[I. Call to Order] [00:00:05] LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE CITY OF TYLER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER THE 2ND. WE'RE WELCOME. ALL OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES TO THIS MEETING. THESE MEETINGS, WHICH ARE, OF COURSE, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, IS TO CALL THE ROLL. I THINK THAT'S MARINA. YES, SIR. CARLENE DARBY'S PRESENT. CLINT CHARLES. PRESENT. PHILIP. HUMBER. PRESENT. CHRISTINA DAVIS. PRESENT. MICHAEL CARMICHAEL. PRESENT. ROY MARTINEZ PRESENT. AND DAVID HUDSON PRESENT. WE DO HAVE A FULL COMMISSION HERE TODAY. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ANY ITEM APPROVED TODAY WILL BE HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24TH, COMMENCING AT 9 A.M. IF YOU RECEIVED A NOTICE FOR THIS MEETING, YOU ALSO HAVE RECEIVED A NOTICE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IF ANY ITEM IS DENIED, THE APPLICANT IS TEN CALENDAR DAYS TO FILE A WRITTEN APPEAL WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE APPEAL WILL THEN BE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST AN ITEM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. COMMENTS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS, ALTHOUGH EXTENSIONS OF TIME MAY BE GRANTED BY THE CHAIR UPON REQUEST. IF THE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS MEETING, WE NORMALLY HAVE A WORKSHOP TO PLAN FOR NEXT MONTH'S MEETING THIS MONTH. THAT MEETING WILL BE ON SEPTEMBER THE 16TH AT 130 AT THE TYLER DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ACROSS THE STREET AT 423 WEST FERGUSON. IN THE LARGE CONFERENCE CONFERENCE ROOM. AND THAT MEETING, LIKE ALL MEETINGS, [IV. Consideration of minutes from the Commission meeting of August 5, 2025] IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS ON OUR AGENDA IS MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 5TH MEETING. HAVE COMMISSIONERS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE? ANY CORRECTIONS OR CHANGES? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. SECOND. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. IF NOT, ANY OPPOSED? IF NOT, THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. THE FIRST TWO ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, PD 25 012. JENICO WEST CREEK AND Z 25 023 JENICO. MESS WEST CREEK. THOSE HAVE BOTH BEEN PULLED SO THERE WILL BE NO ACTION TAKEN ON EITHER ONE OF THOSE. WHICH BRINGS US TO S 25 00321 PARK [V.3. S22-018 TAE WAN PARK (3521 SOUTH BROADWAY AVENUE)] 3521 SOUTH BROAD BROADWAY. HANNAH. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS AND EVERYBODY PRESENT. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT. IT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF WEST AND AMSTER STREET AND SOUTH BROADWAY AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C1, WHICH IS OUR LIGHT AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. SPECIAL USE PERMITS ARE GRANTED FOR SPECIAL USES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN A ZONING DISTRICT, AS PER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE S, YOU ARE APPROVED FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME, TYPICALLY ONE YEAR, FIVE YEARS, OR INDEFINITELY. AFTER ANALYZING THE IMPACT OF THE USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND EAST ARE ZONED C1 AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL USES. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ARE ZONED R-1, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICATION PROPOSES A MAJOR FOOD TRUCK PARK WITH NINE FOOD TRUCK SITES. THE COMMISSIONER, THE COMMISSARY AND RESTROOMS ARE LOCATED ON SITE IN THE EXISTING BUILDING. THE FOOD TRUCK SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST TEXAS PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT, ADOPT BUILDING CODES, INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS. THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES TWO PARKING SPACES FOR A MOBILE FOOD UNIT, ALONG WITH ONE PER 100FTâ– !S OF DESIGNATED SEATING AREA. CURRENTLY, THE SITE HAS 36 PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. SCREENING AND NOISE REGULATIONS [00:05:06] WILL BE IN BE AS PER THE CITY REGULATIONS. AN SUP WAS APPROVED IN DECEMBER OF 2022 FOR ONE YEAR. THE APPLICANT DID NOT APPLY FOR A NEW SUP AND HAS BEEN OPERATING THE BUSINESS WITHOUT APPROVAL. THE BUSINESS HAS RECEIVED ZONING AND OCCUPANCY REGULATIONS. FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN MADE REGARDING SITE LIGHTING WHICH HAS BEEN CORRECTED. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO RECEIVED REPORTS OF DISTURBANCE OF NOISE. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. DISTURBANCE FIGHTS. VEHICLE BURGLARY AND WELFARE CONCERNS. THE OWNER DID NOT OPERATE THE FOOD TRUCK PARK IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN. THAT WAS APPROVED. THE. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THE UDC ONLY ALLOWS FOOD TRUCKS TO OPERATE IN C1 ZONING IF THEY ARE AT AN APPROVED FOOD TRUCK PARK. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE TO APPROVE FOOD TRUCK PARKS FOR ONE TRUCK TO OPERATE, OR FOR SPORADIC ACTIVITY IN RELATION TO ANOTHER BUSINESS. THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE PRIMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY. OF THE 13 NOTICES THAT WERE MAILED, NO NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST. STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW AND FINDS THAT IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE SPECIAL USE. THANK YOU. AND YOU SAID INCONSISTENT. IS THAT CORRECT? ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? IF NOT, ARE THERE PERSONS HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. IF YOU'D COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY KING AND MY ADDRESS IS 1327 EDWARD ROAD, TYLER, TEXAS. THANK YOU. KIND OF GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE IF YOU CAN. I NEED TO RESTATE THAT. YEAH. YEAH. MY NAME IS TODDRICK KING AND MY ADDRESS IS 1327 ELK RIVER ROAD, TYLER, TEXAS. 75703. OKAY. SO I'M HERE TO TRY TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING ON THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BECAUSE WHEN WE WAS HERE LAST YEAR, WE WERE TOLD THAT A SPECIAL THAT WE COULD HAVE A COMMISSARY WHICH CONSISTS OF EIGHT FOOD TRUCKS AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAS FOR US IF WE WAS GOING TO RUN FIVE OR MORE FOOD TRUCKS AT ONE TIME, WHICH CONSISTED OF MAJOR FOOD TRUCK PARK. AND WHEN OUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXPIRED ON THE LANGUAGE THAT WE WERE GOING OFF OF THAT, YOU NEED AT LEAST TWO OR MORE TRUCKS OPERATING AT ONE TIME. WE START OPERATING ONE TRUCK LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IN TYLER. SO WE REALLY WASN'T BREAKING. WELL, I FEEL LIKE WE WASN'T BREAKING RULES ON ON THAT LANGUAGE. SO FOR THEM TO SAY THAT, WE WERE LIKE, I JUST REALLY NEED THAT TO BE EXPLAINED TO ME, IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING. I DO, KYLE. DO YOU WANT TO? SURE. SO THE. SO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZED? THE THE THE OWNER TO HAVE MULTIPLE FOOD TRUCKS ON THE PROPERTY. THE UNIQUE. IN IN C1 ZONING. EXCUSE ME? C1 ZONING ONLY ONLY ALLOWS MOBILE FOOD UNITS TO OPERATE IF THEY IF THE PROPERTY HAS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO THE ABILITY TO HAVE EVEN ONE FOOD TRUCK ON THE PROPERTY ALSO REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO I UNDERSTAND MR. KANE MENTIONED THAT ONCE THEY RECEIVED NOTICE THAT THE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FOOD TRUCK PARK AND HAD SEIZED IT EXPIRED AND THEY WENT TO ONE TRUCK ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH. WHICH AGAIN, WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT BEING A FOOD TRUCK PARK BECAUSE IT'S ONLY