West Chester University presents campus master plan; commissioners press for housing, parking and pedestrian-safety details

West Chester University proposed a 10-year “canvas” master plan and has filed a conditional-use application under the West Chester Borough ordinance, chapter 112, section 314, to approve the master plan as the framework for future campus projects, university representative Brian Nagel said.

The plan is intended as a high-level conditional-use approval that would allow the university to file individual land‑development applications for each project once the master plan is accepted. The university and its consultants described near‑term priorities including student housing, deferred maintenance of historic buildings, expanded dining and improvements to campus circulation; commissioners and borough staff pressed for more detail on housing numbers, parking and pedestrian safety.

The master-plan framework and next steps

Brian Nagel, representing West Chester University, told the commission the campus filing is “a conditional use application for master plan approval under the Westchester Borough ordinance, chapter 112 section 314, under the plan university campus district regulations.” He and planner Conrad (surname given as Conrad in the record) and other consultants said the ordinance creates a 10‑year planning horizon and that the conditional-use approval would not substitute for future, project‑level land‑development reviews.

“Once the master plan conditional use is approved, then each of those projects comes back to the borough as a land‑development process,” Nagel said. Consultants said neighbor meetings are planned in September and they expect conditional‑use hearings before both the borough and township later in the year, with November cited as a likely start for hearings (timing described as subject to change).

Key projects and numbers described by the consultants

- South Campus apartments: The team proposed phased gut renovations and an added floor across 11 South Campus buildings to add about 220 beds, increasing that cluster from roughly 499 to about 719 beds over a six‑year period. - Temporary housing (M‑1 lot): A temporary housing installation of about 128 beds on the M‑1 lot (noted as in West Goshen Township) to provide swing space while renovations occur; consultants said these are expected to remain in place roughly five years. - Lawrence Hall site (New Street north of Rosedale): The plan shows a high‑capacity new residence building under the borough’s 90‑foot height limit; consultants estimated that a maximum build under the ordinance could yield roughly 700–800 beds depending on final design and structural choices. - Renovations and deferred maintenance: The science complex, the old library and other historic campus buildings were identified as high priority for full renovations rather than incremental repairs. - Sykes Student Union: Consultants said dining demand could support adding roughly 20,000 square feet of dining space in the union; a phased approach was shown, with capacity for a later parking deck if needed. - Sustainability/energy: The plan notes existing geothermal fields and identifies potential additional well sites and efficiencies that could be pursued, with some candidate sites adjacent to residences.

Traffic, parking and circulation findings

The university’s traffic consultant reported that existing intersections were projected to operate at level‑of‑service C (and movements at D or better) under the near‑term scenarios included in the report. Study results in the presentation indicated midday peak parking occupancy around 80% on the North Campus and roughly 50% in some South Campus lots.

Commissioners and borough reviewers repeatedly pressed for clearer, auditable numbers tying projected enrollment and housing demand to bed counts and parking impacts. Planning Commission member Alan Burke summarized the commission’s concern: “This plan provides for significantly more student housing on campus, but is it adequate? In truth, we have no idea how the university arrived at their number, but we should.”

Pedestrianization of Church Street and public‑realm changes

The master plan shows a future‑state option to pedestrianize (or substantially pedestrianize) Church Street as a campus spine, but consultants and university representatives emphasized that any street vacation or public‑realm change would require separate action by borough council. “It would take a separate act of council to vacate the right‑of‑way in order for the street to be closed,” a university representative told the commission.

Several commission members and borough reviewers described pedestrian safety as a top concern, pointing to the High Street–Rosedale intersection and other edges where campus and borough traffic meet. Commissioners asked for additional pedestrian and traffic‑safety analysis tied to specific projects; one commissioner called for an independent safety assessment tied to the plan’s off‑campus impacts.

Public‑process, jurisdiction and next steps

Presenters said the master plan document will be used to coordinate reviews between West Chester Borough, West Goshen Township and East Bradford, and that the document is intended to be a “framework” rather than a final design for individual projects. The consultants described a multi‑year process of stakeholder meetings and technical studies that produced the plan.

Borough staff explained the review sequence: after any conditional‑use approval for the master plan, each physical project would still require a full land‑development application and the borough’s standard review and permitting process; building plans would then proceed through state life‑safety (L&I) reviews where applicable. Borough staff asked the university to circulate presentation materials to borough reviewers and to coordinate consultant reviews; the university confirmed neighbor meetings in September and said additional consultant feedback will be addressed before hearings.

Commissioner and staff concerns and requests

Commissioners praised the collaborative process but requested clearer, auditable data on: total campus beds today and after the proposed projects, the university’s housing wait list, the assumptions in the parking and traffic analyses (including Transportation Demand Management measures), and explicit sustainability compliance (the commission noted the borough code requirement for USGBC LEED Silver for proposed buildings). Commissioners also sought clarity about which parcels lie inside the University Campus District (PUC) and which do not (for example, College Arms was presented in the plan but is not in the PUC and would require separate discussion).

Quotes from the meeting

“Once the master plan conditional use is approved, then each of those projects comes back to the borough as a land‑development process,” Brian Nagel said as he described the ordinance and process.

Tom (identified in the transcript by first name) praised the process and told the commission the master plan “is like a breath of fresh air” in university‑borough communications.

Alan Burke, a commission member, urged more transparency on bed counts and housing demand: “If people want a place on campus, they are asking for it. They go on this list.”

Aaron (the borough’s new director of building, housing and code enforcement) offered staff support for coordination: “My position is not ever to say no to anything that occurs. My position is to guide people through what our code is… My office is always available to answer questions.”

What the commission asked the university to provide

Commissioners requested the presentation slides and attachments for borough records, asked the university to circulate materials to borough consultants, and asked planners to return with clarified housing and parking tables and with targeted safety analyses for High Street, Rosedale and other interface points. Commissioners also signaled they will attend the September neighbor meetings to hear public feedback.

No final action or vote on the master plan was taken at the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners said they preferred to review consultant comments and have more members present before making a formal recommendation to borough council.

Next procedural steps

Consultants plan September neighborhood meetings and additional consultant reviews; presenters said hearings are tentatively expected to start in November, subject to the borough and township schedules and to any extensions the university and borough agree to file. Any proposed pedestrianization or street vacation shown in the master plan would still require a separate council action to vacate the right‑of‑way.

Ending

The presentation and commission discussion established shared points of focus—student housing numbers, parking and intersection safety, and preservation of historic campus buildings—and set a schedule of technical follow‑up and neighborhood outreach before the borough and township hold conditional‑use hearings. Commissioners said they will hold further review sessions after consultant comments and neighborhood meetings are complete.