Letters Already Filed Regarding
Stetson Rental Duplexes
The County requested comments be filed by Feb. 8
if possible so staff can review
However, comments can be filed anytime up to the scheduled hearing date, Feb
24th.
(All received by webmaster as of 2/8/2005)
February 3, 2005
Anthony Ginn
3636 Felsite Avenue
Rosamond, CA 93560
Kern County Planning Department
Attention: Scott F. Denney, Planner 3
2700 “M” Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Denney, et al,
This letter is being written in concern of the planning effort for PD2/MOD1 Zoning Map 231-13 “The Crossings at Rosamond”. Kern County’s past planning efforts with respect to the Rosamond Skypark should be applauded for the responsible planning that has been performed around the Skypark to date. The Rosamond Skypark has operated peacefully with its surrounding community for over 20 years. It is a model that is being used by other Skypark developers around the country to ensure good community relations. The use of avigation agreements for all developmental activities for a 3 mile radius around the Skypark and the appropriate spacing of low-density/airport property from high-density housing are two excellent examples of what has made for a peaceful environment. We consider the Skypark a valuable asset to the community for its ability to allow Medivac helicopters and airplanes to quickly transport local citizens to distant hospitals. I have seen the benefits of this and it becomes even more important now that the local highways become increasingly clogged with daily commuters.
The decision to allow such a high-density rental project such as “The Crossings at Rosamond” to be developed has many owners in the Rosamond Skypark, the Cielo Vista Tract and the Sedona Tract very concerned. We all realize the property is zoned R-2. What most owners were expecting from our Kern County Planning Department was responsible planning by allowing that property to be developed as high-quality town-homes, as opposed to the bottom-end of the rental spectrum. A quick check of the Rosamond Skypark property values adjoining the planned development will show some of the highest property values, per square foot, in Kern County. I doubt that any of the city planners would approve that type of lower-income development to be built near their homes.
It is has been proven in California, in America and in other countries that social mixing only works when it is done in a gradient manner. What is being proposed here is not a responsible, graduated step but a case of a steep division between what exists now and what is planned. The tax-paying citizens in the adjoining tracts deserve more consideration than this. Proof exists in the Kern County Sheriff’s records of how a lower-income subdivision does not work well next to higher income property. For nearly a decade the residents surrounding the trailer park (adjoining the proposed development to the East) had to endure the havoc created by trailer park residents and their visitors. The local housing tracts were constant victims of robbery, vandalism, loud parties held late into the night, and an exorbitant amount of graffiti to their property and surrounding properties. The problems did not subside until the trailer park was sold to a conscientious owner who made some improvements to the property, but more importantly, evicted the bad elements.
The Sheriff was a frequent sight in the area taking report after report. I know this for fact as I was a victim of two separate tire-slashing events and another where two of my car windows were smashed. The Sheriff’s even commented that there were known gang members and drug dealers living in the trailer park and that it was easier for them to keep them there, in a known location, than to evict them and not know where they were operating.
It is a fact that crime, drugs, over-crowding (per individual unit), illegal aliens, etc. are associated with high–density housing. We do not need this in Kern County, Rosamond and, especially, our peaceful neighborhood. Of special concern is the proximity of this high-density project in relation to the Rosamond Skypark. Airports, by nature, have special security aspects that need to be considered. There has not been a theft problem in the past but bringing in a different element could change things. Expensive aircraft components such as radios, GPS and other equipment, and the airplane itself, need to be kept safe from theft and vandalism. In light of the events on 11 September 2001, special attention must be paid to the security of the airplanes located at all of our nations airports.
It is obvious from looking at the development plans that the developers are interested in only one thing … PROFITS. Examples include but are not limited to:
- The request for set-backs below minimums to gain maximum density.
- Their use of the 10 foot minimum distance between the structure and the property line provides virtually no useable space for back yards.
- The identical, projects-like structures (packed-in like sardines) is reminiscent of something from a metropolitan nightmare. It does not fit in with this former agricultural community.
- The lack of any playground or park area shows no consideration for the people that will eventually occupy the rentals. Children will be playing in the parking lots and streets.
- Lack of an RV storage area will, inevitably, mean that excess cars, boats and trailers will end up being parked on the streets – adding to the danger and reducing the quality of life for the current property owners.
- Lack of common areas, landscaped areas or beautification plans. In fact, as a local aviator for the past 25 years in this area, I don’t know of another development that is as densely packed as this and as void of any amount of landscaping; whether it be grass, gardens or trees.
