Development Commission · Wednesday, June 11, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 15, 2025

packet pp.3–10

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, May 15, 2025

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

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

45 min · Christen Leeson, Acting Planning Manager Alex Jensen, Burgermaster Owner Application No: SGN25-00006 Location:98 NE Gilman Blvd. Parcel: 2824069025 Applicant: Brian Brosnan, Heath Northwest Description: Sign application for proposed Please note: This item was continued from May 15 Development Commission Agenda Packet. · packet pp.11–35

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

Burgermaster Sign Proposed Alterations JUNE 11, 2025 | DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

5. REPORTS

City Council Update

Information

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

Information

830 segments .txt ↗

0:30 ↗ Okay, good evening and welcome. I would

0:33 ↗ like to call the June 11th city of

0:36 ↗ Isqua's development commission to order

0:38 ↗ at 6:33 p.m. As a reminder, we have a

0:42 ↗ remote aspect to our meetings. This

0:44 ↗ means both staff and members of the

0:45 ↗ public may participating in the meeting

0:46 ↗ remotely via WebEx. For those attending

0:49 ↗ me remotely, if you have questions,

0:51 ↗ please send the host a chat message or

0:54 ↗ email staff at kristenlisiqua.gov.

0:58 ↗ I believe all uh regular members are

1:01 ↗ here today.

1:03 ↗ Our first item of business is to take

1:05 ↗ action on meeting minutes from the May

1:09 ↗ 15th meeting. Has everyone had an

1:12 ↗ opportunity to review the minutes?

1:15 ↗ And are there any corrections to the

1:17 ↗ minutes? Right. Hearing none, the

1:20 ↗ minutes are approved as submitted.

1:24 ↗ And uh this is a continuation of our May

1:27 ↗ 15th meeting on the Burger Master

1:30 ↗ historic sign. So next I would like to

1:33 ↗ open the floor to any members of the Oh,

1:35 ↗ are we going to skip? Okay, just general

1:38 ↗ public comment. Okay. Uh any members of

1:40 ↗ the public in person or virtually who

1:42 ↗ would like to make a general comment,

1:44 ↗ not about the Burger Master sign, but on

1:46 ↗ a general topic. And there will be

1:49 ↗ opportunities later in the meeting for

1:50 ↗ those who would like to comment about

1:51 ↗ the sign.

1:55 ↗ Does anybody wish to comment general

1:56 ↗ comments?

1:59 ↗ No one has signed up for any comments.

2:01 ↗ All right. Thank you.

2:04 ↗ And there is no one online. Thank you.

2:19 ↗ Um see and as this is a continuation we

2:23 ↗ don't have any uh swearing in or quasi

2:25 ↗ judicial but there will be a staff

2:27 ↗ presentation

2:29 ↗ correct because the commission last time

2:32 ↗ uh did ask the applicant offered and the

2:34 ↗ commission accepted uh the applicant's

2:36 ↗ offer to redo the drawings and submit

2:40 ↗ those for the commission to deliberate

2:42 ↗ on tonight. So I am going to make a very

2:45 ↗ brief presentation. The applicant is

2:47 ↗ also going to make a very brief

2:48 ↗ presentation. Um and we will be allowed

2:51 ↗ we asked and we will be allowed to have

2:52 ↗ some public comments because it's a new

2:54 ↗ submittal. It's okay. Um and then you

2:57 ↗ all will cont continue with your

2:59 ↗ deliberations and qu questions and

3:00 ↗ deliberations after that. Okay. All

3:03 ↗ right.

3:13 ↗ Oops. Let me go to the top

3:21 ↗ or not.

3:23 ↗ There we go.

3:25 ↗ Okay. So, as I as I mentioned, we're

3:27 ↗ here to talk about the second round of

3:29 ↗ proposed alterations to the Burger

3:30 ↗ Master landmark sign.

3:34 ↗ And as a reminder, on May 22nd, you all

3:37 ↗ held a public hearing

3:39 ↗ and you actually voted to designate the

3:42 ↗ sign as a landmark. And then the next

3:45 ↗ step, because they are um proposing to

3:48 ↗ change more than 50% of the sign by

3:50 ↗ changing the material itself from

3:51 ↗ acrylic to aluminum, that means it's

3:53 ↗ more than 50%. So you all have to review

3:56 ↗ and approve all of the changes. You

3:58 ↗ deliberated, but you did not vote. And

4:00 ↗ so we carried it over to this meeting.

4:05 ↗ And I just mentioned this, but landmark

4:07 ↗ signs, the shape cannot be altered. No

4:11 ↗ more of this 50% of the sign area can be

4:13 ↗ modified. And any deteriorated or

4:15 ↗ damaged portions need to be repaired

4:17 ↗ preferably or replaced if need be. And

4:20 ↗ if new material is used, then it needs

4:22 ↗ to be consistent with the sign's color

4:23 ↗ design and texture.

4:26 ↗ And as I mentioned too, uh if more than

4:29 ↗ 50% is changed, then you all need to

4:30 ↗ approve it.

4:33 ↗ So, here's the existing sign as it is.

4:40 ↗ Here's the first proposal that you all

4:41 ↗ saw last week presented by staff.

