a not-for-profit corporation
 PO Box 424    Kinderhook NY  12106    518-758-2646      

 
WIDEWATERS COMMONS WIDEWATERS DEIS WIDEWATERS SDEIS ROUNDABOUT KNGG FINDINGS ARTICLE 78 ABOUT KNGG MEMBERSHIP KNGG CONCERT BENEFIT KNGG Home Page
PAST ISSUES Home Page

ARTICLE 78

 
ARCHITECTURE EVALUATION
OF
WIDEWATERS COMMONS
 
 
Widewaters Building 4/4A The largest of Three (four) Complex Buildings
Designed for Widewaters Commons, Kinderhook NY
Architecture by QKP Design, Syracuse NY
Source: Updated design from Widewaters' SDEIS
Note the fake facade, especially the peak over the Hannaford entrance.
The roof pitch of the Hannaford peak does not comply with the code
and a variance should be required. 
 
CONTENTS BELOW
 
TOWN OF KINDER DESIGN CODE 
 
and EVALUATIONS by
 
ARCHITECT KATE JOHNS

ARCHITECT ALVIN KNOLL

PLANNING CONSULTANT NORMAN MINTZ

   PRESERVATION ARCHITECT MARILYN KAPLAN             

TOWN OF KINDERHOOK DESIGN CODE  

In the COMMENTS to the SDEIS ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS (copied from the Town Code below) it is demonstrated that Widewaters is not conforming to the Town Code in several ways. This is based on conceptual drawings of Widewaters Commons dated October 15, 2003.

The Widewaters drawings of building 4/4A show a big box structure with a flat roof.

THE TOWN OF KINDERHOOKBUILDING DESIGN AND FORM CODE

Highlighted in red is where KNGG sees Widewaters breaking the code.

from The Town of Kinderhook Code Book

Page 81-79 H Building Design and Form

  1. Traditional design features shall include, but are not limited to the following traditional design features setback dormers, lanterns, turrets, bay windows, porticos, porches and historic façade projects when in scale with façade, and masonry chimneys.
  1. Retain building and other features that reflect the existing rural and agricultural landscape of the area, including orchards, cultivated fields, farm buildings and barnyards. Buildings shall relate in scale and design features to the site and surrounding features. Continuity shall be achieved by the following, but not limited to use of maintaining cornice lines in buildings of the same height, by extending the horizontal lines of fenestration; and by echoing architectural styles an details, design themes, buildings materials, and colors used in surrounding buildings.
  1. Use building materials that are wood clapboard, simulated clapboard, and batton vertical, indigenous stone, and brick shall be considered traditional building materials. Material selection should generally be consistent across entire building. Varied bands of siding materials and patterns are not acceptable. All new construction and additions shall use one more of these materials. Rehabilitation of older buildings that retain their original designs, e. g. barns and pre-1940s structures, shall also be constructed with these traditional materials.
  1. The following applies to new construction, additions and major alterations where roofs and/or exterior walls are altered.

A Traditional architecture, which identifies a special company by building design features, is prohibited.

B Structures shall be compatible with traditional pre-1940 structures in the area in architecture, design, massing, materials and details.

C Architectural design shall be in keeping with the small-town architectural character of the Town. Avoid large expanses of undifferentiated facades and long plain wall sections. A façade break shall be required every 80 feet of façade including, but not limited to building wall offsets, projections, recesses, and changes in floor level in order to relieve the visual effect of a simple, long wall. Similarly, roofline offsets shall be provided in order to relieve the effect of a single, long roof. For larger buildings, the scale and form of new construction, additions and major alterations shall mimic that of traditional barns, houses and structures.

D Use detailing including, but not limited to, fenestration, entrance treatments such as lintels, pilasters, columns, porticoes, porches, railings, balustrades, and overhangs, dormers, belvederes, masonry chimneys, cupolas and clock towers. Blank walls are not permitted.

E Hip roofs (pitches 4/12 to 9/12), gable roofs (pitches 8/12 to 14/12) and gambrel roofs (upper pitch: (upper pitch: 5/12 to 8/12; lower pitch: 18/12 to 20/12) are acceptable. Mansard roofs, flat roofs, and shed roofs (except on secondary roofs where pitch should be 4/12 to 14/12) are not permitted.