- The owner of the trailer park reported that the developers are requesting they not be required to fence the east and west sides of the project, instead proposing to use the existing wood and cinder-block fences of the adjoining trailer park and Sedona properties. If you look at the present condition of these fences (greater than 16 years old) it is easy to predict there will be more problems ahead between the duplex renters and homeowners.
For 14 years (1989 – 2003), I lived on Stetson Avenue one block away from the planned project. The traffic is high on Stetson Avenue from people that live West of 45th Street West that enter Stetson Avenue from a dirt access road. Most times, this “desert traffic” is traveling at much higher speeds than those that live in homes that connect to this street. The lack of back yards, a playground or park at the “The Crossings” will force the children living there to play in the street on Stetson or Sedona Avenues, or worse yet, on or near Rosamond Boulevard. The life of one child is not worth the extra profit in the developer’s hands by forcing the maximum density possible in lieu of decent-sized yards and a playground. I find it very irresponsible for the County to consider this development without considering additional environmental documents for traffic, density and health-related issues. At the very least, the County Planners should exclude access from Stetson Avenue. It just creates extra traffic through the Sedona and Cielo Vista neighborhoods. We expect our public officials to be held accountable for their actions. A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the parent’s of any children killed in traffic related accidents in this area.
As previously mentioned, I have lived near the proposed development since 1989. I have seen the local area go through some rough times until the trailer park was upgraded, socially and physically. The neighborhood has been very peaceful for the past 7 years. My wife and I have just completed construction of a custom home on the Skypark with plans of living there another 20-30 years until retirement. We are very concerned about what this type of development will do to the peaceful environment that currently exists, about the increased workload of the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, about the decrease in property values of the surrounding homes and about the possible loss of the Skypark due to noise complaints.
I ask the Kern County Planners to carefully consider all of the impacts of this project. Primarily, who will benefit from this development vs. who and how many will see a reduction in their quality of life. I encourage you to seek consultation from some of the Social Health professionals regarding low-income, high-density housing and its impacts on the community. I encourage you to search the Sheriff’s records to verify the large number of problems that were reported due to the previous low-income rental environment. Finally, ask yourselves if this project would gain your approval if it adjoined your property. Rosamond may be “out-of-sight : out-of-mind” to those of you on the other side of the mountains in the County Seat -- but we enjoy our peaceful corner of the County and want to continue to work with the Planning Department to ensure that Rosamond, and the Skypark, continues to be a peaceful, pleasant community. Thank you for your careful consideration.
Kind Regards,
Anthony Ginn
3973 Knox Ave.
Rosamond, CA 93560
February 3, 2005
Ted James, Director
Kern County Planning Department
2700 “M” Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: PD Plan #2, Map #231-13; MOD #1, Map #231-13
Dear Mr. James:
Regarding subject project, which has much lower standards than currently exist in the neighborhood, this project would be inappropriate for the neighborhood and will most certainly not enhance the quality of life in this area.
To place such a high-density complex directly against upscale single-family neighborhoods is bad planning and will most certainly devalue other properties nearby. We fail to see how it would be in the best interests of present homeowners or businesses, as minimal size rental units are usually a prelude to an increase in crime.
The request for a setback variance in order to place another unit in the project is not appropriate and should be denied.
This project would cause serious problems in terms of density of vehicle parking on a street that has lanes 26' wide, minus the 4' sidewalks, leaving only 18' for traffic (equivalent to less than a normal 2-car garage door opening!). The plans indicate little or no yard area for families or play areas for children. The recreation and office building and the bathtub-sized pool are not of adequate size for an eighty-apartment project.
We have other questions regarding water drainage problems in the area of Stetson Avenue. There appears to be no sump area for water runoff as was required for the Skypark and the development at Rosamond Blvd. and 40th St. West.
The Rosamond Skypark has overfly easements on developed areas within a one-mile radius of the airport, such as the project at Rosamond Blvd. and 40th St. West. Most importantly, there is the security issue with the airport property and the aircraft based there. The Department of Homeland Security is extremely interested in the security of all airports and forceful in requiring constant vigilance in the area surrounding an airport.
Granting this high-density project request at this location would most certainly devalue adjacent properties and would not be in the best interest of homeowners and businesses in this area, nor of their safety. We request the Planning Department deny the subject project.
