I. Introduction and Preliminaries Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 4:30 PM on February 12, 2025. The location was the public meeting room at 2 George Street. Chairman's Welcome Trey Watkins served as the chairman. Board Members Present Jay White, Luda Sochuk, James Mets, and Satan Brown were present. City Staff Present BD Wortham Galvin (city architect), Lawrence Courtney (staff architect), and Brad Thomas (staff architectural planner) were present. Meeting Guidelines Applicants were required to submit documents in advance. Staff controls the slideshow, but applicants can advance it themselves. All speakers must state their names. The meeting was recorded and live-streamed on the City of Charleston public meeting channel on YouTube. * Appearance at the meeting signifies consent to be recorded.
Order of Meeting
Introduction and overview of project by City staff.
Applicant presentation (10-minute limit).
Questions from the board or staff to the applicant.
Public comment (2-minute limit per person).
City staff comments and recommendations.
Applicant response to public and staff comments (5-minute limit).
Board discussion and vote.
Applicant may clarify inaccuracies if recognized by the chair.
Board members are called upon for comments and votes by the chair.
Motions are read verbatim by the chair before voting.
Results are posted on the city website.
Meeting Parameters
No items were withdrawn or deferred for this meeting.
No written public comments were received.
Comments were limited to architecture; zoning, traffic, and livability concerns were not within the board's purview.
Cell phones and other devices must be turned off.
II. Approval of Minutes and Extensions Minutes Approval The minutes were circulated to the board. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Mr. Mets, and seconded by Mr. Brown. The minutes were approved by a vote. Extension Requests Lawrence Courtney explained the extension process. Applicants have an automatic two-year vested right period followed by five one-year extensions. Three extension requests were reviewed: 98 Wentworth: Third one-year extension for new construction, originally granted June 9, 2021. 609 King Street: First one-year extension of preliminary approval, originally granted February 13, 2019. 155 Meeting Street: First one-year extension for demolition, originally granted April 26, 2023. A motion to approve all three extensions was made by Mr. Mets and seconded by Mr. White. * All three extensions were approved.
III. Agenda Item 4: 162 Ashley Avenue - Demolition Request Project Overview Request for full demolition of existing building pads, structures, and hardscapes. The building, built in approximately 1987, is not rated or historic. The site is in an 8530 height district and the Old City District. Applicant Presentation Jeffrey Rering presented the request for full demolition. The building at 162/164 Ashley Avenue is less than 50 years old. The building does not contribute positively to the streetscape and is set back with a parking lot. Site photos and surveys were shown. Board Questions: None Public Comment: None City Staff Comments and Recommendations Staff reviewed the demolition criteria for the Old and Historic District. The building is not listed on the architecture inventory and is not historic. Staff found no meritorious architectural features. The building has a poor urban experience and is not in keeping with the surrounding architecture. Staff recommended not opposing the demolition. Applicant Response: None Board Discussion and Vote Board members agreed with the staff assessment. A motion for approval of demolition was made and seconded. The motion to approve demolition was passed.
IV. Agenda Item 5: 162 Ashley Avenue - Conceptual Approval for New Construction Project Overview Request for conceptual approval of a 40-unit apartment building with ground-level retail at the same location. The site is in the 8530 height District in the Old City District. Applicant Presentation Jeffrey Rering presented the proposal with a physical model. The goal is to create affordable housing solutions for MUSC students and the community. The site is in an A1 FEA flood zone, requiring a 13-foot elevation for the finished floor. Setback from the Right-of-Way Center Line is 40 feet. The existing curb is at about 4.25 feet, creating a 9-foot difference with the desired 13 ft finished floor. Electrical and mechanical rooms must be above the 13-foot elevation. The design includes a six-foot compromise to elevate the ground floor, instead of the ideal 9 feet. The building is surrounded by a tall parking deck (85-91 feet), and residential units to the north. Massing strategies aim to step down and be respectful of the neighborhood. Retail will front Ashley Avenue, with a six-foot plinth. A porch element is included to respect the residential to the north. An outdoor terrace is included on the second floor. The project is targeting 20% workforce housing. Diagrams illustrated the design evolution including addressing the urban edge, wrapping balcony and vertical facade elements. The building’s upper floors are broken up into two masses. A streetscape elevation was shown, with the building corrected to be about 40 inches taller than the adjacent parking deck. The upper mass is set back and appears smaller to the pedestrian. The materials and facade elements are designed to reflect the adjacent residential and MUSC structures. The ground floor is designed to be open and accessible with a low garden wall. The building's stepping down design was emphasized with a ramp inviting pedestrian traffic. Vertical rhythm was created through registration patterns from the units themselves. The scale of the lap siding is changed to break down the mass. Board Questions Questions about porch material (brick and metal). Questions about ADA compliance (no issues were raised). Questions about materials for the upper section of the building, metal screen louvers, corner boards, cable rail system, and steel posts.