4:45 ↗ Um,

4:47 ↗ our recommendation at the time was to

4:50 ↗ approve it with the condition that the

4:54 ↗ barrel color be more similar to that was

4:58 ↗ written in the staff report more similar

4:59 ↗ to um the orange that is currently

5:02 ↗ there.

5:06 ↗ concerns that came up though had to do

5:08 ↗ with one was the color that the public

5:10 ↗ and the commission expressed that they

5:12 ↗ wanted to see the color closer to the

5:15 ↗ orange that's on there now and that the

5:16 ↗ texture was maintained or the appearance

5:18 ↗ of texture was maintained. Another issue

5:20 ↗ that came up was the size of the

5:22 ↗ lettering at the top of the barrel and

5:24 ↗ does that constitute to a new sign or

5:26 ↗ would it fit into our new sign code.

5:30 ↗ So the applicant resubmitted this

5:32 ↗ drawing that you see here. It addressed

5:34 ↗ the first concerns about color and

5:35 ↗ texture. It is much closer to orange or

5:38 ↗ it is orange and it has the texture in

5:40 ↗ it as well as the lines that you all

5:42 ↗ wanted to see on the barrel.

5:47 ↗ The concern still wasn't addressed

5:49 ↗ regard or wasn't really addressed

5:51 ↗ regarding the size of the lever

5:53 ↗ lettering at the top of the barrel. So

5:54 ↗ we did a little measuring and the sign

5:58 ↗ code says to look at the relevant

5:59 ↗ portion the relevant facade and the sign

6:02 ↗ and the relevant facade as we see it is

6:06 ↗ the I'm going to say souththeast or

6:08 ↗ northeast I'm going to call it east for

6:11 ↗ the sake of um ease that side of the

6:14 ↗ facade that is where the primary entry

6:16 ↗ is that is where the parking lot is that

6:18 ↗ is where most of the seating is so that

6:19 ↗ is what we consider to be the most

6:20 ↗ relevant facade it is 62 and ft long.

6:26 ↗ Then the other part we looked at is the

6:28 ↗ height of it which is 11 and 1/2 ft

6:31 ↗ long. So it comes out to 718.75

6:35 ↗ square ft of facade that we're looking

6:37 ↗ at.

6:39 ↗ They are allowed to have you look at the

6:41 ↗ size of the facade and between I think

6:43 ↗ it's 300 square feet and 1500 square

6:46 ↗ feet

6:47 ↗ about 7% of that can be sign. Okay. So,

6:53 ↗ and lettering in the sign. So, 718

6:56 ↗ square feet times 7

6:58 ↗ 07 or 7% is 50 square feet which would

7:01 ↗ be allowed on this sign. And it just so

7:03 ↗ happens that these letters are 48 square

7:05 ↗ feet.

7:07 ↗ So, it would comply with our new code if

7:09 ↗ it were to go up there. Now,

7:13 ↗ there questions. Took us a while to

7:14 ↗ figure that out. So, if you have

7:16 ↗ questions, let me know.

7:19 ↗ All right. So, that is what I have. Um,

7:22 ↗ we recommend approving the sign as it

7:24 ↗ has been resubmitted and is presented to

7:25 ↗ you all tonight.

7:28 ↗ And that's all I have.

7:30 ↗ So, I'm open to questions. Are there any

7:32 ↗ questions from the commission on the

7:33 ↗ staff? Question. Yeah, a question about

7:36 ↗ the lettering size. Does that 7% apply

7:40 ↗ even though it is a nonconforming sign

7:42 ↗ and a landmark sign?

7:45 ↗ I didn't see in in position staff's

7:47 ↗ position is no. It's a it's a

7:49 ↗ non-conforming landmark sign. They're

7:51 ↗ not changing the size of the sign. The

7:53 ↗ position is no. But the question came up

7:55 ↗ and it's been a discussion, so we wanted

7:57 ↗ to present it. Okay. Thank you.

8:04 ↗ Any other commission questions?

8:07 ↗ Thank you.

8:11 ↗ I have the applicant. Sure. Now, we'll

8:13 ↗ proceed with the applicant's

8:14 ↗ presentation. Would you please um

8:18 ↗ present your new information?

8:22 ↗ Get out of this one.

8:38 ↗ Trying to expand it.

8:41 ↗ Okay.

8:48 ↗ And there you go.

8:53 ↗ Well, good evening and thank you again

8:55 ↗ to the commission for allowing me to be

8:57 ↗ here and present my case. Um, I

8:59 ↗ appreciate uh the city of Isiqua for

9:01 ↗ considering this. I reflected on uh this

9:05 ↗ last time and um you know, my

9:07 ↗ grandfather started this company. I've

9:08 ↗ got a lot of emotions tied up in the

9:10 ↗ brand, but I also recognize that the

9:12 ↗ people of Isiqua have a lot of emotions

9:14 ↗ tied up in in the old trip XX. And so,

9:17 ↗ um, I I just want to acknowledge that

9:18 ↗ and and say thank you for even

9:20 ↗ considering this. Uh, when we left last

9:23 ↗ time, we indicated we would try to do

9:25 ↗ some, uh, digging and figure out if we

9:27 ↗ could get any historical information

9:28 ↗ about the sign, uh, being brown at some

9:30 ↗ point in the past, and we didn't find

9:33 ↗ that. But, uh, we recently, just today,

9:35 ↗ uncovered, uh, ex uh, evidence that the

9:38 ↗ sign actually used to be red. And so, I

9:40 ↗ would like to present that evidence to

9:41 ↗ the commission today and and ask you to

9:43 ↗ consider that. Um, and and I apologize.