Very truly yours, /S/ FLOYD E MATHEWS
February 2, 2005
Kern County Planning Department
2700 M Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: PD Plan #2, Map #231-13, MOD #1, Map #231-13
Ted James, Director Planning Department
The proposed development consists of 40 relatively high-density two-story apartment buildings located between a single-family track of homes and a low density mobile home park. Considering the existing surrounding developments, 20 units would be a more reasonable density. Single family homes would be more consistent with the surrounding area.
The proposed interior north-south road is open to both Sedona on the south and Stetson on the north. Closing the road to Stetson and having it terminate in a cul-de-sac would be highly desirable.
I am a homeowner who lives about three blocks from the proposed development. I strongly object to the current proposal. I would have no objection to additional single-family homes on the property.
Respectfully,
Alexander G Sim
4460 Knox Ave
Rosamond CA 93560
|
John & Danielle Wilson |
February 3, 2005
Don Maben, Supervisor
1115
Truxton Avenue, Room 502
Bakersfield,
CA 93301
Dear Mr. Maben :
On February 24th a planning hearing is scheduled regarding the Rosamond-area project addressed in the enclosed copy of my letter to the Planning Board.
I am copying you directly on this as I wanted to be certain you became aware of the considerable stir this proposed project is generating in the surrounding neighborhoods. I believe a number of other letters are being filed by various area residents, and personal attendance at the hearing is planned by several individuals.
I know the enclosed is a bit long but I think it does provide a general perspective of the situation and at least touches upon most of our areas of concern about the project. I hope you can take the time to review and evaluate all this, and of course I also hope you can participate in the mitigation (love that word) of our concerns.
Sincerely,
John K. Wilson
|
4380 Knox Avenue •
Rosamond, CA • 93560 Phone: 661-256-4600 • Fax: 888-473-0934 |
|
John & Danielle Wilson |
February 3, 2005
Kern County Planning Department
Attn:
Scott F. Denney, Planner 3
2700
“M” Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield,
CA 93301
RE: PD2/MOD1 Zoning Map 231-13
Dear Sirs:
As an owner of property located within 500 feet of the proposed development and a resident who will be impacted by it, I wish to file the following comments and objections.
General Comments: This is the first high-density rental property to be proposed for this area of single-family and overwhelmingly owner-occupied dwellings. As such, it would stand in marked contrast to the Sedona and Rosamond Skypark developments that will border it. The Sedona tract, currently separated only by a wood fence on the west side, is a single-family neighborhood of R-1 housing. On the north side, Rosamond Skypark, facing the project site across residential Stetson Avenue, is an upscale (2 units/acre) development whose individual home valuations are the highest in Rosamond, some now reaching $400,000. The monetary values of all these homes will be negatively impacted by the proposed development, as will the overall quality-of-life for their occupants.
While I recognize that the proposed development is in general compliance with established zoning for the property, I have significant concerns and objections regarding the proposed design/implementation of the project and its overall effect on the neighborhood.
My understanding of the history of this property is that its R-2 classification within the surrounding R-1 and higher zoned properties was put into place years ago in order to accommodate the then-owner’s desire to build a 37-unit condominium project on the property. In this same space it is now proposed to build rentals to house 80 families, who by the nature of the project will include numerous children. A glance at the plot plan supplied to us shows plainly that what is being proposed is an instant tenement project, with narrow alley-like streets, limited parking, virtually no yard space, no room for landscaping, no open areas for children to play.
I address my concerns and objections more specifically as follows:
Overall Density and Variance Request: At over 10 units per project acre (which includes street areas, apparently) this project more than matches the allowed zoning. This is possible due to its request for variance to the required 55-foot setback in order to squeeze one more duplex building onto the property. I oppose the granting of this variance on the grounds that further relaxing already minimal standards would be a move in exactly the wrong direction, serving only to compound the negative aspects of the proposal.
Population Loading vs. Mitigation: We constantly hear of developers being required to provide large sums for the mitigation of impact on obscure rodents or plants. Except for an “office/rec room” of questionable utility and a small pool, no area mitigation to compensate for the population loading being shoehorned into this property is apparent. I characterized this development as a “tenement project” because it mirrors the vision of a crowded big-city slum with children playing ball in narrow streets amongst parked vehicles and traffic. Even the ancient trailer park on the east side of this project provides a more up-scale and people-friendly environment for its residents. In an area with no shortage of available land, permitting this type of design is socially indefensible, regardless of the monetary aspects for the developer.
