Development Commission · Thursday, May 15, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 05, 2025

packet pp.5–10

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Wednesday, March 5, 2025

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Burgermaster (Triple XXX) Landmark Sign Designation, Quasi-Judicial (A)

Christen Leeson, Principal Planner Application No: SGN25-00006 Location: 98 NE Gilman Blvd. Parcel: 2824069025 Applicant: Brian Brosnan, Heath Northwest Description: Sign application to request that Public Hearing Order: · packet pp.11–38

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

Community Planning & Development P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3450 issaquahwa.gov

Burgermaster Sign, Proposed Alterations, Quasi-Judicial (A)

Christen Leeson, Principal Planner Application No: SGN25-00006 Location:98 NE Gilman Blvd. Parcel: 2824069025 Applicant: Brian Brosnan, Heath Northwest Description: Sign application for proposed Public Hearing Order: · packet pp.39–66

Open packet at p.39 ↗

Staff report:

Community Planning & Development P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3450 issaquahwa.gov

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Central Issaquah Station & Alignment Study Introduction (D)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.67–79

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:25:19 Open packet at p.67 ↗

Staff report:

The May 7th meeting will introduce the Central Issaquah Station & Alignment Study ("the Study") and provide the Development Commission (DC) with: • An overview of the City’s light rail planning efforts, • The Study’s purpose and timeline, and • Opportunities for the DC to engage and provide input at key milestones.

Chair and Vice-Chair Elections

Action · Christen Leeson, Principal Planner · packet pp.81–82

▶ Watch from 1:34:22 Open packet at p.81 ↗

Staff report:

Community Planning & Development P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3450 issaquahwa.gov

6. REPORTS

City Council Update

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.83

▶ Watch from 1:43:24 Open packet at p.83 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission 2025 Schedule (subject to change)

2297 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ Good evening and welcome. I would like

0:14 ↗ to call the March 5th city of Oh, no,

0:17 ↗ that's not March. March

0:21 ↗ 15th, City of Isqua's Development

0:23 ↗ Commission meeting to order at 6:36

0:32 ↗ p.m. I would like to welcome

0:52 ↗ I would like to welcome Katie Stanchack

0:54 ↗ as our new alternate and Ola Fasoon as

0:57 ↗ our new regular

1:00 ↗ member. As a reminder, we have a remote

1:03 ↗ aspect of our meetings. This means both

1:05 ↗ staff and members of the public may be

1:07 ↗ participating in the meeting remotely

1:08 ↗ via WebEx. For those attending remotely,

1:12 ↗ if you have questions or issues, please

1:14 ↗ send the host a chat message or email

1:17 ↗ staff at

1:19 ↗ kristenlisiqua

1:21 ↗ law.gov. Is that available online?

1:25 ↗ Okay. Um, excused absences for this

1:27 ↗ meeting are Chair

1:30 ↗ Stanford. And our first item of business

1:33 ↗ will be approval of

1:35 ↗ minutes. Um, has everyone had a chance

1:38 ↗ to review the minutes for the March 5th,

1:40 ↗ 2025

1:42 ↗ meeting? Are there any corrections to

1:44 ↗ the March 5th meetings provided in the

1:46 ↗ agenda

1:48 ↗ packet? Hearing none, the minutes are

1:50 ↗ approved as

1:53 ↗ submitted. Next, I would like to open

1:56 ↗ the floor for any members of the public

1:58 ↗ in person or virtually, who would like

2:00 ↗ to make a general comment, not about the

2:02 ↗ Burger Master sign, but on general

2:04 ↗ topics. There will be two opportunities

2:07 ↗ later in the meeting for those who would

2:08 ↗ like to comment about the sign on

2:10 ↗ tonight's agenda. Miss Jackson, has

2:12 ↗ anyone signed up to make public

2:16 ↗ comment? No, chair. Thank

2:20 ↗ [Music]

2:27 ↗ you. All right. Now, we will move on to

2:30 ↗ the public hearing portion of tonight.

2:33 ↗ The order of operation for the hearing

2:35 ↗ will be as

2:37 ↗ follows. First, purpose of the public

2:41 ↗ hearing. Then the appearance of fair

2:43 ↗ fairness doctrine. Uh then we'll open

2:46 ↗ the public hearing with a staff

2:48 ↗ presentation followed by an applicant

2:50 ↗ presentation. Then open the floor for

2:52 ↗ public

2:54 ↗ comment. There will be opportunity for

2:56 ↗ rebuttal by the applicant then staff and

2:59 ↗ then we will close the public hearing.

3:04 ↗ If for any reason the hearing cannot be

3:06 ↗ completed this evening, it may be

3:07 ↗ continued to on a specific

3:11 ↗ date. And the purpose of this public

3:13 ↗ hearing is uh a formal meeting for the

3:16 ↗ potential landmark designation of the

3:18 ↗ burger master formerly X sign. The

3:21 ↗ purpose of this hearing is to solicit

3:23 ↗ relevant public comment and facilitate

3:25 ↗ the review, discussion, and decision on

3:28 ↗ the application by the development

3:29 ↗ commission. This is a quasi judicial

3:32 ↗ judicial hearing. And so, Miss

3:51 ↗ L. Good evening. I am Kristen Leon,

3:54 ↗ principal planner for the community

3:56 ↗ planning and development department. And

3:58 ↗ before we start anything tonight, we're

3:59 ↗ going to do appearness of fairness.

4:02 ↗ Appearance of fairness. And there are

4:03 ↗ several questions that we have. The

4:06 ↗ quasi judicial, which is yes, very hard

4:08 ↗ to say decisions context includes uh

4:11 ↗ requires pro proceedings to be fair in

4:13 ↗ fact and appearance. Um exparte contacts

4:16 ↗ are

4:17 ↗ prohibited. Um we want to know if a

4:19 ↗ disinterested person knowing the

4:20 ↗ totality of a decision maker's per

4:22 ↗ personal interest in a matter would be

4:24 ↗ reasonably justified in thinking that

4:26 ↗ partiality may exist. and the decision

4:28 ↗ makers who have personal interest,

4:29 ↗ prejudgment of issues or partiality are

4:32 ↗ disqualified from the

4:35 ↗ proceedings. So my first are questions

4:38 ↗ for the commissioners with regards to

4:40 ↗ the outcome of the proceedings. Do you

4:42 ↗ have a personal interest financial or

4:44 ↗ otherwise in the outcome?

4:48 ↗ No. Okay. Any familial, social or

4:50 ↗ business relationships or connections

4:52 ↗ with any of the parties or nonparties

4:54 ↗ who have an interest in the outcome?

4:57 ↗ Okay. Any special knowledge about the

4:59 ↗ substantive substantive or the merits of

5:01 ↗ this proceeding which would or could

5:04 ↗ cause you to prejudice the

5:06 ↗ outcome? Okay. Does your employer have

5:09 ↗ an interest financial or otherwise in

5:11 ↗ the

5:15 ↗ outcome? Will there be any prospective

5:17 ↗ employment for you or your family as a

5:19 ↗ result of the decision?

5:22 ↗ Do you own or control property within

5:24 ↗ 300 ft of the subject

5:27 ↗ property? And have you had any exparte

5:30 ↗ communications regarding this

5:32 ↗ project?

5:35 ↗ Okay. Do you believe you can sit and

5:37 ↗ hear this matter fairly and impartially

5:39 ↗ both as to the respective positions of

5:41 ↗ the proponents and the opponents of this

5:44 ↗ matter?

5:47 ↗ Okay. And for the audience, does anyone

5:50 ↗ in attendance wish to challenge the

5:52 ↗ participation of any commissioner based

5:53 ↗ on the appearance of fairness doctrine?

5:55 ↗ Just raise your hand if so. If you uh if

5:58 ↗ yes, raise your hand. Um when called on,

6:01 ↗ please state the Never mind. No one has

6:04 ↗ any objections. All right. So, moving

6:06 ↗ on.

6:09 ↗ Now we open the public hearing

6:11 ↗ at 41 p.m. First, we'll proceed with the

6:16 ↗ staff's presentation. Miss Leon, I'll

6:18 ↗ need to swear you in. Please state your

6:20 ↗ name and position with the city for the

6:22 ↗ record. Kristen Leon, principal planner,

6:25 ↗ do you swear by oath or affirmation that

6:27 ↗ the testimony you are about to provide

6:29 ↗ is true? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed

6:32 ↗ with your presentation. Okay. So, we're

6:34 ↗ going to start with a little history on

6:36 ↗ the Burger Master sign. Keep in mind

6:38 ↗ this is the sign and not the building.

6:40 ↗ So um we will take public testimony then

6:43 ↗ you all will deliberate and uh actually

6:46 ↗ take public testimony and then if you

6:48 ↗ have uh actually I'll finish the

6:49 ↗ presentation you can ask clarifying

6:51 ↗ questions then we will take public

6:53 ↗ testimony you all will deliberate and if

6:55 ↗ appropriate

6:58 ↗ vote. So our question is uh does the XX

7:02 ↗ sign meet the city's criteria for

7:04 ↗ landmark sign designation?

7:08 ↗ Um, that means does the landmark sign um

7:11 ↗ is there evidence that the sign is at

7:13 ↗ least 40 years

7:16 ↗ old? Um, has it demonstrated one or more

7:19 ↗ of the following? Is it associated with

7:22 ↗ an historic local figure, event, or

7:25 ↗ place? Does it embody significant

7:27 ↗ evidence of the history of a product,

7:29 ↗ business, or service advertised?

7:34 ↗ Is it characteristic of a specific

7:36 ↗ period of the local area? Is it an

7:38 ↗ outstanding example of the signs maker's

7:40 ↗ art? Or is it a local landmark that is

7:43 ↗ recognized as a po popular focal point

7:46 ↗ in the

7:48 ↗ community? So, uh, this all started back

7:51 ↗ in 1895 with the Galveastston Brewing

7:53 ↗ Company who opened up a beer. It was a

7:55 ↗ beer manufacturing company. And by the

7:58 ↗ way, the better the beer, the more X's

8:00 ↗ it got. It had three

8:03 ↗ Then in 1916, Prohibition was on its way

8:06 ↗ and Galveastston Brewing Company was

8:08 ↗ closed by the state and it was renamed

8:10 ↗ to the Southern Beverage Company. They

8:12 ↗ redid all of their equipment and started

8:14 ↗ making triple XX root

8:17 ↗ beer. In 1930, the first XX came to uh

8:22 ↗ Ron Washington came to Washington. It

8:24 ↗ was in

8:25 ↗ Ron. And then in the 1930s, maybe 40s,

8:28 ↗ it's kind of hard to tell. The first

8:30 ↗ trip X actually opened in is

8:33 ↗ Isiqua on Sunset Way and it actually had

8:37 ↗ the

8:39 ↗ barrel. 1968 1969 uh Trip XX moved to

8:44 ↗ Highway 10 which is now Gilman Boulevard

8:46 ↗ and the sign was built as part of the

8:48 ↗ building into the building in

8:53 ↗ 1969. The sign itself it anchors the

8:56 ↗ location. This is a community hub. I

8:58 ↗ mean there are events that take place

9:00 ↗ here and it's popular food place

9:03 ↗ restaurant. Um it serves as a prop pro

9:04 ↗ prominent feature as an an entryway to

9:07 ↗ um Isiqua's historic old

9:10 ↗ town. So looking at the criteria and uh

9:15 ↗ what it means. Yes, there is evidence

9:16 ↗ that the sign is at least 40 years old.

9:18 ↗ It was incorporated to the building into

9:20 ↗ the building in 1969.

9:22 ↗ It does embody a significant evidence of

9:25 ↗ history of a business. Triple XX root

9:27 ↗ beer. Whether or not it's characteristic

9:29 ↗ of a special historic period of the

9:31 ↗ local area is, you know, it's maybe the

9:33 ↗ building because it was a drive-thru,

9:35 ↗ but

9:37 ↗ um could be there. And then um it is

9:40 ↗ definitely recognized as a popular focal

9:42 ↗ point in the

9:43 ↗ community. So staff recommends

9:45 ↗ designation of the Burger Master sign as

9:47 ↗ an Isiqua landmark sign.

9:51 ↗ And that's all I have. Do you have any

9:52 ↗ questions?

10:02 ↗ Are there any questions from the

10:03 ↗ commission? Um, I have a couple, I

10:06 ↗ guess, questions or clarifications

10:07 ↗ perhaps. The the application

10:10 ↗ information, the project's called the

10:12 ↗ Burger Master Sign Landmark designation.

10:15 ↗ It seems to me it should be called the

10:17 ↗ XX sign landmark designation. Correct.

10:20 ↗ because it's not it's not the Burger

10:23 ↗ Master sign that we're saying is

10:24 ↗ Landmark.

10:27 ↗ Agreed. Yeah. Um I was but Burger Master

10:31 ↗ owns

10:32 ↗ it and Triple X is the brand. So I I

10:37 ↗ actually have named it both and was it

10:39 ↗ was suggested by most that I call it the

10:41 ↗ Burger Master sign because it is owned

10:43 ↗ by Burger Master. You all can change it

10:44 ↗ if you'd like to. Okay. Yeah. Um, the

10:47 ↗ other question I had was on the list

10:50 ↗ of the landmark sign conditions, it

10:54 ↗ mentions a 40 years old, b the list of

10:57 ↗ items has to meet, but there's also a c

11:00 ↗ that the sign is consistent with the

11:02 ↗ purpose of this chapter. But I didn't

11:05 ↗ see that listed as one of the conditions

11:08 ↗ in the report saying it met that

11:09 ↗ condition. Ah, good

11:12 ↗ point. Would you like me to find it and

11:14 ↗ pull that up? If you could, I think it

11:16 ↗ would be good for the commissioners to

11:17 ↗ look at that.

11:18 ↗ Uh, I think it's 18612010.

11:48 ↗ Oh that's

11:53 ↗ why. There we

11:58 ↗ go. Okay. So the purpose of this Jaffer

12:02 ↗ is to establish standards of design,

12:04 ↗ placement, size, renovation, and proper

12:06 ↗ maintenance of all exterior visible

12:07 ↗ signs and sign structures within the

12:09 ↗ city of Isiqua to contribute to the

12:12 ↗ economic vitality of the community.

12:14 ↗ Encourage signs that are both functional

12:15 ↗ and attractive. I sorry, I should

12:18 ↗ probably be sharing this. It's not

12:20 ↗ showing up.