Public Comment
Alexander from the Preservation Society of Charleston appreciated the presentation and the wraparound porch element as a creative approach.
The Preservation Society raised concerns about the building's height relative to the parking garage and the need to soften the transition toward the residential context.
The request was made to apply the same attention to vertical proportions to the north side of the building.
City Staff Comments and Recommendations
Staff appreciated the clear presentation and approach to flood zone elevation.
The ground level design provides a better street life experience than the existing building.
The site is on the MUSC side of the urban context in the 8530 height district.
The building should serve as a transition between the parking garage and the Charleston single house on the north.
The porch and upper massing setback were appreciated.
Dividing materiality on the Ashley Street elevation also assists in breaking down the mass conceptually.
Staff noted that the north facade from Doughty Street reads as a long horizontal wall and requires restudy.
Staff asked that the building’s height step down between the garage and the Charleston single house.
Staff recommended reconsidering the upper volumes material to harmonize with the streetscape.
The building's vertical hierarchy has a strong base but lacks distinction between middle and top.
Staff shared thoughts with the applicant, which resulted in revised drawings, including a blade cornice, vertical reveals on the north elevation and correction of the streetscape elevation showing the building to be 40 inches taller than the garage, which were not seen by the board or the public.
The applicant proposed lowering the parapet by 8 inches and will also provide window details and explore replacing panels above the porch with brick.
The project is not currently part of an affordable housing program with the city.
Staff recommends restudying for height.
Conditions for Approval
The overall height of the structure needs to step down from the parking deck.
The scale and appearance of the North elevation needs to be broken down further.
The use of brick should be considered.
A cornice or similar device should be used to terminate the visual top.
Staff recommended a deferral of conceptual review.
Applicant Response
The applicant addressed the height concern, noting the 40-inch difference and that minimum floor-to-floor heights were used to keep the building height down while also raising the plinth for resilient design.
They explained that the material change in scale at the top was an attempt to bridge the gap between traditional Charleston and the modern context.
Board Discussion
A question about height measurement, including FMA requirements was clarified.
Board members agreed with the staff and public comments regarding materials.
The board was skeptical that the change in siding profile would be legible and asked the applicant to show provisions that had been made as revisions.
The board questioned the city staff about the project not being in the affordable housing pipeline.
There were concerns about the amount of fly siding.
The porch was described as harsh and industrial, needing restudy.
There were conflicts in the drawings regarding the porch side termination.
The need for different planes in the North elevation was raised.
The board agreed with the staff, and some members noted the design lacked sympathy for the neighborhood.
Concerns were raised about the glazing and window design being too similar to the MUSC buildings across the street.
The board suggested the applicant look at the ADA access creatively.
The board acknowledged the 40 inch height difference was still an issue from the pedestrian view.
The board also appreciated the applicant's willingness to work on the project.
A suggestion was made to look at historic buildings for cornice designs.
Motion and Vote
A motion was made to defer the conceptual review, based off board and staff comments.
The motion was seconded.
The motion to defer the review was passed.
This outline should provide a comprehensive overview of the meeting, including key discussions, decisions, and concerns raised. It will allow readers to follow the flow of the meeting and understand the issues at stake, particularly the interplay between development goals and the need to respect the architectural context of the city.
*meeting auto transcribed, please excuse any typos & misspellings
If you're looking to buy or sell a home in Charleston, Bill Olson & Pirate Properties can help you. We’re fast, friendly, knowledgeable, and fun to work with. We’ve helped hundreds of clients in real estate. Click below and start viewing what's available in Charleston today, calculate your home’s value, or schedule a no-obligation, no-pressure discovery call.