F Not applicable

G Not applicable

H Balance windows and doors so they are generally symmetric in their placement on building facades. In addition:

Glazing of no less than 12% and no more than 35% on the foremost, front facing façade.

For commercial use, glass areas at the ground floor should be greater than those at upper floors.

Except at first floor levels of commercial use, windows shall be vertical in proportion, and have a ratio of width to height between 1:2 and 1:5 and be small paned windows divided by muntins.

For commercial uses, windows wider than 3 feet are not acceptable except on entry levels, where a maximum width of 6 feet is acceptable. For large windows, muntins should be used to break the expanse of glass into smaller panes.

"Eyebrow" windows of a 1-1/2:1 to 3:1 ratio range are acceptable below roof eaves.

Sliding glass doors should not be permitted on building facades.

        

 
ARCHITECTURE EVALUATIONS 
Kate Johns, AIA

252 Dorland Road

Old Chatham, New York 12136

 

Zoning Board of Appeals - P.O. Box P - Niverville, New York 12130

Re: Widewaters Commons – Area Variance Application

Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Members:

  • I am writing this letter on behalf of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth to provide comments on the area variance application submitted by Widewaters. Specifically I am commenting on the November 6, 2003 submission by Widewaters including the affidavit of Constance Brace and the drawings attached to her affidavit.
  • I am a registered architect, have been practicing since 1977, a copy of my resume/curriculum vitae is attached.
  • The Kinderhook Zoning Code contains specific design guidelines for roofs and those guidelines are clearly intended to promote a particular design preference for roof types that evoke the historical – cultural heritage of the Kinderhook area and the Town’s vision of its future development.
  • The alternate designs presented by QPK Design in the Brace affidavit are clearly intended to present the worst possible scenario for complying with the design standards of the zoning code – QPK has chosen alternatives that maximize the roof pitch and design the roofs as monolithic entities to emphasize the mass and height of the structures.
  • Instead of single roof elements as proposed there are numerous other alternatives that should have been presented which would break up the roof line and remain consistent with the code without requiring a variance or would closely comply with the code and require a minimal variance (i.e. – different roof slopes)
  • Among the alternatives not presented are: multiple side-by-side gables and multiple cross gables.
  • Other alternatives can be developed if the size and/or configuration of buildings 4 and 4a are altered – difficulties with complying with the code are direct result of the applicant’s choice of building size and configuration. The footprint of building 4a alone is the same size as the aggregate footprints of approximately 39 traditional main street buildings at plus or minus 20’ x 50’.
  • In my professional opinion, Widewater’s architect has provided a biased and incomplete presentation of alternative styles that can comply with the code thus portraying the requested variance as the only reasonable alternative. Widewaters should be required to present realistic alternatives consistent with my above comments as there are a variety of means of meeting the code requirements without creating an unsightly structure.
  • Only when a complete and unbiased range of alternatives are presented can the ZBA and the public have the necessary information to assess if a variance should be granted and choose amongst the available alternatives.

EXPERIENCE

KATE JOHNS, AIA

Old Chatham, NY

1986-Present

Principle and owner of an architecture firm specializing in historic preservation and contextual new construction and site design.

PRESERVATION CONSULTANT

New York and Hoosick Falls, NY

1983-1986

Consulting for the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, the Temporary State Commission on the Restoration of the Capitol, and others.

THE EHRENKRANTZ GROUP

New York, NY

1980-1983

Project Manager for major reconstruction and exterior restoration projects in the city of New York. Major clients included, NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, Silverstein Properties, Inc., Schubert Theaters, NY Public Library.

KOCH AND WILSON, ARCHITECTS

New Orleans, LA

1978-1980

Staff Architect for preservation projects, including residences, house museums and buildings, in Vieux Carre and Garden District historic districts of New Orleans.

THE SWITZER GROUP

New York, NY

1977-1978

Staff Architect for commercial office space layout and design. Major clients included, IBM and Avon.

EDUCATION

COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Tempe, AZ

Bachelor of Architecture 1977

SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE

San Francisco, CA.

