Lexington Board of Appearance declines Dutch Bros drive‑thru proposal, asks for resubmission

At its meeting (date not specified), the Town of Lexington Board of Appearance voted unanimously to not approve a proposed Dutch‑thru Dutch Bros coffee shop planned for 5211 Sunset Boulevard and invited the applicant to resubmit revised plans.

Town staff and several board members told the developer the proposal conflicts with multiple provisions of the town's Architectural Appearance Manual (sections cited as SG1, SG4, SG6, SG7, SG8, SG9, SG10, SG13, SG14 and SG15 and P10–P11). Jessica (staff member), who presented the staff review, said the staff committee's concerns included the building's orientation and massing, the prominence of corporate branding and primary brand colors on a tower element, the proposed exterior material (fiber cement siding) compared with brick used on neighboring properties, extensive illuminated signage and colored LED lighting, the location and visibility of utility equipment and dumpster enclosures, and the location of dual drive‑thru lanes facing Sunset Boulevard.

—The staff committee felt it was important for the board to provide some guidance and input on the development of the project,— Jessica said, summarizing the review and citing the appearance manual's guidance that new development be compatible with the character of adjacent neighborhoods.

Steven Hudson, representing Durban Development of Charlotte and the applicant, described site constraints that shaped the layout: a deed restriction limiting buildable area on the eastern side of the parcel, a roughly 7‑foot retaining wall that affects rear access, and the project's parking and circulation requirements. —Dutch Bros is new to the area,— Hudson said. —This is kind of their first entry into the South and they're excited to get involved in the community as much as possible.— He said the business model includes a walk‑up canopy, bench seating under a canopy, and vehicle ordering and pickup alongside some on‑site customer parking.

Board members who discussed the application agreed with staff that the proposed siting places the drive‑thru and its service elevation prominently on Sunset Boulevard, where adjacent properties primarily use red/brown brick, tan stucco or stone. Members repeatedly urged use of brick or compatible masonry for visible screening elements such as the dumpster enclosure and suggested a taller, masonry screening wall and deeper landscaping to reduce visual exposure from the main road. One member noted that a prior, similar coffee project (Canal Coffee) had placed its building closer to the main thoroughfare to keep drive‑thru lanes behind the building and recommended the applicant consider a similar approach if site constraints allow.

Specific technical and design details noted during the discussion: - Proposed building area: 950 square feet (as presented in plans). - Dual lane drive‑thru with LED menu boards proposed on the drive‑thru elevation facing Sunset Boulevard; no lighting plan had been provided for staff review. - Primary exterior material shown as fiber cement siding, while adjacent buildings use brick and stone. - A proposed 3‑foot screening fence/wall and landscaping are shown on plans, but materials and height were not specified; staff and board said the existing landscaping on Sunset Boulevard would be removed for a drive lane and may not provide adequate screening. - Dumpster corral shown at the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Tom Corley Place; plans indicate a split‑face CMU (concrete masonry unit) enclosure but board members recommended brick to match neighboring facades. - Parking: plans show 13 parking spaces serving staff and customers. - Site constraints: a deed restriction limiting build area on the northeast/east side and a 7‑foot retaining wall affecting access and vehicle circulation.

After discussion, a board member moved that the board not approve the proposal, support the staff comments, and invite the applicant to resubmit revised plans. A second was made, and the motion passed unanimously. The board recorded no further conditions or deadlines for resubmission during the meeting.

Next steps: the applicant was invited to revise materials, color palette, lighting, signage, and screening details and return for further review. No resubmission date was specified on the record.

Votes at a glance: Motion to not approve the proposal, support staff comments and invite resubmission ' Mover: Board member (name not specified) ' Second: Board member (name not specified) ' Outcome: approved (unanimous).

The meeting record also noted that the board operates under the South Carolina Comprehensive Planning Act and that the session was noticed and conducted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act; those procedural matters were not in dispute.