837 Camp St.

Description: Updates to previously approved new construction of 81,500 SF, six-story commercial building including removal of double garage doors at storefront.

Previous ARC & Commission Actions (& City Council Motions):

09/20/22: The ARC recommended conceptual approval with the details to be worked out at the staff level. The ARC agreed that the previously approved sixth-floor massing was more appropriate and should be used for the final design. The ARC recommended that the two garage doors be opaque rather than glass.  

09/15/22: City Council voted to overrule the HDLC denial of the two, 24’ wide garage doors at the new construction.

08/03/22: The Commission voted to deny the appeal of the ARC recommendation  to remove or adjust two garage doors on primary façade.

07/19/22: The ARC reiterated that the two garage doors are not appropriate on the primary façade of the building. The Committee has expressed that this programmatic concern could be accommodated on the interior of the building without requiring completely separate entrances. The two garage doors take up a majority of the ground floor elevation marring the continuity of the streetscape. The ARC stated that two 12’ garage doors in a material other than glass would be more appropriate and would allow the vertical pilasters to meet the ground. The ARC requested that a 3D rendering be submitted at the next meeting to review the relationship of the new logia at the top floor and the balconies below. 

10/19/21: The ARC reiterated that the two-door garage openings are not appropriate on the streetscape. The Committee has expressed that this programmatic concern could be accommodated on the interior of the building without requiring completely separate entrances. The two garage doors take up a majority of the ground floor elevation marring the continuity of the streetscape. The ARC also stated that the cornice and columns at the balconies read too heavy and should be visually lighter. 

09/21/21: The ARC stated that the updated drawings should reflect the actual dimensions of the existing sidewalk and utilities in relation to the proposed balcony. The ARC recommended shortening the balconies to 4’ in depth and separating the front and side balconies, as well as the roof overhang, to give the building a more prominent corner. The ARC recommended that all the pilasters be the same width, including the one on the far right. The ARC stated that the two-garage door configuration was not successful and that removing the center garage door would help balance the first-floor façade and the verticality of the overall building. The ARC also suggested that the rooftop landscaping should be small foliage like bushes rather than trees. 

08/04/21: The Commission voted to grant conceptual approval of the massing with the details to be worked out at ARC level, provided that the BZA grants the height waiver. 

07/20/21:  The ARC recommended conceptual approval of the massing with the details to be worked out at the ARC level, provided that the BZA grants the height waiver. The ARC agreed that Option 2 was more successful. However, they suggested that the vertical masonry pilasters carry all the way up on the third and fourth floors. The ARC also recommended that the bays be equally spaced across the façade or that the fenestration pattern becomes more asymmetric, so the offset appears more intentional. The vertical pilasters should also carry down through the first floor as much as possible (currently the one to the right is interrupted by the garage door). The ARC noted that the two-garage door configuration was not successful and that removing the center garage door would help balance the first floor façade and the verticality of the overall building. The ARC also recommended that the wrap around balcony should be separate front and side balconies and that the cross bracing should be consistent in plain and elevation. 

07/07/21: The Commission voted to defer action on the appeal of the ARC recommendation for deferral of new construction of the six-story commercial building,  to allow the applicant to continue to work with the ARC on the design. 

04/20/21: The ARC agreed that the proposed design, which creates the appearance of a two-story historic building with a contemporary addition above, is not successful and creates a false narrative. As the whole building is new, it should be designed holistically from the ground up. The ARC felt the contemporary steel and glass portion was more successful, but a more traditional style could also be used, as long as it is cohesive throughout. The ARC also had concerns about the two separate garage entrances, since they take up such a large percentage of the ground floor façade. It would be preferable if the garage could be reworked so that the ramp can be entered from the interior and a second garage door is not required.

Context Photos:

Current Drawings: 

Previous Drawings - 09/20/22: 

Previous Drawings - 07/19/22: 

Previous Drawings - 10/19/21: 

Previous Drawings - 09/21/21: 

Previous Drawings - 07/20/21: 

Previous Drawings - 04/20/21: 

Street View: