Laserfiche WebLink
two exiting lanes. All traffic will go through proposed light. People who live on Delcrest will <br />have options for getting onto Delmar. Numbers will most likely warrant a signalized <br />intersection. The light at Berick is a pedestrian light.With the new signal, there will be a <br />crosswalk on Delcrest and one on Delmar. <br />Mr. Senturia stated that Walgreens must have data showing what they expect traffic to be. Mr. <br />Dabler said that is correct, Walgreens knows their numbers, for drive-through stores also. This <br />will be similar to other Walgreens stores. <br />Mr. Senturia asked if there has been any contact with residents surrounding the property and if <br />there has been any feedback. Mr. Evans said they spoke with property owners because the <br />property owners are the ones invested in the property. Mr. Halpert added that the Zoning Code <br />requires the City to notify property owners within 185 feet. <br />Mr. Kraft asked if the only curb cuts proposed are on Delcrest or if curb cuts are proposed on <br />Delmar. Mr. Evans stated there is a proposed curb cut on Delmar for drive-through patrons to <br />access Delmar Boulevard. The County will determine what type of curb cut it should be. It is in <br />the County’s hands in coordination with University City. It could be a right-in/right-out. <br />Mr. Kraft asked who makes the call on the curb cut. Does University City say we do or do not <br />want one? Or does the County? Mr. Lai stated that Delmar is a County right-of-way and they <br />make the call. Delcrest is a City right-of-way. The City and County will work together. The <br />traffic study will be conducted. Mr. Lai stated that Angelica Gutierrez with Public Works could <br />provide more insight on what is to be expected. There will be meetings between University City <br />and St. Louis County to take into consideration the impact regarding pedestrian and vehicular <br />traffic. If approved, one of the conditions is that the developer will have to provide any <br />improvements as required by St. Louis County and University City. The development may be <br />approved, but the traffic study still has to go through Traffic Commission. <br />Ms. Gutierrez stated that they must wait for St. Louis County revisions. The County needs to <br />warrant the signal. The City is relying on the County. They will make considerations of all <br />traffic impacts. They are planning to have this item on the next Traffic Commission agenda and <br />are hoping that CBB will be present. <br />Mr. Kraft asked, to clarify the process, if the Conditional Use Permit applications will come to <br />City Council separately from the traffic study issues. Ms. Riganti stated they would be separate. <br />Mr. Kraft asked if Council will then get two separate votes on each issue, the Conditional Use <br />Permits and the traffic study. Ms. Riganti said yes. <br />Ms. Felton asked if they’ve received MSD permits. Mr. Dabler said they do not have completed <br />improvement drawings at this point, just preliminary drawings. They are proposing below <br />ground water retention. They are waiting for approval prior to completing all civil drawings. <br />Mr. Evans stated they also want to provide a landscape easement as shown on the site plat along <br />the eastern property line. He stated they looked at other options and think that maintaining the 8 <br />tm;šE <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />