Summerville Design Review Board denies final approval for new storefront at Sawmill Village

The Town of Summerville Design Review Board denied final approval on March 27 for a proposed new storefront and rear facade renovations at Sawmill Village Shopping Center, 1 Sawmill Village Drive, citing missing landscaping plans, unresolved dumpster screening and insufficient architectural detailing.

Board members said the submittal lacked a complete landscape plan showing islands and foundation plantings and that the proposed elevation did not carry enough of the detailing found on the center’s primary frontage. The applicant, Brian Cheek of Corey Corporation, presented updated storefront drawings that added brick veneer columns and EIFS panels and said the team had adjusted site striping and added screened dumpster locations and parking to meet code calculations.

The board’s concern centered on three staff- and TRC-flagged items the applicant did not resolve in the packet: (1) a clear landscaping plan showing existing plantings or new parking-island trees, (2) a detailed dumpster enclosure and screening, and (3) more refined architectural detailing so the back of the center reads as an intentional public façade rather than a utilitarian rear elevation. “There needs to be more thought to the foundation planting along the front of the building and probably more area than what is shown,” a board member said during review. Another member urged that the new elevation should show EIFS cornices, sconces and depth consistent with the front elevation’s detailing.

Cheek said the design team matched brick columns and EIFS color to the front elevation, added a simple storefront canopy where a tenant-proposed porte-cochere had been removed, and adjusted parking so that the fitness use in the rear met its demand without causing customers to park in front. He also said structural constraints on the older building limit the team’s ability to add heavy masonry elements and that thin-set veneer may be necessary for weight reasons.

After discussion, a motion to deny final approval passed. The board and staff clarified the path forward: the applicant should return with a complete landscape plan showing planting islands and verification of existing perimeter landscaping, a detailed and dimensioned dumpster enclosure with screening materials, a photometric plan and higher-fidelity architectural details (cornices, recessed or modeled EIFS elements, lighting and foundation planting) that better match the established character of the center. The board said it would consider a revised submittal that addresses those outstanding TRC and staff comments.

The denial was procedural — no demolition or construction approvals were granted — and the applicant may revise and resubmit with the requested documentation.