NORTHAMPTON — If Sunwood Builders is to complete its envisioned 88,500-square-foot building in the heart of the city, it must first clear a fair bit of skepticism over the project plans.

The Amherst home builder and real estate company, which purchased the property of the former St. Mary’s church at 3 Elm St. — at the corner of Elm and State streets — for $1.1 million, plans to build a structure containing 71 apartments and 37 parking spaces, as well as space for a restaurant and cafe, on the section of the property facing State Street. The total cost of construction for the building, according to Sunwood owner and founder Shaul Perry, is $24 million.

On Thursday, the Planning Board held its first meeting to discuss the possibility of granting a special permit to construct the building. Presenting for the proposed project was Jeff Squire of Berkshire Design Group and Charles Roberts of Kuhn Riddle Architects & Designers. Perry was also present, but did not speak during the meeting.

Squire said plans call for turning the existing church rectory building into a 17-room inn, but remained vague on the future of St. Mary’s church itself, which has been closed since 2010 but figures prominently in the city’s skyline.

“There are plans to redevelop the church, but those plans are as of yet undetermined,” Squire said. “I think it will partially depend on the success of this project, and with the ability to do what we need to do here.”

Squire added that the building would conform to the city’s ordinances regarding lighting and prevention of fossil fuels in supplying heat and cooling. He also said that the project would mostly agree with the planned Picture Main Street project, which intends on remaking downtown up to the intersection the proposed building would sit on by narrowing the roads and adding bike lanes and expanding sidewalks.

“The only real revision that we’re suggesting is shortening a bike lane divider in this location, just shortening that by about 4 or 5 feet to allow for emergency vehicle access turning into the site,” Squire said.

Roberts acknowledged that the property existed “in two worlds,” located within the Elm Street Historic District as well as on the border of the city’s Central Business District. He also noted the building’s location between some of the city’s most iconic locations, such as Edwards Church, the DA Sullivan building, the Academy of Music and Smith College.

“It’s a really dynamic and determined site,” Roberts said. “There’s a lot going on, there’s a lot to respond to, there’s a lot you have to get right on this site, and we’ve been working our way through it.”

Roberts also emphasized that the project was being designed and developed locally, and that all those involved in the project understood the magnitude of building such a project in the area.

“We’re as emotionally invested in this development as anyone in the community,” Roberts said. “We take the design of this development very seriously, and we believe the design of this building needs to reflect the massing and rhythms of downtown buildings.”

The new building displayed in the rendering is broken into three connecting elements within the project description. One element is a section of the building four stories tall, with the first two stories reserved for spaces for a future restaurant and cafe along with an outdoor dining porch. The upper two stories would contain four two-bedroom townhouse units each.

 

A second element is a larger five-story structure with a parking garage on the first floor, containing both van-accessible and electric vehicle spaces. The other four floors contain 63 apartments, ranging in size from studios to two-bedrooms.

 

These two elements are connected by the third element, a three-story structure with a roof deck, four studio apartment and a second entrance to the parking garage.

Public weighs in

During the public comments section of the meeting, many expressed skepticism of Sunwood’s plans, particularly on what the company intends to do with the St. Mary’s church building.

“I see this building taking priority over the church, I’m wondering what is going to happen to the church,” said Michael Di Pasquale, a Northampton resident who is also a registered architect. “I think they should be required to tell us what the rest of the site is going to be used for ... It’s surprising to me and totally disappointing that a developer would buy a piece of land and not know what’s going to go in the church.”

Concerns about the church’s plans also came from Guido Mosca, another Northampton resident.

“He [Perry] is asking for a commitment from the Planning Board and a commitment from the Historical Commission, without any commitment whatsoever from him for the church, and there lies the problem,” Mosca said. “They’re using every square foot of the property, it seems, for this development, and there’s nothing for the church.”

Other residents spoke more favorably of the project, such as Gerrit Stover of Fairview Avenue.

“The property sat there for decades, the diocese didn’t help a whole lot, but it’s a really difficult proposition to build anything in Northampton, particularly at that scale,” Stover said. “Hopefully this building will make the preservation and the resurrection, if I may use that word, on the rectory of the church, feasible.”

Beyond assuaging public concerns over the church and obtaining a permit from the Planning Board, Sunwood must also obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s Historical Commission, due to the location being within the Elm Street Historic District. According to the standards listed by the commission, the new building’s proposed height, roof shape, and even the proportions of the windows and doors may be subject to scrutiny on whether they reflect the neighborhood’s overall character.

In its last meeting, the commission voted to postpone approving the certificate until after the Planning Board hearings. On Thursday, several Planning Board members questioned the feasibility of Sunwood’s ability to meet such criteria.

“My heart goes out to the developers and the designers, because the bar here is incredibly high,” said board member Janna White. “To put something here that’s going to match the character, I just don’t think it’s possible. So the question is, then, what do you do instead?”

Renderings of the proposed project have undergone a few changes since original submission, such as adding more brick exterior to the buildings, in an effort to conform to the character of the building. But board member Rich Baker seemed unimpressed by the changes.

“It barely makes a gesture to blend in with the surrounding buildings,” Baker said. “The lack of plans for the church, as the commentors pointed out, is very concerning, because they’re foreclosing their options by building such a big project and not including any capacity to do anything in the church.”

The board voted to continue its hearing on the planned project until Feb. 27.

Alexander MacDougall can be reached at amacdougall@gazettenet.com.