9:46 ↗ I sent this to the city this evening.

9:49 ↗ So, uh, they've been very patient with

9:52 ↗ my my questions and and helping guide me

9:54 ↗ through this process. Not something

9:55 ↗ we've done before. So, uh, thank you for

9:57 ↗ your patience as well. But in looking

10:02 ↗ forward

10:16 ↗ um in uh looking at the sign uh we

10:19 ↗ discovered that one of the areas where

10:22 ↗ uh the wind damage from that storm a

10:24 ↗ couple months ago had knocked off one of

10:25 ↗ the letters. and we realized that the

10:29 ↗ original paint was red. Um, and either

10:32 ↗ through a combination of uh sunfading or

10:35 ↗ perhaps a repaint at some point, um,

10:38 ↗ it's it's changed color over time. So,

10:41 ↗ uh, given that the commission was, uh,

10:43 ↗ willing to entertain some evidence of

10:45 ↗ the sign being brown in the past, I

10:47 ↗ thought this was pretty compelling

10:48 ↗ evidence that the sign had been, uh, red

10:51 ↗ previously, uh, and and would ask that

10:54 ↗ the commission consider that and allow

10:57 ↗ us to to restore it to that red color,

11:00 ↗ uh, much like we're restoring uh, the

11:02 ↗ silver portions on on the slats on the

11:04 ↗ barrels. Now, the parapet's actually

11:06 ↗ been ripped off. you can see that the

11:07 ↗ bottom uh ring is still that original

11:10 ↗ silver color. So that's kind of an

11:11 ↗ interesting uh aside. Um so that'd be my

11:15 ↗ first request. Um in the event that the

11:19 ↗ uh commission doesn't feel that's

11:21 ↗ reasonable or or there's not enough

11:23 ↗ historical evidence, then I would fall

11:25 ↗ back on the other um request that we'd

11:28 ↗ made that we submitted uh with the

11:29 ↗ orange kind of wood grain sign. Uh I I

11:33 ↗ believe that the red is um sufficient

11:35 ↗ and meets the statute. The statute is

11:37 ↗ fairly broad um and and clearly there is

11:39 ↗ red on the sign now. So

11:43 ↗ I'd welcome any questions.

11:48 ↗ Any questions from the commission?

11:50 ↗ Richard? Thank you. Uh a couple of

11:53 ↗ questions. So on the uh current spec or

11:55 ↗ vice spec there's uh there's a color

11:58 ↗ specified for that background and it's

12:02 ↗ 158 C1 159 C faux wood grain. Why is it

12:07 ↗ one or the other?

12:12 ↗ Oh,

12:19 ↗ my name's Temple Vorhees. I represent

12:21 ↗ the sign company that's working on this.

12:23 ↗ Uh there are two colors because there is

12:25 ↗ the main background color and then there

12:27 ↗ is the grain color and those are similar

12:30 ↗ and yet offset a little bit. So you see

12:33 ↗ the grain, right? It seems that the 158

12:36 ↗ is a little lighter, right, than the

12:38 ↗ 159. Okay, good. So that's those are the

12:41 ↗ couple that we're dealing with there.

12:43 ↗ And I thought the the lighter was

12:45 ↗ better. So I didn't want the the 159

12:47 ↗ darker for the whole deal. That's good.

12:49 ↗ And also um I noticed that there are

12:52 ↗ various color specs in here. I'm glad

12:54 ↗ you're here tonight to speak to this. Um

12:57 ↗ the red I didn't see any spec for the

12:59 ↗ red color which is the background

13:02 ↗ branding oval and it's also the text at

13:04 ↗ the top. The burger master text is is

13:07 ↗ that a company secret that that's it is

13:09 ↗ absolutely not a company secret. And I

13:12 ↗ can get a spec to you. I I'd have to

13:15 ↗ look at the drawing to see if my copy

13:17 ↗ has something. Okay. Yeah. Now, if you

13:18 ↗ digitally sample it, it looks like a

13:21 ↗ panone red warm sea. Does that sound

13:24 ↗ familiar to you? Yeah. Okay, good. I

13:27 ↗ hope that that's what we're dealing with

13:28 ↗ because I'm going to want to I believe

13:29 ↗ it's panone 1795 C. It's my Or was that

13:33 ↗ the original color? Uh I don't know

13:37 ↗ that. And I think that would be

13:39 ↗ difficult. The original color that's

13:41 ↗ underneath the O.

13:43 ↗ Is that what you're asking? I am asking

13:46 ↗ you I'm asking the oval color. Okay. The

13:49 ↗ color behind the your current branding

13:52 ↗ that that is very difficult to ascertain

13:54 ↗ because it's so faded. I don't know. No,

13:56 ↗ no, no. I I mean in your new revision.

13:58 ↗ Oh. Oh, yes. We are proposing that 1795

14:01 ↗ C on on the revision. Yes.

14:07 ↗ I'm sorry. I thought that the 1795 C

14:09 ↗ referred to the dark wood grain in

14:12 ↗ version one.