12:30 ↗ There we

12:31 ↗ go. Um, contribute to the economic

12:34 ↗ vitality of the community. Encourage

12:35 ↗ signs that are both functional and

12:37 ↗ attractive and that clearly respond to

12:38 ↗ the needs of the public in locating a

12:40 ↗ residents or business establishment as

12:42 ↗ well as general wayfinding. Ensure the

12:44 ↗ signage is compatible with the unique

12:46 ↗ character and natural beauty of Isiqua

12:47 ↗ and its neighborhoods. recognize the

12:50 ↗ role signs have in creating a visually

12:52 ↗ interesting and attractive place as well

12:54 ↗ as contributing to good overall urban

12:56 ↗ design while avoiding usual distraction,

12:58 ↗ clutter chaos

12:59 ↗ etc. Um, it must implement the goals and

13:02 ↗ vision of the mountains to sound

13:03 ↗ greenway

13:05 ↗ uh by managing the type, location, and

13:07 ↗ proliferation of signage that may be

13:08 ↗ visible from I90. Provide signs that are

13:11 ↗ pedestrian and bicycle oriented. And in

13:14 ↗ the cultural business district, it

13:16 ↗ doesn't apply here. Encourage signage

13:18 ↗ that is compatible with historical and

13:19 ↗ cultural downtown isquas

13:23 ↗ CBD. Thank you. And I guess one of my

13:25 ↗ questions about that was the

13:28 ↗ um implementing the goals in Mountains

13:30 ↗ of Sound Greenway and the requirements

13:33 ↗ list there about signage, but this falls

13:35 ↗ under the non-conforming landmark sign,

13:37 ↗ so it doesn't necessarily have to follow

13:39 ↗ that, I presume. Correct. Yeah. Okay.

13:43 ↗ Thank you. Yes. And the the um the RCW

13:48 ↗ that's referenced the Mountains to Sound

13:50 ↗ Greenway.

13:51 ↗ Um it's very long, but generally this

13:54 ↗ applies their language applies to

13:57 ↗ buildings that were built after 1971.

14:01 ↗ Great. Thank you. You're welcome.

14:08 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I'm I'm not

14:12 ↗ clear about the question that's in front

14:14 ↗ of the commission right now. So the

14:17 ↗ question about whether it is a landmark

14:19 ↗ sign is the question that the XX sign in

14:22 ↗ it current in its current form meets

14:24 ↗ that criteria, not the proposed

14:27 ↗ alternatives that have been also

14:28 ↗ included in tonight's. Correct. That's

14:30 ↗ why there are two different hearings.

14:31 ↗ This one is just does the existing sign

14:33 ↗ meet the criteria. The next public

14:35 ↗ hearing is in regards to the

14:37 ↗ alterations. Okay. Thank you.

14:41 ↗ Any other commissioner

14:45 ↗ questions? Okay. Thank

14:51 ↗ you. Now we'll proceed with the

14:53 ↗ applicant's

14:58 ↗ presentation. Um, you're going to come

15:00 ↗ up

15:01 ↗ here and I am opening up your

15:03 ↗ presentation right now.

15:08 ↗ Oh, okay. Never mind.

15:15 ↗ Good evening and thank you very much for

15:17 ↗ having me here tonight. Uh, I do have

15:20 ↗ just a second. Uh, I'll need to swear

15:22 ↗ you in. So, please state your name for

15:24 ↗ the record. My name is Alex Jensen. Jen

15:26 ↗ Sen. And do you swear by oath or

15:29 ↗ affirmation that the testimony you're

15:30 ↗ about to provide is true? I do. Thank

15:33 ↗ you. you please proceed.

15:35 ↗ Again, thank you for having me here this

15:37 ↗ evening. I do have a brief PowerPoint

15:39 ↗ presentation, but I'm going to save that

15:40 ↗ for the second part of the the hearing.

15:42 ↗ I think the first question is is less

15:45 ↗ controversial. Um I I would agree with

15:47 ↗ the city's uh synopsis. Uh the sign's

15:50 ↗ been in place for more than 40 years.

15:53 ↗ Uh, it certainly has a significant

15:56 ↗ meaning to the to the city from all the

15:58 ↗ feedback that I've gotten from people at

16:00 ↗ the restaurant or sending us messages

16:03 ↗ online. It's certainly recognizable.

16:05 ↗ It's used by many as a as a wayfinding

16:08 ↗ landmark. I think for all the reasons

16:10 ↗ that the city presented, uh, it it

16:13 ↗ definitely meets this criteria. I would

16:15 ↗ ask you to consider approving. Um, I

16:18 ↗ think it will certainly restore some

16:20 ↗ economic vitality to the area. Speaking

16:22 ↗ of that subsection C, um we're already

16:25 ↗ seeing a pretty significant amount of

16:26 ↗ business. From what was showed, at least

16:29 ↗ to me, from the financials before we

16:31 ↗ considered looking at the place, I think

16:33 ↗ we're already doing pretty well and and

16:34 ↗ we anticipate our business will increase

16:37 ↗ even more once we get the brick and

16:38 ↗ mortar location opened. We do think the

16:40 ↗ signs a significant part of the

16:42 ↗ building. It's part of the structure of

16:43 ↗ the building. Um, so if if we aren't

16:46 ↗ allowed to keep it, it's going to

16:47 ↗ significantly impact uh the ability to

16:50 ↗ have the building there in the first

16:51 ↗ place. So I appreciate your

16:53 ↗ consideration and thank you.

16:59 ↗ Any questions or comments from the

17:02 ↗ commission for the applicant?

17:06 ↗ you'd mentioned that it had significant

17:08 ↗ impacts to the structure like the

17:10 ↗ structural integrity of the building or

17:13 ↗ is has it been deemed so? Uh there's

17:16 ↗ evidence of that. The sign runs down

17:18 ↗ through the center of the building. Uh

17:21 ↗ there's two large I beams that help

17:23 ↗ support it. Um we haven't had a

17:25 ↗ structural engineer look at what it

17:27 ↗ would take to remove it, but it would be

17:29 ↗ a very substantial amount of work. I I

17:32 ↗ don't want to speculate about the cost

17:34 ↗ or the the difficulty other than to say

17:36 ↗ it would be um a tremendous burden, but

17:39 ↗ it could also not be structural, right?

17:41 ↗ It could also be from everything we've

17:44 ↗ been told that is part of the structure

17:46 ↗ of the building, but it could also not

17:49 ↗ be structural, right?

17:52 ↗ I theoriz the point I'm trying to get to

17:55 ↗ is you made an assertion that it was,

17:57 ↗ but it really isn't because we don't

17:59 ↗ know that yet. That's what I've been

18:01 ↗ told. Um, but again, I I haven't had

18:03 ↗ them look into what the process would be

18:06 ↗ to remove it. Um, but the best

18:08 ↗ information I have available is yes, it

18:09 ↗ is part of the structure of the of the

18:10 ↗ building. But what I think I think I'm

18:14 ↗ still trying to get at the integrity of

18:16 ↗ the building. Like if you took it off,

18:18 ↗ the building's not going to collapse,

18:20 ↗ right?

18:22 ↗ I I don't know the answer to that.

18:24 ↗ Again, we haven't explored that. We

18:26 ↗ haven't really considered that to be a

18:27 ↗ viable option for us. And so it's yeah,

18:30 ↗ we haven't uh this project is already

18:33 ↗ fairly expensive and so we're trying to

18:36 ↗ shepherd our dollars as efficiently as

18:38 ↗ we can at this point. So that's a

18:39 ↗ different argument than it's part of the

18:40 ↗ structural integrity,

18:42 ↗ right? If it's if it's expensive to

18:46 ↗ remove, you still have the building

18:48 ↗ standing. I I don't even know what that

18:50 ↗ would entail. So I I I don't have enough

18:52 ↗ information to answer that part of the

18:54 ↗ question, but I can say from what I've

18:55 ↗ been told, it is part of the structure

18:56 ↗ of the building. Okay.

18:58 ↗ But that's not been confirmed.

19:03 ↗ I'm not sure answer the question, but I

19:06 ↗ I don't have any specific details on

19:09 ↗ what it would take to remove it. But

19:11 ↗ from what I have been told, it is part

19:13 ↗ of the structure of the building. It's

19:14 ↗ part of the structure as in it's it's

19:16 ↗ attached to it, but it's not part of the

19:18 ↗ integrity of the building. So, if you

19:20 ↗ took it off, the building is not going

19:21 ↗ to fall apart, right? If if if it was

19:24 ↗ removed, it doesn't fundamentally make

19:27 ↗ the building fall apart. It's if that's

19:30 ↗ not

19:31 ↗ possible or is it

19:34 ↗ possible? Again, I'm not a I'm not an

19:37 ↗ architect. I'm not a structural

19:38 ↗ engineer, but from what I've been told,

19:39 ↗ it is. Okay.

19:42 ↗ Well, have you had a chance if you want

19:44 ↗ to come over and give us some uh some

19:45 ↗ pro bono work? I would absolutely love

19:47 ↗ that. But that probably uh interferes

19:49 ↗ with the, you know.

19:51 ↗ Yeah.

19:55 ↗ Any other questions or comments? All

19:58 ↗ right. Thank

20:01 ↗ you. Now we'll move into the public

20:04 ↗ comment portion of the hearing. Miss

20:06 ↗ Jackson, has anyone signed up to comment

20:07 ↗ on this topic?

20:10 ↗ No, chair. They have not.

20:14 ↗ Okay. Let's see.

20:16 ↗ [Music]

20:18 ↗ Um, is there anyone here would like to

20:20 ↗ make comment? Okay. All right. Those

20:23 ↗ were in person and signed up in advance

20:25 ↗ to make comments. We'll be calling

20:26 ↗ first. If you are in the room and did

20:28 ↗ not sign up, I will ask for other

20:29 ↗ speakers before closing this portion of

20:31 ↗ the meeting. If you are joining us by

20:33 ↗ computer or smartphone and would like to

20:35 ↗ make a comment, please raise your hand

20:36 ↗ virtually. This varies by device. If you

20:39 ↗ have questions, please send the host a

20:41 ↗ chat message. For those making comments,

20:44 ↗ please direct your comments to the

20:45 ↗ development commission and not to

20:47 ↗ individuals. For in-person attendees,

20:49 ↗ please step to the lectern. For meeting

20:52 ↗ attendees participating virtually, when

20:54 ↗ recognized, please unmute your

20:55 ↗ microphone. When it is your turn to

20:57 ↗ speak, state your name. Speak clearly

20:59 ↗ and pause frequently and limit your

21:01 ↗ comments to 5

21:05 ↗ minutes. Personal attacks, obscene

21:07 ↗ language, derogatory remarks, and

21:09 ↗ disruptive behavior such as shouting,

21:11 ↗ booing, clapping, stomping feet will not

21:13 ↗ be permitted. Miss Jackson, please call

21:16 ↗ those in the room in the order they

21:18 ↗ signed up to speak.

21:34 ↗ Can you hear me now? My name is Corby

21:36 ↗ Castler. I'm the executive director of

21:38 ↗ the Downtown Isqua Association. And

21:40 ↗ before I get into the matter at hand, I

21:42 ↗ want to make sure you you know that our

21:44 ↗ flowers on front program has officially

21:47 ↗ begun today. So all the baskets that you

21:49 ↗ see, 102 of them along front and sunset

21:52 ↗ are there for your your enjoyment. So

21:56 ↗ please do enjoy. So I wanted just to

21:58 ↗ talk a little bit about downtown isqua

22:01 ↗ association and the fact that it's a

22:02 ↗ main street program managed by the

22:05 ↗ Washington Trust for historic

22:06 ↗ preservation. So, we have some expertise

22:08 ↗ in the preservation arena and we do

22:11 ↗ manage the cultural business district

22:13 ↗ where the trip XX sign is. That's why

22:15 ↗ I'm here today to speak and we'll be

22:17 ↗ back for the second one as well. We very

22:19 ↗ much support formal recognition of the

22:22 ↗ landmark. We're very excited about it.

22:24 ↗ We think that it is the right thing to

22:26 ↗ do. It does meet all the qualifications.

22:30 ↗ Um, in fact, when you look at the

22:32 ↗ criteria, it is more than 40 years old.

22:34 ↗ We we know that the sign embodies the

22:36 ↗ significant evidence of history of a

22:38 ↗ product business surface advertised.

22:41 ↗ People talk about it. It has become a

22:43 ↗ word of mouth marketing for our old town

22:45 ↗ as well. And and that's very important

22:47 ↗ to our old town to set us apart from

22:49 ↗ others and to have people talk about it

22:51 ↗ and market in a very historically hip

22:54 ↗ way, which is how we word it. Um but the

22:57 ↗ next step in the process the one that

23:00 ↗ the orange color al together where you

23:02 ↗ create this sign and you change some of

23:04 ↗ the elements that are critical and core

23:06 ↗ to the sign. Yeah. This this one is

23:09 ↗ specifically on the landmark

23:10 ↗ designation. If you have comments

23:12 ↗ regarding the alterations there will be

23:13 ↗ another opportunity to speak. Okay. So

23:15 ↗ we are very much in support of this and

23:17 ↗ excited about the opportunity to speak

23:18 ↗ at the next one. Thank you.

23:29 ↗ Hi, my name is Connie Marsh and I am

23:32 ↗ going to read directly uh number three

23:36 ↗ that tells you um is part of this

23:40 ↗ discussion for the first section. It

23:43 ↗ says if the development commission

23:44 ↗ classifies the sign as a landmark, it

23:46 ↗ may continue to exist to preserve the

23:48 ↗ historic character and distinctive

23:51 ↗ features of the sign. And then it goes

23:54 ↗ through and talks about how the uh

23:57 ↗ following must be adhered to and part of

24:01 ↗ that is sign design, color and texture

24:05 ↗ and shape. So this is the in this first

24:09 ↗ decision making part of the code you are

24:13 ↗ supposed

24:15 ↗ to say what the distinctive features of

24:20 ↗ the sign are that make it

24:24 ↗ historic and then um we will have the uh

24:31 ↗ criteria that sets the stage for the

24:34 ↗ next portion.

24:36 ↗ So

24:38 ↗ um to me th

24:42 ↗ those distinctive features of the sign

24:45 ↗ alto together are the barrel, the

24:50 ↗ X's and the color orange because that

24:54 ↗ is what everyone thinks of when you say

24:58 ↗ triple X, right? And so distinctive

25:02 ↗ features is part of this initial

25:05 ↗ conversation in landmarking. Thanks.

25:10 ↗ Thank you.

25:13 ↗ Are there any other public comments?

25:28 ↗ Does the applicant have any rebuttal to

25:30 ↗ the comments,

25:41 ↗ man? Uh, I I would agree. I I believe

25:45 ↗ some of the features that are prominent

25:47 ↗ on this are the barrel design

25:51 ↗ uh complete with the kind of silver

25:54 ↗ rings or I guess they're they're white

25:56 ↗ stripes now but supposed to represent

25:57 ↗ kind of the silver rings. Um there's a

26:00 ↗ prominent oval on the front that

26:02 ↗ displays the name of the brand.

