Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-18-2020 Public Comment - E. Ossorio - Etha_Armory Signage and Screening PlanFrom:Eric Ossorio To:Martin Matsen; Brian Krueger; Agenda Cc:Danielle Garber Subject:Re: Etha/Armory Signage and Screening Plan Date:Thursday, June 18, 2020 12:22:37 PM Marty, thank you for responding and sending me the link below. I understand that the signage is no longer a moot point. ETHA was a stupid name for a hotelanyway. As of today, it would appear that the applicant is supremely confident that their ridiculous proposal will be approved, as they have already gone ahead and installed their mis coloredconcrete panels on the second floor roof to replace the transparent screens that they thought they could get away with. Now those panels will be really difficult to return. Applicant clearly prefers to seek forgiveness over asking permission as their Modus Operandi. As a member of the public and a neighbor of the project, any lofty expectations of the City anddeveloper's willingness to adhere to the City’s UDC code were shattered after we (the public) were thrown under the bus by the City Commission’s convoluted rationalization and approvalof the Applicant's Appeal of March 4, 2020 of your (the Director of Community Development) decision to require the applicant to submit a new plan, since applicant clearlydid not adhere to the original plan submitted and approved, when they surreptitiously and sneakily sought approval for from the Building Department and bypassed the PlaningDepartment altogether. Clever. On to the matter at hand. As was pointed out in the MOD Roof Screen Narrative of May 19, 2020: Phase 1 Condition of Approval 1. Applicant must submit a new plan to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment located on the secondand third floor rooftop of the Armory to comply with requirements of section 38.21.050.F BMC (2013). Specifically, applicant's new plan must provide full screening of the sides of the rooftop mechanicalequipment and a proposal to address the visual impacts of the top of the equipment to shield it from viewof adjacent properties and the public way. The applicant's plan will be subject to a 15 day publiccomment period, after which the Director of the Community Development Division must issue a decision on the proposed plan to screen the second and third floor rooftop mechanical equipment. And as stated in an Excerpt from Conditional Approval Letter, March 4, 2020; “The mechanicalequipment is not currently concealed as required by code. The mechanical equipment is visible from neighboring structures and properties as well as by travelers on Mendenhall Street.” The two sections that seem to have escaped the short attention span of the applicant andapplicant's architect are: Sec. 38.16.050. - Standards for certificates of appropriateness. B. 8. Concealment of nonperiod appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment; and B. 9. Materials and color schemes (any requirements or conditions imposed regarding color schemes shall be limited to the prevention of nuisances upon abutting properties and prevention of degradation of features on the property in question. Color schemes may be considered as primary design elements if a deviation from the underlying zoning is requested). Neither of these requirement have been met by the applicants pathetic proposal to install concrete panels and use brightly colored graffiti covers over mechanical equipment. Short, half height and mis matched concrete panels do NOT hide or conceal the HVAC farm from above, as is required. The cheap vinyl wraps are anuisance and the intent to “cover the tops and sides” of equipment does NOT CONCEAL the HVAC farm from adjacent buildings…the key word here is “cover”. The standard in the Codeis not to “cover”. Code requires “concealment of the equipment.” To propose such a laughable solution is a waste of taxpayer time and money. It’ll be interesting to see the applicant’s rhetorical defense of their word choice to “cover” as interchangeable with the word “concealment” in some obscure and tortured interpretation. Sofar they have been successful with their “bait and switch” strategy. It would have been really funny if they had actually tried to con us by actually saying that the graffiti wraps did provide“concealment of the equipment”, they are just hoping no one notices. The bottom line is that graffiti themed vinyl wraps are annoying, a nuisance and DO NOT satisfy the required compliance to “conceal” the very visible mechanical farm that wasoriginally designed and hidden on the 8th floor. Originally concealing the mechanical on the 8th floor gave everyone a false sense that that the applicant and architect knew what they weredoing. In retrospect, that was a head fake. Approval of this charade screening plan will likely unleash a slew of similar and thoughtless applications for graffiti themed screening. But, hey, this is the Downtown District, with thatedgy urban feel. The Bozeman's UDC