Foothills Sentry - January 2024

Page 3 Foothills Sentry January 2024 Merry Christmas Happy Holidays -&- A Healthy, Happy, Prosperous 2024 New Year See ya’ll at Orange Park Association Annual General Membership Meeting 8:00 AM Saturday, January 27, 2024 Salem Church School Multipurpose Room Wishing the OPA Community Family Your Orange Park Association Board… We are honored to serve the community info@orangeparkacres.org OPA Hotline 714-900.2OPA(672) Neighbors challenge looming three-story development By Carrie Graham Residents near the intersection of Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue spoke out against a pro- posed project for medium density housing at a Dec. 6 Orange De- sign Review Committee (DRC) meeting. Over a dozen residents, most of whom live on East Carleton Street, which backs up to the planned community, showed up in person to have their voices heard. An additional 40 comments had been submitted via email. The development in question is a 49-unit community of single- family homes that will occupy the 2.7-acre lot where the former AT&T call center resides. The project consists of 17 sets of at- tached units and 15 standalone units ranging from 1,467 to 2,476 sq. ft., with three or four bed- rooms. Those located in the center and southern areas will be three stories high with a fourth-story roof deck, while those that back up to the homes on East Carleton will be two stories, with a 10-ft.- deep backyard. Best interests at heart Emilie Simard, project man- ager for Canada-based developer Intracorp Homes Newport Beach office, told the DRC and attend- ing neighbors that “the commu- nity will bring needed diversifica- tion of product type to the area, which aids in building a stronger urban fabric and character of a community.” She noted several other recent Intracorp developments con- structed in California, including the Lux community in Irvine and The Place in Costa Mesa. Intra- corp has built at least a half-dozen similar communities throughout Orange County. Along with the promise of more affordable hous- ing options within the city limits, Simard also pointed out that the site’s current abandoned build- ing is a draw for criminal activ- ity and transients. Removal of the A drone’s view of what second sto- ry residents of the proposed proj- ect will see from their windows. existing building will eliminate the need for regular patrols in the area by OPD, she said. But residents aren't sold. Many said that the multi-story, densely- packed housing would not match with the small-town aesthetic Or- ange prides itself on. “The current view that I have from my back- yard, I can see kind of a skyline,” longtime resident Alfred Tucker said. “I can see lights across the street. That's all going to disap- pear. All I'm going to see is the back of buildings. I understand the idea of putting more people in one spot, but we need to look at it a little bit closer because you lose a lot.” Don’t look down Another major concern is priva- cy, or lack thereof. The two-story homes are currently designed to include a large bedroom win- dow that will overlook the homes and backyards on East Carleton. Intracorp plans to use the exist- ing six-foot wall as its northern border. The developer intends to plant a tree in each backyard to help screen the view, but the resi- dents, one of whom brought pho- tos of those backyards from the height of the windows, say not only is it not enough, it will se- verely impact their quality of life. “For me, the direct line of sight will be my living room,” Janet Majick explained. “You get to see everything I do in the evening. My bathroom, my bedroom, my living room. You get to watch me live my life in a fishbowl. In or- der for me to have peace and tran- quility and feel secure in my own home, I will have to have my cur- tains closed for the rest of my life. What kind of quality of life will that be? I won’t get to enjoy the greenery in my own backyard.” The committee had its own concerns as well. One issue raised was that some of the new residents’ trash cans would have to block either fire lanes or neigh- bors’ backyard access on collec- tion day. Another was the practi- cality of the guest parking layout, which would require visitors to either walk the outer perimeter of the new neighborhood to reach their destination, or go through residents’ garages. Committee Chair Anne Mc- Dermott echoed the community's privacy concerns. She noted that Intracorp had not yet provided sufficient line-of-sight studies, but only three-dimensional ren- derings, and that the burden of privacy would rest on the exist- ing residents. “One hundred per- cent of your screening concept is based on this neighborhood defending against its invasion of privacy with its own trees, but you're the one doing the invading. You need to provide the trees to do the screening,” she said. Committee member Robert Imboden was also critical of the project. In addition to the trash and privacy issues, he noted that one of the two common areas will not be ADA-accessible. "Whether there's actually an ADA require- ment or not, it's still going to po- tentially prohibit a disabled per- son from using it,” he noted. “I want the developer to let that sink in, that grandma can't come to the barbecue." Many of the complaints from locals, however, couldn’t be ad- dressed by the DRC. While as- pects such as architecture, design integrity, privacy and compatibil- ity with surrounding area are un- der its purview, many others are not. The impact on property val- ues, population density, street and neighborhood traffic and parking, will be left to the Orange Plan- ning Commission or city council. The DRC ultimately decided the project wasn’t ready to move forward in its current state, and passed a motion for a continuance to Feb. 7.