In the face of a new lawsuit by one irate neighbor, and concerns about a slimmed-down pedestrian walkway, Yale earned approval for more detailed plans for its School of Management campus.
The university is in the process of leveling and clearing away two buildings at 155 and 157 Whitney Ave. to make way for a $145 million Yale School of Management campus. The plan got final aldermanic approval on March 1; Yale had to come back to the City Plan Commission Wednesday for a site plan review.
Before unanimously approving the site plan Wednesday night with no substantive changes, commissioners raised some concerns that the plan did not include enough room for passing pedestrians and bikes. Some commissioners requested further design changes to insure that the Pearl Street walkway on the north of the campus would be pedestrian and bicycle friendly.
Also at the meeting, it was revealed that the plan faces a new legal hurdle from an abutting neighbor.
Silently observing and taking notes at the meeting was Marjorie Shansky, attorney for Dr. Joseph Tagliarini. He has filed an appeal of the city’s approval of the Planned Development District (PDD) that is the basis for the School of Management project. A PDD is a powerful, contentious zoning tool used to expedite large-scale building projects.
Tagliarini’s house sits on Bradley Street near Whitney, right next to the proposed campus. He was an early and vocal voice against the proximity and scale of the project. He filed his appeal on May 5 in New Haven Superior Court.
As Yale’s Vice President for New Haven and State affairs Michael Morand prepared to showed new and more detailed renderings of the SOM’s “tailored” and substantial vegetation and façade on the south side, City Plan’s Executive Director Karyn Gilvarg asked if he still wanted to proceed in light of the pending appeal.
“The city has received notice of an appeal” of the PDD, Gilvarg announced to the room.
Did Yale wish to proceed?
Allan Appel Photo
“Yes,” replied Morand (pictured).
After Morand reprised the increased setbacks and other changes designers had made on the north and south, discussion focused primarily on Pearl Street pathway to the north. East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker, the aldermanic representative to City Plan Commission, asked why Yale had reduced the path’s width from 12 feet, which was a non-binding suggestion from City Plan, to eight feet.
Yale’s Senior Architectural Planner David Yager replied, “Eight feet seems right. Beyond that, added width encourages higher [bicycle] speeds and two bikes [traveling] together.” Yager said the judgments were made after Yale huddled with their traffic experts.
He also urged Elicker to remember that the path is primarily for pedestrians, not bicyclists.
Both Elicker and commission chair Ed Mattison (pictured), however, remained skeptical. When the overall plan for the $145 million project was approved by City Plan in the late winter, it spurred a stormy debate about the Lord Norman Foster design, the scale, and the effect on the residential community.
Tuesday night, with a lingering sense of community upset, Elicker and Mattison peppered the Yale team with questions about signage, lighting, gates, and other indicators on the Pearl Street path.
Yager clarified that the current plan featured a six foot gate arm, to discourage car entry, and then a four foot passage for bicyclists and pedestrians.
“It doesn’t feel like it’s an entrance. It feels like a closed off area,” Elicker replied.
Mattison characterized the plan as a kind of driveway on which pedestrians can walk.
Elicker reminded the Yale team that the terms or at least spirit of the PDD was that the pathway would be welcoming to local residents on foot and on bikes. Elicker asked for a discreet entryway for pedestrians and cyclists, perhaps between poles, and with signage.
Then Elicker asked if the area with more wild grasses behind the SOM building would be open to locals.
“Yes, but it’s not a public park,” replied Morand. He reminded the commissioners that one of the SOM’s main contributions will be to have turned the surface parking lot into a greensward.
Non-voting commission member and city engineer Richard Miller appeared to be losing patience. Just tell us, he asked Yale, if you were walking along Pearl Street, would the current design and signage impart “a feeling: Oh, I could walk there?”
Morand suggested that the “lived experience” of the space, that is, seeing Yale students and staffers leaving and entering, would provide visual clues. He reiterated that the new plan would be an “open campus,” like Yale College’s Cross Campus.
“You won’t need a swipe card, for example,” he said.
A slight current of distrust persisted between Morand and his colleagues and the commissioners. Elicker said the concerns he was expressing were those of other aldermen and their constituents as well.
Therefore, should these extra steps to make the Pearl Street path more pedestrian and bike friendly be requirements of passage for the site plan review? Should Yale be asked to return with more detail of signage and design?
In the end, chairman Mattison deferred to City Plan staff to work these matters out.
City Plan’s Karyn Gilvarg said it would take some time to work on these issues.
As to the potential lawsuit against the city’s approval of the SOM’s PDD, Morand said he would defer to the city. However, he expressed confidence in the outcome. “This [PDD process] has followed all the appropriate steps,” which he termed very thorough in New Haven. He said that in his view any court would find as the City Plan Commission and Board of Aldermen did. But, “it’s a free country.”
Neither Attorney Shansky nor Tagliarini returned calls by press time.