City of Charleston BAR-S - 2/13/25

I. Introduction

• The meeting was called to order by Bill Perner, who was sitting in for the regular chairwoman, Miss Slam Brook.

• Board members present: Becky fno, Laura Alman, Daryl COV, and Joel Trantham.

• City staff present: Frankie Pinto, the VS coordinator, and a senior preservation planner.

• The order of the meeting was explained:

  • Staff introductions and overview of applications.

  • Presentations by the applicants (10 minutes each).

  • Board questions for the applicants.

  • Public comment.

  • City staff comments and recommendations.

  • Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes).

  • Board discussion (no public comment allowed).

  • Meeting results posted online and on YouTube.

• Important reminder: The board is an Architectural Review Board, not a zoning board. Comments should be limited to architecture and architectural elements.

• Three agenda items were deferred: Items A1, A2, and B2 (Council Street).

II. Project Presentations and Discussions

• A. 18 Wentworth Street (Demolition)

  • Applicant: Joel Adrian.

  • Proposal: Demolition of an existing structure.

  • Existing structure: Just over 1,000 square feet, with bedrooms, a bathroom, a small kitchen, a suite, and a great room.

  • Presented to the Wagner Terrace homeowners association on MLK day.

  • The applicant is looking to take a double window and make it a scene.

  • Board questions clarified that a back corner area was being altered, but not fully demolished.

  • Public comment:

    • Laurel F from the Preservation Society of Charleston was not supportive of demolishing the original wood windows on the north elevation.

    • The iron columns are character-defining features.

  • Staff recommendation: Denial of demolition on the North facade, approval on the rear and South corner.

  • Applicant response: Agrees with staff recommendations.

  • Board discussion:

    • Generally against demolition in the front; supportive of preserving the front of the house.

    • Agreed that the iron columns are character-defining.

    • The iron columns are in bad shape.

    • The floor of the porch was replaced with concrete and columns were added.

  • Motion passed to approve demolition on the rear and sides, but retain the front facade.

• B. 894 Rutledge Avenue (Rear Addition)

  • Applicant: Ashley Jen and Matt Anderson.

  • Proposal: Conceptual approval of a rear addition.

  • Located in Wagner Terrace, a small structure.

  • The design extends the eave through the addition.

  • Siding material: Artisan lap siding with a 4-inch exposure and 5/8 inch thickness.

  • Public comment:

    • Laurel F, Preservation Society of Charleston, appreciates the restorative work, but finds the proposed addition is an intense increase in massing, and not subordinate to the historic structure.

    • They asked the board to bring down the height of the addition and consider dormers or a hyphenated addition.

  • Staff recommendations: The alterations are kept below the ridge of the existing structure, but feel massive, with minimal fenestration and a triple gang window that feels very horizontal.

    • Recommended reducing overall massing and adding detailing to the north facade.

    • Conceptual approval with board and staff conditions, with a final review by staff.

  • Applicant response: They met with staff previously, and they would agree to add more fenestration on the north side.

  • Board discussion:

    • The addition competes with the main mass in elevation.

    • The perspective may feel completely different in reality.

    • There was discussion of subordinate design and a more sensitive attachment to the structure.

  • Motion passed for conceptual approval with a restudy of fenestration, verification that the porch is inset, and with preliminary and final reviews by staff.

• C. 56 DeSaussure Street (Partial Demolition)

  • Applicant: Joe Hein Smith

  • Proposal: Partial demolition including portions of brick veneer and siding.

  • The house is a U R style house.

  • It was once red brick and has since been painted.

  • There is a 25 foot setback line, where the addition would go.

  • There is no roof removal; there is over-framing.

  • Public Comment:

    • Laurel F, Preservation Society of Charleston, noted a sister house at 64 DeSaussure.

    • The proposed demolition impacts the entire rear elevation, and they encourage a "lighter touch" to allow the corners and roof line to remain intact.

  • Staff comments: The proposal is highly visible due to the proximity of the corner.

    • The windows and roof form are character defining features.

    • Removal of the south portion changes the proportion of the structure.

    • The drawings were unclear as to what was being removed.

    • They could support a reduced area of demolition of the rear facade below the roofline.

    • Not supportive of demolition on the south.

    • Denial as submitted.

  • Applicant response: Not sure how to reduce the demolition on the rear and accomplish what he was attempting.

  • Board discussion:

  • There were missing drawings like floor plans and roof plans.

  • The demolition submittal requirements do not require existing and proposed demolition drawings side-by-side.

  • Taking away so much at the corner means we are losing that corner.

