotion of mixed use. He applauded the applicant's statement about mimicry and noted that, if restricted to previous styles and trends, we would lose sight of where we are now. He stated that the use of white was a very intelligent choice because it allows light and shadow to provide the predominant details. He noted that scale and ambiance are not well defined in the code, and he really appreciated the explanation of how the applicant team understands both. James Lopes, SLO, Save Our Downtown, stated that this block, within the Old Town Historic District, is not being respected by the current design. He stated that the Historic District was developed to avoid these kinds of buildings and that the Bauhaus style is out of context here. He referred to 3.2.2 in the City Guidelines which states that new development should not sharply contrast with existing adjacent buildings. He stated that the project is a large mass on Osos Street, it is under - parked, and the applicant is seeking a reduction in the required parking. He noted that, if the building size was reduced to match parking, the office structure would have about 3,000 fewer square feet. He stated that the CHC should recommend reduction in the mass facing Osos Street to the ARC. Dixie Cliff, SLO, stated that the applicant should analyze the surrounding designs and be complementary to them. She noted that the Bauhaus style is at odds with surrounding buildings and, even though the office portion would be the same height as the church, it still creates a delusion that the project is taller. She supported using subtle colors and textures because projects in historical districts should be just slipped in and subtly designed. Rachael Drake, SLO, stated that she understands Mr. Jenkins' concerns, and that this project does contrast and detract from the historical district and would be more appropriate in other parts of the City. She noted that the popout portion in wood on the left looks like a VCR and that the drawings were not accurate because they made the Jenkins home look huge. David Drake, SLO, stated that although the changing demographic in the City might be thought to appreciate this kind of project, it is not true because new, young residents drool over the old houses and want the City to look like it always has. He noted that young architects want contemporary designs and this project mimics everything else built in California. He stated he does not want a sellout for profit that means a loss in charm. Christine Fazio, SLO, stated that she likes it when things get shaken up and that she celebrates the colors in SLO and likes things that are different. She noted that if we do CHC Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 4 not have a sprinkling of projects like this, we will miss out on bringing young business people into the downtown. She stated that we should not deny the young, who cannot afford the Victorian homes, but want to live downtown, and that this project offers these little spaces for them where the rooftop becomes their community. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Member Taylor stated that the project is really good but in the wrong spot. She noted that an historic sign will be in front of this new building which creates incongruence. She stated the City's historic context statement says that the Historic District is there to create a strong sense of time and place. Member Baer stated that this structure does not fit here. She noted the strong community reaction to this project. Member Platt stated that this property is not attractive now and there is no possibility of moving something like a Victorian house onto the property. He stated that this design is about the best that can happen in this location and it has merit and promise. Member Brajkovich applauded the architect team and noted that this is a hard project. He stated that he likes the Railroad Square and Monterey Mix projects. He noted that the problem here is that this project is in the middle of an historical area but that he admires this solution for this complicated site. He stated that the building has some dominant features that could be softened and that it clashes with the church. He noted that the model does not show adjacent buildings and should perhaps include the entire block, that the big boxiness of the condo that sticks out between the Craftsmen houses is a concern, that the project does not have a sense of an entry; that the heavy cantilevering clashes with everything else in the neighborhood, and that the first residence along Morro Street needs to relate more to the street and should not have a roof deck. He stated that this design is much better than the last. He concluded that it might better fit in other places and applauded the contemporary architecture. Member Wood stated that this design just does not feel quite right but that she likes it better than the last one. She stated that she likes the mimicry of heights and windows but that it does not blend enough into