Town of Lenox
Planning Board
January 28 2014
BOS Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Kate McNulty-Vaughan, KMV; Mark S. Smith, MS; Gary Schiff, GS; Kameron Spaulding, KS
Absent without notification: Steve Sample, SS
Staff present: Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA; Mary Albertson, Town Planner, MA
Also present were Selectmen Channing Gibson and Dave Roche; Clarence Fanto of the Berkshire Eagle; David Carpenter; and Attorney William Martin.
Approval Not Required Plans-Map 43 parcel 49, 33 Yokun Ave., owner is 33 Yokun Ave., L.L.C, and Map 43 parcel 50, 35 Yokun Ave., owner Margaret Jane Layton- Mark Reynolds, of Kelly, Granger, Parsons & Associates, Inc. of Great Barrington presented the Form A. Mr. Reynolds said this is a lot line adjustment in which Yokun Ave., L.L.C., Mr. Peters’ property, would convey parcel “A” to Margaret Layton which will bring her property into compliance with zoning setbacks, and Ms. Layton would convey parcel “B” to Yokun Ave., L.L.C. Mr. Peters would then have 8.6 acres of property with 280 feet of frontage, and the Layton property would have 2.56 acres and 250 feet of frontage.
Mr. Reynolds, when asked, said that he was unaware of any forthcoming projects, that he understands this readjusting of the lot lines is to clear up any zoning issues.
KS made a motion to approve the plan as presented and GS seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 4-0.
Lenox Historical Commission – Historic House Markers-
Present were Jim Biancola and Olga Weiss of the Historical Commission and David Roche.
Making the presentation was Jim Biancola. He provided the following two handouts:
Historical Commission’s Historic Building Marker Project and Section 5.2 SIGNS of the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Biancola reviewed the history of the project and stated that two weeks ago the Building Commissioner, Bill Thornton advised the HC that per the current bylaw, markers are not allowed. Mr. Biancola requested the Planning Board assist to resolve the conflict. Discussion ensued and it was agreed the Board would work toward creating an amendment to the bylaw and bring it forward to the Annual Town Meeting in May.
MA said the Planning Board’s involvement would only deal with the zoning issues, HDC would still have to approve under their bylaw.
Route 7/20 – C1A & C3A Sign Discussion- MA relayed that since the last meeting, she has spoken to Jeff Curley of WS Development, the entity who brought forward the recent Price Chopper project, about his suggestions for signs on Pittsfield Road. She said Mr. Curley felt there should be a provision for temporary signage for development, e.g., “Coming Soon”, “Financed by…” etc.
Discuss additional comments regarding the Brushwood Nominee Trust Application-
Present were Attorney Phil Heller, and Rob Hoogs of Foresight Land Services.
KMV said that MS and GS went to the last ZBA hearing of January 22nd and she, KS, and MS went to the site visit on January 25th. GS went by the site later that day.
KMV asked that Attorney Heller comment, for the benefit of those who were not at the ZBA meeting, on the latest rendering. She said the concern is mass of the building and the view.
Attorney Heller responded, saying the proponents addressed the issue of design and the changes that had been made as a result of comments from the Planning and Zoning Boards as well as the public. He stated the façade has been redesigned using recognizable buildings in the Berkshires, using photos of existing buildings and older photos from the last century. This rendering is substantially different than previously proposed, but the height, length and width of the hotel have remained the same. Attorney Heller detailed the height of the roof as 43.4 feet; the height of the parapet is 45.3; the ends are 47.7 and the center, the highest point measures 48.6 feet. He feels this is in compliance and meets the design criteria of Section 8.2.10 of the bylaw. Attorney Heller wanted to explain why the
applicant is filing under the Special Permit provisions versus the Gateway District Plan as he said he continues to be asked that question. KMV limited that discussion, stating this is not an issue being raised by this Board.
Discussion ensued on the architectural details and comparison to the photos provided to the Board.
GS said that the issue has to do with the applicant’s request for a waiver for height, the mass, but not the articulation of the façade.
KS said the balloons were not affective to give an indication of the proposed height at the site visit on Saturday due to the wind. He feels that the location is a good site, fits well into the hill, but height is the issue. He felt the proposed landscaping will look “fake”, an artificial line of trees which gives the appearance of an industrial site.
MS noted that the examples of precedence provided tonight are European design. He said that although the region was settled by Europeans and there exists much European style in the buildings, the design doesn’t feel like New England to him. He likes the initial design better and stated this latter design looks like “historic pastiche” which he said seems to be more like a mansion, an urban building. He feels the building is too tall and the choice of a mansard roof isn’t helping and suggests a shallower pitched roof to make the building look less bulky. He wants to see a good building that is well sited on the lot. He would prefer the precedence used for design to be the Arcadian Shop and Lenox Fitness Center.
GS stated he hasn’t heard a rationale for needing a waiver of height over 35 feet. He referred to Section 9.5 for Site Plan Approval which refers to design standards, in particular Section 9.5.13 item 7. This proposal, he said, is for a building which is substantially taller than surrounding buildings and is exacerbated by the topography of the site and even though the project is not coming in under the Gateway Plan, the spirit of the Gateway Plan shouldn’t be lost, which encourages low rise development, 1.5 to 2 story buildings which is considerably lower than what is allowed by right, 35 feet. He concluded that he is very supportive of project and this kind of project but he sees a site with very few constraints and plenty of land. He believes it is a problem of design and would like
a building that fits the town and the zone. He said the Board’s issue is not the façade, but the height.
