Planning Commission denied proposal for new building
Various spots at Ridgemark have fliers promoting next week’s
county board meeting where supervisors will consider an appeal of a
planning commission rejection, for a 19,500 square-foot shopping
center along the road entering the property, where unused tennis
courts and overflow parking now exist.
Planning Commission denied proposal for new building
Various spots at Ridgemark have fliers promoting next week’s county board meeting where supervisors will consider an appeal of a planning commission rejection, for a 19,500 square-foot shopping center along the road entering the property, where unused tennis courts and overflow parking now exist.
The owners of Ridgemark realize they might need some support at the Tuesday meeting.
Ridgemark is distributing the fliers, which encourage supporters to attend the meeting, and it also posted a billboard promoting the message along the main road next to the golf course.
Alex Kehriotis contended that during an open house about a year ago, around 150 people were in attendance and of those polled, he estimated 95 percent were in favor of it.
“It’s the natural spot for a shopping center,” Kehriotis said. “The vast majority of homeowners actually do want that.”
He claimed that a vocal minority has followed the proposal along “every step” and he is hoping more project supporters show up Tuesday. Opponents of the shopping center have argued it would obstruct their views, while they have contended the proposed structure in the plans is too close to their homes.
Planning commissioners in August unanimously denied the proposal for the commercial center that is looking to attract what Ridgemark has described as “neighborhood-friendly” tenants after John Kehriotis, Alex’s father and the other owner, told the panel members that he would not change anything in the plan’s design.
Commissioner Ignacio Velazquez, in response to public concerns, had questioned Kehriotis about making changes, including an idea to move the shopping center so that the structure would neighbor the golf course instead of the nearby condominiums. Velazquez has said he does not oppose the project but that “another location would benefit the community in a more positive manner.”
The project at 151 Ridgemark Drive would act primarily as a neighborhood shopping destination and would include parking, landscaping and an outdoor patio “with its primary purpose being to serve the neighborhood community by providing retail/office space,” according to a county report.
“The commissioners were trying to tell us to basically scrap this project and redo it along this area, which would be right along the golf course,” Alex Kehriotis said, pointing to a diagram while seated in his office. “That’s not really their job, I feel. This is the only thing that makes sense for us, for a number of reasons.”
Kehriotis said the site is ideal because it adds visibility for tenants, maximizes potential building space and allows for another 22 parking rows.
He also disagreed with the argument about the commercial center obstructing views, noting that the Ridgemark owners “inherited tennis courts in disuse.”
Those former tennis courts next to a group of condominiums, where opponents reside, are also next to Ridgemark’s overflow parking on the other side closest to the restaurant.
“They’ve had an obstructed view for the last 30 years, and we’re trying to bring this lot to something a little more presentable,” he said. “The best use is a modern, attractive shopping center.”
He attributed tension at the commission meeting to “frustration” over two years of work planning the center.
Beyond opponents’ primary concern about the general location, they have broached the initially proposed setback on the Ridgemark side of the border of 10 feet, and there is consideration to move that distance to 20 feet.
Armstrong said because John Kehriotis used an “ultimatum” in the August meeting, it led to less communication among commissioners and the denial.
“Their job, like the board,” Armstrong said of the planning commission, “is to try and obtain the best possible projects for the county. Oftentimes planning commissioners and board members ask questions to show they understand the public’s concern and that they’re doing their best to address those concerns. In the end, they have to balance what’s best for the community overall.”
Supervisors will have several choices, said Gary Armstrong, the county planning director whose staff endorsed the Kehriotis plan as it was presented. They can approve the proposal as is or with changes, send it back to the planning commission for further review or deny it.
