Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board allows Clear Coffee roof to remain, approves horizontal slat screening with ventilation conditions
Summary
After accepting an appeal, the DRB approved a revised screening solution for Clear Coffee at 2335 Soapstone Drive that preserves an existing polycarbonate roof, requires horizontal 1x6 slats with increased spacing for airflow and does not require screening around walk‑in coolers (county limitations). Vote was unanimous 7‑0.
Get email alerts on the Commercial Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Reston Design Review Board on Sept. 16 accepted an appeal and approved a modified screening design for Clear Coffee and Sandwich at 2335 Soapstone Drive that allows the already-installed polycarbonate roof to remain while requiring horizontal slat screening designed to preserve mechanical ventilation.
Owner Kim asked the board to reconsider the prior decision after construction had already placed a small roof over the mechanical area; she said removal would impose a substantial financial burden. Neighbors and the cluster association had advocated for an enclosure with a roof to mitigate mechanical noise for nearby homes; RA and neighbors cited noise‑mitigation benefits and urged retention of a top cover.
Staff and board members raised concerns that fully enclosing walk‑in cooling units could violate county ventilation or inspection requirements. The board and applicant settled on a compromise: approval centered on horizontal 1x6 slats with an increased spacing (board approved 2.5‑inch spacing during deliberations for improved airflow), extended to approximately 6 inches above the existing roofline and built on the existing 4x4 support posts. The board also accepted staff’s explanation that screening around the walk‑in coolers is prohibited by county requirements and therefore will not be required.
A representative for the nearby cluster association reiterated that noise mitigation was the driving need for an enclosure. The board sought technical confirmation that the slat spacing and screening arrangement would not impair mechanical ventilation; staff asked the applicant to supply mechanical-contractor input or calculations if needed. During the meeting staff noted they lacked detailed photos of existing conditions and recommended the applicant submit clearer documentation for the record.
The final motion approved the screening design with the listed conditions and passed unanimously, 7‑0. The approval effectively restores the earlier February conceptual approval but uses the material and spacing details discussed in the September hearing (pressure‑treated or cedar horizontal slats at 2.5‑inch spacing, extending above the roof). The board also recommended planting a vegetative/shrub buffer toward the parking-lot side to soften the elevation visible to visitors.
The owner said the roof protects mechanical equipment from debris and storm damage and that keeping it in place avoids substantial removal and reconstruction costs. The board’s approval permits the owner to proceed with the revised screening plan subject to the stated spacing and clearance conditions and consistent with any county ventilation/inspection requirements.
Next steps: staff will record the approval details in a decision letter and the owner should supply any additional mechanical calculations or photos requested to ensure post‑design review compliance.