Project Spillover / Security / Quality of Life: These effects are extensions of my density/mitigation complaint. Because of the extremely tight construction proposed for this property, there will be an inevitable spillover of human activities and vehicles for which no room is provided within the development. Children will naturally seek room to play in the more open streets and properties that surround the project, bringing safety problems for themselves and security problems for the adjoining neighborhoods. Extra cars, boats, trailers, RVs and similar equipment owned by tenants will inevitably spill into parking space outside the development. This overflow will particularly gravitate onto Stetson Avenue on the north side of the property because Stetson has on its south side stretches of curbing unbroken by access entrances. It is significant to note that on the opposite side of Stetson, across from the project’s north face, the Skypark development’s owners are prohibited by quality-of-life provisions of their CC&Rs from parking their RVs, boats, trucks & trailers on the street. This is a measure of the jarring contrast that is being proposed here.
Traffic Concerns: I do not find any traffic count data in the material provided, and would like to have a copy of the County’s analysis for the project. As proposed, the development will have a main north-south access path connecting to Sedona Street on the south end and opening to Stetson Avenue on the north. In addition to the main access street’s opening onto Stetson, there will also be six units with garages that open directly onto Stetson. It is my understanding that an arrangement that has vehicles backing directly out onto a through street is impermissible. I note that what appear to be small turn-around pads are incorporated for these entrances, but I question their utility in the real world. I submit it is highly likely that the pads, and indeed the ramps into the garages themselves, will merely serve as parking space from which vehicles will simply back directly onto the street. I would like to see an alternate arrangement where, if traffic access onto Stetson is unavoidable, it is via a single street opening.
Proximity to Airport: While accepted planning guidelines suggest that no high-density housing be allowed under airport traffic patterns, I recognize that these guidelines are rarely considered and virtually never followed. However, it is a factor to mention in passing, as the “downwind” portion of the Rosamond Skypark’s traffic pattern passes over this property. I believe the Rosamond Skypark Association has, or will, forward a request that approval of any project on this property be conditioned by the requirement that an easement for air navigation be granted by the developer/owners. I personally second this request.
Wrap-up Comments: While there must be a variety of housing sized and priced to accommodate the variety of public needs, there must also be a balanced approach to neighborhood development. Balance is totally lacking in this juxtaposition, where single-family $400,000-class homes would be directly facing maximum density-minimum amenity rental housing. I urgently request that the County mandate that this development be re-designed with significantly reduced density and additional “quality of life” amenities more in keeping with the neighborhood into which it is being inserted.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project.
Sincerely, John K. Wilson
|
4380 Knox Avenue •
Rosamond, CA • 93560 Phone: 661-256-4600 • Fax: 888-473-0934 |
Edwin W. Lewis, Jr.
Box 2151
Rosamond CA 93560-2151
Mr. Scott F. Denney
Kern County Planning Department
2700 “M” Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield CA 93301-2370
3 February 2005
Dear Mr. Denney:
Have just been apprised of the
County Hearing regarding proposed modification to Map 231-13 which would
effectively allow a new 80-unit rental complex to abut against and be within
the noise and traffic pattern of the Rosamond Skypark. As a resident (3773 Knox
Avenue) of the Skypark I am opposed to said addition for several reasons.
Economically, the proposal is at variance
with the current Skypark single-family residences and will inexorably devalue
those properties.
Socially, the Skypark has historically
enjoyed a fairly low crime rate -- my doors have been unlocked for weeks at a
time without property disturbance. That will likely change and not for the
better.
Others may -- and should --
object to the unknown and unsurveyed increase in traffic, required variances
etc. as issues as well but my overriding concern is this: there is ample
historical precedent which demonstrates that adding more people into the
airport area who have no visceral attachment to it will ultimately force the
closure of the Skypark as an airport.
If Kern County favors the
continuation of the Rosamond Skypark they logically should either reject the
addition outright or force an iron-clad avigation easement which may not be
later nullified by the legal industry acting on behalf of the Developer or
subsequent tenants.
Cordially,
Edwin W. Lewis, Jr.