26:05 ↗ Um and it also talks about texture as

26:08 ↗ well. So I think those things are

26:11 ↗ appropriate.

26:13 ↗ um the design, color, and texture, yes,

26:17 ↗ of the sign. So, I'd say that to me the

26:19 ↗ the barrel is the most prominent

26:21 ↗ feature. Um but I'll allow the

26:24 ↗ commission to make the decision they see

26:25 ↗ fit.

26:27 ↗ Thank you. Does staff have any rebuttal

26:30 ↗ to the comments?

26:32 ↗ No. Okay. Commissioners, are there any

26:35 ↗ objections to closing the public

26:38 ↗ hearing? Hearing none, I now close the

26:41 ↗ public hearing at 7:02

26:45 ↗ p.m. Now it's time to move into the

26:47 ↗ deliberation portion of the meeting. But

26:50 ↗ first, we need to make a motion. Is

26:52 ↗ there a motion on the item before the

26:54 ↗ commission?

26:58 ↗ Madam Chair, I move that the development

26:59 ↗ commission approve the request contained

27:01 ↗ in

27:05 ↗ SGN25-00006 to designate the triple X

27:08 ↗ sign as an isqua landmark.

27:13 ↗ Second. Okay. And as a brief comment,

27:16 ↗ I'll mention that I know our language is

27:18 ↗ written with Burger Master in the name,

27:20 ↗ but in my mind, it's the XX sign that

27:23 ↗ we're designating as a landmark, not a

27:25 ↗ Burger Master sign. I

27:28 ↗ agree. Um, are there any other

27:32 ↗ features that we want to note in the

27:34 ↗ designation?

27:47 ↗ I guess I didn't see something in there

27:49 ↗ that said we needed to specify what

27:51 ↗ those were.

27:52 ↗ [Music]

27:53 ↗ Okay. With the deliberation concluded,

27:56 ↗ it is time for the commission to take

27:58 ↗ action on the item before us. All in

28:00 ↗ favor of the main motion say I.

28:04 ↗ I. All oppose say

28:07 ↗ no. The motion is

28:09 ↗ approved. This concludes the Burger

28:11 ↗ Master landmark designation or sorry, do

28:16 ↗ we need to restate it?

28:19 ↗ Okay. This

28:21 ↗ concludes the triple X landmark

28:24 ↗ designation application. A notice of the

28:26 ↗ decision will be issued by staff within

28:28 ↗ 7 days.

29:18 ↗ There we go.

29:34 ↗ Okay, it was not cooperating with

29:37 ↗ me. Now, we're going to look at

29:41 ↗ the BurgerMasterX

29:44 ↗ uh sign proposed alterations.

29:49 ↗ So um

29:51 ↗ IMC18612 states that if it is designated

29:54 ↗ as a landmark, the shape of the sign

29:56 ↗ shall not be altered. No more than 50%

29:59 ↗ of the sign area shall be

30:01 ↗ modified and any deteriorated or damaged

30:04 ↗ portions of the sign must be repaired

30:07 ↗ when possible rather than replaced. And

30:10 ↗ when new material is used, it must be

30:12 ↗ consistent with the sign's design,

30:13 ↗ color, and texture. And I should note

30:16 ↗ that no more Sorry, Miss Le. Do you have

30:18 ↗ to open this as another public hearing?

30:21 ↗ You do. I'm sorry. Yeah. Sorry. Go

30:22 ↗ ahead. Okay. Uh, this is the formal

30:25 ↗ public hearing for proposed alterations

30:27 ↗ to the triple egg sign. As a landmark

30:29 ↗ sign, changes to the sign must be

30:31 ↗ approved by the commission. The purpose

30:32 ↗ of this hearing is to solicit relevant

30:34 ↗ public comment and facilitate the

30:36 ↗ review, discussion, and decision on the

30:38 ↗ application by the development

30:39 ↗ commission. This is a quasi judicial

30:42 ↗ hearing. And so now I open the public

30:45 ↗ hearing at 7:05 p.m. First, we'll

30:49 ↗ proceed with the staff presentation.

30:50 ↗ Miss Le, you are still under oath.

30:52 ↗ Please proceed. Okay. I'm going to I'm

30:55 ↗ going to start over just a little bit.

30:56 ↗ If it is designated as a landmark sign,

30:58 ↗ the shape shall not be altered. No more

31:01 ↗ than 50% of the do sign design of the

31:04 ↗ sign area shall be modified. Now, the

31:06 ↗ caveat is no more than 50% of the area

31:09 ↗ can be modified unless it is approved by

31:11 ↗ the development

31:13 ↗ commission. Lastly, if it is

31:15 ↗ deteriorated or damaged, portions of the

31:17 ↗ sign must be repaired when possible

31:19 ↗ rather than replaced. When new material

31:22 ↗ is used, it must be consistent with the

31:23 ↗ design's design, color, and

31:27 ↗ texture. As I mentioned, approval from

31:29 ↗ the development commission is required

31:31 ↗ for any alteration that exceeds 50% of

31:33 ↗ the area.

31:37 ↗ Um, as you can see, the existing sign, I

31:39 ↗ didn't put any words here, but it's

31:40 ↗ obvious. The existing sign is in the

31:42 ↗ shape of a barrel. It is very large. Uh,

31:45 ↗ it is primarily orange. The barrel piece

31:48 ↗ is primarily orange. The center circle

31:49 ↗ is um red. The bands are intended, they

31:53 ↗ were originally silver. They are

31:54 ↗ intended to be silver. And the brand

31:57 ↗ name XX root beer is on there.

32:02 ↗ The applicant is proposing to um change

32:06 ↗ the they are proposing to change the

32:07 ↗ sign body color to be res um they are

32:10 ↗ proposing to bring the barrel features

32:13 ↗ back to the original silver. The sign

32:16 ↗ face background will have a faux wood

32:18 ↗ red grain. The addition of Burger Master

32:21 ↗ at the top of the barrel ring on the

32:23 ↗ silver part. The XX root beer brand name

32:26 ↗ will be replaced by the Seir logo and

32:28 ↗ Dine in your car which is the Burger

32:31 ↗ Master brand. Um they're also proposing

32:34 ↗ and not stated here um to replace all

32:36 ↗ the acrylic that is there with aluminum.

32:39 ↗ Um acrylic however is usually used for

32:42 ↗ interior signs. It's not considered to

32:44 ↗ be very sturdy. The aluminum is

32:46 ↗ considered it's considered a better use

32:48 ↗ for outdoor signs uh because it's much

32:50 ↗ more durable.

32:54 ↗ So, the shape now shouldn't be altered.

32:56 ↗ They're not altering the shape of the

32:58 ↗ sign. No more than 50% of this sign area

33:01 ↗ shall be modified. Well, clearly they

33:03 ↗ are. Um, and they may do that with your

33:06 ↗ approval. They're doing the color.

33:08 ↗ They're proposing the color on much of

33:09 ↗ it. And they are proposing um to change

33:12 ↗ from the acrylic to

33:17 ↗ aluminum as and I just said that um

33:19 ↗ they're replacing the acrylic with the

33:20 ↗ aluminum which is more durable for

33:22 ↗ outdoor use. Um the city however is

33:25 ↗ recommending they're recommending a very

33:26 ↗ dark brown otherwise the colors are very

33:29 ↗ close to what it is originally. We are

33:32 ↗ recommending that they use a color to

33:33 ↗ match more closely to what is there

33:35 ↗ today.

33:38 ↗ So we, as I mentioned, we recommend

33:40 ↗ approving the proposed alterations to

33:41 ↗ the burger master landmark sign with the

33:43 ↗ condition that the barrel color be

33:45 ↗ lightened or changed to more closely

33:47 ↗ reflect the existing barrel

33:50 ↗ color. That is all I

33:52 ↗ have. Thank you. Any commissioner

33:55 ↗ questions?

34:01 ↗ If they is there an option where they

34:03 ↗ keep their color scheme and keep the

34:07 ↗ logo so the

34:09 ↗ XX root beer

34:12 ↗ um is that something we can consider

34:16 ↗ with the Burger Master? We can't require

34:18 ↗ it. We can't require it. Cannot. I mean

34:21 ↗ this is I I already know this is going

34:23 ↗ to be in a matter of opinion. Um but

34:25 ↗ that is the brand name and the new brand

34:28 ↗ name for it is Burger Master. So they

34:31 ↗ are keeping the design which is the

34:33 ↗ barrel design. They are keeping the

34:34 ↗ color and they are proposing to keep the

34:36 ↗ same texture.

34:38 ↗ Keeping the but when creating the code

34:43 ↗ it was agreed that names could change on

34:46 ↗ signs. Okay. When we went through the

34:47 ↗ title 18 process. Okay. So they're

34:50 ↗ keeping the it's not what we saw.

34:53 ↗ They're keeping the orange yellow scheme

34:58 ↗ or this is what it's going to be. This

35:01 ↗ is what they are proposing. We can

35:03 ↗ stipulate that it needs to be orange.

35:05 ↗ Okay. Yeah. So it could be orange and

35:07 ↗ yellow. Right. That is that is what we

35:08 ↗ are proposing. We our our condition is

35:10 ↗ that they make the color more close to

35:12 ↗ what it is now. Closer to what it is

35:14 ↗ now. And if you want to say specifically

35:16 ↗ orange, you may say specifically orange.

35:20 ↗ Okay. Thank

35:22 ↗ you. Was there any discussion on how to

35:24 ↗ quantify 50%.

35:28 ↗ No. Um, but considering they're

35:31 ↗ changing the entire surface from acrylic

35:35 ↗ to aluminum, that was the assumption

35:37 ↗ that it's 50%. Okay.

35:44 ↗ Any other questions or comments?

35:47 ↗ Um, I have one comment on the on the

35:49 ↗ staff report.

35:51 ↗ Um I feel like there should be some

35:53 ↗ revision. In the conclusion in the

35:55 ↗ second paragraph um said the features

36:00 ↗ required to be retained and maintained

36:01 ↗ on landmark sign are shape, color and

36:04 ↗ texture. But I think it should be shape,

36:07 ↗ design, color and texture.

36:11 ↗ That is what the code says. The code

36:13 ↗ says the first part of the code says the

36:15 ↗ shine A says the sign shape shall not be

36:19 ↗ altered. And item C in the code says

36:21 ↗ when new materials used it must be

36:24 ↗ consistent with the sign design color

36:26 ↗ and texture. Okay, you're right. I

36:29 ↗ apologize.

36:31 ↗ That's the second paragraph in the

36:32 ↗ conclusion. Um it's the second paragraph

36:35 ↗ in the conclusion. Yeah. Okay. And then

36:38 ↗ the

36:41 ↗ um yeah, it it mentions a couple times

36:43 ↗ in that paragraph. Yeah. Okay.

36:47 ↗ And I guess that would be a question

36:48 ↗ too. How do we how do we define how do

36:51 ↗ you define design?

36:54 ↗ You know, it's funny. I looked I looked

36:55 ↗ it up because it's come up so many

36:57 ↗ times. Um and you know, it's things like

37:00 ↗ a sketch, a drawing, a you know, a

37:03 ↗ shape. Um, and we talked about the

37:05 ↗ reineer sign and the re the reineer sign

37:07 ↗ is an R. The entire thing is the R. That

37:10 ↗ is the design of the sign. Um, staff

37:13 ↗ considers this one, if you want to throw

37:15 ↗ in the trip XX, that to be the brand

37:16 ↗ name because XX was a franchise and

37:20 ↗ people open these burger restaurants and

37:21 ↗ advertise that they were selling XX root

37:23 ↗ beer and that's that's what they were

37:25 ↗ selling and they sold burgers with it.

37:27 ↗ But um staff has considered the trip XX

37:31 ↗ part of this to be the the brand name,

37:33 ↗ the franchise name, not the design. And

37:34 ↗ not part of the design. Not the design.

37:36 ↗ Mhm. Thank you. But yes, the design the

37:39 ↗ definition of design as I have looked

37:40 ↗ for it is is sketchy. It's Yeah, it's

37:43 ↗ gray. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome.

37:52 ↗ Any other comments or questions from the

37:53 ↗ commission? All right. Thank you.

37:56 ↗ Oh, go ahead. It's still off to me. I

37:59 ↗ mean, it it could work, but do they have

38:02 ↗ to have the dine in your car on there?

38:06 ↗ This is what they are requesting. Yes.

38:08 ↗ This is this is what the commission will

38:10 ↗ decide tonight. So, when we when we take

38:13 ↗ the you know the logo and the dining in

38:16 ↗ your car plus the is that more than 50%.

38:21 ↗ Or it's still No, I mean whatever the

38:26 ↗ area is still kind of less than 50%.

38:30 ↗ Well, let's let's hear the applicant's

38:32 ↗ presentation and we'll deliver it later.

38:34 ↗ Sure. Okay. All right. Now, we'll

38:37 ↗ proceed with the applicant's

38:40 ↗ presentation. And I'd like to remind you

38:42 ↗ that you are still under

38:47 ↗ oath. This is not working with me

38:49 ↗ tonight.

39:38 ↗ Well, hello again, and I do acknowledge

39:40 ↗ that I'm still under oath. Uh, Alex

39:42 ↗ Jensen again, and thank you all for

39:44 ↗ taking the time to be here with us

39:46 ↗ today. Um, we would ask that the council

39:50 ↗ approve these design modifications.

39:53 ↗ Um, I I would note that we've done a

39:56 ↗ couple of things to try to gradually get

39:58 ↗ this closer to what everybody wants to

40:01 ↗ see and and what people view as

40:04 ↗ consistent or at least more consistent

40:06 ↗ with the history of the location. So,

40:09 ↗ um, I think this is the XX that

40:12 ↗ everybody kind of knows and loves and,

40:14 ↗ uh, that's what's kind of in people's

40:16 ↗ minds. Um, I I think the reality is that

40:20 ↗ the the restaurant itself and the sign

40:23 ↗ uh have have been there for a long time

40:25 ↗ and it's definitely in need of somewhat

40:27 ↗ of an upgrade. Um, the existing sign did

40:30 ↗ have a pretty big hole blown in it by

40:32 ↗ that giant windstorm that took out a lot

40:34 ↗ of those trees along Gilman as well. Uh,

40:37 ↗ and that's not a whole lot of fun. So,

40:38 ↗ clearly something has to be done with

40:39 ↗ this. Um, our original design, uh, we

40:42 ↗ wanted to incorporate some of the colors

40:44 ↗ and elements from our branding. um it is

40:47 ↗ going to be a Burger Master restaurant,

40:48 ↗ not a trip XX. And so we want people to

40:50 ↗ know and understand when they pull up

40:52 ↗ that that's what what they're coming

40:53 ↗ into. Um our existing designs, we do

40:56 ↗ have we have our name, we have the DY

40:58 ↗ car, we have a steer head. So how can we

41:00 ↗ try to incorporate those things and and

41:02 ↗ still keep uh the characteristics that

41:04 ↗ again make this sign so beloved? So this

41:07 ↗ is one of the ones we first started out

41:08 ↗ with. I guess I should mention that

41:10 ↗ originally we did have the XX on the

41:13 ↗ sign still. Uh, and the reason that we

41:15 ↗ did away with that was we got a pretty

41:17 ↗ nasty cease and desist letter from the

41:20 ↗ XX folks in West Lafayette, Indiana.

