Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Riverside board narrows public-safety center designs to two schemes, drops west driveway
Loading...
Summary
The Riverside Village Board reviewed four exterior concepts and recommended sending Schemes 1 and 2 to the preservation commission for feedback; the board also signaled consensus to remove a proposed west driveway and discussed a separate $3.5 million river-walk allowance.
The Riverside Village Board reviewed four exterior concepts for a proposed combined police and fire facility and, after a lengthy presentation by Williams Architects and a cost briefing from Harbor Contractors, narrowed its preferences to two options for preservation review.
Kim Nigro, project manager for Williams Architects, said the team developed four distinct exterior schemes that share common elements: a colonnade and terrace facing the river, consolidated administrative space for police and fire, and a deliberate massing to avoid competing with the adjacent historic village hall. "We've focused the entryway right here on access with the colonnade or view connection out toward the river," Nigro said while recapping the site plan and floor layouts.
Contractor Chris Kozak of Harbor Contractors presented order-of-magnitude budgeting and contingency work, noting the firm included a separate river-walk allowance. "We did the river walk allowance of an additional budget of 3 and a half million dollars," Kozak said, and he described construction cost as the largest single line item within the total project budget.
Board members discussed program and operational issues, including whether a west-side drive was necessary for apparatus circulation. Staff said the additional access point was no longer required under the refined site plan; the board indicated general agreement to remove the West Drive to preserve riverfront space. Manager Francis confirmed staff would pursue that change and noted the board can still ask the preservation commission to consider any of the four schemes online.
Trustees debated aesthetics and security trade-offs among the four designs. Scheme 1, called "dynamic response," drew several supporters for its contemporary lines and extensive glazing; Trustee (Speaker 10) said, "I actually like this one a lot." Other trustees favored Scheme 2, a more "contextual presence" with traditional proportions and smaller, punched openings that align more closely with the village hall.
Board members raised practical concerns about riverside glazing and vandalism; Williams said expansive glass would be concentrated in public community spaces rather than the apparatus bay and that mechanical equipment would likely be roof-mounted and screened to meet zoning and operational needs. Williams also highlighted options to interchange desirable elements across schemes.
The board directed staff to submit Schemes 1 and 2 to the preservation commission for its April 9 review and asked Williams to continue refining design details and prepare for a broader community engagement process. Williams said it would attend the preservation meeting and incorporate that feedback into subsequent design adjustments.
Next steps: the preservation commission will review the preferred schemes on April 9; Williams will then begin broader public engagement and refine designs and cost options based on that input.
