Since there was no vote for or against the motion, the matter was tabled until the next meeting set for Sept. 17. The Water Street development is already on that Sept. 17 agenda, so it is possible the board could reconsider the urban renewal plan, then vote later in the same meeting on whether to approve the planned development.
Jason Woodard, principal at Woodard Real Estate Resources and one of the developers on the project, declined to comment after the meeting.
The Water Street project — created by Woodard and developer Crawford Hoying — calls for construction of a 50,000 square-foot Class A office building with restaurant, 161 apartment units and a 320-space parking garage north of Monument Avenue and east of Patterson Boulevard.
Payne said he has concerns the office building slated to be built along Patterson Boulevardwould block views of the fountains in the Great Miami River from the Canal Walk area, which the city recently upgraded. He suggested there were better ways to configure the development.
The existing Webster Station West plan called for the proposed office building site to be left undeveloped to create a “view corridor,” and limited other office buildings in the development area to a maximum of three stories in height. The proposed Water Street office building would be four stories, and would be located in the previously protected area.
Wright said downtown already has a glut of office space. Scott, the Plan Board president, suggested the riverfront project could take office business away from the core of downtown.
Plan Board Secretary Ann Schenking suggested the Water Street development could help the city by giving downtown an attractive new office building that could compete with the Austin Landing area in Miami Twp., where some downtown businesses have relocated.
City Planning Manager Brian Inderrieden said replacing the view of the fountains with a new, visually interesting, architecturally attractive building was a small sacrifice to make in order to secure a large development.
But the Plan Board — with members David Bohardt and Beverly Pendergast absent — was not swayed. Sauer was the only Plan Board member to speak in favor of the project, suggesting that the view corridor is a weak feature worthy of being sacrificed in order to achieve major development downtown.
Nan Whaley, the only City Commission member present at the meeting, said she was “a little surprised” by Plan Board’s action, adding that it has always been the goal of the commission to have development on that site, saying it fits with the goals of the Greater Downtown Dayton Plan.
Whaley said the Plan Board was “doing its due diligence” on the development, but she added that the Water Street project is “a City Commission priority.”
Before Tuesday’s meeting began, Woodard said developers had received a verbal commitment on project funding and expected to receive the commitment letter later this week.
He said soil borings and a Phase 1 environmental assessment had been done on the site. He said if the planned development was approved on Sept. 17, they’d move on to the final development agreement and transfer of the property, aiming for a November timeframe.
About the Author