Friday, February 04, 2005
From:
Norman
Howell
4400 Knox Ave
Rosamond (Skypark) CA 93560
To:
Scott F Denney, Staff
Planner, Kern County
Re:
PD2/MOD1 Zoning Map
231-13
“The Crossings at
Rosamond”
I am writing in
opposition to the proposed development of the subject R-2 district. The planned
unit density is too high for the area, and location of this type of housing
development next to an E (1/2) district with half-million dollar homes is very
poor planning to say the least. Ideally the subject district should be zoned
R-1 FPS H like the district to the west, and a similar quality single-family
housing development be placed there. However, failing that, the density of the
proposed development should be reduced by 1/3, with a maximum of 24 duplexes,
entry and exit roads the same width as Stetson Avenue and Sedona Street, a plan
for green space and a play area inside the development, and a plan for a higher
setback and landscaping along Stetson Avenue. Under no circumstances should any
unit’s driveway open onto Stetson Avenue. Preferably there would be no opening onto
Stetson at all. Also, the Rosamond Skypark will be advocating an avigation
easement for the district just like the easement that currently exists above
several other housing developments in the area. This easement must be granted
to ensure the equitable enjoyment of the area for all concerned.
Regards,
Norman E. Howell
Paul
A. Rosales
1808
W. Avenue K11
Lancaster,
CA 93534
(661)
948-0646
rosales@bigfoot.com
Property
Owner: 4281 Stetson Avenue
February
4, 2005
Dear
Mr. Denney
I am
writing this letter of opposition in response to a letter I received from your
office detailing the planned duplex apartment complex outlined in PD2/Mod1, Map
231-13 (The Crossings) proposed for Rosamond, CA.
My
wife and I own a one-half acre lot (#40) directly across the street and north
of the proposed complex; my property address is 4281 Stetson Avenue. I am
currently having plans for our new home drawn up, and we will be starting
construction of our Skypark home by late spring.
I feel
there are numerous reasons why this complex should not be approved for
construction which I will outline here.
I
believe that locating a major high-density apartment complex across the street
from upscale single-family homes is not a good idea and will definitely impact
the property values of all those home around the complex including mine which
will immediately be devalued from it's estimated 500K construction cost.
I
believe that approving the construction of the apartment complex is poor policy
regarding the quality of life of the adjacent neighborhoods, especially for the
people who own the 14 homes on Sedona Avenue that will directly back up against
the proposed complex. The proposed complex requires only a 10’ setback
from the fence of these 14 homes essentially putting the complex in their
neighbors backyard.
It
appears that the developer is trying to cram in a many units as possible with
no regard for the quality of life tenants will have to endure daily living in
VERY CLOSE proximity to their neighbors. The developer even asks for a
variance on a wall so as to cram one more unit in. Compromising the
already minimal standards is not in the best interest of the existing
neighborhoods or future tenants.
The
project appears to maximize the use of an absolute minimum area of land.
There is no indication or depiction that any future beautification for a common
area, park or any open space is planned. This is because there is no room
available to do this with the current proposed design. No large scale
playgrounds are depicted for use by the at least 200+ kids who will more than
likely live in the proposed 80-family apartment complex if completed.
By the
very nature of apartments, they will attract young families with young kids
(note the plural). With 3 of these units across the street from me, I can
tell you that with kids living in an apartment with virtually little yard to
play in behind their apartment, these kids will be using my large front yard
and neighbors' front yards as their playground.
The
very small apartment backyards appear to be a sad attempt to show a play area
and will add little value to the play needs of kids. I am a school
teacher and know well how kids get restless and need to get out and run
around.
The
addition of a pool is feeble attempt at providing recreation as pools here in
the Antelope Valley are usable 3, maybe 4 months out of the year. And one
pool to accommodate the needs of EIGHTY (80) families, hundreds of apartment
residents, is ludicrous. They need open space…not a community swimming
pool.
I have
always believed that "If you don't keep your kids entertained, they will
entertain themselves, and you probably won't like it."
Approving the construction of an apartment complex directly across
the street from an active airport is a very bad idea.
AIRPLANES
ATTRACT KIDS AND THE TWO DON'T MIX! I own an airplane as do most of my
neighbors (which is why we live at the Skypark). I have been a pilot for
25 years, and I can tell you that airplanes are 'kid magnets'.
I know
from experience that kids coming from the proposed complex and not used to
being around airplanes make for a dangerous combination. The kids who
live on the Skypark with parents who own airplanes all have a great respect for
being around airplanes. Noise complaints are sure to arise from tenants
of the proposed apartment complex.