41:22 ↗ They're the last remaining XX in the US.

41:26 ↗ We thought they'd be delighted to hear

41:28 ↗ that they wouldn't be the only ones, but

41:30 ↗ that was not the case. They were pretty

41:32 ↗ adamant that we were infringing upon

41:34 ↗ their trademark already. And they told

41:36 ↗ us under no uncertain terms they would

41:38 ↗ be suing us in every way imaginable if

41:40 ↗ we went forward with the renovation and

41:42 ↗ and referred to this in any ways the

41:44 ↗ trip XX. So that is a a large part of

41:47 ↗ where we're coming from. I know there

41:49 ↗ was a meeting I think last September and

41:51 ↗ the original design we showed had the

41:53 ↗ three X's on it still. Um, but with that

41:55 ↗ in mind and not wanting to take a giant

41:58 ↗ business risk, I don't think it's

41:59 ↗ reasonable the city takes on that risk

42:01 ↗ for us. Um, we we altered our plans. Um,

42:06 ↗ to me, the really iconic parts of this

42:08 ↗ sign are the the root beer barrel look

42:12 ↗ with the stripes. Um, not only uh

42:15 ↗ horizontally, but those kind of vertical

42:16 ↗ stripes as well, and that big oval with

42:19 ↗ the brand on there. Uh we got some

42:21 ↗ feedback that that the the blue wasn't

42:23 ↗ very popular and we went, "Okay, well,

42:25 ↗ let's keep it with red." And that's

42:26 ↗ actually kind of more in brand with some

42:27 ↗ of our other signs. Our other signs

42:30 ↗ aren't so close to our awnings. They're

42:31 ↗ separate and we were worried that the

42:33 ↗ red together would be a little bit too

42:34 ↗ much, the red on red. But I actually

42:36 ↗ think it looks really nice. Um we we

42:38 ↗ like the combination of that. Uh then we

42:41 ↗ got more feedback that we'd like to see

42:43 ↗ a lighter um a lighter version and so we

42:46 ↗ came up with another option for that.

42:48 ↗ Um, I'd love to try to within reason,

42:52 ↗ you know, make this something that is

42:55 ↗ really beautiful for the next 60 years.

42:57 ↗ Uh, I know the restaurant itself needed

42:59 ↗ a tremendous amount of work. Um, we had

43:01 ↗ to gut the entire thing to bring it up

43:03 ↗ to code, but also it just needed it.

43:05 ↗ Even if it would have been code

43:07 ↗ compliant, um, there was a lot of, you

43:10 ↗ know, very thick patches of like

43:12 ↗ gelatinized grease and parts of the

43:13 ↗ kitchen. Um, this this needed a complete

43:16 ↗ gutting. And I think if we're looking

43:18 ↗ forward to the next 60 years, it does

43:20 ↗ make sense that it reflects the brand

43:21 ↗ that's going to going to be there. Uh so

43:25 ↗ I I would ask that you all take this

43:27 ↗ into consideration. Uh we're we try to

43:29 ↗ be a really good community partner. We

43:31 ↗ pride ourselves in having really

43:33 ↗ beautiful landscaping um that I think

43:36 ↗ stands out more in other jurisdictions.

43:38 ↗ I drive around the city of Isiqua. I

43:39 ↗ feel like there's a lot of really lovely

43:41 ↗ landscaping here. So hopefully we at

43:43 ↗ least, you know, can meet that bar, if

43:45 ↗ not surpass it. Um, but we believe these

43:49 ↗ modif modifications comply with the

43:51 ↗ statute given, uh, we're retaining that

43:54 ↗ barrel design, uh, those metallic

43:56 ↗ stripes and the oval with a brand name.

43:58 ↗ And based upon that, I would ask the

44:00 ↗ city to approve our request. Thank you.

44:05 ↗ Thank you. Any questions from the

44:08 ↗ commission on the applicant's

44:09 ↗ presentation?

44:11 ↗ I have some questions. Sure, please.

44:12 ↗ Thank you. Thank you for your

44:13 ↗ presentation. Um, and thanks for uh

44:16 ↗ doing such a great job on the design and

44:18 ↗ wanting to retain and and still create

44:22 ↗ something that symbolizes your brand. I

44:24 ↗ think that's important to be good

44:26 ↗ partners, you know, in the community.

44:28 ↗ So, I appreciate that. Um, I I then just

44:31 ↗ have some questions about what I see in

44:33 ↗ the rendering. I know there's the the

44:34 ↗ question of color, but these are these

44:36 ↗ are slightly different questions. Um,

44:39 ↗ when I read the words consistent with

44:41 ↗ sign design, color, and texture, I look

44:44 ↗ at the word texture. And when I look at

44:45 ↗ the original sign, there's striations in

44:48 ↗ the face of the sign that mimic what was

44:51 ↗ the individual boards of the barrel. Uh,

44:54 ↗ perceive, you know, potentially that's

44:56 ↗ what they were going for. And I don't

44:58 ↗ see that texture reflected in your

44:59 ↗ renderings. Is it your intention to not

45:01 ↗ have any texture uh similar to the

45:04 ↗ original or

45:06 ↗ is it just going to be a flat veneer

45:07 ↗ that's vertical? I think that's uh

45:10 ↗ something that we could work out. Uh I

45:12 ↗ will note I believe our prior

45:14 ↗ um our prior design did have that. Uh we

45:18 ↗ got the feedback from the city about the

45:20 ↗ lighter texture on Monday and so we kind

45:22 ↗ of tried to get a quick visual up here.

45:25 ↗ Um, but if that's um an element that

45:27 ↗ we'd like to preserve, I I certainly

45:29 ↗ don't have a problem with that. Again,

45:31 ↗ um I think within reason, I'd love to

45:33 ↗ try to make some tweaks to this where

45:35 ↗ it's it's good for the city and it's

45:37 ↗ good for our business as well. Um and I

45:40 ↗ think that's certainly a reasonable

45:41 ↗ suggestion. Thank you. Um and then as I

45:45 ↗ also look at the renderings, I look at

45:46 ↗ the face and I look at the sides and

45:48 ↗ they're indicated as being the same

45:50 ↗ material and color, but in the rendering

45:52 ↗ they don't appear to be the same

45:53 ↗ material and color. Um if you look at

45:56 ↗ page two of eight uh for instance, so

46:01 ↗ there's the side view, then there's the

46:03 ↗ face view. The wood grain isn't present

46:05 ↗ on the side view. Is that is that

46:07 ↗ accurate?

46:10 ↗ Uh

46:12 ↗ I they should be identical on the actual

46:16 ↗ built sign. They will be identical. If

46:18 ↗ that wasn't reflected in the the visual,

46:20 ↗ then I apologize for that. Okay, no

46:21 ↗ biggie. It was just a question. Um, and

46:23 ↗ then lastly, um, the illumination, it it

46:26 ↗ says it's only illuminated on one side,

46:28 ↗ the east side. Is that correct? That is

46:31 ↗ correct. Why is that? I believe that is

46:33 ↗ currently the case. Okay. So, it's just

46:35 ↗ in preservation of that. And I wonder

46:37 ↗ how that came about. But anyways, okay.

46:40 ↗ I I if I can speculate, I believe it was

46:42 ↗ used to be more visible from the freeway

46:44 ↗ before Integrity Automotive was there

46:45 ↗ and they didn't want to create a

46:46 ↗ distraction. Uh, but that's just my

46:50 ↗ speculation or cost, but I'm just

46:52 ↗ Okay. Guessing now. Those are my

46:54 ↗ questions for now. Thank you very much.

46:56 ↗ Yeah.

46:58 ↗ Other questions?

47:00 ↗ Commissioner,

47:02 ↗ I appreciate you you clarifying the the

47:04 ↗ issue with XX. Um that was one of my

47:08 ↗ first questions is why why wasn't that

47:09 ↗ preserved? And I I understand it now.

47:12 ↗ Thank you. It's been a common uh comment

47:15 ↗ from people and uh it would be nice if

47:18 ↗ we could try to split the baby somehow.

47:20 ↗ We we tried to negotiate a little bit

47:22 ↗ and it was just crickets. So,

47:27 ↗ yeah. Any other

47:30 ↗ questions? All right. Thank you. Thank

47:32 ↗ you.

47:35 ↗ Now, we'll move into the public comment

47:36 ↗ portion of the hearing, Miss Jackson,

47:38 ↗ has anyone signed up to comment on this

47:40 ↗ topic?

47:43 ↗ No, chair, but I believe there is

47:45 ↗ someone in the audience that would like

47:47 ↗ to make a comment. Okay. Please call

47:49 ↗ those in the room in the order they

48:00 ↗ volunteer. Good evening again. Corby

48:03 ↗ Castler, executive director of the

48:04 ↗ Downtown Isqua Association. We are so

48:07 ↗ excited to partner with Burger Master

48:09 ↗ and totally understand the need for

48:11 ↗ branding their business. Of course,

48:12 ↗ that's that's logical.

48:15 ↗ It is puzzling this whole process of

48:17 ↗ just approving a landmark sign with the

48:20 ↗ triple X, with the orange, with the

48:21 ↗ barrel, with all those elements that

48:23 ↗ made it a landmark sign in the first

48:25 ↗ place that was just approved. So now

48:27 ↗ what I'm asking the commission to

48:29 ↗ consider is how can we compromise and

48:31 ↗ make sure that Burger Master gets the

48:33 ↗ brand it needs and yet XX, the barrel,

48:36 ↗ the key components of the sign that was

48:39 ↗ just landmarked are still left intact.

48:42 ↗ Um, I'm not I'm not a legal expert, but

48:44 ↗ it seems to me that if it's a landmark

48:46 ↗ sign with triple X on it, there should

48:47 ↗ be some way around some of the legal

48:49 ↗ ramifications. But thank you.

48:53 ↗ Thank

48:55 ↗ you. Would anyone else like to speak?

49:04 ↗ Okay. Legal stuff. No one told us legal

49:07 ↗ stuff. We go to a lot of work to try to

49:10 ↗ figure out what's right and then

49:11 ↗ somebody pops up with legal stuff. Makes

49:13 ↗ me crazy. However, we have color and we

49:17 ↗ have yellow and we have orange. We have

49:21 ↗ the shape and the texture, right? So,

49:24 ↗ how much

49:26 ↗ change do you want? Could the uh barrel

49:32 ↗ be

49:33 ↗ orange? The round plaque be sort of that

49:37 ↗ weathered pinkish color that we see? And

49:40 ↗ could the horns be yellow? Right. And so

49:44 ↗ then you're getting the color elements

49:46 ↗ of the landmark sign without the

49:48 ↗ legalities of the uh triple X situation.

49:53 ↗ Burger Master. I like Burger Master and

49:56 ↗ I like their horns that they had in

49:58 ↗ Kirkland and the neon. Those were

50:01 ↗ cool. I don't find this rendition to

50:05 ↗ carry that sort of mid-century cool that

50:08 ↗ I actually think of as Burger Master,

50:11 ↗ but

50:13 ↗ the draw of the barrel and the trip X is

50:18 ↗ all down the West Coast. Any antique

50:20 ↗ show I go to, everybody knows where the

50:22 ↗ X is. And so in my brain for marketing,

50:24 ↗ the closer you can get to the triple X

50:28 ↗ sign, the easier the draw will be to

50:30 ↗ market your restaurant anyway. So I

50:32 ↗ think it's beneficial for Burger Master

50:35 ↗ 2. Um to try to echo those colors very

50:40 ↗ closely. So that's I guess what I would

50:43 ↗ propose. The sign needs to be orange and

50:47 ↗ then the lettering needs to be yellow

50:50 ↗ and the texture of the barrel needs to

50:53 ↗ stay with the striations of a barrel.

50:57 ↗ And then uh when I feel like getting

50:58 ↗ really fat, I'll go eat it. Burger

51:00 ↗ Master. Thanks. Thank

51:04 ↗ you. Any other public

51:09 ↗ comments? Does the applicant have any

51:11 ↗ rebuttal to the comments?

51:34 ↗ I am I am very aware

51:36 ↗ uh that this is a a big decision and and

51:40 ↗ this sign has been here for a very long

51:42 ↗ time and people have an emotional

51:44 ↗ connection to it. Um, and I I respect

51:47 ↗ that. And if there was a way for us to

51:50 ↗ um, you know, continue running it as a

51:53 ↗ trip X or or get some agreement

51:55 ↗ regarding the branding, then I think it

51:57 ↗ would make sense to retain the colors.

51:59 ↗ Um, I I with that being said, I think it

52:02 ↗ makes sense for the commission to

52:04 ↗ approve our request. I think we're

52:06 ↗ striking a nice balance between

52:08 ↗ maintaining the critical elements of the

52:10 ↗ sign in terms of the shape and the

52:12 ↗ texture. I know the color is changing.

52:18 ↗ Um I I think trying to um hybridize it

52:22 ↗ too much is going to result in something

52:23 ↗ that's not good for anybody. It's not

52:25 ↗ going to have a nice visual appeal. Um,

52:29 ↗ and I think that there's a process for

52:32 ↗ modification for a reason so that we can

52:34 ↗ modify it. Uh, I think it'll end up

52:36 ↗ being a nicer look with what we've

52:39 ↗ proposed and in in, you know, in a week

52:43 ↗ or two weeks, I think there may be some

52:45 ↗ people with different opinions, but in

52:47 ↗ 10 years or in 20 years, I think we're

52:49 ↗ going to be happy that we have um a

52:51 ↗ consistent look uh to this sign. So,

52:55 ↗ that's my consideration. And that's my

52:57 ↗ argument. I appreciate your time again.

53:00 ↗ Thank

53:01 ↗ you. Does staff have any rebuttal to

53:04 ↗ comments? No. Thank you. Commissioners,

53:08 ↗ are there any objections to closing the

53:10 ↗ public

53:12 ↗ hearing? Hearing no objections, I now

53:14 ↗ close the public hearing

53:16 ↗ at 7:29

53:19 ↗ p.m. Now it's time to move into the

53:22 ↗ deliberation portion of the meeting.

53:23 ↗ First, we need to make a motion. Is

53:25 ↗ there a motion on the item before the

53:34 ↗ commission?

