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

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

Recommendations & actions (8)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of March 5, 2025 With no corrections or comments the Minutes were approved.
MOTION seconded by COMMISSIONER BRENNAN.
COMMISSIONER FASEHUN asked if a color can be approved to be changed and Leeson replied that an amendment can be made to the Motion.
COMMISSIONER FASEHUN asked if branding can be approved outside of the oval and Leeson replied that King County Preservation has stated approval to apply Burgermaster to the sign as long as this can be removed without…
Dhaliwal stated that the legislative intent of consistency of color, shape, and texture includes Development Commission discretion, not necessarily like for like but to keep the spirit of the landmark sign; staff has…
Motion seconded by VICE-CHAIR SHORE.
VICE-CHAIR SHORE stated that changes can be approved while maintaining design, color, and shape.
COMMISSIONER MORGAN asked for clarification regarding when the issue would be brought back to the Development Commission and what input will be requested.