the neighborhood. She noted that the City does need to use land in a more dense way to accommodate growth. Member Pavlik applauded the architect and stated he likes the porosity and the breaking up'of the mass and scale on Osos side. He noted that, on the Morro side, it is a little overwhelming for the existing bungalows and interrupts the flow even though the code allows the height. He suggested using screening vegetation for softening the effect. He noted that infill is important to the City There were no further comments made from the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Baer, seconded by Committee Member Wood. to approve the adoption of the Draft Resolution. which recommends denial of the protect to CHC Minutes June 23, 2044 Page 5 the Architectural Review Commission, based on a finding that the ro'ect is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because its massinq and architectural design are not com atible with neighboring buildings in the Old Town Historic District. AYES: Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Pavlik, Taylor, and Wood NOES: Committee Member Platt RECUSED: None ABSENT: Vice -Chair Jaime Hill The motion passed on a 5:1 vote. 2. 1152 Buchon Street. CHC 51 -14; Request to add a Contributing property to the Master List of Historic Resources; R -2 -H zone; Ann Robinson, applicant. (Walter Oetzell) Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending the CHC forward a recommendation to the City Council supporting the addition of the property to the City's Master List of Historic Resources. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bob Vessely, SLO, stated he looked at the siding and that the plaster was the original material. He noted the concept in city planning referred to as "gift to the street" and stated that the work the owners did was courageous and more than a gift to the street. Dean Miller, SLO, stated that the two corner windows on the front elevation magically light up the rooms inside and are the most impressive features of this house and should be seen by everyone. Lou Robinson, SLO, owner of the house, invited everyone to knock on his door and come inside to see what has been done. Stew Jenkins, SLO, stated he watched the rehabilitation of this house by the Robinsons. He noted that the previous houses they have renovated show that they do everything right and this house will last for generations. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Member Brajkovich stated that this is a great restoration job and supports the recommendation. Mr. Robinson noted that people love the mailbox which is a replica of the house. Member Wood stated that, when a property is added to the Master List of Historic Resources, it gets added almost automatically to the Mills Act Preservation Program and that she does not think the City wants or can support the continuing expansion of the Mills Act Preservation Program, because it is a huge tax burden. CHC Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 6 Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that the City encourages the program but that Staff is taking a much closer look at properties and providing a much more detailed financial report. He noted that the State and the County also encourage additions to the Mills Act Preservation Program. He stated that the State has noted that the City might be discouraging the addition of properties because it has one of the highest Mills Act fees in the State. There were no further comments made from the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Platt seconded by Committee Member Taylor, to forward a recommendation to the City Council supporting the addition of the property to the City's Master List of Historic Resources. AYES: Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Pavlik, Platt, and Taylor NOES: Committee Member Wood RECUSED: None ABSENT: Vice -Chair Jaime Hill The motion passed on a 5:1 vote. 3. 1265 Mill Street. SDU 74 -14; Request to convert garage into a secondary dwelling unit on a Contributing historic property in the R -2 -H zone; Sky Bergman, applicant. (Kyle Bell) Planning Technician Bell presented the staff report, recommending the Community Development Director approve the project based on findings, and subject to conditions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Applicant Sky Bergman stated she is building the secondary dwelling unit for her mother and is pleased to be able to replace the flat roof of the garage which will make the addition look more like a house with an attached garage and look more like it is related to her own house on the property. She noted that only one bathroom window with obscure glass will overlook an adjacent home. Architect Enrica Lovaglio stated that she rotated the roof of the addition to make it more interesting and make the two buildings relate to each other. Russ Berg, SLO, stated that, as a neighbor, he is giving his full support to this project. He noted that in the three blocks of Johnson Avenue from Monterey to Peach, about ten homes have been renovated. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Member Baer stated that turning the roof makes the house. Member Wood stated that she really likes the project which is adding some needed density and it complements the house. CHC Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 7 Member Brajkovich asked if there was a concern about the attic being used as a sleeping space. Ms. Bergman stated that the attic will be for storage. Planning Technician Bell proposed the addition of a condition restricting the attic from being used as a living space. Member Brajkovich asked if the roof is a hip or gable. Ms. Lovaglio stated it is a hip roof so it relates to the house. There were no further comments made from the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Platt seconded by Committee Member Baer, to recommend the Community Development Director approve the project based on findings and subject to conditions, including the restriction that the attic cannot be used _as living space. AYES: Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Pavlik, Platt, Taylor, and Wood NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Vice -Chair Jaime Hill The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff a. Agenda Forecast by Senior Planner Dunsmore: July 28, 2014 — 774 Marsh for Mill's Act consideration; 1136 Iris Street for consideration as an historical property; and an application to put the La Loma adobe on the historical list. 5, Committee — no comments ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m, Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary Approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee on July 28, 2014 Laur'e Thomas Administrative Assistant III BRIEF HISTORY PACIFIC COURTYARD PROPOSED PROJECT • 2008/09 PROJECT APPROVED BY CHC /ARC AND GIVEN FULL SUPPORT OF OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD • Vibrant Living space F at ground level • Ground level activity fits Bicycle - Blvd. - 1 • Architecture compliments µ 5 neighborhood without duplicating 4 f surrounding structures • Roof line keeps neighborhood rhythm T .t BRIEF HISTORY PACIFIC COURTYARD PROPOSED PROJECT • 2013/14 PROJECT REJECTED TWICE BY CHC [AS NOT THE RIGHT FIT FOR THE HISTORICAL OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD]. Overwhelming negative response from the NEIGHBORHOOD. J i i� r Non- descript apartment styling of (sameness) detracts from quaint single story bungalows. 3 MORRO STREET SIDE [OLD TOWN] NEXT DOOR TO SITE 1336 MORRO ST.: BUILT 1915 1111 . I Y213LKS AWAY - CORNER MORRO & BUCHON 896 BLICHON ST... 1914 (CRAFTSMAN) MORRO STREET (OLD TOWN) 1406 Morro Street-1885 Victorian PISMO & MORRO - % BLOCKS AWAY 1829 Morro Street — Craftsman if i 1 NEAR END OF OLD TOWN 5 BLKS AWAY OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT MORRO ST. - 2 BLKS AWAY 977 BUCHON ST. - 2 BLKS AWAY r � � �-3c� ° .yam _ �+' _ • _k �. _ NON CONTRIBUTING COTTAGE VICTORIAN W/ TUCKED AWAY 2 STORY IN THE BACK OF PROPERTY 0 OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT CHC SAID PREVIOUS PLAN WRONG FIT FOR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD MORRO STREET SITE OF PROPOSED PROJECT - REVISED PLAN JULY 15, 2014 THE DEAD ZONE All outside living is on the roof Deck Morro Street Side Green section depicted here is not lawn but cement pavers — cement & a lot of garages is the view from walking up Morro Street to downtown. NO barrier fence between garages [Morro Side] to screen security lights on garages /entrances from shinning right into neighbors bedrooms [home /office] Morro Street 2009/2014 PLAN 9 -8 -15 Plan —MORRO ST Wrong Fit for historic neighborhood 2009 Plan — MORRO ST } - 1 017. • Ground Level — THE DEAD ZONE /all parking • General non - descript Architecture styling detracts with historic homes /neighborhood • Roof Decks (over 3rd story) sharp contrast to quaint 1 & 2 story homes in OLD TOWN Right"F-it' -fo historic not hborhav • Vibrant Living space at ground level • Ground level activity fits Bicycle Blvd. • Architecture complements • Roof line keeps neighborhood rhythm Osos Street Side 2008/09 Plan Fit neighborhood Complimented Historic Church Vibrant living space on ground level Balconies on 2nd Story add to living Roof lines and Architecture fit OLD TOWN )C WRONG FIT - 2014 OSOS ST. Historic Church is the pivotal important structure on the block. Large dense modern structure looms in front of church in position & mass. (2) VTEW NORTH DOWN GIGS S -,.EET (1)1.11) PROTECT OLD TOWN DISTRICT— 28 SHORT BLOCKS /243 HISTORIC HOMES • 197 CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC HOMES /STRUCTURES • 58 MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES HOMES /STRUCTURES PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE PACIFIC COURTYARDS MIXED USE PROJECT AND SEND THEM BACK FOR A NEW DESIGN THAT IS COMPATIBLE TO THE OLD TOWN DISTRICT Stew & Diane Jenkins: 1336 MORRO STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO (805) 4412521 September 1, 2014 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI SPO 5EP -32014 COMMUNITY DE.VELOc-MENT To: Architectural Review Commission From: Jim Duenow RE: 1327 Osos Street Dear Commissioners: # 1. I second the comments submitted by James Lopes. #2. As a resident living near this proposed development I am offended by this ugly square box design. #3. I'm wondering why this particular developer is allowed to constantly violate city regulations and guidelines? How do his proposals get by the city staff? Is the staff allowed to ignore city guidelines and regulations? The relationship between this particular developer and the city staff and you people is a matter that should be looked into by the Grand Jury. James M. Duenow August 31, 2014 C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OF�ISf�O SEP ._.3 2014 ' GoNi ALANI Y lJEVELOPNIIEN L` To: San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission From: Diane N. Duenow RE: 1327 Osos Street proposed development Dear Commissioners: I am currently out of town or I would be at the Monday meeting to speak in person regarding the proposed development at 1327 Osos St. As a resident at 1443 Osos St. this proposed development design is completely inappropriate for this location. You have design guidelines that were adopted by real citizens of San Luis Obispo, just like yourselves. These guidelines make a clear case for honoring and reflecting the historic nature of the contiguous existing buildings. I live just half a block (5 buildings) away from this site in a historic house built in 1928. This is a residential neighborhood, as you know, and I find this square, modern proposal to fly in the face of the existing neighborhood. I know that this return to modern design is currently popular with some people, but it is inappropriate in this particular site. Each of the surrounding buildings has a history and style that needs to be honored. Please remember that you represent the general public as coirnnissioners. As your fellow citizen of SLO, I urge you to follow the design guidelines and acknowledge the suggestions of your peers, the Cultural Heritage Committee. When my husband and I purchased and updated our home we were required to comply with the historic guidelines of the city. That included remodeling our garage to reflect the historic style of our home. You have a mandate to do the same in this neighborhood. Be sensitive to the existing style of the church and apartment building on either side of this property. We live here and walk by this site daily. Please, follow the guidelines. Diane Duenow 1443 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, Calif. From: James Lopes [ mailto :jameslopes(b)charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1 :02 PM To: Ricci, Pam Subject: ARC: 1327 Csos St September 3, 2014 TO: Architectural Review Commission FROM: Janes Lopes, Chair, Save Our Downtown SUBJECT: 1327 Osos Street - Revised Plans r-*--"---------,- 2014 We unfortunately must recommend that your Commission deny the proposed design, as revised since the August 4, 2014 hearing, or that you continue this hearing to have staff return with a detailed evaluation of whether this project conforms with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and the Community Design Guidelines, as well as other applicable policies. Only one commissioner at that hearing suggested that the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Commission should be considered. The CHC recommendation was to deny the design because it was inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. How can your Commission determine that it does comply? Your Commission and staff have not addressed how or whether the project complies with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and with the Community Design Guidelines, in reference to this CHC recommendation. The 1- lstoric Preservation Program Guidelines require at the beginning section 3.1.1, that " ... construction in historic districts... shall conform with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, these Guidelines, the Community Design Guidelines,..." (emphasis added) The City policy does not say, "You can ignore these guidelines." It does not say, "You can use your own personal preferences to override the City's guidelines." It means that your Commission and staff shall address, determine and state how and whether the project conforms with all of the guidelines that apply. In so doing, your personal taste, admiration of recent trends, esteem of the architect, or any other factors are not in play. The role of the Commission is to interpret architecturally whether the design conforms with the design guidelines. With this reminder, Save Our Downtown had hoped that your Commission would grapple with the guideline statements that apply, individually, and apply good urban design practice to reach conclusions at the last hearing. Instead, the comments had more to do with adjusting the