ONE. HOWEVER, THE ZONING ITSELF DID NOT AUTHORIZE EVEN ONE TRUCK, SO IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE VIOLATION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO HAVE ONE. BUT BUT I GUESS IT CAME DOWN TO WHETHER THE CODE ALLOWED IT AT ALL, WITH OR WITHOUT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO AS AS IT WERE, WHEN THE THERE WAS THE APPROVAL FOR THE [00:10:06] THE FOOD TRUCK PARK WITH THE SPECIAL USE THE SNP THAT EFFECTIVELY ALLOWED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE MOBILE FOOD UNITS ON IT, AND WHEN THAT EXPIRED, THEN THE CODE DID NOT ALLOW ANY. LET ME MAKE SURE I APPRECIATE THAT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHEN WE HAVE SPECIAL USE PERMITS, THEY'RE MONITORED FOR COMPLAINTS AND ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN ON THOSE. AND THAT'S THE CASE IN THIS SITUATION. THERE WERE COMPLAINTS, CONCERNS. THERE WERE CONCERNS WITH THE WITH THE PROPERTY IN GENERAL. ONE OF THEM WAS THE THE LIGHTING OR THE LINE ISSUE, WHICH WAS CORRECTED, CORRECTED BY THE OWNER, PROPERTY OWNER. THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFIC TO THE FOOD TRUCK OPERATION. AND THEN ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS THAT THE IF THE THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR ANOTHER FOOD TRUCK PARK TO OPERATE, THEN WHAT WE'RE DOING IS A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENED. YOU KNOW, WHAT HAS BEEN THE ACTIVITY ON THE ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF SINCE SINCE THEN. AND THOSE ARE THAT'S THE DATA THAT WE PROVIDED, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND THEN ALSO CALLS FOR SERVICE. I THINK WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE THE COMMISSION AS TO WHETHER THEY WANTED TO TO EXTEND THIS FURTHER OR TO, TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION TO MAKE AN EDUCATED DECISION. THANKS. MR. KANE, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NOT MR. KANE? YES. SO? IT'S THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ME OPERATING MORE THAN ONE TRUCK OR IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALSO, FOR ME, HAVING A COMMISSARY, BECAUSE THE COMMISSARY IS, I THOUGHT WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO AM I ALLOWED TO HAVE EIGHT TRUCKS ON MY PROPERTY OR ONE TRUCK ON MY PROPERTY? OR JUST A TRUCK HAS TO BE OPERATING TO KICK IN THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT? C1 ZONING ALLOWS FOR ANY COMMISSARY, SO SO THE TRUCKS ARE ALLOWED. SO IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL USE. OKAY. SO THE OPERATION OF FOOD TRUCKS REQUIRES THE SPECIAL USE. SO EVEN WITH ONE TRUCK NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT NEEDS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT IT COMES TO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT HERE I WAS JUST GETTING IT, TRYING TO GET IT CLEAR BECAUSE I'M THE LAST LANGUAGE WE WENT BY. IT TOOK TWO OR MORE FOR A MINOR AND FIVE OR MORE FOR A MAJOR. SO THAT'S WHERE I NEEDED CLARIFICATION. AT THE SAME TIME AFTER WE GOT. EXCUSE ME, EXCUSE ME. WE'LL BE GLAD TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IF YOU'D STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS PETE PORTER. I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND ALSO HE'S A PARTNER. I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS AND I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1980, AND I'VE BEEN OPERATING FOR THE LAST 35 YEARS AND NEVER HAD ANY ISSUE WITH ANYBODY IN THE CITY. AND THIS IS MY PROPERTY. I JUST GOT I GOT IT STARTED ON THIS BUSINESS TOGETHER. SO IT'S JUST FRESH, BRAND NEW. BUSINESSMAN IN TYLER, TEXAS. AND WHEN WE GOT SHUT DOWN AT THE TIME OF SHUTDOWN, I TALKED TO DAVID ON THE PHONE. HE SAID, WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR A SHUTDOWN? HE SAID, YOU HAVE NO FOOD ON THE PARKING LOT, AND YOUR PERMIT HAS TO HAVE FOOD COMING FROM FOOD