KMV said that heroic effort has been put into this project and she was appreciative of the work that has been done, but throughout it all, height and mass had not been addressed. She read from something she had written about what she would say to the Zoning Board with regards to the project. In part she said: “There continues to be some ambiguity as to whether a different plotting of the building or site arrangement could be made and that needs to be settled if it would have a substantial effect on the layout design of the building and building height. The Planning Board acknowledges the work done.by Mr. Toole and his team, and clearly there would be many benefits to have a Marriott in Lenox. The height is problematic and there is concern of the mass of the building. The design changes have
effected nothing. The core issue remaining is can the bulk be distributed with minimal effect on the meadow.” She commented that the building should enhance the landscape of the site rather than dominating the site and this building doesn’t look like a barn or anything that would fit on this site. Further, she said, most of those who have spoken want this project, but many do not like the building and “we want a great building there.”
Mr. Hoogs asked to respond as he feels that he may have failed at communicating clearly the reasons for the choices made for this site design. He says he continues to get questions as to why the building can’t be redesigned to be 35 high, why can’t the mass be redistributed on the site, etc. He explained that in previous meetings he stated the reasons for not building a three story structure with a slope roof of about 39 feet to the ridge (which would also require a height waiver). Lowering the height from the proposed four stories would mean the building would be 52 feet longer and would not fit on the footprint because of the slope and rare species.
A breakdown of the reasons for not expanding the footprint included:
a) Going into the buffer zone, which the proponents have agreed with the Conservation Commission to not do
b) Put more parking in front of the building which the Zoning bylaw says they should not do
c) Would go more into the setbacks which would require variances
d) Rare species in two areas would be impacted
e) More impervious surfaces would be created
f) Open space would be reduced
g) Some of the meadow would be lost
h) Would violate a lot of the principles the zoning bylaws espouse and the Gateway District recommends
i) Storm management would have to be condensed within a smaller space
j) Would have more impact on the natural environment
Mr. Hoogs said that the architect has tried very hard to come up with a design to work with the mass but to make the mass more acceptable by using architectural elements of buildings of mass that are found throughout Lenox and the Berkshires.
Mr. Hoogs also wanted to clarify a point made earlier about screening the building. He said screening the building is not a part of this proposal, but that Mr. Toole, in response to comments by some who complained about the building being visible from the road, agreed to screen the building. Screening would be in some locations with most of plantings around the parking lot and around the berm.
In conclusion, Mr. Hoogs said that this is the best site plan for the site, but to be more compact, the building needs the height requested.
MA said that she had a brief discussion with Harry Dodson, one who was involved with the development of the Gateway Redevelopment Plan, to ask about the intent of the plan. He referred MA to page 31 of the plan and said the biggest concern was the protection of the open space and that the meadow is very important. He had reservations of any building on the meadow. MA said it seems, according to this plan, that almost any building that goes there would not be in compliance and asked Mr. Hoogs to comment.
Mr. Hoogs said that Mr. Dodson’s concept for combining multi use ignores property lines and ignores ownership and requires all of those other components, residential use etc. referred to in the plan. Mr. Hoogs said this concept makes sense for the kind of plan Mr. Dodson talked about, a mixed use development, but that can’t be done here because of the rare species. He says it doesn’t apply to a standalone hotel site which is allowed without the Gateway Overlay District. Mr. Hoogs said that this project takes some of the principles Mr. Dodson illustrates and applies by keeping half of the meadow, keeps the road circulation, and allows for the underlying zoning district use of a hotel. Additionally, he said, Mr. Dodson acknowledged that this illustrated plan is not the only plan. Mr. Hoogs said he still feels this project meets a lot of design intent of some of the principles illustrated and listed in the plan.
MS questioned why 92 rooms were needed, and Mr. Hoogs said he understands that this is the smallest Courtyard by Marriott. In the decision making process, he continued, there were some choices, and since three stories would require a height waiver, Mr. Hoogs’ analysis was to preserve as much site as possible, by going higher and having a compact site. This plan was better considering the slopes, wetlands and the preservation of trees. Mr. Hoogs said the zoning bylaw requires a minimum of 6.3 acres for this project. The hotel would fit in a 2.5 acre lot.
GS commented that if this were a landlocked parcel, he could have a better understanding of this proposal, and doesn’t understand the issue of constraints. Attorney Heller said the project that is before them will not be made lower or longer and asked that the Board make a decision or their recommendation to the Zoning Board.
Discussion ensued regarding on how to proceed with regard to making a recommendation to the ZBA.
GS made a motion that the Planning Board recommend to the Zoning Board that the request for a waiver for 48 feet six inches not be granted. KS seconded the motion and the Board voted to agree 4-0. Attorney Heller suggested the Board offer an additional comment that they had no other issues with the project. KMV responded the Board wanted to make it simple. Attorney Heller then asked if the Board would agree to include “four stories” to the motion as that is included in their petition. The motion was changed to read: “The Planning Board recommends to the Zoning Board that the waiver for four stories and 48 feet six inches not be granted.”
KMV stated that contrary to what has been said, there has been no precedent, that every project is evaluated on its own terms.
Planning Board Recommendation to Town Boards and Commissions-There were none.
Review Correspondence from Abutting Communities & BRPC-There was none.
Approve Minutes-January 14, 201-The minutes were tabled until the next meeting.
Open Session-
In concluding the meeting, the Board agreed that they need to refocus on what is needed to prepare for the Annual Town Meeting which is in May and that part of that will be to consider amendments to the zoning bylaw for historic markers and housekeeping issues.
KS advised that, on Friday, state public health officials are set to award the first licenses for medical marijuana dispensaries in Massachusetts.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