most egregious features of the design or stating "likes" as one would at an art gallery. This is generational construction, introduced in a historical location and historic district. If you do not wish to deny the project, we ask that you continue this hearing and ask staff to return with a detailed accounting of which guidelines this project is in conformity. Or, if you wish to undertake this detailed review yourselves, we can assure you that the project will not conform. We are recommending, on the almost certain assumption that you will not continue this item, that you deny the project based on inconsistency with the aforementioned guidelines. Our statements stand that the design massing mimics the church, and it overwhelms - is taller and more vertical than - the office wing, of the church, and the Bauhaus style is out of character with the Old Town Historic District, and it detracts from and is out of context with the surrounding building designs. The building design apparently is favored because it is out of context - in contrast to - the existing character. Some convoluted reasoning has produced this conclusion - that in order not to mimic historical buildings, and to give them more character. new buildings should be in contrast to them by designing them in modern styles! We do not think that this is an appropriate logic to use. Preserving historic character means respecting and being within character and context of a historic setting. Prom the Historic Preservation Guidelines, Section 5.2.2: "New development should not sharply contrast with (added emphasis), significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district." The project is not in conformity with this guideline. Community Design Guidelines should be closely followed as well to be in conformity with them. The following issues also continue to be reasons to deny the project: 1. The new southern upstairs deck creates an overlook into adjacent apartments and should be eliminated. 2. The transformer box is not a historical feature you would approve in a historical district; it can simply be located underground. 3. The color of the building is too similar in color to the historic church and should have a non - primary color, such as a milk chocolate or beige tone. 4. The main building entry on Osos Street should have a traditional porch or similar architectural highlight treatment as recommended. Regarding the three condominiums located off of Morro Street, we recommend that the rooftop patios be eliminated to avoid overlook and noise issues with neighboring properties. Instead, a stairway or a second -level corridor should be provided to the second floor common courtyard. That space may qualify as the required area, and it would provide a community area for all of the units. We continue to advocate for a normal porch, not an awning, on the unit facing Morro Street. References: file: / / /C: /U sers/ Jamie /Docua»ents /Issues %20 - %20 SLO/Osos%20St%o20mu- l7arkiDfl,/l -i istoricGuidel ines %20(4- 18- 11),Iadf Revised perspectives: r_ James Lopes 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph. 805- 781 -8960 Community Development Department. Date: Drs #ribut by: 7o: ❑ Planning Commissioners ARC Commissioners ❑ CHC Committee Members ❑ Asst. City Attorney Doug Davidson ❑ Kim Murry Original to: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APR 0 8 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Niels Iversen and Corinna Engel 713 Meinecke San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Dear Pam Ricci and City Council Members, My fiance and I are homeowners in SLO (713 Meineck) and were appalled when we saw the revised plans for Pacific Courtyards Projects. One of the reasons we bought in this town and even in our neighborhood is the preservation done on the historic downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. I grew up 3 blocks from where this project is being proposed and was dismayed to see the complete lack of effort to make it a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. I am not opposed to infill actually I quite agree with it. However, I think the projects should take into account the existing neighborhoods and not create a nuisance. I like modern architecture, but I do not think it has a place in a predominately historic preserved neighborhood. Additionally, the facades appear both generic and repetitive harkening back to the worst examples of apartment architecture. The height alone on Morro St. is completely out of scale given the neighborhood, and the top decks further exacerbates the situation. The materials proposed; precast concrete, HardiePanels, aluminum windows all are jarringly and out of place. Furthermore, the proposed driveway on Morro St. is appallingly close to a neighboring home as is the pedestrian pathway alongside another business, creating a nuisance of both noise and traffic for existing home /business owners. The entire idea of good planning is to eliminate these problems not create an environment