53:37 ↗ Commissioner. Um, Madame

53:40 ↗ Chair, move that the development

53:42 ↗ commission approve the proposed

53:43 ↗ alterations to

53:48 ↗ SGN25-00006. Burger master sign with the

53:51 ↗ following

53:52 ↗ condition. Number one, the barrel color

53:55 ↗ be lightened or changed more closely to

53:57 ↗ reflect reflect the existing barrel

53:59 ↗ color.

54:03 ↗ Second.

54:06 ↗ Are there any other comments or

54:10 ↗ start I think I want to amend it right

54:13 ↗ away. Yeah, the changes. I think the I

54:16 ↗ guess

54:17 ↗ discussion about it it um one item to me

54:22 ↗ it seems that in

54:24 ↗ our deliberation for approving

54:27 ↗ alterations that exceed

54:30 ↗ 50% approval may be granted the

54:33 ↗ modifications consistent with the

54:35 ↗ landmark sign or design color and

54:37 ↗ texture. So, in thinking about those

54:40 ↗ three things, number one, I don't see

54:43 ↗ anywhere here where it says name. And if

54:47 ↗ this was a McDonald's sign and we said

54:50 ↗ you have to keep the name McDonald's, it

54:52 ↗ wouldn't seem correct. Um, so to me, it

54:56 ↗ doesn't I understand the historical

54:59 ↗ importance of the XX, but I don't see

55:01 ↗ where our code says it has to keep the

55:03 ↗ name. The design I would see is the

55:06 ↗ shape and the bands, the barrel

55:10 ↗ look. The texture is hard because

55:13 ↗ texture to me is a plastic or or

55:17 ↗ plexiglass and I think that's hard to

55:19 ↗ tell. But the one item there, color, I

55:22 ↗ have a hard time getting around changing

55:25 ↗ color from orange

55:27 ↗ to brown.

55:30 ↗ Um, and I don't see how

55:34 ↗ the the amendment I would make would be

55:38 ↗ the barrel color has to be

55:41 ↗ changed to equal the existing barrel

55:46 ↗ color. I to modify the city's proposed

55:50 ↗ condition to be more specific

55:53 ↗ to I don't curious what other

55:56 ↗ commissioners think.

56:00 ↗ So just a couple of thoughts. Uh we can

56:02 ↗ come back and make amendments to the

56:04 ↗ conditions after maybe some

56:05 ↗ deliberations. So it's so I I'm um in a

56:10 ↗ similar place where Commissioner Morgan

56:12 ↗ is where we start with the landmark sign

56:15 ↗ which is as it exists now because that's

56:17 ↗ what we just approved. Now when we start

56:19 ↗ modifying that we start drifting away

56:21 ↗ from the landmark condition that we just

56:24 ↗ approved. and and in my mind I would

56:27 ↗ like to see us minimize the amount of

56:29 ↗ change that happens or what's the point?

56:30 ↗ It's not really a landmark sign. I think

56:32 ↗ there's definitely benefits for Burger

56:34 ↗ Master to retain this sign. Um it's a

56:37 ↗ large non-conforming sign um visible

56:40 ↗ from a long distance away. So I think

56:42 ↗ there's a significant business benefit

56:44 ↗ to having uh being able to retain a

56:46 ↗ large sign like that. But to do that,

56:49 ↗ you've got to I think satisfy some of

56:51 ↗ the conditions that are specified in the

56:53 ↗ code. And as Commissioner Morgan

56:54 ↗ mentioned, the color and texture and

56:56 ↗ design need to maintain some consistency

56:58 ↗ here. So, you know, I I am kind of

57:01 ↗ aligned with the the the the color. I

57:06 ↗ mean, that's so um specific and and part

57:10 ↗ of the image of this particular sign

57:12 ↗ that to change that I I just I I think

57:15 ↗ um would not align with I think the

57:17 ↗ intent of the code here to maintain some

57:18 ↗ consistency in the design and texture. I

57:21 ↗ think the striations if they can be

57:22 ↗ recreated in the aluminum would be

57:25 ↗ something that I think um would also

57:28 ↗ maintain that consistency. I think a

57:30 ↗ starting place for me is I look at the

57:32 ↗ sign and I I understand the logo or the

57:35 ↗ branding can change here and I I accept

57:39 ↗ that. Um and the attempt to try to do it

57:41 ↗ within the oval that uh kind of exists

57:43 ↗ in the current XX sign and and

57:46 ↗ similarity to the color. Um, but then

57:48 ↗ they're adding Burger Master across the

57:50 ↗ top. So, that's another modification to

57:52 ↗ the sign that I scratched my head about.

57:54 ↗ Well, what's the what's the limit here

57:56 ↗ on how much change do we allow uh to

57:58 ↗ this sign uh drifting away from the um

58:03 ↗ you know, the landmark sign designation

58:04 ↗ that we just allowed or just just

58:06 ↗ approved. So I I'm my starting place

58:09 ↗ here and obviously I'm just um you know

58:11 ↗ putting my two cents in here would be

58:13 ↗ that essentially the sign looks the same

58:16 ↗ except for that oval branding that

58:19 ↗ occurs in the red circle in the center

58:22 ↗ of the in the center of the sign. Other

58:23 ↗ than that I think the rest of it needs

58:25 ↗ to be consistent with what's there now.

58:30 ↗ Thank you.

58:31 ↗ I would agree and I would just add to

58:33 ↗ that not playing lawyer but um you know

58:36 ↗ section

58:38 ↗ 18612150e3 says in order to maintain

58:42 ↗ remain a landmark designation the

58:44 ↗ following must be adhered to. So I think

58:47 ↗ if we don't retain it we're opening up

58:50 ↗ the potential that somebody may decide

58:53 ↗ that it no longer has landmark

58:55 ↗ designation and could contest it. So I I

58:58 ↗ think it'd be shame for it to ever go

59:00 ↗ away as as the sign. So I would like to

59:04 ↗ build in some protections potentially

59:07 ↗ protections that the applicant doesn't

59:09 ↗ want. But one of them is it it retains

59:12 ↗ and maintains all of that criteria in

59:14 ↗ order to rem retain its landmark

59:17 ↗ designation. Now, I don't understand

59:19 ↗ entirely and don't don't pretend to all

59:22 ↗ that may be involved in um revoking a

59:25 ↗ landmark designation, but it's a

59:28 ↗ thought.

59:32 ↗ I had a thought of I'm not too hung up

59:35 ↗ about the color. I think I'm I'm okay

59:37 ↗ with the color changing. Um but as far

59:40 ↗ as the design of the logo, is that

59:43 ↗ flush? Can they clarify? Is that flush

59:45 ↗ to the oval or would that be raised

59:48 ↗ similar to what triple XX um has? And if

59:52 ↗ it's raised, is that considered um part

59:55 ↗ of that historic design? You know what I

59:59 ↗ mean? Like Yeah,

1:00:04 ↗ that so currently uh yeah, the oval is

1:00:08 ↗ raised and and that we would maintain

1:00:10 ↗ that. I'm talking about the the whatever

1:00:14 ↗ that is that raised above cuz in on the

1:00:17 ↗ trip X it's actually raised ex outside

1:00:21 ↗ it pops out of the oval as well. All

1:00:23 ↗ these elements are dimensional. So the

1:00:25 ↗ the steerhead is what we call that thing

1:00:27 ↗ will be popping out of the red just like

1:00:30 ↗ similar to what the trip X is and the

1:00:33 ↗ dine in your car. That's correct. So

1:00:35 ↗ pops out like the root beer. So that's

1:00:38 ↗ that's almost the same. And then like I

1:00:41 ↗ you know I think if these commercial

1:00:42 ↗ Morgan indicated the Burger Master is

1:00:45 ↗ the additional right that's the

1:00:46 ↗ difference

1:00:49 ↗ or it's more than 50%. Okay. Thank

1:00:55 ↗ you. I would I would like to keep the

1:00:58 ↗ name Burger Master on the sign though

1:01:00 ↗ because it that's it is a Burger Master.

1:01:04 ↗ um even though it it strays from triple

1:01:09 ↗ X or what um Mike was speaking

1:01:19 ↗ about. Guess one other thought about the

1:01:21 ↗ Burger Master the name going on there.

1:01:24 ↗ Um, it's an interesting question because

1:01:27 ↗ uh there was not a discussion about uh

1:01:30 ↗ sign

1:01:31 ↗ dimensions and with the burger master

1:01:34 ↗ would that fit within the sign code of

1:01:36 ↗ how large can the sign be? The burger

1:01:39 ↗ master is a new part of the sign that

1:01:42 ↗ was not there

1:01:43 ↗ before. I looking at it, I did some

1:01:47 ↗ rough calculations. It seems like it

1:01:49 ↗ might be 36 to 40 square ft based on I

1:01:52 ↗ think it's 2' 4 in high and maybe 16 to

1:01:56 ↗ 18 ft

1:01:57 ↗ wide. And I'm not sure what the facade

1:02:00 ↗ is of the building, but if it's over

1:02:03 ↗ 1500 square ft, you can have 5% of the

1:02:07 ↗ facade uh or up to 100 square ft. So, it

1:02:11 ↗ seems like it might fit within the code

1:02:14 ↗ in terms of size because it seems like

1:02:17 ↗ we talk about median sign code, we

1:02:18 ↗ should talk about meeting sign code. Um,

1:02:22 ↗ but it seems to me like that size would

1:02:25 ↗ fit. That would leave out the dining in

1:02:28 ↗ your car and the steer portion, but

1:02:30 ↗ that's more of

1:02:31 ↗ a artistic historic part of it, I think.

1:02:36 ↗ Um, so I would I would agree with adding

1:02:39 ↗ the Burger Master as a as a corporate

1:02:42 ↗ name to it. It would be something

1:02:43 ↗ different, but it would essentially

1:02:46 ↗ replace XX with that. We'd be allowing

1:02:50 ↗ two items, both the new oval and the

1:02:54 ↗ Burger Master. But that's where I think

1:02:56 ↗ we have to go back to the original sign

1:02:58 ↗ color because I think if anybody drives

1:03:00 ↗ down the freeway, drives down

1:03:02 ↗ Gilman, it will look like a different

1:03:04 ↗ sign. It's shaped the same, but it

1:03:06 ↗ doesn't have that distinctive orange

1:03:07 ↗ color that made this an historic sign. I

1:03:12 ↗ still think it'll look like a Burger

1:03:13 ↗ Master

1:03:19 ↗ sign. So, I think we've got a few topics

1:03:22 ↗ here.

1:03:24 ↗ Um maybe we address them each

1:03:27 ↗ individually such as color. Okay.

1:03:31 ↗ So go ahead. Did you Yeah, I agree. I

1:03:34 ↗ think we all agree we have to keep the

1:03:36 ↗ barrel the previous iteration, right?

1:03:38 ↗ Which is the

1:03:40 ↗ stripes the previous picture and return

1:03:43 ↗ that. So we agree that we agree on

1:03:45 ↗ the

1:03:47 ↗ metallic vertical um horizontal stripes

1:03:50 ↗ as well. Mhm. And we agree.

1:03:55 ↗ Well, sorry. Let's go to color because I

1:03:57 ↗ I think you were okay with the brown,

1:04:00 ↗ but I wanted to take a take a poll on

1:04:03 ↗ the orange requirement, right? I'll

1:04:05 ↗ abstain on the orange because I I don't

1:04:07 ↗ it doesn't either way. So, so does the

1:04:11 ↗ commission feel we should stipulate

1:04:13 ↗ orange as required?

1:04:16 ↗ I would say and again I would get back

1:04:18 ↗ to we have to follow the code of what we

1:04:21 ↗ can approve and if the code says it must

1:04:23 ↗ be consistent with the sign color design

1:04:26 ↗ color and texture if it has if you can't

1:04:29 ↗ change that we can't change that. Yeah I

1:04:30 ↗ agree. So so the condition for matching

1:04:34 ↗ the color should be added. I I would

1:04:38 ↗ eventually propose to amend that. Okay.

1:04:40 ↗ Well we can change it right with our

1:04:42 ↗ approval or can't we?

1:04:44 ↗ What is the question? We could approve.

1:04:46 ↗ Could we approve a color to be changed?

1:04:49 ↗ You can you can make an amendment to the

1:04:52 ↗ motion to change to have the color match

1:04:54 ↗ more exactly to the orange. Yes. Or or

1:04:56 ↗ or not, right? We don't have to. Well,

1:04:58 ↗ the the text of the approval for

1:05:02 ↗ non-conforming signs. If if approval

1:05:05 ↗ from the development commission is

1:05:06 ↗ required for any alteration, significant

1:05:09 ↗ change in appearance or replacement that

1:05:11 ↗ exceeds 50% of the sign, approval may be

1:05:14 ↗ granted when the modification is

1:05:16 ↗ consistent with the landmark signs

1:05:19 ↗ design, color, and texture. I see. Okay.

1:05:22 ↗ So, I think to me it says implicit is in

1:05:25 ↗ there. Right. Got it.

1:05:28 ↗ Okay. And then on texture

1:05:34 ↗ I I maintain that the striations should

1:05:36 ↗ exist that mimic the barrel.

1:05:39 ↗ I agree.

1:05:46 ↗ Yeah. Um can I just clarify that by

1:05:49 ↗ striations you mean the where the barrel

1:05:52 ↗ slats would join if it were a real

1:05:54 ↗ barrel, not just the wood grain texture?

1:05:56 ↗ Yeah. If you I don't know if you're able

1:05:58 ↗ to see the fidelity in the original

1:06:00 ↗ photo. Yeah, there are these these

1:06:03 ↗ curved vertical lines. Yep. That that

1:06:05 ↗ sort of create the essence of a barrel

1:06:08 ↗ shape. That's what I'm I'm zeroing in

1:06:10 ↗ on. Is striation a technical

1:06:13 ↗ architectural term or

1:06:16 ↗ we could say like the barrel slats.

1:06:18 ↗ Barrel slats. Okay. Barrel slat

1:06:21 ↗ indentations.

1:06:24 ↗ Joint joints. Barrel slat joints. I like

1:06:27 ↗ that. Different from the wood grain

1:06:30 ↗ itself. Yes. Got it.

1:06:33 ↗ Thanks for

1:06:35 ↗ clarifying. And then the other thing

1:06:37 ↗ we've been discussing is the logo and

1:06:41 ↗ text

1:06:47 ↗ placement. And so what defines a change

1:06:51 ↗ here? Well, I I think in my opinion, I I

1:06:54 ↗ think it's the city's view too

1:06:56 ↗ that XX is the branding. And then if

1:06:59 ↗ we're retaining the qualities of the

1:07:00 ↗ sign, the branding exists within the

1:07:02 ↗ oval. So if if we're going to approve

1:07:05 ↗ this is a landmark sign and and it's

1:07:08 ↗ going to check all these boxes, the

1:07:09 ↗ branding must remain in the oval would

1:07:13 ↗ be my take on that.