  • The board likes to see corners preserved.

  • There was a question about whether the entire back wall needs to be demolished.

  • There was a discussion of deferring the application for a restudy.

  • Applicant stated that he was told to only show what was being removed.

  • Motion passed to defer for a restudy of the area of demolition to the rear, maintaining the two rear corners, and with a submittal package including a clear floor plan and exterior elevations.

• D. 182 Gordon Street (Partial Demolition)

• Applicant: John Sullivan, SRC Studio.

• Proposal: Minor modifications to the building including partial roof demolition.

• The applicant was not present for the site visit.

• The roof will be overframed.

• Public comment:

  • Laurel F, Preservation Society of Charleston, encourages limiting the scope of demolition, and the front slipped roof is a character-defining feature.

  • They ask the applicant to explore options to avoid impacts to the front elevation.

• Staff comments: The demo off the ridge is as staff would recommend, and the window alteration is minimally visible.

  • Staff recommends approval as submitted.

• Applicant response: Addresses the roof dormer location, noting that they can not be placed in other locations.

• Board discussion:

  • They had problems with the dormers and questioned whether light could be gained in other ways.

• Motion passed to approve everything except the holes in the roof on the front elevation. Windows on the sides or rear could be dealt with at the staff level.

• E. 63 N Street (After-the-Fact Partial Demolition)

  • Applicant: Zach Highfield.

  • Proposal: After-the-fact approval for partial demolition.

  • The applicant is running Silver Living Homes.

  • The bank is taking the property back.

  • The applicant feels that the regulations are enforced inconsistently.

  • Public comment:

  • Amanda Sterber, a neighbor, said the house has been "Frankensteined," and is a danger.

  • Arthur Lawrence, a neighbor and former neighborhood president, believes rules need to be followed.

  • He feels that when rules are broken, people should be punished.

  • Laurel F of the Preservation Society of Charleston is opposed to this after-the-fact request.

  • She noted that this is the second instance in three months.

  • They want elevated penalties including potential suspension of business licenses for disregarding preservation guidelines.

  • They asked the board to require accurate reconstruction of all demolished features and the use of authentic materials.

  • Board questions:

    • The applicant is not a licensed contractor, just a developer.

    • They discussed the permitted work versus what actually happened.

  • Staff comments: There have been multiple stop work orders and site visits since September.

    • The structure is a front gable bungalow, constructed circa 1920.

    • There are less than 400 of these remaining on the peninsula.

    • The staff recommends denial, and that the structure be restored, with an application for a permit to be submitted within 180 days.

  • Applicant response: The bank is taking the property back.

  • Board discussion:

    • The board was missing important drawings, like a floor plan and roof plan.

    • They noted that a lot of work continued after the stop work order.

  • Motion passed to deny the application; the house is to be restored using historic materials and stabilized within 10 days, and a full set of drawings outlining the restoration is to be submitted within 180 days.

• F. 96 Murray Boulevard (Partial Demolition/Alteration)

  • Applicant: Lauren Sanchez

  • Proposal: Partial demolition, including a side stair and ironwork railing replacement.

  • The building was originally from 1955 with a portico edition in 1969 and a front addition in 1980.

  • The applicant also removed 400 feet of a non-permitted addition.

  • They wish to replace a side railing and change a kitchen window.

  • The railing is parallel to the house and is less visible from the street.

  • The existing railing is not code compliant.

  • Public comment:

    • Preservation Society of Charleston appreciates the site visit, but the ironwork is character-defining.

    • They want the ironwork to be repaired rather than removed or, if not feasible, replicated and incorporated into the new stair design.

  • Staff comments: Staff could not approve the removal of the railing as it was character defining.

  • Board discussion:

    • Since it was a new stair and new location, it might be better to create a new code-compliant railing.

    • The railing is rotted out and not repairable.

    • There is a desire for consistency with existing railings, but the new rail should be code compliant.

    • The proposed new railing design plugs into the 1980s addition.

  • Motion passed to approve the window request and defer the railing for a restudy to better tie it in with the existing architecture and be code compliant. The final review will be done by staff.

• G. 200 Coming Street (Demolition of Accessory Building)

  • Applicant: Robert Corr

  • Proposal: Demolition of an accessory building (caretaker house).

  • The organization has owned the property since around 2000.

  • The building is in the middle of the property.

  • They have concerns about safety within the structure and its state of disrepair.

  • Public comment:

    • Kevin was opposed to the demolition and said that it was built in 1851, not 1930.

    • The applicant should pursue rehabilitation.

