ShareThis Page

Traffic worries delay Upper St. Clair project

Matthew Santoni
| Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Traffic concerns put a major development in Upper St. Clair on hold a little longer.

The planning commission last week again delayed approval of Siena at St. Clair, a mix of houses, shops and a Whole Foods store that would be built at the former Consol Energy headquarters on Route 19. A decision could occur when a traffic study is updated to consider the impact of a Target store that recently opened at South Hills Village mall, across from the proposed development.

“(The township) staff's questions were mostly technical things. Could they clarify these numbers or that chart?” township planning director Scott Brilhart said.

Neighbors along Fort Couch Road say traffic backs up far along their street during rush hour and the holiday season, and they worry the development would make things worse. Engineers for 1800 Washington Road Associates, the developers, say they likely would add turn lanes on Fort Couch and establish a small island outside the development's secondary entrance on Fort Couch so vehicles could only make right turns into or out of the development.

“(Project architect) Justin (Cipriani) came to our house, met with us and a few neighbors,” said Randy Shaffer, who lives on Fort Couch. “He said they'd keep the rest of our concerns in mind going forward.”

Meanwhile, another development on a large former farm will go before the full Board of Commissioners April 1. Officials will weigh two builders' final plans for the former Bedner Farm off Cook School Road. There will not be another public hearing on the plans — the master plan for the development was vetted during several meetings last spring — but the public can still comment during the commissioners' meeting.

Matthew Santoni is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.