Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the University Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission begins coordinated review of university master plan; South Church Street vacation and parking raise flags
Summary
Commissioners started a multi‑step review of the university’s master plan submission. They asked staff to coordinate consultant reviews on traffic and stormwater, flagged the proposed vacation of South Church Street for a traffic study, and noted parking and tree‑planting policy as items requiring follow‑up.
The Planning Commission began a preliminary review of the university’s submitted master plan at the work session and requested coordinated consultant feedback before taking any formal recommendation.
Commissioners identified two items that require early technical review: a proposed vacation of South Church Street from Sharpless to Rosedale and several parking and circulation matters across the campus. Members asked staff to direct a traffic study — specifically asking an RV‑type consultant to model how traffic would be diverted onto South High Street and other nearby routes if Church Street were closed. Commissioners said the university’s proposal to vacate portions of Church Street could create new pedestrian opportunities but also might concentrate traffic on nearby streets and intersections that have already been re‑aligned.
Planning commissioners complimented elements of the submission — including wayfinding ideas modeled after successful college campuses and the inclusion of a parkland study — but they emphasized that stormwater, tree‑planting strategy and parking‑utilization analyses need formal consultant review. Planning staff identified firms and staff who should review the stormwater and parkland elements; the commission asked for Pennoni‑style technical review of the stormwater components (the applicant’s submission referenced a firm name in the materials). Commissioners also discussed the university’s parking data, noting consultant analysis in the plan that suggested under‑utilization of some garage capacity and raising the possibility of better coordinating university parking assets with borough parking needs.
Commission members said the submission represents a substantial step forward in town‑university coordination after years of limited disclosure and urged continued, regular engagement with university leadership and the borough’s liaison staff. No vote or zoning change was made; staff were asked to follow up by confirming which consultant reviews have been circulated and to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions where the plan crosses municipal lines. Commissioners expected to receive consolidated consultant comments before the next formal review.