Bachelor of Fine Arts Candidate 1972-1973

RELATED EDUCATION

RESTORE, Restoration skills training program

New York, NY

1981

INSTITUTE FOR ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN STUDIES

New York, NY

1977

PRESERVATION INSTITUTE, NANTUCKET

Nantucket, MA

1976

ARCHITECTURAL REGISTRATION

State of Louisiana, Licensed 1981

State of New York, Licensed 1986

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Licensed 1995

State of Virginia, Licensed 1997

State of New Jersey, Licensed 1999

BOARD MEMBERSHIPS

Empire State Plaza Art Commission

Appointed 1997

Historic Structure Report Committee, Olana State Historic Site

1996 – Present

Board of Directors of The Columbia Land Conservancy

1988 – 2000

Board of Directors of The Columbia County Historical Society

1990 - 1996

ALVIN D. KNOLL

Architect - Builder – Developer

106 McCagg Road Valatie, NY 12184 - 518.392.2659 Fax 518.392.9732

November 16, 2003

Town of Kinderhook Zoning Board of Appeals

P O Box P, Niverville, NY 12130

This letter and attached plans is in response to the letter to the Board from Robert Alessi of LeBoeuf et, al. With attached affidavits from Marco Marzocchi and Constance Grace RA, dated November 6, 2003.

Contrary to the applicant’s denial, the elevations submitted with their application are the result of self-created hardship. It is the result of the building’s very large footprint, 62,192 square feet and the almost square Hannaford store. Consequently, the elevations provided by the applicant with a gabled roof at an 8/12 pitch creates the outlandish condition they present in an effort to avoid the Town code.

They argue that "there is no architectural alternative to a flat roof design…for building 4 and 4A."

They are mistaken; there is an architectural alternative to a flat roof by utilizing the hip roof allowed by the code at a 4/12 pitch. I have drawn a sketch of the front elevation and roof plan based on the applicant’s buildings footprint with minor modification at the Hannaford building entrance to create an elevation of symmetrical classic design consistent with the Town code requirements.

If this pitched roof is somewhat more costly than a flat roof; it is not in the same $1,500,000 range as the 8/12-pitch roof shown by the applicant. However, the Town code should be followed, additional cost to the applicant should not be a consideration. The variance sought by the applicant in this matter should be denied.

Very truly yours,

Alvin D. Knoll

Enclosure

NORMAN MINTZ

P. O. Box 371 – Court Lane

Claverack, N. Y. 12531

October 31, 2003

Mr. Ed Simonsen, Chairman

Kinderhook Town Planning Board

Niverville NY 12130

Dear Mr. Simonsen and Members of the Planning Board:

I am writing this letter of concern at the request of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth. As a resident of the nearby Hamlet of Claverack, I have been following the controversy surrounding the construction of Widewaters Commons with interest. As one who is professionally involved in commercial revitalization issues, I feel especially qualified to express my opinion. There are numerous issues involved in this case, however I would like to limit my comments to two major concerns – those are the size of the development and its location.

As co-author of the book Cities back from the Edge: New Life for Downtown (John Wiley & Sons) I had the opportunity to travel throughout the United States and observe case studies similar to the one now taking place in Kinderhook. The growth of "big box" retailing is happening all too often. This is unfortunate, as the size of these projects is often out of scale to their surroundings. In the case of Kinderhook, the size of the project overwhelms the scenic nature of the site. This important location is not like the other commercial strips, where the size and location of the development does not matter. In this case it matters very much. An endless sea of parking would destroy the rare and beautiful view of the Catskills. Route 9 would become like any other commercial area—hardly an image that is befitting the special quality of Kinderhook.

The huge size of these types of projects can also play havoc with the economy of the traditional business districts. Pedestrian traffic often dwindles, shops close and a feeling of abandonment takes hold. Many downtowns never recover. Although I am not suggesting this could happen to the commercial center of Kinderhook or the Main Street of Valatie, this possibility should be of great concern to everyone in the community.

Development is fine, but it is up to you to make sure that your decisions are truly responsible, especially so for future generations. The fact is that this pristine location, once built upon will be gone forever. It is imperative that the Planning Board follows the regulations of the new Town Code and does not grant variances to Widewaters. Allowing this corporation to not follow adopted procedures will set a dangerous precedent that could drastically alter what makes Kinderhook so special. Please do all you can to ensure that Kinderhook stays that way.