1:07:17 ↗ I agree with that interpretation.

1:07:21 ↗ Clarifying question. Are we able to

1:07:23 ↗ approve the branding outside of the oval

1:07:27 ↗ or

1:07:31 ↗ not? May I address that? You are. Um, I

1:07:36 ↗ will let you know that I did talk to

1:07:38 ↗ King County Preservation folks about the

1:07:40 ↗ sign. Um, they were actually fine

1:07:42 ↗ leaving the burger master up there as

1:07:44 ↗ long as it could be removed without dam

1:07:47 ↗ if it needed to be without damaging the

1:07:49 ↗ silver design portion of the sign.

1:07:54 ↗ Thank you. So, so the mechanism is just

1:07:56 ↗ us saying that we in addition, so so the

1:08:00 ↗ motion just says we add the Burger

1:08:02 ↗ Master logo at the top, right? And and

1:08:05 ↗ stipulate that it as long as it doesn't

1:08:07 ↗ damage the Well, the most the motion is

1:08:10 ↗ to approve it as presented with the

1:08:12 ↗ condition to make the color more

1:08:13 ↗ similar. So, we could add a condition.

1:08:15 ↗ So, you can add one that the burger

1:08:17 ↗ master would need to be removed without

1:08:19 ↗ damaging. That would be a condition we

1:08:21 ↗ could add. Okay. Thanks,

1:08:23 ↗ Madam Chair. Um, real quickly, um, you

1:08:26 ↗ know, the legislative intent of what we,

1:08:29 ↗ you all are debating about consistency

1:08:32 ↗ of, sorry, for the record, we delv

1:08:35 ↗ community planning and development

1:08:36 ↗ director. Apologize for missing that

1:08:39 ↗ part. Um, so the consistency of the

1:08:42 ↗ color, shape, and texture was not meant

1:08:46 ↗ to be like for like. I think that's

1:08:48 ↗ where the discretion was given to the

1:08:50 ↗ development commission to be able to

1:08:52 ↗ make some sort of is it keeping the

1:08:55 ↗ spirit of the uh the sign and the

1:08:57 ↗ landmark designation the same as you

1:08:59 ↗ debate about whether it's orange I think

1:09:02 ↗ at the staff level we recommended maybe

1:09:04 ↗ lightening it a little bit to keep that

1:09:06 ↗ that to be the same consistency at the

1:09:08 ↗ end of the day it's a barrel made out of

1:09:11 ↗ wood uh how it started out to where it

1:09:13 ↗ ended up being orange um you know if you

1:09:16 ↗ look at historic ical photo of it, it

1:09:19 ↗ probably has, you know, evolved. Uh, and

1:09:22 ↗ and while today it's orange, it's not

1:09:25 ↗ clear that whether it actually to me um

1:09:28 ↗ we have some old 1948 photo which is

1:09:31 ↗ black and white. But um but then I think

1:09:35 ↗ uh the other part of this from a

1:09:36 ↗ discretionary approval is also the

1:09:38 ↗ aesthetics of the overall building and

1:09:40 ↗ the sign. Yes, we're keeping the spirit

1:09:42 ↗ of the the shape, the texture, and um

1:09:46 ↗ consistency with color, but how it fits

1:09:49 ↗ in with what the rest of the building

1:09:51 ↗ looks like isn't part of your criteria,

1:09:53 ↗ but it's the aesthetic piece that

1:09:55 ↗ perhaps, you know, how how it'll look.

1:09:58 ↗ If it's orange, it

1:10:00 ↗ probably will, you know, will not have

1:10:03 ↗ any orange color in the building. Um

1:10:06 ↗ perhaps that that also adds to the to

1:10:09 ↗ the discussion as you think about you

1:10:11 ↗ know orange exactly the same hue. I

1:10:14 ↗ think I don't think that was the intent.

1:10:17 ↗ Orange can be different hues too. Some

1:10:19 ↗ darker some lighter and all that. And so

1:10:22 ↗ I think that that's why staff's

1:10:23 ↗ recommendation was to lighten the color

1:10:26 ↗ uh the way that's presented to you. I

1:10:28 ↗ just wanted to clarify the word

1:10:29 ↗ consistent and mean like for

1:10:41 ↗ like just a couple follow-up comments

1:10:44 ↗ about that. So, I I

1:10:47 ↗ um appreciate the clarification on

1:10:50 ↗ legislative intent. Um I'm still

1:10:53 ↗ struggling a little bit with the

1:10:55 ↗ dramatic change of the sign. um between

1:10:58 ↗ what it was or what it is currently and

1:11:00 ↗ what it has been over a number of years

1:11:02 ↗ and what's being proposed here. Um and

1:11:07 ↗ when it comes to the architecture of the

1:11:09 ↗ building, the sign can be the

1:11:12 ↗ essentially

1:11:13 ↗ the primary um design feature of the

1:11:16 ↗ building and the rest of the building

1:11:18 ↗ can be modified to be compatible um as

1:11:21 ↗ well. So, there are a lot of different

1:11:22 ↗ ways you can try to integrate something

1:11:26 ↗ that's a little bit more aligned with

1:11:27 ↗ the sign and its current condition, um,

1:11:30 ↗ current aesthetic. Uh, I, as far as

1:11:34 ↗ there's the debate about Burger Master

1:11:35 ↗ at the top of the sign, I mean, I

1:11:38 ↗ lukewarm about that, but I I could live

1:11:40 ↗ with that. Sounds like others are fine

1:11:42 ↗ with that, but I really struggle with

1:11:45 ↗ changing it as dramatically as it has

1:11:47 ↗ been changed in the proposal. Uh, I

1:11:49 ↗ think most people in the community would

1:11:51 ↗ scratch their heads when they saw this

1:11:53 ↗ go up and say, "What happened?" Um, it

1:11:56 ↗ isn't consistent. And it's not the

1:11:57 ↗ yellow it's not the orange barrel sign

1:11:59 ↗ at the at the end of Gilman. It's um, so

1:12:05 ↗ I I'm I'm still uh, leaning back toward

1:12:08 ↗ more consistency in its current as far

1:12:11 ↗ as the barrel color, texture with the

1:12:13 ↗ striations,

1:12:14 ↗ uh, the slat joints, etc. It doesn't

1:12:17 ↗ have to be exactly the same color. I

1:12:19 ↗ mean, that might be hard to do, but more

1:12:22 ↗ aligned with that as the image that we

1:12:25 ↗ are trying to preserve on here. And the

1:12:28 ↗ logo in the red circle, I mean, I get

1:12:32 ↗ that. I mean, that's the branding for

1:12:33 ↗ this restaurant and I understand the

1:12:35 ↗ need for that. So, that's kind of where

1:12:38 ↗ I

1:12:41 ↗ am.

1:12:47 ↗ Any other comments or deliberation?

1:12:59 ↗ Madam Chair, I move to amend condition

1:13:03 ↗ number one to state that the barrel

1:13:07 ↗ color shall be consistent with the

1:13:11 ↗ sign's current orange color.

1:13:17 ↗ I second that.

1:13:26 ↗ Um, so I guess we'll take a vote on that

1:13:29 ↗ amendment. It has to be second. Oh, I

1:13:32 ↗ second. Oh, you second. Yes. Okay. Um,

1:13:36 ↗ so all in favor of that amendment say I.

1:13:40 ↗ I.

1:13:42 ↗ And all objecting say no. No. Okay.

1:13:48 ↗ Um, so that amendment is

1:13:54 ↗ passed and may I may I clarify was that

1:13:58 ↗ unanimous or was there one? There was

1:13:59 ↗ one one nay. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

1:14:10 ↗ Uh sure.

1:14:34 ↗ If you aren't ready to vote deliberate,

1:14:36 ↗ the public hearing has been closed. So,

1:14:37 ↗ public comments have been taken.

1:14:38 ↗ Deliberations can take place. That's why

1:14:40 ↗ the um I think the staff report says if

1:14:43 ↗ appropriate, you can vote. So, you could

1:14:45 ↗ wait and deliberate at another meeting,

1:14:49 ↗ but that would be in June unless we held

1:14:51 ↗ a special one.

1:14:53 ↗ So, so I'd like to see it. I I It looks

1:14:56 ↗ okay the way it is. I I'm having a hard

1:14:59 ↗ time seeing what it would look like in

1:15:02 ↗ orange with the delta with with the

1:15:05 ↗ building. So, I'd like to see

1:15:07 ↗ that. And remember, it's not necessarily

1:15:10 ↗ our opinions. It's to match the code to

1:15:13 ↗ stay within design color and

1:15:15 ↗ shape. But I also understand that we

1:15:18 ↗ have the flexibility to not consider the

1:15:20 ↗ color too, right?

1:15:23 ↗ I don't I don't think that's the case.

1:15:26 ↗ We have to we may have to make our

1:15:28 ↗ decisions based on what the code says.

1:15:31 ↗ Well, if it's 50%, right? If

1:15:34 ↗ it's if if we can approve

1:15:37 ↗ changes while maintaining design color

1:15:40 ↗ and

1:15:51 ↗ shape. Okay. I guess a question to the

1:15:53 ↗ commission. Would we like to provide

1:15:55 ↗ feedback to the applicant

1:15:57 ↗ and reconvene at another date or

1:16:00 ↗ deliberate and vote tonight?

1:16:05 ↗ Yeah, I think deliberations now.

1:16:08 ↗ [Music]

1:16:11 ↗ Okay.

1:16:15 ↗ So, I guess um he would like to wait

1:16:17 ↗ deliberate at a future date once. Oh,

1:16:19 ↗ sorry. Um I I guess deliberating at a

1:16:22 ↗ future date would make more sense or

1:16:24 ↗ either or. I guess it doesn't really

1:16:27 ↗ matter.

1:16:28 ↗ Um I guess maybe if we deliberate now it

1:16:30 ↗ may give them more direction.

1:16:33 ↗ if they are going to amend the proposal.

1:16:41 ↗ I it's I have no problem with continuing

1:16:43 ↗ the the public hearing to a future date

1:16:46 ↗ if there's no time constraint on the

1:16:47 ↗ part of the applicant if they're going

1:16:48 ↗ to provide more information that gives

1:16:50 ↗ us a better sense for what it is we're

1:16:53 ↗ going to be approving. Um I'm fine with

1:16:56 ↗ that. I have a problem with that. Okay.

1:16:59 ↗ Any commissioners not okay with that?

1:17:03 ↗ One thing I would like to do is if we do

1:17:05 ↗ have another amendment that we might add

1:17:07 ↗ about slats that we put that in place so

1:17:11 ↗ that if we do come back then we can see

1:17:13 ↗ that as well. Yes. So I think um our the

1:17:17 ↗ commission's feedback u is that the

1:17:21 ↗ color should be similar orange or

1:17:24 ↗ consistent with the current consistent

1:17:25 ↗ with the consistent orange color. The

1:17:27 ↗ language will follow the code to say

1:17:28 ↗ consistent. Yes. and to include the

1:17:31 ↗ texture that's existing, the barrel slat

1:17:35 ↗ joints. And um I guess this one we have

1:17:38 ↗ not um I don't know if we have a

1:17:41 ↗ majority on this one or not, but the

1:17:42 ↗ logo and text in the oval only to be

1:17:46 ↗ consistent with the current sign.

1:17:52 ↗ I I actually was the logo was in the

1:17:56 ↗ oval and with the burger master on top

1:17:58 ↗ as as shown there. Let's show them. Yes,

1:18:01 ↗ that's what I support. Okay.

1:18:06 ↗ If if they did come back, if we do guess

1:18:08 ↗ one of each, maybe. Well, no. What I

1:18:10 ↗ would No, what I would like to see is

1:18:12 ↗ actually the the measurement of the

1:18:13 ↗ Burger Master sign and the facade of the

1:18:15 ↗ building so we can say that the size of

1:18:18 ↗ that sign fits the code. Sure. Miss

1:18:21 ↗ Leon, do you know if the city looked

1:18:23 ↗ into that at

1:18:24 ↗ all? Yeah.

1:18:30 ↗ I can ask a question

1:18:38 ↗ whe what I'm talking about is actually

1:18:41 ↗ just the size of the what we've what's

1:18:43 ↗ being added the burger master portion

1:18:45 ↗ since what the the inside dining in your

1:18:48 ↗ car that's just replacing what's there

1:18:50 ↗ but we're adding a new sign that says

1:18:52 ↗ Burger Master so it would be nice to see

1:18:55 ↗ that that size fits within the current

1:18:58 ↗ code of what you could do because that's

1:19:00 ↗ a new portion of the sign. That make

1:19:02 ↗ sense? It does. Staff's going to have

1:19:04 ↗ because it's a non-conforming sign and

1:19:06 ↗ we're going to have to look into whether

1:19:08 ↗ the size of that we we need to look into

1:19:11 ↗ that and see.

1:19:14 ↗ Yeah. I I hate to say if it matters.

1:19:16 ↗ Those aren't the right words, but that's

1:19:17 ↗ all that's coming. Following the code

1:19:18 ↗ based on the facade size of the building

1:19:20 ↗ and what how many square feet for that

1:19:22 ↗ facade. Correct. But it's still

1:19:23 ↗ remaining within the existing sign and

1:19:25 ↗ it's not changing the shape. We need to

1:19:26 ↗ check and see um if the letters on the

1:19:29 ↗ sign that you're calling the new sign

1:19:31 ↗ are still going to how that's addressed

1:19:33 ↗ in the code and if it's addressed in the

1:19:35 ↗ code. Yeah. Unusual situation because

1:19:39 ↗ it's not your typical sign permit.

1:19:41 ↗ That's why it's going through the

1:19:42 ↗ landmark sign designation and changes up

1:19:46 ↗ to 50, you know, more than 50% have to

1:19:49 ↗ be approved by the development

1:19:50 ↗ commission. So, our standard sign code

1:19:53 ↗ ba was square footage. We can give you

1:19:55 ↗ information of how that compares with

1:19:57 ↗ the city's square footage based on the

1:19:59 ↗ the thing, but I'm not sure that it

1:20:01 ↗ really applies in this case because it

1:20:03 ↗ is but but it would be nice to know that

1:20:05 ↗ it wasn't larger than what somebody else

1:20:07 ↗ could do with the same facade. Correct.

1:20:09 ↗ I mean, it's because it's an ad. Yeah.

