Board gives conceptual feedback on Saw Mill Crossing multifamily plan; raises parking, scale and tree preservation concerns

At a conceptual review on Feb. 27 the Design Review Board discussed Saw Mill Crossing, a proposed four‑story, 42‑unit apartment building at 615 North Cedar Street, and gave the development team detailed comments on parking layout, building scale, preservation of significant trees and pedestrian connections.

The developer (Woda Cooper Companies) and architect presented a 4‑story, wood‑framed building with 42 units (6 one‑bedroom, 25 two‑bedroom and 11 three‑bedroom units), 66 parking spaces (including six accessible spaces), a dog park, playground and multiple common areas. The team said they are pursuing state tax credit financing and must meet the state housing authority’s parking and accessibility requirements.

Board members raised several concerns at the conceptual stage: the prominence of a large central parking field that separates many units from the building entrances; long walking distances from some parking spaces to units; lack of continuous sidewalks on all public frontages; the visual scale of a four‑story building adjacent to largely lower‑rise properties; and the adequacy and placement of open space. Members recommended studying parallel street parking, redistributing parking closer to Cedar Street to create a greener central amenity, and adding drop‑off/loading spaces for groceries and deliveries.

The team said they had an arborist report and will coordinate with the town arborist and tree protection board where encroachments into protected canopy occur. Board members asked the team to revise the plan to preserve clusters of trees where feasible, show a more robust landscape plan, provide a sun/shadow study, and refine amenity designs to ensure they are usable and connected to the street. Several board members also urged higher‑quality architectural detailing and local Lowcountry design elements — porches, gables and materials — and suggested deeper, usable porches and canopies over entries.

This was a conceptual review only, and the board did not take an action; the applicant was directed to return with revised site and building plans showing updated parking, drainage approach, pedestrian connections, tree preservation measures and more detailed architectural renderings and materials.