Norman Mintz

MARILYN KAPLAN, Preservation Architect 

51 Round Lake Road

Valatie, New York 12184

518-766-2459 fax 518-766-2451

November 2, 2003

Ed Simonsen, Chair

Kinderhook Town Planning Board, PO Box P, Niverville, NY 12130

RE: Comments, Proposed Widewaters, 10/2/03 and 9/11/03 drawings

Dear Members of the Planning Board,

I write to provide comments on the proposed drawings noted above for the Widewaters development, which I believe to have serious flaws. First, the proposed project lacks consistent quality design at all building elevations, likely a function of the developer’s financial decision to minimize the efforts of the architect. While two pages of photographs of small details such as brackets or windows are provided, these inclusions in the submission obscure the inadequate attention paid to mitigating the scale of the new construction and the use of low cost construction materials at the proposed side and rear elevations.

Second, the developer appears not to have included a landscape architect in this aspect of the project development. This is an unfortunate omission from the design team, since in the hands of a good landscape architect the overall appearance of the site and buildings could be substantially improved. The proposed planting scheme was likely developed by the site engineer or an architect with commercial building experience but little experience with sensitive treatment of the landscape in an difficult project such as this where the town’s scale and character is at jeopardy.

Specific comments related to these items follows:

A. LANDSCAPE TREATMENT

  1. Inadequacy of proposed planting scheme. The submission does not provide specific information to identify plantings’ species, seasonal characteristics, or height and width. Without this, the Planning Board cannot relate the plantings shown in the color renderings to what actually will be planted. In comparing the renderings with the provided site plan, it is difficult to tell where the scope of intended plantings has been overstated by the artist’s hand. For example, in comparing Rendering/View 2 with the Site Plan, I am confused with the extent and scope of landscaping at Building 1. This confusion is even more extreme when comparing Rendering/View 3 with the side and rear elevations of Buildings 4 and 4a. An exact understanding of proposed plantings cannot be established in a rendering.
  2. Lack of plantings at building facades and east and south elevations of 4 and 4a. The proposed plantings at property boundaries do not compensate for the project’s deficiencies created by the lack of a well-conceived landscape design throughout the building site. This is particularly evident at the south elevations of Buildings 4 and 4a, where the substantial distance between the property line and rear building elevations minimizes the benefit the proposed plantings at the property line will have on softening the appearance of the long, tall, unbroken rear building facades (see B.1. below). A more substantial and creative approach to landscaping within the parking lot, at all building facades, at the Route 9 boundary, and as required to mitigate the scale of construction at the south and east walls of Buildings 4 and 4a is essential.

B. BUILDING FACADES Problems with the proposed architectural treatment of the building facades are as follows:

  1. Unrelieved, blank elevation: Buildings 4 and 4a. The highly visible, unbroken east and south elevations of Buildings 4 and 4a are particularly offensive in their blankness. These elevations should have further architectural detail and their scale compensated for by large plantings at the building walls. Compared with the façade treatment of the north elevation of Building 3, these elevations are particularly lacking in architectural consideration.
  2. Service areas, all buildings. The site plan lacks useable information on how the buildings will be serviced and where trash and exterior storage will be handled. The criticality of this can be seen at the new Rt. 9/9H Stewarts, where the trash and stored materials at the north façade are readily seen by those traveling from the north.
  3. Signage. The appearance of this commercial project will be impacted by the signage for all separate businesses. The visual impact of the buildings cannot be evaluated without such signage shown on the elevations.
  4. Façade Materials. Because the submission lacks detail on the architectural elements illustrated on the renderings and building elevations, it is unknown whether these elements will be fully executed or merely suggested by changes in paint color. Information should be provided with respect to material, dimensions, and details.
  5. Signature Architecture. Building 4a continues to include architectural elements related to Hannaford’s signature, in specific violation of the town zoning code.

I thank you for your consideration, and truly appreciate your ongoing efforts on this project.

Sincerely,

Marilyn E. Kaplan, Architect

*  *  *