Code is just a formality. And: Sec. 38.21.050. - Accessory buildings, uses and equipment. F. Mechanical equipment screening. "Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened. Screening should be incorporated into the roof form when possible.” A common understanding and use of the word “screen” (can we assume that we are using theverb, not the noun?) is to CONCEAL…NOT what applicant is cleverly proposing, which merely and cheaply is a DISGUISE. How is this NOT clear? Or are they now going to argue that the HVAC farm is actually a hightech hybrid solar/wind energy collection device? There is absolutely nothing in their plan to satisfy the requirement that the HVAC farm be inconspicuous or concealed by the proposed half height, off color screening and cartoonishvinyl “wraps” they hope will solve the problem they brought on themselves. The light gray color screening seems to be pretty much the same height as the transparent panels that theapplicant and architect originally thought they could get away with. There is nothing in this proposal that is "incorporated into the roof form when possible”. The applicant’s proposal says with regard to 3rd Level Roof Screens: “Panels will extend above and below the current metal screening EXPANDING (emphasismine) the extent that rooftop equipment is concealed from view.” Expanding the extent of concealment? Really? Expanding the “extent” of concealment is NOTthe requirement of the City’s UDC: Concealment is. The City's Unified Development Code (the "code") require concealment of the equipment. How is that unclear? The mismatched colors and cheap material choice no NOT compliment anything. The poorchoice of materials actually draws more attention to the designer and developer's goof ups.The fiber cement board looks like leftover material that is less costly to use than cart away. Who gave the builder permission to instal those panels before approval anyway? Additionally, with regard to the cheap “artistic” vinyl bus wrap covers: Is the City going to also require ongoing approval over appropriate themes, color motifs,maintenance and appearance? What happens when the vinyl begins to peal and fray? Whatabout when applicant decides to wrap the HVAC farm equipment in political slogans? Or theyattempt to increase revenue and sell ad space? What about drink menus? In sum: The mechanical equipment is not currently concealed as required by code. Vinylartistic wrapping does not “conceal” or keep from sight; wraps merely alter the appearance.“Concealed" means to “hide”, or block out, not “cover". The conditional approval includes the requirement that: "focus shall be given to theconcealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment”. How are garish floral nuisance wraps covering very visible and NON period HVAC unitsconcealment? As for the concrete panels…they are too short, architecturally uninspired and clearly leftover,mismatched and discolored material which do NOT screen the HVAC mechanicalfarm/garden from the 4th or 5th floors of 5 West, as shown on their photoshopped exhibits. Thanks for this opportunity to comment. Let's at least try to keep Bozeman the Most Livable Place. Eric Ossorio5 West MendenhallBozeman, MT On Jun 12, 2020, at 2:07 PM, Martin Matsen <MMatsen@BOZEMAN.NET>wrote: Eric, Thank you for getting in touch with me earlier this week and I apologize that it has taken me so long to get back to you. You asked about two issues regarding the Etha/Armory project. 1. Signage: On any given site plan the signage is considered ‘representative’ and the final signage requires a standalone permit and approval as evaluated at that time. Many projects that receive site plan approval do not yet know who the tenant is and therefore the actual wording of the signage cannot be finally approved at that time. In this case the signage did apply and were approved for a sign permit with the new naming. The size and location of the signage was evaluated against our current codes and was found to be compliant with City Code. 2. The screening plan: The project has submitted a plan for the screening of the mechanical equipment and that plan is currently being evaluated. The plan is being publically noticed at this time and the materials can be found here. http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/Browse.aspx?startid=211261 No decision has been made regarding the screening and the public notice period is ongoing. Please take a look at the linked documents and feel free to comment to my office as indicated on the notice material. I hope this answers your questions. Please let me know if I can be of additional help. Best Regards, Marty MARTY MATSEN, AICPDirector | Community Development | City of Bozeman 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771Office: 406.582.2262 | Mobile: 406.589.5480 | mmatsen@bozeman.net | www.bozeman.net ⌂ Planning ⌂ Building ⌂ Historic Preservation ⌂ Community Housing ⌂ Code Compliance City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.