1:20:11 ↗ Whether it's a building facade is

1:20:13 ↗ questionable, too, because it's not

1:20:14 ↗ really, you know, it's it's a it's on a

1:20:17 ↗ roof. not so much part of it's part of a

1:20:21 ↗ structure because it's holding the

1:20:22 ↗ structure down. So I suppose you could

1:20:24 ↗ interpret it to say this is all a facade

1:20:27 ↗ area including the bottom and the top

1:20:29 ↗ and what percentage of that if I'm

1:20:31 ↗ understanding your question correctly

1:20:33 ↗ and how that compares with our existing

1:20:34 ↗ sign code regulations is what you'd like

1:20:36 ↗ to see. Yeah. And then perhaps for

1:20:39 ↗ others having a picture of here's where

1:20:41 ↗ it's now. If we can show you where it

1:20:44 ↗ was in the past and where what it is now

1:20:47 ↗ and and a visually before and after sort

1:20:49 ↗ of picture with some dimensions, would

1:20:52 ↗ it be helpful? Yeah.

1:20:55 ↗ I'm also wondering if it would be

1:20:56 ↗ helpful in regards to the wood grain if

1:20:59 ↗ we were able to have any uh evidence of

1:21:03 ↗ historical photos that show that it was

1:21:05 ↗ a wood grain and perhaps was changed

1:21:07 ↗ without permission at some point to the

1:21:08 ↗ orange in the past and I don't have any

1:21:11 ↗ information about that. I don't I you

1:21:13 ↗ know I wasn't alive in 1968 so I

1:21:15 ↗ apologize but you know maybe through uh

1:21:17 ↗ pictures um or testimony uh we might try

1:21:20 ↗ to locate some of that as well.

1:21:22 ↗ So I think any historical information

1:21:25 ↗ about this sign would be relevant in our

1:21:27 ↗ discussion deliberation. So you know

1:21:30 ↗ anything that you bring back about the

1:21:32 ↗ signs history would be from my

1:21:34 ↗ perspective helpful along with the

1:21:35 ↗ dimensional discussion that just had but

1:21:38 ↗ it is tough when the code says

1:21:40 ↗ consistent with the signs design color

1:21:42 ↗ and texture. It doesn't say historical

1:21:44 ↗ color just says color. Fair. I I guess I

1:21:47 ↗ would argue if somebody modified it

1:21:48 ↗ without consent previously, you could

1:21:49 ↗ force us to return it to the prior one.

1:21:51 ↗ But, you know, uh I'll I'll save that

1:21:54 ↗ argument for another day. Thank you very

1:21:56 ↗ much.

1:22:01 ↗ [Music]

1:22:04 ↗ Okay. Is there any other comments or

1:22:07 ↗ feedback for the

1:22:09 ↗ applicant? Okay. Uh just a clarification

1:22:12 ↗ for the applicant. Um, is there a time

1:22:15 ↗ constraint?

1:22:40 ↗ In regards to the question about time

1:22:41 ↗ constraints, it's about 8 weeks, I'm

1:22:44 ↗ told, to do the work to the sign. We're

1:22:46 ↗ hoping to wrap up construction at some

1:22:48 ↗ point in December, but I've learned not

1:22:50 ↗ to prognosticate too much about

1:22:52 ↗ construction timelines. So, um I I don't

1:22:55 ↗ think that a delay of a month or two for

1:22:58 ↗ this decision would significantly impact

1:23:00 ↗ our ability to get the sign modified at

1:23:02 ↗ some point before we open the

1:23:04 ↗ restaurant. Thank you.

1:23:07 ↗ Okay. Um Miss Leon, the commission will

1:23:10 ↗ not be taking action on this item

1:23:12 ↗ tonight.

1:23:14 ↗ Thank you. I think you may have to keep

1:23:16 ↗ the hearing open to a specific date.

1:23:19 ↗ Okay. Uh when is the next Right. The

1:23:22 ↗ comment period's been closed, but then

1:23:23 ↗ the uh let me

1:23:25 ↗ check. Believe it's June 10th, but let

1:23:28 ↗ me

1:23:33 ↗ see. So, oh no, the

1:23:37 ↗ 11th. Yeah. So,

1:23:41 ↗ the I was thrown off because today's a

1:23:43 ↗ Thursday.

1:23:45 ↗ Um the 11th. Yeah. Wait, second meeting

1:23:49 ↗ and second meeting in second Wednesday

1:23:51 ↗ in June is the 11th. Yes. Okay. So June

1:23:54 ↗ 11th. So the public hearing will

1:23:56 ↗ continue until June 11th. Okay. This

1:23:58 ↗ public hearing will continue until June

1:24:00 ↗ 11th. Madam Chair, more questions. Go

1:24:04 ↗ ahead. Yeah. So it's has to do with your

1:24:06 ↗ logo, the Burger Master logo. So is that

1:24:09 ↗ is red fundamentally tied to it or is it

1:24:12 ↗ a a different Yeah.

1:24:19 ↗ Uh yes, red is one of our primary

1:24:21 ↗ colors. It's basically our our our main

1:24:23 ↗ color. We do use kind of a navy blue as

1:24:25 ↗ well that we'd shown previously, but we

1:24:27 ↗ felt the red was more consistent with

1:24:29 ↗ the historical sign. Um but if there's

1:24:33 ↗ another suggestion, uh we'd be open to

1:24:36 ↗ some other ideas.

1:24:42 ↗ Um just a quick reminder since the this

1:24:44 ↗ hearing is continued um we still haven't

1:24:47 ↗ made a decision. So it's a quasi

1:24:48 ↗ judicial matter and we have some new

1:24:50 ↗ commissioners here. So a reminder that

1:24:52 ↗ we can't talk to this about this topic u

1:24:55 ↗ to anybody um until we get back here and

1:24:58 ↗ do it amongst ourselves. So just a quick

1:25:00 ↗ reminder. Yeah. Not with any outside

1:25:01 ↗ people or amongst ourselves. Yeah.

1:25:06 ↗ Exactly. Okay.

1:25:14 ↗ Um, any city council updates from staff?

1:25:17 ↗ Actually, we have another presentation.

1:25:19 ↗ We have regular business. Oh, okay.

1:25:23 ↗ And then elections. Okay. I don't have

1:25:51 ↗ that. May I step in since it's not right

1:25:53 ↗ there? So, uh, Thomas Valdres, who is

1:25:56 ↗ our senior transportation planner, is

1:25:58 ↗ going to give a brief

1:25:59 ↗ presentation on,

1:26:02 ↗ uh, the light rail station alignment, an

1:26:04 ↗ introduction and discussion for you all.

1:26:07 ↗ You'll be seeing that again in the

1:26:08 ↗ future.

1:26:11 ↗ Great. Thanks for having me tonight. My

1:26:12 ↗ name is Thomas Rodrez and I'm senior

1:26:14 ↗ transportation

1:26:15 ↗ planner. Tonight, I will be presenting

1:26:17 ↗ on the central Isqua station and

1:26:19 ↗ alignment study. I'm just providing an

1:26:21 ↗ introduction uh because I do intend on

1:26:24 ↗ coming to this commission several times

1:26:26 ↗ over the next year and a

1:26:28 ↗ half. Um so I will be just providing a

1:26:30 ↗ little bit of background talking about

1:26:32 ↗ the light rail planning activities we've

1:26:34 ↗ done since 2012. I'll talk about the

1:26:37 ↗ purpose of the study that we are

1:26:39 ↗ embarking on, the anticipated timeline

1:26:42 ↗ and the ways that we intend on engaging

1:26:45 ↗ uh with this

1:26:48 ↗ commission. So, we have been planning

1:26:50 ↗ for growth in central Isqua since 2012.

1:26:53 ↗ Um, in 2012, the city adopted the

1:26:56 ↗ central Isqua plan. I'm envisioning that

1:26:59 ↗ central Isqua is a livable, sustainable,

1:27:02 ↗ and mixeduse urban

1:27:04 ↗ center. In 2015, the city uh designated

1:27:10 ↗ the central core area, so that the green

1:27:13 ↗ area, it's about,00 uh acres uh as a

1:27:17 ↗ regional growth center. um working with

1:27:19 ↗ the Puget Sound Regional Council, which

1:27:21 ↗ is the um metropolitan planning

1:27:23 ↗ organization for the the

1:27:26 ↗ area. In 2016, voters approved ST3. Um

1:27:30 ↗ this is a ballot measure that um is

1:27:32 ↗ currently enhancing uh high-capacity

1:27:36 ↗ transit throughout the region. Um many

1:27:38 ↗ of you may know that um on last weekend

1:27:42 ↗ um the line two went out to downtown

1:27:46 ↗ Redmond. Um, so this is all part of

1:27:48 ↗ that. Um, isqua is later down the road.

1:27:52 ↗ We're expecting service in 2041 to 44.

1:27:56 ↗ Um, so we're sort of like the end of of

1:27:59 ↗ the ST3 um ballot measure.

1:28:03 ↗ This funding is uh intending to bring uh

1:28:07 ↗ light rail to central Isqua, connecting

1:28:09 ↗ from South Kirkland, going through the

1:28:11 ↗ recently built uh stations in Wilbertton

1:28:15 ↗ uh through through Belleview uh out to

1:28:17 ↗ Belleview College at Eastgate and then

1:28:19 ↗ ending in central

1:28:23 ↗ Isqua. Just some more history of what

1:28:25 ↗ we've done since 2012. Um last year we

1:28:28 ↗ developed a light rail planning guide.

1:28:30 ↗ Um, this talks about the best practices,

1:28:33 ↗ key considerations, and steps to prepare

1:28:36 ↗ for partnering with Sound

1:28:40 ↗ Transit. And last month, council adopted

1:28:43 ↗ the central club vision and guiding

1:28:45 ↗ principles. So, this is really just

1:28:47 ↗ talking about the community's shared

1:28:49 ↗ vision and the aspirations that we have

1:28:52 ↗ for a future station. Um we don't yet

1:28:55 ↗ know where that station will be, but

1:28:56 ↗ this sort of helps us think about what

1:28:59 ↗ we're hoping to get with a future

1:29:01 ↗ station, a terminous station um for

1:29:03 ↗ central Esqua. This was developed

1:29:06 ↗ through over a year and a half of public

1:29:08 ↗ engagement. Um we have thousands of uh

1:29:12 ↗ comments that we received. Um hundreds

1:29:14 ↗ of pages were uh added to sort of talk

1:29:18 ↗ about um how we got there. But that's

1:29:20 ↗ available online if anybody's

1:29:22 ↗ interested. Um, we are hoping to use

1:29:24 ↗ this as a uh benchmark for the study

1:29:27 ↗ that we are embarking

1:29:31 ↗ on. And I can just pause here if there's

1:29:33 ↗ any questions before I start talking

1:29:35 ↗ about the study. I'm happy to answer any

1:29:37 ↗ questions so far.

1:29:41 ↗ Can I get to the burger master in in

1:29:44 ↗ Belvy with this? Sorry,

1:29:50 ↗ I I don't know.

1:29:55 ↗ Cool. I'll continue on then. Um, so with

1:29:57 ↗ this study, uh, this is the central

1:29:59 ↗ Isqua station and alignment study. The

1:30:02 ↗ primary deliverable that we're hoping to

1:30:04 ↗ get out of this is a planning report.

1:30:06 ↗ And so this report will be giving to

1:30:08 ↗ Sound Transit when they are ready to

1:30:11 ↗ develop uh, their alternatives. We're

1:30:13 ↗ expecting that in 2027. So we have about

1:30:16 ↗ a year and a half to prepare. Um so this

1:30:19 ↗ planning report will have several

1:30:20 ↗ features. Um we're going to talk about

1:30:22 ↗ the context in which we are in today. Um

1:30:25 ↗ talking about the future conditions that

1:30:27 ↗ we uh are forecasting for central Isqua

1:30:31 ↗ in terms of development and jobs.

1:30:34 ↗ um the vision and guiding principles

1:30:36 ↗ document that was approved by council

1:30:38 ↗ last month that will be developed into

1:30:41 ↗ measurable criteria that we can then use

1:30:43 ↗ to evaluate up to six alternatives

1:30:46 ↗ looking at the location of potential

1:30:49 ↗ station and then the track alignment. So

1:30:51 ↗ um either raised or um at grade. So

1:30:54 ↗ we'll we'll look at six options um as

1:30:56 ↗ part of the scope. Ultimately, council

1:30:59 ↗ will be approving uh a single preferred

1:31:04 ↗ uh station and track alignment that best

1:31:06 ↗ matches the vision and guiding

1:31:08 ↗ principles that the community has been

1:31:10 ↗ um

1:31:13 ↗ discussing. So, we're anticipating three

1:31:15 ↗ check-ins with development commission.

1:31:18 ↗ Um we're here today before we kick off.

1:31:20 ↗ I'm hoping to kick off uh in this

1:31:23 ↗ quarter. Um we'll then start talking

1:31:27 ↗ through some of the considerations for

1:31:29 ↗ where a station could go. Um looking at

1:31:31 ↗ everything from environmental sort of

1:31:33 ↗ considerations as well as um how it

1:31:36 ↗ would you know spur development in

1:31:38 ↗ central Isqua which is has been

1:31:40 ↗ envisioned as part of the central Isqua

1:31:42 ↗ plan. So thinking about all those

1:31:44 ↗ considerations, um we'll then approach

1:31:46 ↗ the development commission uh in likely

1:31:49 ↗ Q4 of this year where we can take that

1:31:52 ↗ vision and guiding principles document

1:31:55 ↗ and translate that into measurable

1:31:57 ↗ criteria that we can then score the

1:31:59 ↗ projects that we'll look at um towards

1:32:03 ↗ 2026. So three check-ins with

1:32:06 ↗ development commission. Um, I'm looking

1:32:07 ↗ forward to these next two, uh,

1:32:09 ↗ check-ins, um, because when we get

1:32:11 ↗ there, we're going to have a lot more to

1:32:13 ↗ discuss. Uh, but we are sort of at the

1:32:14 ↗ pre-planning phase. Um, we haven't yet

1:32:17 ↗ kicked off this study, but this is, um,

1:32:19 ↗ essentially the touch points that I am

1:32:22 ↗ anticipating with felon

1:32:24 ↗ commission. And that's all I have. I'm

1:32:26 ↗ happy to answer any more questions. Um,

1:32:29 ↗ just whatever you'd like.

1:32:32 ↗ Uh, just quick question. Um so the

1:32:35 ↗ preliminary information that you've

1:32:36 ↗ received from Sound Transit about

1:32:38 ↗ because obviously they've done some

1:32:40 ↗ alignment studies already uh for this

1:32:44 ↗ very preliminary I'm sure but is there

1:32:47 ↗ um an interest on their part to because

1:32:49 ↗ it's a terminus station so they're going

1:32:51 ↗ to probably have a large parking

1:32:53 ↗ structure or parking area associated

1:32:55 ↗ with this. Is that a factor that's part

1:32:57 ↗ of the discussion? Right. So, in 2016,

1:33:00 ↗ Sound Transit did do a very high level

1:33:04 ↗ um they're they're calling it their like

1:33:06 ↗ their alternative that was in the 2016

1:33:08 ↗ ballot. Um so, that alternative had a

1:33:11 ↗ 500 parking stall structure. It was

1:33:14 ↗ along I90. Um and I believe it was just

1:33:18 ↗ a raised uh track that sort of followed

1:33:20 ↗ I90. So, that's sort of the proposal

1:33:23 ↗ that they will start with um as their

1:33:26 ↗ their one and then they'll look at other

1:33:27 ↗ alternatives. Um but just to clarify,

1:33:30 ↗ they haven't really dug into this at

1:33:31 ↗ all. That will um begin as early as

1:33:34 ↗ 2027.

