Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer asks to pull Kedron Square bond calls as property owner and tenants complain about year-long roadwork
Summary
A Kedron/Key Jones Square developer asked the board to remove two consent items related to bond calls and defer action to Oct. 6; a nearby property owner described roadwork and access problems that have lasted over a year.
A developer for Key Jones Square, Peter Ripley, told the board on Sept. 15 he wanted two consent-agenda items (Resolutions 25,220 and 25,221 related to bonds for Keegan Road and School Street/Kedron Square) removed from the consent agenda and deferred until the Oct. 6 BOMA meeting. Ripley said the developer received new direction that morning requiring open-trench roadway work at four locations and that the developer needs time to update scope, pricing and schedule and to secure city approvals before the board acts.
"We received direction, that we do, in fact, have to open trench the roadway in at least 4 different locations," Ripley said, asking for time to "get our arms around" the updated scope and cost impacts.
During public comment, a nearby property owner identified as Miss Fitz (2142 Sugar Ridge) described ongoing disruption from the same project along School Street that has affected small businesses, clients and service access. She told the board an originally described 30-day road closure has persisted for over a year and said tenants and customers have experienced difficulty accessing properties because roads and rear entrances remain closed. She also said mapping (Google) directs drivers onto incomplete roads, compounding the problem for out-of-town customers.
The board did not pull the items from the consent agenda at the meeting; the consent agenda — which as presented included the two bond-related resolutions — was approved in the record as "Consent agenda is approved. Seven-zero with 1 no vote, 1 abstaining." Peter Ripley had requested a deferral to Oct. 6 to allow the developer and city to reconcile the revised construction direction.
Next steps: The developer requested the board consider the item on Oct. 6 after additional coordination; the transcript contains no subsequent action or board direction beyond the public request and the consent-agenda vote described above.
