Residents, Developers Discuss Changes To Prence Plan

ORLEANS – After a series of sometimes contentious hearings before the zoning board of appeals over the proposed redevelopment of the former Governor Prence Inn property, residents sat down with the project’s developers last week to talk through the plans face to face.

The Sept. 1 workshop at town hall grew out of the zoning board’s last hearing on the 78-unit housing development on Aug. 18. At that hearing, it was decided that a working group would be formed to meet with representatives from Housing Assistance Corporation, Preservation of Affordable Housing and Habitat for Humanity Cape Cod to address issues raised with the proposal. 

HAC, POAH and Habitat are proposing to build 61 rental units in two buildings at the rear of the 5.5-acre parcel, an additional 10 ownership units in two townhouses fronting Route 6A and seven single-family homes on the eastern side of the property that will be overseen by Habitat. But concerns have been raised about the massing of one of the rental buildings at the back of the property, as well as the design of some of the buildings.

Last week’s workshop specifically brought residents and the development team together to discuss the massing of what’s known on renderings as “Building 1,” the design of the second rental building, “Building 2,” and parking on the property. The working group included zoning board members Sibel Asantugrul and David Lyttle, Planning Board Chair Debbie Oakes, Andrew Miao and Richard Morongell, both professional architects and members of the architectural review committee, and two at-large members of the public, architects Peter Haig and Joy Cumming.

Miao addressed the project’s overall density, asking if the 78 units proposed for the development are “fixed.” Elizabeth Jenkins, the town’s assistant director of planning and community development, said it was, adding that the request for proposals prepared for the project specifically called for the maximum number of units that could be developed on the property.

“You guys were all convened here today not to sort of rehash where we are in terms of unit count,” Jenkins said. “You guys all have a unique voice and I think a unique ability to speak to some of the specific design issues that have been raised.”

There was discussion about reducing the amount of surface parking planned for the project. The design calls for 122 spaces in total, including 88 for the rental buildings and two spaces for each of the 17 ownership units on the property.

The rental spaces average out to about 1.5 per unit, said David Quinn of HAC. The working group asked if that number could be reduced to just one space per rental unit, which would reduce the amount of parking on the property by 27 spaces. 

“I think that’s a little bit lower than we want to go,” Quinn said.

But Peter Freeman, the attorney representing the developers, said there was room to potentially eliminate a few spaces from the plan. The developers said they would be open to possibly removing up to 10 spaces planned in the vicinity of green space in the center of the proposed development. Asanatugrul said that removing those spaces would open up the greenspace and possibly allow for a playground.

“I think all those things would be a lot more positive for this project, and then it would also be more of a buffer for the larger buildings in the back,” she said.

Asantugrul, another local architect, had created her own alternate design of the project that was given consideration at the Sept 1 workshop. That design proposed reducing the mass of Building 1 by spreading the units across three buildings. Asantugrul also proposed moving the Habitat units to the opposite side of the property, setting the townhouses farther back from Route 6A and situating a portion of the project parking underneath Building 1.

“You look at that staggered three building design, I like it,” said Paul Attemann, the project’s architect with Union Studio Architecture and Community Design. “I think you’re right. It breaks up the mass, it has some opportunity. How it functions as a usable parking layout or garage, I cannot imagine it. None of us could have.”

Charlie Diac of POAH added that an underground parking component would come at considerable cost, and likely would not be welcomed by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. He roughly estimated that creating garage parking would cost between $2 million and $3 million.

“The reality is the cost of structured parking is extremely high, especially in an area where there’s severe grading changes and there’s some weird structural stuff going on,” he said.

Some working group members asked about creating some public access on the property, including allowing people access to the Cape Cod Rail Trail behind the development. But the developers said that allowing public access could compromise their ability to properly insure the property. Diac said the state, which is helping finance the project through low income tax credits, is particular about allowing easements and encroachments. 

“It would be great,” Freeman said. “Nobody says it wouldn’t be great, but it really is a management and an insurance issue.”

But Oakes pressed for some public access to be allowed for a small park planned for the property’s entrance from Route 6A.

“If you’re going to have grass and trees and a bench, people coming from Ice Cream Cafe and Cooke’s, they’re gonna stop there,” she said.

Discussion also was given to the design of Buildings 1 and 2. The working group voiced support for a redesign of Building 1 utilizing a slanted, salt box roof. Revisions to Building 2 included a wraparound porch and an entrance on the building’s north side. Lyttle, meanwhile, asked about the potential for creating a turnaround area for buses on the property.

Feedback from the Sept. 1 workshop will be presented to the zoning board ahead of its next hearing on the Prence project on Sept. 23.