14:14 ↗ No, I don't believe so.

14:18 ↗ Maybe we need to have a look at it

14:19 ↗ because I am going to go for specific

14:21 ↗ PMS colors here.

14:27 ↗ No, I'm I'm saying would it be possible

14:30 ↗ for us to see an example on the screen,

14:32 ↗ Kristen?

14:36 ↗ And I guess I'm going for the original

14:37 ↗ design packet.

15:03 ↗ I happen to have a panone guide here

15:05 ↗ thanks to Mr. for he's and I'm able to

15:08 ↗ confirm that 1795C is in fact that

15:10 ↗ Burger Master red. Okay, great. Thank

15:12 ↗ you. Uh it's this one right here. Thank

15:15 ↗ you. Very good. Red to match. Thank you.

15:18 ↗ Yeah.

15:23 ↗ Okay. And also in in the original

15:27 ↗ packet

15:30 ↗ um I believe in the last meeting you

15:32 ↗ referred to the back of the sign is

15:34 ↗ blank. Correct.

15:36 ↗ The back of the sign is uh pretty much

15:38 ↗ the same as the front of the sign. It's

15:39 ↗ just not back lit. It is. Okay. There's

15:42 ↗ no uh there's no oval on the back side.

15:44 ↗ Okay. So, it repeats the branding on the

15:46 ↗ northwest back front. Right. But it's

15:49 ↗ not lighted. Correct. It is not lit.

15:52 ↗ That's correct. Right. Okay. Good. Thank

15:54 ↗ you. I think those are the only

15:57 ↗ questions I have. Thank you.

16:00 ↗ Any other comments or questions from the

16:01 ↗ commission?

16:04 ↗ All right. Thank you.

16:09 ↗ Now we'll move to the public comment

16:10 ↗ portion of the hearing. Has anyone

16:13 ↗ signed up to speak on the Scott topic?

16:18 ↗ No, chair. Okay. Those who are in person

16:20 ↗ and would like to comment,

16:23 ↗ um,

16:26 ↗ is there anyone in person who'd like to

16:27 ↗ comment? Okay. Um, please direct your

16:29 ↗ comments to the development commission

16:31 ↗ and not individuals. For in-person

16:33 ↗ attendees, please step to the lect turn

16:35 ↗ and when it's your turn to speak, state

16:37 ↗ your name. Speak clearly. Limit your

16:40 ↗ comment to five minutes.

16:42 ↗ Thank you, commission. My name is Corby

16:45 ↗ Castler. I'm the executive director of

16:46 ↗ the Downtown Isco Association, which is

16:48 ↗ a nonprofit main street organization

16:50 ↗ under the umbrella of the Washington

16:53 ↗ Department of Archaeology and Historic

16:54 ↗ Preservation. We continue to believe

16:56 ↗ that strong protection should be applied

16:59 ↗ when deciding on changes to the newly

17:00 ↗ landmark XX sign. We do not support

17:03 ↗ stripping its identity of the very

17:06 ↗ things that allowed it to be landmarked

17:07 ↗ in the first place.

17:09 ↗ At the same time, we support Burger

17:11 ↗ Master's vigorous efforts to keep the

17:13 ↗ integrity of its brand and believe it

17:14 ↗ can be enhanced through the legacy power

17:16 ↗ of the sign's existing attributes. We

17:19 ↗ suggest that the three design features,

17:20 ↗ the trip XX, the barrel, and the

17:23 ↗ original color, whether it's orange or

17:25 ↗ red, ma, be maintained. Any of these

17:28 ↗ components being stripped, really takes

17:30 ↗ away from what is consistent with the

17:32 ↗ principles that allowed it to be

17:34 ↗ landmarked in the first place. Adding

17:36 ↗ Burker Mar's famed logo across the top

17:38 ↗ of the sign seems to be a great

17:39 ↗ compromise. I think it looks great up

17:41 ↗ there and it'll be seen from very far

17:43 ↗ away. This is an internationally

17:45 ↗ recognized sign and it it is visible

17:48 ↗ more visible than any other sign really

17:50 ↗ in the city of Isiqua.

17:54 ↗ The basis for the city landmarking the

17:56 ↗ historic connection of the company and

17:58 ↗ the building. Without them, Isqua code

18:00 ↗ would not have allowed the sign to be

18:01 ↗ designated landmark. The story and

18:03 ↗ historic connection are lost without the

18:05 ↗ wording. The wording, shape, texture,

18:07 ↗ and color provide the design basis for

18:09 ↗ historic relevance. We ask that the

18:11 ↗ commission support preserving these

18:13 ↗ elements of the trip XX sign landmark

18:15 ↗ while granting Burger Master its

18:16 ↗ branding at the top of the sign. Thank

18:18 ↗ you.

18:21 ↗ Thank you. Would anyone else like to

18:23 ↗ speak?

18:26 ↗ Okay.

18:27 ↗ Uh does the applicant have any rebuttal

18:29 ↗ or comments?

18:43 ↗ As I stated in the last uh meeting, we

18:45 ↗ did receive a cease and desist letter

18:47 ↗ from the XX Corporation and West Laugh

18:49 ↗ at Indiana indicating that they felt if

18:52 ↗ we were to um you know revitalize this

18:55 ↗ and and keep it as a XX, we'd be

18:57 ↗ infringing upon their trademark. Um, if

19:01 ↗ the Downtown Esqua Association is

19:03 ↗ wanting to indemnify us from any

19:05 ↗ potential lawsuit, then I'd keep the

19:07 ↗ trip XX up there.

19:10 ↗ Um, but I I feel like it puts us in a

19:12 ↗ really awkward position and exposes us

19:14 ↗ to liability. So, uh, with that being

19:17 ↗ said, I certainly um understand the the

19:21 ↗ connection to, uh, the sign and the

19:24 ↗ color and, uh, I will defer to the

19:26 ↗ commission. Um, again, I appreciate the

19:29 ↗ opportunity and I look forward to being

19:31 ↗ a good part of this community for many

19:32 ↗ years to come. Thank you. Thank you.

19:35 ↗ Does staff have any of any rebuttal to

19:37 ↗ the comments?

19:39 ↗ No. Thank you,

19:43 ↗ commissioners. Are there any objections

19:44 ↗ to closing the public hearing?

19:47 ↗ All right. Thank you. Hearing no

19:50 ↗ objections, I now close the public

19:51 ↗ hearing at 7:52 p.m.

20:00 ↗ Now it's time to move into deliberation

20:02 ↗ portion of the meeting

20:05 ↗ and I believe we have an existing motion

20:07 ↗ in place.

20:11 ↗ Uh madame chair, I'd like to withdraw

20:15 ↗ both my motion to approve and my

20:17 ↗ amendment. I think the motion to approve

20:19 ↗ was seconded by Commissioner Brennan and

20:21 ↗ the amendment was commission was

20:23 ↗ seconded by Chair Shore. So they would

20:25 ↗ have to agree as well.

20:29 ↗ Uh I agree with uh resending the motion.

20:33 ↗ I agree also.

20:35 ↗ Okay. Um

20:42 ↗ let's see.

20:48 ↗ Um, now we would need a new motion to

20:50 ↗ deliberate.

21:42 ↗ I did last time.

21:44 ↗ Um, Madam Chair, I moved uh to approve

21:47 ↗ the Burger Master landmark sign

21:50 ↗ alterations as presented in the

21:51 ↗ materials um included in tonight's

21:54 ↗ packet. Second.

21:57 ↗ Thank you.

22:00 ↗ Um, I have a few questions.

22:03 ↗ Um,

22:06 ↗ as far as the landmark status,

22:09 ↗ what would have happened if someone else

22:11 ↗ purchased this property

22:14 ↗ there? They had two opport two two

22:17 ↗ opportunities. One is that they could go

22:19 ↗ in and take down the sign. It is a piece

22:23 ↗ of the building. It would require I I am

22:25 ↗ not a structural engineer. I do not know

22:27 ↗ what it would require, but it is

22:28 ↗ definitely built into the building. So,

22:30 ↗ it goes through the roof to the floor

22:32 ↗ and would require work. It would be

22:34 ↗ expensive. But the other option is to

22:36 ↗ get it landmarked. Okay. But this

22:38 ↗ location could have been a dentist

22:40 ↗ office, a car repair shop, correct?

22:43 ↗ Anything of that sort. Correct. Um, and

22:46 ↗ was the cease and desist letter from XX

22:50 ↗ provided to the city? We have asked for

22:52 ↗ it. We have not received it, but we did

22:54 ↗ not ask for it until today. Okay. Thank

22:56 ↗ you.

23:14 ↗ I don't have that. You sent it email.

23:21 ↗ Okay.

23:27 ↗ While he's looking, do you have another

23:29 ↗ question? Uh, sure. Ola. Yeah, I have

23:31 ↗ another question. So, what happens if

23:33 ↗ somebody purchased

23:35 ↗ this building from them from them?

23:40 ↗ Assuming this was approved and it's

23:42 ↗ approved as as it stands today,

23:45 ↗ um, you know, 10 years down the line, it

23:48 ↗ gets sold. Mhm. What happens next? The

23:52 ↗ the sign needs to stay as as as it would

23:56 ↗ remain a landmark sign with without the

23:59 ↗ branding or we have to revisit the

24:03 ↗ I think that depends on what happens

24:04 ↗ tonight assuming we're so so the code

24:08 ↗ does not say that you have to keep the

24:09 ↗ branding. Okay. The code says that you

24:11 ↗ have to keep the color, the design and

24:13 ↗ the texture. It does not say that you

24:15 ↗ have to keep the branding. So if a

24:17 ↗ dentist office comes in there and has

24:19 ↗ the giant barrel on top,

24:22 ↗ right? I understand that. And so the

24:24 ↗ shape So I think the maybe the sticking

24:27 ↗ point is the color, right? I'm sorry.

24:30 ↗ Could you I'm having a hard time

24:31 ↗ hearing. Oh, sorry. I should use the

24:32 ↗ mic. There you go. Thank you. All right.

24:34 ↗ Sorry about that. Um so right now we

24:37 ↗ have two variants of the color, right?

24:39 ↗ We have the orange and then you know

24:42 ↗ maybe the red, right?

24:44 ↗ And to me both have seemed valid, right?

24:49 ↗ And then the future um the building

24:52 ↗ sold, do we carry the two? Do we The

24:56 ↗ code says that as long as it is a

24:58 ↗ landmark sign, which it has been

24:59 ↗ designated, but then it has to the

25:02 ↗ intent is that it has to stay similar.

25:03 ↗ It has to keep something similar to the

25:05 ↗ orange and similar to the red or Yeah.

25:08 ↗ And we potentially could approve the

25:10 ↗ red, right? We could approve the red. Do

25:13 ↗ we we don't sever the orange that or do

25:15 ↗ we sever the orange or do we don't know

25:19 ↗ sever it as in that's up for our

25:21 ↗ discussion right now. That's okay.

25:27 ↗ Thank you,

25:29 ↗ Mel.

25:33 ↗ Um,

25:34 ↗ I guess one thought I had in terms of

25:37 ↗ the comment about the size of the Burger

25:42 ↗ Master being added. In my mind, I think

25:45 ↗ that is relevant because the Burger

25:48 ↗ Master was not there on the original

25:50 ↗ sign. So, it's not replacing something

25:52 ↗ that was there. It's an addition to the

25:55 ↗ sign. So in my mind requiring that to

25:59 ↗ meet the requirements of the code

26:01 ↗ because otherwise you could say we'll

26:02 ↗ just put a very large giant burger

26:05 ↗ master up there. So to add something new

26:07 ↗ I think does require my mind needs to

26:10 ↗ require and I think staff has shown that

26:12 ↗ it does meet size requirements from the

26:15 ↗ code.

26:16 ↗ That's my interpretation. Okay. Thank

26:19 ↗ you Richard. Could I throw my second one

26:21 ↗ in? Yes. Oh yeah. Go ahead. My second

26:23 ↗ one is that um a hard time thinking

26:27 ↗ about red as being the color because it

26:29 ↗ doesn't like the code says that approval

26:33 ↗ may be granted when the modifications

26:35 ↗ consistent with the landmark signs

26:37 ↗ design color and texture doesn't say

26:40 ↗ historic color or the color found under

26:42 ↗ one part. I think most people would

26:44 ↗ interpret as the color is the color that

26:47 ↗ is there now. Um, I appreciate the

26:50 ↗ effort, but I think I would interpret as

26:53 ↗ saying if we made it red and we said,

26:55 ↗ "Well, there's a portion of we saw that

26:57 ↗ was red, so in my mind that would not

26:59 ↗ fit." So,

27:01 ↗ I would not see proposing to make it red

27:04 ↗ as a possibility.

27:08 ↗ I would agree with Commissioner Morgan's

27:10 ↗ input on red color. I think most people

27:13 ↗ associate the orange range of color um

27:18 ↗ with this sign certainly in the memory

27:20 ↗ of most people who have seen this sign.

27:22 ↗ Uh and I personally I think the the

27:25 ↗ suggestion of the 158 is it and 159 C

27:30 ↗ works fine. It doesn't match the

27:32 ↗ original color that all of us know but I

27:35 ↗ think it's pretty close. Secondly, about

27:38 ↗ uh the cease and desist letter, I did do

27:42 ↗ a trademark search on this. It's pretty

27:43 ↗ easy. And the triple XX definitely is

27:46 ↗ there owned by uh XX root beer of

27:49 ↗ Lafayette. And the usage is for

27:52 ↗ beverage. So if you were not serving

27:54 ↗ beverage, I guess we wouldn't be having

27:56 ↗ this discussion. But it certainly is

27:58 ↗ there. There are no constraints on the

28:01 ↗ color or the font or the font size or

28:05 ↗ anything like that regarding the 3Xs.

28:07 ↗ And there's nothing else in that

28:10 ↗ trademark registration regarding

28:12 ↗ background or imagery or anything like

28:15 ↗ that.

28:18 ↗ I would like to note that I did just get

28:20 ↗ a copy of the season desist letter. Yes.

28:23 ↗ Thank you. And it reads as described.

28:28 ↗ It's very long, but the last paragraph

28:29 ↗ does say that. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

28:32 ↗ Would you like me to read the last

28:33 ↗ paragraph? Uh, commission.

28:35 ↗ Yes, please. This is the attorney on

28:38 ↗ behalf of the client. Sorry, it's very

28:39 ↗ small. Um, our client believes that your

28:42 ↗ planned use of XX drive-in is violating

28:44 ↗ or will violate XX RBC's rights in its

28:46 ↗ marks using the designation variations

28:49 ↗ thereof.

28:51 ↗ Whoops.

28:54 ↗ um with its offering restaurant

28:55 ↗ services. It just goes on for a while.

28:57 ↗ Sorry, it's like I said, it's long. Um

29:05 ↗ uh if it continue in connection if

29:09 ↗ the above unauthorizes uses the XX

29:11 ↗ designations and variations thereof in

29:13 ↗ connection with XX drive-ins goods and

29:15 ↗ services could be subject to XX drive-in

29:17 ↗ to liability for the following legal

29:19 ↗ violations. And then I can't see what it

29:20 ↗ says after that, but yes.

29:24 ↗ Yes. Thank you.

29:30 ↗ So, we currently have a motion. Any

29:32 ↗ further discussions? Yeah, just a a

29:34 ↗ couple quick comments. Um, one, um,

29:37 ↗ well, I assume that will be part of the

29:39 ↗ record uh, letter that you just received

29:42 ↗ and read. Um and then on the so on the

29:46 ↗ question of the color um agreement with

29:50 ↗ um kind of the previous comments and and

29:52 ↗ including the pictures that were

29:53 ↗ provided as part of tonight's staff

29:55 ↗ report from approximately 1999 and it's

29:59 ↗ um a fairly strong color of orange that

30:01 ↗ is kind of how we view this the sign

30:03 ↗ now. think if we if we um

30:07 ↗ change the color to the color under the

30:09 ↗ letter that's missing, I think we would

30:11 ↗ probably get a lot of feedback about

30:12 ↗ that's a dramatic change compared to

30:14 ↗ what people view as the landmark sign

30:17 ↗ today. Um and just uh another thing on

30:19 ↗ the the letter, we don't I don't want to

30:22 ↗ put uh somebody in a position of

30:25 ↗ liability by forcing them to do

30:27 ↗ something where they've received a

30:29 ↗ letter like that. So, I I would take

30:31 ↗ that as as um strong evidence to say

30:34 ↗ that forcing them to put the trip XX up

30:36 ↗ there is really not an option. Um even

30:38 ↗ though that's the public comment and the

30:40 ↗ public interest from some folks has been

30:42 ↗ to retain the XX, I think that would be

30:46 ↗ challenging given the evidence that

30:47 ↗ we've received um tonight and and

30:50 ↗ presented previously by the applicant.

30:52 ↗ So, I understand that. Um, as far as the

30:55 ↗ the color that's been proposed in the in

30:58 ↗ the application for tonight in tonight's

31:00 ↗ materials, I'm I'm comfortable that

31:01 ↗ that's aligned closely enough with um

31:03 ↗ the previous uh orange color of the

31:06 ↗ barrel and and comfortable approving

31:08 ↗ that.

31:10 ↗ Thank you. Um I have one further comment

31:13 ↗ on the red shown under the O that that

31:17 ↗ was on the oval which is proposed to be

31:20 ↗ red. Correct.

31:24 ↗ So that's

31:27 ↗ in line.

31:29 ↗ That would be the assumption I think.

31:31 ↗ Right. Did you want to show the picture

31:33 ↗ please if you don't mind?

31:49 ↗ Are you referring to the picture with

31:51 ↗ the letter that came off or the picture

31:54 ↗ of I think what we're approving the the

31:57 ↗ proposed the proposed Okay.

32:18 ↗ Thank you. You're welcome.

32:24 ↗ So the assumption is the ovals their

32:27 ↗ branding, right? The oval part is their

32:30 ↗ brand. So that will be equivalent to the

32:32 ↗ trip XX sign. I think that's the

32:35 ↗ assumption, right? Correct. Yeah. Any

32:42 ↗ further discussion?

32:44 ↗ Just one more comment. Um, I think the

32:48 ↗ color that we have now is not exactly

32:50 ↗ the jacko'lantern orange, you know, that

32:52 ↗ we've come to know and love, but I think

32:54 ↗ the goal here was to try to capture the

32:57 ↗ essence of the retro look and feel that

33:00 ↗ we had there and kind of keep the fun

33:03 ↗ while allowing the brand to change and

33:05 ↗ also meet the requirements of code. And

33:07 ↗ I do think that this design that we're

33:09 ↗ looking at tonight does that.

33:16 ↗ Any further discussion?

33:20 ↗ Thank you. With deliberation concluded,

33:22 ↗ it's time for the commission to take

33:23 ↗ action on the item before us. Currently,

33:26 ↗ the motion is I move to approve the

33:30 ↗ Burger Master landmark sign alterations

33:32 ↗ as presented on June 11th, 2025.

33:37 ↗ All in favor of the motion say I. I. I.

33:41 ↗ I. All opposed say no.

33:46 ↗ The motion is approved.

33:53 ↗ And chair. I would just like to add I

33:55 ↗ appreciate very much the changes that

33:56 ↗ the applicant made to this to fit in

33:58 ↗ better and the staff work on the size of

34:01 ↗ the landmark sign to figure out that fit

34:04 ↗ within code. So, thank you. Agreed.

34:06 ↗ Thank you all.

34:11 ↗ Okay. Um

34:14 ↗ yeah. Um staff, are there any updates on

34:17 ↗ city council or upcoming activities?

34:24 ↗ City council uh just we took a several

34:27 ↗ policy code amendments to council last

34:29 ↗ night that will go to council itself on

34:33 ↗ June 23rd for action.

34:37 ↗ Yeah, a couple of other items lined up

34:39 ↗ for council but they haven't taken

34:40 ↗ action yet are um with the committee.

34:44 ↗ So, um it's the Belleview College uh up

34:47 ↗ in Highlands uh development extension

34:50 ↗ where there were a lot of bills that

34:52 ↗ were passed in the latest iteration uh

34:55 ↗ that we have a deadline um that we're

34:58 ↗ working towards. One of them is impact

34:59 ↗ fees um for any new development that

35:02 ↗ comes in. Uh the law now is that for

35:05 ↗ residential we have to base it on the

35:07 ↗ size of the residential unit. So and the

35:11 ↗ guidance from commerce was just rolled

35:12 ↗ in but we have a deadline. So we're

35:14 ↗ trying to scramble and get that uh piece

35:17 ↗ sorted out. Um so council will be taking

35:19 ↗ that action tonight. Actually I'm

35:20 ↗ heading right after this to the

35:22 ↗ environmental board. They've been uh

35:24 ↗ looking at the tree code. Um and so

35:27 ↗ that'll go to planning and policy

35:28 ↗ commission. But if anyone's interested

35:30 ↗ in in tree regulations because I think

35:32 ↗ those do come to you with development

35:34 ↗ whether it meets the tree canopy or not.