    • Laurel F of the Preservation Society of Charleston was encouraged that the historic single house form remained intact, but the building has suffered from neglect.

    • The building appears on the 1888 Sandborn map.

    • They encourage the applicant to work with staff to develop a preservation plan.

    • They asked the board to deny the request.

  • Staff comments: The structure has significant damage due to rot, but retains character-defining features.

    • The staff encourages mothballing the structure until it can be restored, and recommends denial of demolition.

  • Applicant response: Acknowledged the feedback and safety concerns and asked if they could further fence off the structure while they assessed and went through the process.

    • They need to add railings to the front and do something about the windows.

  • Board discussion:

    • The main structure could be restored, but the piazza is in tough shape.

    • They discussed a preservation plan.

    • The cultural significance is that it was the caretaker's house for the school.

  • Motion passed to deny demolition with a board condition that a preservation plan be submitted within 90 days.

• H. 32 Lenwood Street (New Construction)

  • Applicant: Oliver.

  • Proposal: Preliminary approval for a new single-family residence.

  • The board had given conceptual approval on January 9th.

    • They are requesting a restudy of the arch sizes on the ground floor, and the overall fenestration.

    • Inspiration is plaster on masonry veneer, with smooth arches and a standing steam copper roof.

  • Staff comments: The proportions of the arches have been restudied, and the fenestration has been simplified.

    • The staff recommends retaining the previous design of the shutter, and preliminary approval with a final review by staff.

  • Board discussion:

    • There was a question about the belt course.

    • Applicants should follow submittal requirements, with conceptual and preliminary plans shown together.

    • All the changes that have been made are positive.

  • Motion passed for preliminary approval with the restudy of the larger arch on the west elevation, a refinement of the bellcast roof, and with staff comments regarding the shutters, with a final review by staff.

• I. 9 and 11 Lap Court (New Single-Family Dwellings)

  • Applicant: John Ines

  • Proposal: Conceptual approval for new single-family dwellings.

  • They are using the same floor plans, but with different elevations.

  • They are keeping a 7 foot setback.

  • The applicants are planning artisan siding.

  • Staff comments: The staff would recommend a more subtle way to differentiate the houses than with shingle siding.

    • The staff suggests restudying the light pattern on one of the homes.

    • Conceptual approval with board and staff conditions, with a final review by staff.

  • Board discussion:

    • They really liked the different door hoods that were used to differentiate.

    • The narrowness of the lots is jacking up the vertical proportions.

    • There is a discussion of the open space under the stairs.

  • Motion passed for conceptual approval with preliminary and final details by staff, incorporating board comments to use fenestration strategies to bring down the height, and that the foundation under the front entry be solid.

• J. 18 and 20 O'Rear Court (Additional Half Story)

  • Applicant: Chelsey Anderson

  • Proposal: Additional half story due to high design flood elevation.

    • The proposed three-story concept would be no taller than what is allowed by right at two and a half stories.

    • They took inspiration from a variety of rhythms, including the single house, the freedman's cottage, and the charleston cottage.

    • The B form is what would typically be a Piazza.

    • They also included flower boxes.

    • They increased the vertical proportions of the rear unit.

  • Many homes along the street will need to eventually be raised.

    • The neighbors shared that they would not like to look down on a parking lot.

  • The applicant wants to shield the parking and limit the rear yard.

  • The additional elevation that is being requested is 4 foot 7 1/2 above what their design flood elevation is.

  • Public comment:

    • Jeffrey Staz read a letter from a neighbor supporting the additional half story to enable drive under parking.

    • The project speaks to a time of rapid population growth and flooding.

    • The Preservation Society appreciates the applicant meeting with them, but the rear units are taller and wider than would typically be built.

    • They suggest reducing the prominence of the garages.

    • A neighbor mentioned that people on O'Rear Court don't have a driveway or park under their house, so there is a problem with parking.

    • The existing homes don't have to squeeze in or turn to park under the house.

  • Staff comments: This property was previously denied by the Planning Commission to change to a three-story height district.

    • The applicant is proposing two new structures per parcel with a shared central driveway.

    • The applicant can ask for additional height based on architectural merit.

  • Applicant response: The additional height is about 3'5", not 4'7.5".

    • The applicant is open to reducing the driveway so that it is not so prominent.

    • They want to fulfill and meet the edicts of the city plan.

    • They are also cognizant of concerns of parking on O'Rear Court.

  • Board discussion:

    • There is a policy against parking front facing, and against elevating just for parking.

