HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-2020 Public Comment - E. Ossorio - Armory HotelFrom: Eric Ossorio
To: Agenda
Subject: EHTA Hotel - ARMORY HOTEL MODIFICATION TO APPROVED PLAN APPLICATION, 19410
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 11:22:19 AM
To Whom it may Concern and Mr. Marty Matsen:
I live in 5 West Mendenhall hey and we purchased my home based on the information that
was publicly available at the time of purchase. At no point, unit now, were the proposed
changes and modifications of the ETHA presented for public consideration or input. While I
understand that the conditional approval of several elements of the ETHA hotel has been
made, I cannot and will not accept that we, as neighbors, will be forced to bear the cost and
associated long term negative repercussions of allowing mechanical units on the 2nd and 3rd
floors of the original armory building. The mechanical and HVAC systems should be placed
on the 9th floor as originally specified.
There is a good reason that mechanical units are designed and installed on the upper floors of
high rise buildings: noise pollution, heat generation, unsightliness requiring screening (or lack
thereof), and maintenance of the units. Allowing the mechanical systems and condensers to
reside on a very visible and audible area of the building is unacceptable. There is no screening
system that could be adequate to protect the neighbors from the impact of these unit on the
2nd and 3rd floors.
Additionally, the exterior skin, facade and changes to the lighting plan of the building are no
longer in accord with the proposed design.
As the process was deprived of public input subsequent to the original approval, it is important
that the public be heard and protected during this appeal process.
Therefore consider this a formal appeal to the conditional approval of the modified plan by an
“aggrieved” party.
1) specifically that the proposed relocation of the mechanical units to the 2nd and 3rd floor be
denied, and the equipment be placed on the upper floor of the Tower as originally designed.
While some redesign of the upper floor to the Tower may have to occur to to comply with the
original design to re-adapt its current, as built condition, such a remedy is appropriate and in
keeping with the original intent as well as the expectations of those who bough property based
on the original approved design.
2) the decision to generally exempt the exterior facade from the requirement to limit the
facade to no more than 25% of the exterior skin by EIFS is also unacceptable.
We expect the City of Bozeman to maintain the integrity of the building approval process and
enforce the originally proposed design, including the exterior designing and lighting plan.
Eric Ossorio
Cell: (406) 539-9553
eric.ossorio@gmail.com