35:36 ↗ Um and we did a complete overhaul with

35:39 ↗ the last update. However, when we

35:41 ↗ started implementing it became obvious

35:43 ↗ that there were some things that we need

35:45 ↗ to uh have further conversations on

35:47 ↗ especially for hazardous tree removal.

35:49 ↗ It wasn't clear if you know the

35:51 ↗ replacement is one to one or more. Um

35:54 ↗ but also canopy coverage goals because

35:56 ↗ the ISQUA has I and you know climate

35:59 ↗ action plan that you know wants to have

36:02 ↗ larger canopy uh coverage objective

36:05 ↗ increase our canopy coverage you know

36:06 ↗ summers are getting hot and all that uh

36:09 ↗ yet being able to fit more trees on a

36:12 ↗ developed lot or um that you're trying

36:15 ↗ to so that's the balance we're trying to

36:17 ↗ strike with that um but that's no I I

36:20 ↗ would say there's uh one other one that

36:21 ↗ transit oriented development Their site

36:23 ↗ plan I mentioned to you has come in

36:25 ↗ that's called trail head and it came in

36:27 ↗ and the county and the city are there's

36:31 ↗ something that allows them to do an

36:32 ↗ agreement to get a deviation from some

36:35 ↗ of the code that we have development

36:38 ↗ regulations that we have that would

36:40 ↗ better enable them uh to make a project

36:42 ↗ more feasible for them. So, the city two

36:46 ↗ weeks ago brought the first version of

36:49 ↗ the contract to city council and it's

36:51 ↗ going to go back to city council in

36:53 ↗ July. Um, so once that is settled, I

36:56 ↗ know that the first review of the

36:59 ↗ development is going on right now. So

37:02 ↗ once it is done and once the contract is

37:04 ↗ completed, we can finish reviews. That

37:06 ↗ should be coming to you all in early

37:07 ↗ fall.

37:09 ↗ Yeah. So that's the property right next

37:11 ↗ to the transit center and the city has

37:12 ↗ been working on that project since 2016

37:15 ↗ or before that to try and get some

37:17 ↗ affordable housing next to the transit

37:19 ↗ center. So it's finally you know yeah

37:22 ↗ it'll it'll come to you with the

37:24 ↗ council's amen you know deviations from

37:26 ↗ code uh package. Uh the only other thing

37:29 ↗ I can think to mention since we're doing

37:31 ↗ uh council and other things is that you

37:33 ↗ do have an August 6 meeting. Uh you'll

37:36 ↗ be talking about uh the uh Seamish

37:40 ↗ Plateau Water District PAS facility. Um

37:45 ↗ and then you also will be talking about

37:47 ↗ a new development that has town home

37:49 ↗ development, 74 units that are over just

37:52 ↗ off of uh East Lake Samish and 51st.

37:57 ↗ And that will be coming to you then as

37:59 ↗ well. So it'll be busy before the end of

38:02 ↗ the year. We would be looking at at

38:03 ↗ least uh projects and potentially a high

38:08 ↗ school amendment to their um school

38:11 ↗ district's high school amendment. We're

38:12 ↗ also talking to them. You remember those

38:15 ↗ hearings, but now we've changed the code

38:17 ↗ and it is actually um your decision. It

38:20 ↗ doesn't go to council. So that that's

38:22 ↗ also potentially getting lined up for

38:24 ↗ you all. Turning out to be a busier year

38:27 ↗ than maybe you thought. Yeah. But I also

38:29 ↗ want to thank you tonight for your

38:30 ↗ thoughtful discussion, the value you

38:32 ↗ bring to this conversation, you know,

38:34 ↗ hearing from the community and the

38:35 ↗ applicant and the code. And clearly when

38:37 ↗ we wrote the code, there are some

38:39 ↗ lessons for us to be more explicitly

38:41 ↗ clear. Um, you know, using the word

38:43 ↗ consistent, I think caused a little bit

38:45 ↗ of confusion. Um, but that's that's our

38:47 ↗ takeaway for that. But thank you for all

38:49 ↗ your work you do.

38:53 ↗ Thank you staff, the applicant, and

38:55 ↗ members of the public. There being no

38:57 ↗ further business before the commission,

38:58 ↗ I adjourn the meeting at 7:11 p.m.

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 (1)

Christen Leeson, Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of May 15, 2025 With no corrections or comments the Minutes were approved. 3

Audience commenters (1)

CHAIR SHORE

Recommendations & actions (3)

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 May 15, 2025 With no corrections or comments the Minutes were approved.
COMMISSIONER MORGAN withdrew the Motion to approve and the Amendment, and the Commissioners who had seconded stated agreement.
Motion seconded by COMMISSIONER SANFORD.