that encourages it. I am even more dismayed with the building proposed on Osos Street. I dislike the newest rendition even more than the prior one. How can this architecture be proposed next to one of our oldest and loveliest churches in town? I noticed in the rendering, the architecture firm eliminated all detailing on the Church to make it appear not so discordant with the modern building proposed next to it. However, the detailing is what makes this church so lovely and in stark contrast to the proposed structure. The gapping maw for the parking garage, combined with the steel painted louvers make for an unattractive facade to have to walk by. One of the reasons we love SLO and bought here is the walkability and beauty of the town and architecture, this building flies in the face of those very principals. I really believe the entire project needs to be redone. There had been a project proposed back in 2008, 1 believe, that actually fit nicely into the neighborhood. Maybe those drawings should be the starting block. You are the gatekeepers to our beautiful town please ask for and expect better. Do not allow this to be one of the ugly infill projects that mar the city rather than enhance it. Thank you, N' en and Corinna Engel P.S. I have made notes on the drawing I will hope you will look at these comments as well (80502-15 -8250 I I tht-e,fl C' (D) 2' )<8' HARDIE BOARD PANELS J(E) PRE -CAST CONCRETE (B) 4" PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDIN i r 1 ■ Ir, ■i MORRO STREET ELEVATION 1116 "--y1j'-0" (A) SMOOTH TROWELLED PLASTER P (B) 4" PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDING (H) ALUMINUM FRAME WINDOW (TYPICAL) Color &ud nc, nc rcf[d °ToY'PAINTED STEEL LOUVE tk;p I& CID.' so shows PI C) u ut r' ©.r cc� Ycc T-i7 r (B) 4„ PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS SIDING oy Current Submittal (2014)!,.,!,)i i c) Sz; -vet, Frd s Eve aA, oleclic)VL4 d �y4e o +Kriy+ c- Vve-rx- COS i MW 1f -t 5 C +i! qCq S ill, EET ELEVATION 1/16 " =1' -0" 0 CEMENTITIOUS SIDING 14- 6s (F) STEEL CABLE RAILINU u- O -Ki its (G) STEEL FRAM WINDOW Attachment 5 ALICE DAVIS, Psy.D 1322 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 5470215 (aMee) (805) 773.2953 (FAX) Ati zij)-ayi� r chgi��r.ne� (e -mail) Date. November 23, 2013 TO: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner FROM: Alice Davis, Property Owner Cc,) 1322 Mora street 1711.131 NUMBER: ARC 55 -I3 MI;RTWU DATE; November 25, 2013 PRONiC"T ADDRESS: 1321 & 1327 Osos .Street Pam, 1 will be out of towns Sunday November 24, returning the evening of December 3 and therefore I will be unable to attend Cultural Heritage Committee meeting on November 251i, 2013, Meanwhile, I would like to express my concerns about the current proposal for the Pacific Courtyard project. I am opposed to the currently proposed architectural style of this project. In addition, I have environmental and financial concerns. Architecturally, the use of metal structures is incompatible with the present iconic style of the Seventh .Day Adventist church on the corner of Osos and Pacific streets and incompatible with the buildings that will border this proposed plan. I also feel the project towers over existing buildings and therefore the height of the proposed buildings is also incompatible with the neighborhood. lnvironmentally, the: ingress and egress on Morro Street is not sufficient. A driveway of 16 feet does not allow for Fire truck access, Additionally, the surface water from the parking lot of 1322 Morro Street drains oil to the property described in the proposal. It is my concern that the proposed structures will prevent the drainage from my parking lot. Financially, my concern is that the construction noise will prevent my tenants from "quiet enjoyrnent" of their work place which then may result in the tenants leaving, causing a financial loss on my part, Because of the aforementioned deficits we would appreciate returning to the original architectural design. Yours truly, Alice Davis CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO NOV 2 5 2013 COMMUMTY DEVELOPMENT STEW JENKINS ATTORNEY 1336 UAnrto Street, Sari bils Ob1sp7 CA 93401 Phone: (806) 541.5763 FAX: (805) !S47_1608 November 25, 2013 Cultural Heritage Committee Bob Pavlic Chair. Hernalata Dandekar, Vice - Chair ,Sandy Baler, Thom Brajkovicli, Jaime (Jill, Patti Taylor and Victoria Wood, Members Atten: Staff- Phil Dunsmore, Kim Murry, Para Ricci Re: Agentla item 1: ARC 96.13 Dear Chair Pavlik and Coniinittee Members: We Supported the project which was approved in 2009, but Oppose the ogle now presented- ']'lie proposed project presence in 2013 is entirely Arcf►itecCla,111, htcogrpalihle with all historic; structures on Osos, Pismo and Morro. 