1:33:36 ↗ Yeah, the station, the parking

1:33:38 ↗ structures is challenging just because

1:33:40 ↗ it's so large and you got to have trans,

1:33:42 ↗ you know, easy access in and out of the

1:33:44 ↗ structure and onto the transportation

1:33:47 ↗ system. But the opportunity that the

1:33:49 ↗ station provides wherever it lands for

1:33:52 ↗ um development in that station area is

1:33:55 ↗ is a huge opportunity for for the city.

1:33:57 ↗ I know that's already been captured in

1:33:58 ↗ the principles, but uh that'll be a

1:34:01 ↗ interesting discussion to figure out the

1:34:04 ↗ best fit. Yeah, I'm very excited for

1:34:06 ↗ these future discussions. We're going to

1:34:08 ↗ get way more into it um sort of towards

1:34:11 ↗ the the end of this year. We'll have a

1:34:13 ↗ lot more to discuss, but yeah, um the

1:34:15 ↗ vision and guiding principles document,

1:34:16 ↗ we talk about a lot of the highle things

1:34:19 ↗ that we need to be thinking about. Um

1:34:21 ↗ there's a lot of documentation there if

1:34:23 ↗ anybody's interested in reading. Um, but

1:34:25 ↗ I'm sure we will learn more and we can

1:34:27 ↗ sort of add to that um as we continue.

1:34:30 ↗ Thank you.

1:34:33 ↗ Just another quick question. Did um your

1:34:37 ↗ phasing your scheduling follow say the

1:34:39 ↗ Redmond model how they came up with

1:34:41 ↗ their site? I mean are we I I assume

1:34:43 ↗ you're using lessons learned from their

1:34:45 ↗ previous efforts. Yeah, it's a great

1:34:47 ↗ question. Um we are phasing our study

1:34:50 ↗ based off of uh what other mun

1:34:53 ↗ municipalities have done that have

1:34:54 ↗ successfully worked with Sound Transit.

1:34:56 ↗ Um so we do know that um you know

1:34:59 ↗ assuming that Sound Transit is receiving

1:35:01 ↗ federal funding, it will follow a

1:35:03 ↗ certain um you know project uh cycle. So

1:35:08 ↗ assuming a 2041 which is the earliest

1:35:11 ↗ that they've said they can deliver um

1:35:13 ↗ that brings us to 2027. And so we we're

1:35:16 ↗ just anticipating um getting our locally

1:35:18 ↗ preferred alternative that we will give

1:35:20 ↗ to Sound Transit um just in time for

1:35:22 ↗ them to begin their planning process.

1:35:28 ↗ I have a question I guess for anyone.

1:35:31 ↗ Does Sound Transit 3 rely on grant

1:35:35 ↗ funding, federal funding, or just um

1:35:38 ↗ secured loans or low interest loans?

1:35:42 ↗ I'm not super aware of Sound Transit's

1:35:44 ↗ uh funding, but usually they follow the

1:35:47 ↗ FTA process, the Federal Transit

1:35:49 ↗ Administration. Um,

1:35:55 ↗ a lot of that money comes from your

1:35:56 ↗ taxes, the RTA taxes that you pay on

1:35:58 ↗ your vehicle tabs and so on. Uh, but

1:36:01 ↗ they do get a lot of uh FDA funding, the

1:36:03 ↗ federal tax exemption. So yeah, to the

1:36:06 ↗ order of $23

1:36:08 ↗ million from a, you know, the the amount

1:36:12 ↗ of money that the city gets from retail

1:36:14 ↗ sales tax, Sound Transit gets the same

1:36:16 ↗ amount of money from, you know, it's

1:36:19 ↗ comparable in terms of their RTA

1:36:21 ↗ taxes for our size. I I don't know exact

1:36:25 ↗ number for Isukqua's residents pay

1:36:27 ↗ towards that, but it's it's all the ST3,

1:36:29 ↗ the ballot measure that passed. So that

1:36:31 ↗ that's a lot of their funding from that.

1:36:33 ↗ Yeah. I guess my question is is the date

1:36:35 ↗ of 2041 reliant on um procuring federal

1:36:41 ↗ funding? Yeah. So in uh in 2016 they

1:36:45 ↗ said that uh between 2041 and 44. Um so

1:36:49 ↗ they said 2044 would be the the latest

1:36:52 ↗ uh if funding became like scarce. Um, so

1:36:55 ↗ they haven't updated those figures yet,

1:36:58 ↗ um, to my knowledge, but they are still

1:37:01 ↗ working within the understanding that

1:37:02 ↗ they could deliver by 2041. So that's

1:37:04 ↗ why we're preparing for that. Um, as

1:37:07 ↗ we've seen with other projects, there

1:37:09 ↗ have been setbacks with Sound Transit.

1:37:11 ↗ Um, so it is possible that the timing

1:37:13 ↗ gets pushed back, but we would love for

1:37:15 ↗ it to be as early as possible. Um, so we

1:37:18 ↗ are working with the best case scenario.

1:37:25 ↗ question for you on your timeline. Um I

1:37:28 ↗ think if you if you went backwards

1:37:30 ↗ um maybe a page so that the point of the

1:37:36 ↗ Q3 Q4 this year that's the two would be

1:37:39 ↗ when you would come back to us again.

1:37:41 ↗ That's it. And then would you be asking

1:37:44 ↗ us for input um those kind of curious

1:37:48 ↗ what you would ask of us? Sure. Yeah.

1:37:50 ↗ hoping to get input on the criteria that

1:37:52 ↗ we develop. Um, so you can expect like a

1:37:54 ↗ matrix of like point values. Um, at

1:37:57 ↗ least that's the idea at this point.

1:37:58 ↗ We'll see sort of what it looks like.

1:38:00 ↗ Um, but we are sort of trying to score

1:38:03 ↗ uh have a scoring criteria before we

1:38:06 ↗ actually look at the alternative. So

1:38:08 ↗ we're not like right sizing it to like,

1:38:10 ↗ you know, we we want to have like the

1:38:13 ↗ the actual criteria developed first so

1:38:15 ↗ we're not like getting ahead of

1:38:16 ↗ ourselves here. Okay. Thank you. All

1:38:26 ↗ right. Thank you. All right. Thanks. I

1:38:29 ↗ appreciate

1:38:38 ↗ it. So, I have to apologize to vice

1:38:41 ↗ chair. Shore. Something happened. And

1:38:44 ↗ you know, usually these things these

1:38:45 ↗ days save themselves automatically. In

1:38:47 ↗ this case, her script did not. So, she

1:38:49 ↗ didn't get the complete script. So, I'm

1:38:50 ↗ going to take over for a minute. Um, we

1:38:52 ↗ do need to do elections tonight of chair

1:38:54 ↗ and vice chair and how it works. Um, and

1:38:58 ↗ alter alternates may not serve, they

1:39:00 ↗ also may not nominate. Um,

1:39:04 ↗ if there we will do chair first and then

1:39:07 ↗ vice chair. If there's one nomination

1:39:09 ↗ and no one else is nominated, it is an

1:39:12 ↗ automatic sort of win and that person

1:39:14 ↗ becomes uh the chair or vice chair. If

1:39:16 ↗ there are if there's more than one, we

1:39:18 ↗ do not hold a vote tonight and it will

1:39:20 ↗ be held at our next meeting. Okay. So,

1:39:23 ↗ uh we will start with the chair. Are

1:39:25 ↗ there any nominations for

1:39:27 ↗ uh development commission chair?

1:39:30 ↗ I nominate Vice Chair Shore to be chair.

1:39:36 ↗ Second.

1:39:39 ↗ No second. You're right. I'm sorry. I'm

1:39:40 ↗ used to that. Sorry. Thank

1:39:43 ↗ you. Any other nominations?

1:39:53 ↗ hearing none. Congratulations to vice

1:39:55 ↗ chair now chair. Shore. All right. Look

1:39:59 ↗ forward to working with you. Okay. So,

1:40:01 ↗ we'll move on to vice chair. Do we have

1:40:02 ↗ any nominations for vice chair? I would

1:40:05 ↗ nominate commissioner John Aada for vice

1:40:08 ↗ chair

1:40:10 ↗ position. Do we have any other

1:40:11 ↗ nominations?

1:40:17 ↗ hearing none. Commissioner Kada Iada,

1:40:19 ↗ you are now vice chair. IA,

1:40:23 ↗ congratulations. I look forward to

1:40:24 ↗ working with you both. Right. And now we

1:40:27 ↗ can move on and is back to you. Thank

1:40:28 ↗ you. Thank you. Um, city council

1:40:31 ↗ updates. Uh, does staff have any updates

1:40:34 ↗ on city council activities?

1:40:36 ↗ I think the only one that I have I I

1:40:39 ↗ don't think I've mentioned this to you

1:40:40 ↗ all yet. uh the transit oriented

1:40:43 ↗ development called trail head. The site

1:40:45 ↗ development permit came in for that.

1:40:48 ↗ They are asking to do a sort of

1:40:50 ↗ contract. It's allowed by King County to

1:40:53 ↗ potentially deviate from uh things in

1:40:56 ↗ our land use code that would not

1:40:57 ↗ typically be allowed deviations. So,

1:41:00 ↗ that was brought to council on Monday

1:41:03 ↗ night, last Monday. Um and we're working

1:41:06 ↗ through that. that is anticipated to

1:41:08 ↗ come to the commission in late summer,

1:41:11 ↗ early

1:41:12 ↗ fall. And I don't know if Minnie has any

1:41:16 ↗ other updates. Yeah. The other thing I

1:41:18 ↗ think um a lot of time has been spent

1:41:20 ↗ this year on middle housing legislation.

1:41:22 ↗ So the House Bill 1110 that requires

1:41:25 ↗ cities to allow duplexes in all areas

1:41:28 ↗ and two ADUs. Um I'm not sure we had a

1:41:32 ↗ touch point with the development

1:41:33 ↗ commission but planning and policy

1:41:34 ↗ commission we had some tours that I

1:41:37 ↗ think some of you came to our uh tour.

1:41:39 ↗ So that's wrapping up. So after all of

1:41:41 ↗ that public outreach work and with all

1:41:43 ↗ the boards and commissions um next uh I

1:41:46 ↗ think later this month um or early part

1:41:49 ↗ of next month um we're going to council

1:41:51 ↗ is going to uh make the final adoption

1:41:53 ↗ of the middle housing. Uh we've had a

1:41:56 ↗ lot of title 18. You know, you guys

1:41:59 ↗ looked at all of that, but we're keeping

1:42:00 ↗ a list of little things that come up,

1:42:03 ↗ clarifications to a few things that are

1:42:06 ↗ a little bit more policy uh level and we

1:42:09 ↗ split them into very simple, you know,

1:42:12 ↗ clarification bundle that I think that

1:42:14 ↗ got adopted and we have some policy

1:42:16 ↗ stuff that's uh working through with

1:42:18 ↗ council. Uh the other one is the tree

1:42:20 ↗ code. I think we got some feedback from

1:42:22 ↗ community members about uh simp being

1:42:24 ↗ simple for single family homeowners to

1:42:27 ↗ be able to just replace a tree and that

1:42:28 ↗ kind of stuff. It started out at that.

1:42:30 ↗ It grew into more of a canopy coverage

1:42:33 ↗ percentage discussion so that

1:42:35 ↗ environmental board and PPC. We haven't

1:42:37 ↗ gone to council yet on that. Um the

1:42:40 ↗ biggest priority for our department this

1:42:42 ↗ year has been permit process

1:42:44 ↗ improvements. So um last year uh we

1:42:48 ↗ hired a national consulting firm Ref

1:42:50 ↗ Telis who looked at all our permit

1:42:52 ↗ processes and made some recommendations.

1:42:55 ↗ Uh they came up with 12 things you know

1:42:57 ↗ that in their opinion that we needed to

1:42:58 ↗ work on and so that's what our focus has

1:43:01 ↗ been and we've had multiple touch points

1:43:03 ↗ with council uh you know how do we

1:43:05 ↗ measure our how we're doing so metrics

1:43:08 ↗ to um updating all our you know standard

1:43:11 ↗ operating procedures to whatnot. So that

1:43:14 ↗ that's what council and you know that's

1:43:17 ↗ our priority for this year and that's

1:43:19 ↗ what we're working on.

1:43:22 ↗ Thank you. Any other items of business

1:43:24 ↗ or announcements from

1:43:27 ↗ staff? Just a little sort of update on

1:43:29 ↗ the calendar. Now you have a meeting on

1:43:31 ↗ June 11th. Um you're aware of that, but

1:43:33 ↗ we also have about four projects that

1:43:37 ↗ are lining up to come to you this summer

1:43:39 ↗ and this early fall. So you will be

1:43:42 ↗ busy. There are um there's one very

1:43:46 ↗ large town home development uh with

1:43:48 ↗ about 74 units that will be coming to

1:43:50 ↗ you. Uh there's a city project that will

1:43:53 ↗ be coming to you. The TOD that I just

1:43:56 ↗ mentioned before

1:43:58 ↗ uh one other town home project I think

1:44:00 ↗ something else. So you you will be busy.

1:44:02 ↗ So keep your uh Wednesdays clear. Thank

1:44:05 ↗ you.

1:44:09 ↗ One question for staff. The the city's

1:44:11 ↗ looking into a new city hall location.

1:44:14 ↗ Is that something that would come to the

1:44:16 ↗ development commission for approval?

1:44:18 ↗ Only if we develop it, but if we develop

1:44:21 ↗ one. If we build one, then yes. But

1:44:22 ↗ yeah, just moving. No. Yeah. Okay.

1:44:28 ↗ Okay. All right. Thank you to staff, the

1:44:31 ↗ applicant, and members of the public.

1:44:33 ↗ There being no further business before

1:44:34 ↗ the commission, I adjourn the meeting at

1:44:37 ↗ 8:20 p.m. Thank you.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Vice-Chair Shore

Commissioners Brennan

Fasehun

Ikeda

Morgan

Price

Stanchak (Alternate)

Staff (2)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Community Planning & Development (CP&D) Director Christen Leeson, Principal Planner Amanda Jackson, Meeting

Records Assistant Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of March 5, 2025