The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.

Replace Julienne, city says

Photos: Drawings of Julienne school plans

Willard alumnus seeks alumni
New 16 min. ago
High school seeing results
New 23 min. ago
Xenia mother charged with child endangering
5:00 p.m.
Hearing postponed in alpaca case
4:58 p.m.
Washington Twp. woman charged with assault of police officer
4:45 p.m.
> More headlines

E-mail this page

By Joanne Huist Smith, Staff Writer Updated 12:54 AM Sunday, April 26, 2009

DAYTON — City Commissioners want a school on the Homewood Avenue site where the former Julienne building sits. But they don’t support protective historic building for the school that would make it difficult to demolish.

The commission’s hope is that some architectural features from the 1928-era building be incorporated into the new structure.

City Commissioner Nan Whaley said the desire of the commission is clear.

“I’m siding with the people in the neighborhood who want a school on the site,” Whaley said.

Dayton Public Schools wants to raze Julienne and build a smaller, 550-pupil elementary school there. Former students of the Catholic school and some Five Oaks residents have fought for two years to save the facility. They want a school on the site, but they want a rehabbed Julienne, not new construction.

The City Commission, in deciding whether to designate the building a local landmark, legally had three options, but Whaley said only one was viable.

Their options included:

•Approve the historic zoning, called HD-3, placing Julienne under the protection of the Dayton Landmark Commission, giving it control over all external changes, including demolition. The school district said if that happened, the new school would be built in another neighborhood.

•Reject the zoning change by doing nothing, which would have opened the door to immediate demolition by Dayton Public Schools. The school district’s construction chief, John Carr, prior to the vote on April 15, said that if the historic zoning got rejected, demolition would begin within 60 days.

•The final option, involved remanding the zoning case back to the City Plan Board, with direction.

City Commissioner Matt Joseph said neither the school district nor people who want to save the building won, but hopefully citizens of Dayton will.

“We used the tools we had. There was no other choice,” Joseph said.

Remand, by definition, means to send back with instruction for future proceedings.

The commission’s directions, however, were for Dayton Public Schools, not the City Plan Board.

“The commission felt it owed the Plan Board a bigger picture of what we want to see on that site,” Whaley said.

The directions, which school officials agreed to, included bringing parents — with children who would attend a school at that site — together to help design a building that would integrate architectural elements of the Julienne building, a compromise.

Plan Board Member Donna Martin, who requested the Plan Board be the applicant on the HD-3 case, believes there have already been many compromises offered.

“We agreed to just save the facade. There were lots and lots of compromises,” she said, during a April 21 Plan Board meeting. “Dayton Public Schools doesn’t want to compromise. They want to do what they want to do.”

The City Commission did guarantee that no demolition permit for the building would be issued for 90 days, at which time the school district will report back its progress

Greg Scott, president of the Plan Board, said the case remanded back to them, however, has nothing to do with the directions given to the school district. The Plan Board, which has recommended the building be designated a historic landmark, will be hearing the same case over again.

Whaley said if the Plan Board again sent the City Commission a recommendation to approve the historic designation, it may be rejected.

“The City Commission put the ball into Dayton Public School’s court,” Scott said. “The City Commission is not giving the Plan Board any direction, other than our basic obligation to hear cases.”

Marc Suda, president of the Five Oaks Neighborhood Improvement Association, views the City Commission action to remand the case as a license for demolition.

“The blinders are on and the path is set toward demolition. I’m not sure what’s going to change that,” he said.

Dayton Public Schools Superintendent Kurt T. Stanic said he plans to follow the direction of the City Commission. One thing is certain, if the school district brings back plans for a new school on the Julienne site, it won’t include an application to have the building designated a local landmark.

“We have never considered that,” Stanic said.

Share this article

ADD COMMENT

Comments feed

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me again how this building is historic? Nothing historic happened there. If it's such a great place, put another Catholic school there. Move C-J there. Oh geez, I wonder why those options haven't been explored?

B
10:59 PM, 4/26/2009

REPORT ABUSE

I live in Minneapolis. Two weeks ago, while in Dayton, drove over to Julienne to take photos. If Julienne was in Minneapolis, I guarantee, it would not be torn down but revitalized and made into an outstanding school anchor for the area. How the governing leaders of Dayton can be so ignorant is absolutely unbelievable. Truly, Dayton has idiots running the city. The forefathers who made Dayton great are all rolling over in their graves. Wake up Dayton.

Bob
8:30 PM, 4/26/2009

REPORT ABUSE

I choose to live in the city because I love old buildings--the architecture, the character, the history. but more and more buildings and whole city blocks are being razed because new is cheaper and somehow better? Soon I will have to leave the city because it will look as bad as the suburbs where the schools look like detention facilities. very sad

amanda
7:23 PM, 4/26/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Why not restore the school back into a all girls again? Proven fact girls do better in an all girls school, than being taught with boys! This would also make the city more of a attractive place to live!

karon
5:34 PM, 4/26/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Bill I totally agree with you. Most of the people who graduated from there will never go back for any reason. So why preserve it. Out with the old and in with the new. Let these children have all the advantages of modern technology.

Julienne Graduate
1:48 PM, 4/26/2009

REPORT ABUSE

There are 16 additional comments

SHOW ALL

We welcome your comments. Please remember this is a public forum and behave appropriately. Your comments must conform to our visitor's agreement.