'rhres: stories of Metal, tJl1t;,, Boxy, Flat lt(3citing desrgtl, 1111d even colors which clash with the wood siding, pitelle(I ronf , wood frattnedl windows asntl Victorian _ craftsman buildings predominant on Morro and Pisrno Streets. Those elements detritci from file heathy of the adjacent 7"' Day Adventist Church. "Phe hard] edges and materials and lack tit' styling detract from the soft lines of the Rio Bravo Apatrtmems and Crime Church. The residence and Offi z Stttctures proposed by the project resenihles a suburban industri:11 park teleporictf into the middle of San Luis Obispo's historic old town and railroad disiricts. All other structures on Morro Street have garages out of sigilitrcaltt view behind] [lie main stl-uc;tures. The proposal for llic: Morro aids: of the project rnake the unattractive garage (lours and mc(aal sidi'19 the nxist visible leaittlre: of the project froin the street and south - westerly properties. If: approved, the project will reduce the value of all adjoining structure, rattier than enhancing the character of the neighborhood. We.urg,e the Committee to recommend denial of the project propsed by ARC 96 -13, and to preserve the •coning and Historically consistent Viclorian plan (fiat was approved for (lie parcels designated 1.330 Morro Street', 1321 & 1327 0.9os Street in 2009. The 2009 plain was sensitive to and integrated with all historic and cultural elements for the two neighborhoods it traverses, as well as practical and architectual considerations, Morro Street, historically, was the most direct route used to access the historic railroad station, which is now being restored as a railroad museum. 'I'He 1300 block of Morro Street had significant commercial and office uses. "1330 Morro Street is misidentified in the proposal as 1322, which is in the ownership of the Davis Family. www.stewlenkins.cbm Flipping the zones is inconsistent with c urltural resewrce s related 10 each use proposcd. Maintainlr,g the t }ffice/contmerc'ral use tart the Morro street parcel placing customers likely to park art the corner puhlic parking garage is More Consistent with the historic character 01'Morro Street, Maintaining (lie residential use between (lx: 7 '1 I)ay Adventist Church and the vcncrrthle Rio Bravo Apartments puts prospective townhouse residents within view al,d immediate aIceesa eaf'Mitchelle Park, grocery shopping, playgrounds, and three churches f Grace. 71" pay Adventists, a,nd Trinity Preshytia all (using the 7 "' Day Adventist s facility on Sundays) 1. Flipping the zones is inconsistent with the history ot'the Morro Street "eighborhood, which leas long hosted 'nixed uses. The Telegram Newspaper ((hen c(}nZ etin 0free existed on Morro Ste:et Lin Iil a fire destroyed much of the block, b ludi ilg e url I lome-tOf fice i I I tile; early 1920s. Our I lome- Officc, 1336 Morro Street, was rebuild. Bordering the subject property to the South -West, our structure was owned by the first wolttart elevated to serve as Dean of tJ.C. Berkeley, and she maintained a full service commercial Beauty Parlor in the front of the h(},rn: and lived in the back of the 11ornex when in Srut Luis during weekends And school breaks. On purcl,arse we found Cite clectrieal, plumbing and flooring for the shampoo winks, hair dryers and electric appliance, as well as the heavy sign anchors high above the porch still ill plrlev, All ot'tl}e structures to 111e south -cast or 1321 & 1327 Osos Street are residential All the strue:ttrres adje }ining and across from 1:330 Morro} tyre comrnercial offices or historic homey- I )flices, All Morro Street buildings hest patched rontlllg (sflac one srttat9l lip artrnerl with pitched rooting feartures). All homes, and even the l "' American Title C'oMpany, Eire constructed will, shilrlatl) wcttrtl siding, With period appropriate windows and window ii•arning, They proposed project e.farshes. Residential used on the Osos Street side is consistent with the churches anchoring the block, and consistent with access 10 facilities related to residential use such as park, playground, a seinors club and a. convenience store carrying groceries and necesesaries at rile corner ofPismta and Osos. We urge the Cultural Heritage Committee to issue a recommendation that the project be denied, and urge the applicant to complete the Victorian designed project approved in 2009 or to redesign the current proposal to be compatible with these historic neighborhoods. Sir ely Sincere] , . ew 1e ns www.st'ewlenklns. cam Please deny Hamish Marshall's project at Osos and Morro Street One, the design is completely wrong for this neighborhood. Two, this part of town has suffered enough from i n f i ll / Architecture Review ghettoization. The stand -out issues, overcrowding and park- COMIMiSsion in g. San Luis Obispo City Hall Thank - r you for �ou�r� �t�ime� - 990 palm Street 3 C7. R. Flores Y San Luis Obi .qnn DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF SAN LUIS OAISPO RECVD BY: FINANCE CASHIER 01000378980 PAYOF: D. JENKINS TODAY'S BATE: 09/18/14 REGISTER I +ATE: 09/18/14 TIME: 15:47 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CUST ID:ARC APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $273.00 TOTAL DUE: $273.00 TENDERED: $273.00 CHANGE: $.00 CHECK $273.00 REF NUM: 8215