    • The applicant is getting cars off the street, but that is not for the board to consider.

    • The architectural merit should be unusual.

    • There was discussion of the amount of driveway and parking that would result from the project.

  • There was a clarification that a story is now defined as over 6 feet, so the garages are now defined as a story.

  • There are concerns about precedent if this is approved, as it does not align with board policy.

  • Motion passed to deny the application.

• K. 48 Rutledge Avenue (New Single-Family Dwelling and Accessory Structure)

  • Applicant: B Gosha.

  • Proposal: Conceptual approval for a new single-family dwelling and a new rear accessory structure.

  • They were last here in June 2024 for the accessory building.

  • They felt the plans for the main residents were not sufficiently developed.

  • There is an existing structure approved to be torn down.

    • The design is intended to be symmetrical colonial style with a central core.

  • The future residents fit within the footprint of the old residence.

  • They tweaked the floor levels to make the columns appear more vertical.

  • They are proposing brick veneer and want to use the brick from the existing house.

• Public comment:

  • Laurel F of the Preservation Society of Charleston does not feel the project adequately addresses the board's previous comments.

  • They maintain that this design creates a false sense of history.

  • They ask for simplification and a restudy of height and scale.

  • They note that the Koopa is oversized.

  • Amanda from Historic Charleston Foundation feels that it needs more refinement.

  • The front double entry stairs are too grand.

  • The cupola is oversized and extends more than 10 feet above the ridge line.

• Staff comments: The size of the Koopa has been reduced.

  • The garage door of the accessory faces the street, which is against standard BAR practice.

• They recommended shifting the accessory structure to be in line with the house and rotating 90 degrees.

• Staff recommends conceptual approval, with board and staff conditions and preliminary to come back to the board.

• Applicant response: The board did not have an objection to the garage door at the last meeting.

  • Relocating the accessory building would squash any chance of having an in-ground pool.

• Board discussion:

  • It is hard to understand what changed from the previous meeting because the drawings are very similar.

  • It was difficult to evaluate the changes since the previous and new proposals were not together.

  • There was a question of whether a current streetscape with the latest drawings is available, but it is not.

  • The overall height and width have not changed.

  • The board generally discussed that the height and width are not as much of an issue as the proportions.

  • The Koopa is too visually prominent.

  • The column spacing feels too narrow.

  • The stair feels too grand.

  • The board had previously requested more details.

• Motion passed for conceptual approval with the architect restudying the front stairs, the detailing under the front porch, and other detailing as well, and to restudy the placement of dormers. It will come back to the board for preliminary review.

• L. 13 Rutledge Avenue (Lime Wash of Brick)

  • Applicant: Travis f.

  • Proposal: Approval to lime wash existing painted masonry.

  • The house was built in 1968 and has non-historic brick.

  • The applicant wants to whitewash it to compliment the rest of the street.

  • Board discussion:

    • The board agreed that it was not historic.

    • It meets the 50 year old requirement, but it is an anomaly.

    • There is not a complete application, with no streetscape photographs.

    • There is also no close-up of the brick.

  • Motion passed to approve.

• M. 47 Ashley Avenue (Solar Panel Installation)

  • Applicant: Unknown.

  • Proposal: Approval for solar panel installation.

    • The applicant wants to move the panels back to the end of the roof, and use a decorative skirt.

  • Board discussion:

    • There was agreement about pushing the panels back.

    • The board discussed the policy about visibility of solar panels.

    • The board previously approved similar solar panels for new construction, with reduced numbers and pushed toward the back.

  • Motion passed for final approval as submitted.

• N. 17 Lenwood Boulevard (Dormers and Railing Replacement)

  • Applicant: Sebastian Marshall

  • Proposal: Conceptual approval for replacement to match new dormers and decorative rail.

  • The house was a brick veneer structure, and then mostly redone with stucco.

  • They are also proposing a roof replacement.

  • The lifespan of these types of original roofs is around 100 years.

  • Public comment: There were meetings with both HCF and Preservation Society.

  • The owners had some comments about the history of the house and their desire to live in it and have it be comfortable.

  • Staff comments: The neighborhood has a precedent for dormer addition.

    • The dormers are tasteful and symmetrical.

    • The staff recommends conceptual approval with a final review by staff.

  • Board discussion:

    • The board is happy with the proposal.

  • Motion passed to approve as submitted, with final approval by staff.

III. Closing

• The meeting adjourned.

VIEW MEETING AGENDA PACKET

WATCH FULL MEETING

*meeting auto transcribed, please excuse any typos & misspellings