WIDEWATERS ARCHITECTURE

The renderings below have been designed because Widewaters insists they cannot build a roof on their buildings 4/4A footprint that would be in compliance with the Kinderhook Town Code.  They want to build a flat roof which is not in compliance.

The renderings below by architect Alvin Knoll virtually use the Widewaters footprint.  These drawings prove that a hip roof can be built on buildings 4/4A and illustrate classic and historic type architecture which is the essence of the New Town Code.

Here Mr. Knoll shows four different examples of the hip roof that can be built in compliance with the code and fit the footprint. 

Please note: The cupolas in the drawings are 12' X 12' octagons.  They are a traditional decoration which is optional to the structure, yet not restricted by the code.  The cupola is designed to be placed at the highest peak of the hip roof which is 40 feet high. 

Illustration 3  demonstrates the building without a cupola. 

Building 4/4A is planned for the southern side of the plot. 

Illustrations 1 - 5 show the front of the building which faces the asphalt parking lot.  The Hannaford store is planned for the right side with other shops to the left.  There are two other buildings in the complex which are not shown here.

Illustration 6 shows the east side of building 4/4A.  This is what would be seen from Routes 9 and 9H

It is important to understand that by these drawings, KNGG does not intend to dictate the design of Widewaters Commons.  We merely wish to point out to the ZBA and the public that it is possible to build this large commercial building and conform to the spirit of the code. 

The comparison of the QKP drawing made for Widewaters on the Home Page to Knoll's drawings below also illustrate that by using the classic hip roof, the harshness of the big box is diminished to a great extent.

KNGG is extremely grateful to Kinderhook Architect Alvin Knoll for his generosity and time in providing these drawings, not to mention all the additional time he has voluntarily spent at ZBA meetings explaining his drawings.  Thank you, Alvin Knoll.

The drawings below are the property of Alvin Knoll and cannot be used in any way without his permission.

Illustration 1.

 Alvin Knoll's Letter of Comments to the ZBA

which accompanied the above renderings

 ALVIN D. KNOLL, ARCHITECT/BUILDER/DEVELOPER

106 McCagg Road    Valatie, New York 12184    518.392.2659    Fax 518.392.9732

 September 10, 2004

Town of Kinderhook Zoning Board of Appeals     

P.O. Box  P, Niverville NY, 12130                                                    

Re:  Widewaters Commons Shopping Center: Roof Variance Application for building 4 and 4A

Chair and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals:

At the ZBA hearing 9/2/04, I presented plans of a hip roofed building:

1.          Designed in compliance with the zoning resolution (with a complying cupola based on building 4 and 4A as a single building),

2.         that was shown to be structurally sound,

3.         with a properly designed roof drainage system.

The above was confirmed by the Spectra engineer and architect representing the Town.

In addition to the complying plans submitted 9/2/04, I am now enclosing additional complying plans noted as series “A” and series “B” buildings, in response to the questions and issues brought up at the 9/2/04 meeting regarding:

1.         Can the 6,084 square foot cupola be reduced and still maintain the 40 foot maximum roof height?  My answer to the Town Attorney at the meeting was that it could not, the answer to a design question is not always immediately apparent.  I was considering the condition with a 20 foot high perimeter wall and 19 foot height at the perimeter bays, however, the perimeter bays can be lowered to 14 foot high resulting in a much smaller cupola.  Therefore, I have redesigned the structure of the “B” buildings to provide a cupola reduced to 400 square feet and 9 feet high.  I have designed the “A” buildings with a hip roof over the entire Hannaford store, which eliminates the cupola as a required element.  I have shown a small 128 square foot cupola on the “A” buildings that I recommend as a historic decorative element only.

 2.         The question of whether building 4 and 4A are two buildings is now moot since the reduced cupola on the “B” buildings is considerably smaller than the 4719 square foot  cupola allowed on the Hannaford building alone.

 3.         Can the roof drainage system be improved to avoid possible icicle formation at the hip roof overhang?  I have redesigned the roof drainage collection system to form a built-in drainage trough at the buildings’ perimeter and revised the valley at the Hannaford building “B” series to be part of the roof drainage trough system.  This roof drainage system should include an electric snow melt system.  Surface mounted snow melt cables that the QKP architect prefers to use would be located at the bottom of the drainage trough and may be carried a few feet up the roof and parapet wall surfaces.  They would be hidden from ground view due to the design and location of the trough behind the building perimeter wall. 

The overhangs and covered walkways at buildings 4 and 4A would drain to roof drains and carry down within the building connecting to the interior storm drainage system.  A cable snow melt system should be provided on these overhangs.

 4.         In response to the discussion regarding the view to the Catskills and the visual impact of my proposals and the QKP proposal:  the view to the Catskills to the west is seen from the parking lot.  Buildings 4 and 4A block views to the rear of these buildings no matter what their respective heights.  In regard to the visual impact of the respective submissions, I have shown diagramatic examples of how a hip roof behind a parapet wall diminishes from the view of a person looking at these buildings from varying distances.  These diagrams show how little of the hip roof is visible from different distances since the hip roof does not reach its 40 foot height until it sets back approximately 90 feet from the perimeter wall.  The roof heights of 32 feet and 40 feet at the QKP design does not slope away from the viewer and therefore does not diminish.  The difference in visual impact between our proposals are arguably insignificant, in my opinion the complying proposals create a lesser visual impact.

I have provided two basic roof designs and varying perimeter wall designs.  The design that is most faithful to the code requirements of a historic building is the “A” series shown on drawings1 and 2.  In addition, their architectural features are consistent with the character of the community sought to be achieved by the Town’s new code, I have indicated in the “B” series the front two Hannaford entries to comply with the QKP design although I do not believe that the precise location of these entries were part of the site plan approval of the building’s footprint. 

I also note that the QKP designed Hannaford entry gable and the two gables over the stores in building 4 are non-complying.  They are all approximately a 5/12 pitch rather than the 8/12 pitch required by the code for a complying gable.

If the flat roof variance is considered, a variance for these gables should be applied for by the applicant for additional variance by the ZBA.

The numerous roof plans that I have submitted all designed within the code clearly indicate that the statements by the representatives of the applicant that a roof design in compliance with our code is “impossible” is simply false and does not warrant a variance.

Very truly yours, 

Alvin D. Knoll

enclosures

*  *  *