Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Streetscape topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

St. Louis County outlines timeline, easement process and preliminary cost for Webster Groves streetscape

5746075 · March 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

St. Louis County engineers gave Webster Groves commissioners a detailed update on the AR 1851 streetscape project, saying final plans must be approved by June 30, 2026, and construction is most likely to occur in spring 2027.

St. Louis County engineers gave Webster Groves commissioners a detailed update on the AR 1851 streetscape project, saying final plans must be approved by June 30, 2026, and construction is most likely to occur in spring 2027.

The county’s presentation described remaining design work, a right-of-way and easement process that will begin with offer letters this fall, and options for adding decorative lighting and other streetscape features not included in the county’s base scope. County staff said a lighting design change order would cost about $30,000.

County staff member Brian, presenting design materials and history, told the commission the corridor design dates to initial concepts shown to the city in 2020–21 and that the project received federal surface/TAP funding after an application in February 2022. “We started design September 2023,” Brian said, and the project has advanced through preliminary design while the county and the city negotiated scope and maintenance expectations. He said, “we have to have final plans done and basically approved by next 06/30/2026.”

Why it matters: the project narrows a four-lane stretch west of the railroad tracks, adds pedestrian refuges and upgraded crosswalk markings, widens most sidewalks to six feet where feasible, and installs curb ramp details required by ADA rules. Brian said the plans will keep permanent parking on the south side of the street and that bike lanes are not feasible in much of the corridor because of constrained right-of-way and existing building frontages.

Key details county staff gave commissioners: - Timeline: right-of-way plan approval is expected later this summer, offer letters this fall, and construction bidding likely in 2026 with the most conservative construction start in early 2027; county staff said one construction season would likely complete the work. Brian said condemnation would be a last resort and could add eight to nine months if property owners do not reach settlements. - Easements: planned acquisitions are temporary construction easements and some permanent sidewalk easements. Brian described the map lines shown to the group, saying the permanent sidewalk easement is typically one foot behind the edge of sidewalk and that temporary easements are limited to work such as driveway reconstruction. - Sidewalks and ADA: most sidewalks will be widened to six feet where physically possible; under certain awnings and tight curb transitions a minimum four-foot clear path will be preserved to meet ADA requirements. - Lighting and streetscape elements: county staff said lighting and decorative elements are not in the county’s maintenance scope but can be added as change orders if the city or business district funds them. Brian said his consultant (CG Engineering) estimated roughly $30,000 for lighting design work: “about $30,000 for just the lighting,” he said. He described tradeoffs between a simple set of options and a highly custom design, which would take more time and money. - Utilities and coordination: the county noted that MoDOT owns and will replace the bridge deck and that the county intends to grind pavement markings on the bridge to preserve a continuous road diet until MoDOT’s project repaves that segment. County staff also cautioned that relocating overhead utilities (Ameren) to underground is expensive and would likely be paid for by the city or district if requested; staff estimated such work could cost in the “hundreds of thousands” of dollars.

Commissioners and city staff discussed decision points and next steps. Annette (commission member) said she had met county staff and urged clearer public messaging about the long planning timeline; she asked that the county provide design options quickly. Renee (city staff) and the commission agreed that the quickest route would be for the consultant to provide 3–4 lighting options the commission could review, rather than waiting for a fully custom design.

County staff described the administrative steps the city must take to authorize a change order and a maintenance agreement: the city would need to approve funding for the change order, and the county would present both the change order and a draft maintenance agreement to the city. Brian said the county had already prepared a draft maintenance agreement and had sent it to the city recently for legal review.

The county also told the commission that public outreach to property owners will begin when right-of-way plans are approved; that process includes appraisals and offer letters and may involve counteroffers that could extend the schedule. Brian said the county expects to mail offers this fall and that negotiations typically take several months if not settled quickly.

The commission asked for options and a ballpark schedule; county staff committed to review submitted design preferences and to work with CG Engineering to provide options for the commission’s next meeting.

The presentation included references to the county project number AR 1851 and to a recorded virtual public meeting the county posted online. The county representative said about 2,000 postcards were mailed before the public meeting last summer and that the county received several detailed public comments.

For follow-up, county staff recommended that the city decide whether to fund a lighting design change order and to clarify maintenance responsibility early so that design and permitting can proceed within the federal funding deadlines. Brian noted the federal grant schedule and said the county is seeking to avoid extensions that have delayed similar projects in the past.

Ending: County staff left commission members with specific near-term actions — city approval to pursue a consultant change order if the commission wants decorative lighting, review of the draft maintenance agreement, and readiness to begin easement offers after right-of-way plan approval. The commission scheduled further review at its next meeting and asked staff to share design options as soon as they are available.