On
traffic congestion, from what I can read on the tiny map that was included with
my information packet, 3 of the 40 complex units will be located directly
across the street and facing my property. The street in my yard will
become a virtual parking lot as is ALWAYS the case with apartments; numerous
cars parked in the streets.
In
front of each apartment, there appears to be no room for any landscaping with
essentially little or no front yards. The 3 dwellings depicted on Stetson
appear to have some sort of cutouts (‘turn-around’) in the driveway to allow
cars to back into without having to backup into the street.
These
cutouts will more than likely be used to park extra cars, trailers of the likes
and will result in cars backing at will directly onto the soon-to-become busy
Stetson Avenue if the complex is approved.
I
would like to know what, if any, studies have been conducted in regards to
traffic flow related to vehicles using both Stetson and Sedona Avenues as the
main entrances. I can’t even begin to imagine the traffic flow in/out of
Stetson and Sedona Avenues for 80 families along with family and friends
visiting.
I’ll
will take a guess though: 40 apartment units equates to 80 families, and
with 2 drivers per family is 160 vehicles. Throw in a few teenage
drivers, some family visiting along with a few friends dropping by….Stetson and
Sedona Avenues will automatically become overflow parking lots for all the
extra cars, not to mention any trailers and RVs that could follow.
I feel
the parking situation that will be created with the construction of the
apartment complex is big area of concern for me. Increased traffic means
increased noise with an increase in accidents.
The
streets appear VERY narrow which makes me wonder how safe is that?
Unless
you own a compact car, the streets appear to be very narrow.
It's
not easy to imagine how the residents will even be able to navigate vehicles
larger than compact cars in and out of their garages into the narrow
streets.
On
security, once again, construction of this apartment complex will surely result
in a rise in crime as has historically been shown with the addition of apartments
into any neighborhood. When you consider the value of a Skypark owner's
home, property, hangar value and AIRCRAFT, the cumulative values can EASILY
exceed 1 million dollars. Our homes will fast become targets for increased
crime including theft, vandalism, and graffiti in the neighborhood.
I
implore you to disapprove the planned 40-unit duplex apartment complex outlined
in PD2/Mod1, Map 231-13, located in Rosamond, CA. I would also suggest
that you consider changing the zoning to low density, R-1 residential housing
units.
Thank
you for your careful consideration, and for the opportunity to share my
thoughts and opinions,
Paul
A. Rosales
Feb 3, 2004
RE: PDE/MOD1 Map 231-13
Crossings at Rosamond
Via Fax:
Scott Denney
Staff Planner
Kern County
Please take this letter under
consideration in making this important decision
We are a retired couple in our
late sixitie who have saved over the years to buy a retirement at the Skypark,
as my husband’s hobby is rebuilding old aircraft. We are located at 4161
Stetson Ave. in Rosamond.
With this plan for eighty
apartments (duplexes) have you considered the high edesity & the security
issues this neighborhood will be subject to.
The overload of traffic on Stetson
Ave. (have you done a traffic study on Stetson?)
During our heavy rains in January
our street was flooded way over the sidewalks as well as our sump overflowing
at the corner of Stetson & 40th St. With this high density
impact Stetson will surely be a disaster as far as the flooding goes and Kern
County will have some real expense.
In Lancaster between Fern and Elm
and Jackman and Kettering, they have just gone in ant totally demolished units
just like these because they became such trash. Can’t we maybe not make
the same mistake Lancaster did and we can learn from their experience. We
certainly don’t want our neighborhood to become what Lancaster just paid big
money to get rid of.
I understand it is illegal to back
out on to Stetson Ave. The turn around for the cars in the parking does
hardly give enough room for a full size car, so they will be backing out
illegally. With children playing in the street or coming over on the
taxiways or the runway by crossing over someone’s private property. The
skypark properties are fully fenced but are private homes, not high security
areas. This is an accident waiting to happen.
My understanding was this property
was zoned for 37 condos by the previous owner. How can we possibly go
from 37 to 80 units and keep the quality of life the same in our area. I
also understand you need a variance for 50 feet when it should be at least 55
feet. Please do not approve this.
Also please take into
consideration the expensive homes in this area & what a development like
this would do to the property owners, such as values going down (less property
tax for Kern County).
Thank you for taking these
concerns seriously. We will see you on February 24th.
Sincerely, Paul and Patricia Whitson,
4161 Stetson Ave. Rosamond, CA 93560