TRUCK. THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON THAT HE SHUT US DOWN. THAT'S KIND OF RELATED TO THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT. I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT TO HIM. I SAID, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER REASON, WE GOT THAT SPECIAL FOOD TRUCK PERMIT TO OPERATE MULTIPLE FOOD TRUCKS AT ONE LOCATION, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED IN TYLER. WE GOT NO PERMIT. SO WE CAME UP HERE LAST YEAR, SAID, WE WANT TO CREATE THIS SPECIAL FOOD TRUCK ENVIRONMENT, AND Y'ALL ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT FOR ONE YEAR BECAUSE Y'ALL WEREN'T SURE HOW IT'S GOING TO KIND OF MESS UP THE TRAFFIC AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE, BECAUSE WE'RE RIGHT ON THE BROADWAY. AND IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO RUN OPERATE ONE TRUCK, WE DID NOT NEED THAT SPECIAL FOOD TRUCK PERMIT. THAT ONE TRUCK CAN GO ANYWHERE IN TYLER AND OPERATE. SO ACTUALLY, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE YEAR YEAR AND A HALF AGO. AND THEN WHEN WE OPENED AND WHEN WE GOT TIME TO DO THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXPIRED, MY WIFE GOT A LETTER AT HER HOUSE. HE DIDN'T GO DIRECTLY TO HIM. HE ACTUALLY CAME TO ME AT THE HOUSE. HE DIDN'T GO TO THE BUSINESS. SO AS SOON AS WE GOT THAT LETTER AND I SENT IT TO HIM, I SAID, HEY, YOU'RE FOOD TRUCK LICENSE. SO HE ACTUALLY, I SAID, YOU NEED TO GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF RIGHT AWAY, WHETHER WE USE MULTIPLE TRUCK OR NOT, BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING FOR THE LAST A YEAR AND A HALF. SO WE APPLY. WE APPLY. RIGHT. BY THE WAY, WE PUT $700 APPLICATION FEE AND WE'RE WAITING FOR THIS MEETING. AND IN BETWEEN KYLE COMES IN AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO SHUT THIS. WE'RE GOING TO REVOKE YOUR SEO. I MEAN, RIGHT ON THE SPOT. WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? YOU NOTICE THEY SAID THEY SENT THE CERTIFIED MAIL. WE NEVER GOT IT. NOT MY WIFE, [00:15:06] NOT MY HOUSE NOR BUSINESS, GOT ANY KIND OF CERTIFIED LETTER. AND HE BROUGHT THAT LETTER. AND THE NEXT DAY WE ACTUALLY WROTE A LETTER. WHEN HE SHOWED UP, WE WROTE A LETTER SAYING, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TIME TO SEND THE LETTER IN. THEY JUST SHUT US DOWN THE NEXT DAY. DAVID? COME IN. WE'RE SHUTTING YOU DOWN TODAY. AND I WAS LIKE, I TOLD TODD, I SAID, IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO SHUT YOU DOWN, THEY GIVE YOU GIVE YOU GRACE, PERIOD. SO WE CAN WORK THIS OUT. YOU DON'T COME IN BUSINESS, SHUT NEXT DAY. IT'S NOT THAT HE SHUT US DOWN. HE SHUT SEVEN LLC IN ONE DAY. THAT'S SIX FOOT TRUCK THAT IS TIED IN AS A COMMISSARY. THEY OPERATE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. HE SHUT SEVEN BUSINESSES DOWN IN ONE DAY WITHOUT NO NOTICE. SO I WAS LIKE REALLY SHOCKED. AND I WAS LIKE, MAN, WE NEED TO WE HE KNOW WE HAVE A MEETING HERE TODAY, TUESDAY. I TOLD DAVID, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE GOT A MEETING TUESDAY. IT'S BEEN SET UP. NO, YOU DON'T HAVE NO FOOD ON THE FRIDGE. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE NO FOOD IN THE BAR. LOUNGE HAS TO HAVE A FOOD. WE KNOW THAT. I'VE BEEN IN THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS. WE KNOW WE HAVE TO HAVE FOOD. AND I TRIED TO TELL DAVID WE ALWAYS HAD THAT ONE FOOD TRUCK RUNNING, WHICH DOESN'T REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE ONE TRUCK ON A PARKING LOT. AND THEY SAID, NO, NO, THE CEO SAID THAT YOU YOU HAVE NO FOOD TRUCK FOR ME. THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO FOOD TRUCK. THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO FOOD. WE HAVE TO SHUT YOU DOWN. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH TABC. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HEALTH DEPARTMENT. WE GOT 93 ON HEALTH DEPARTMENT. DAVID, WE HAVE FOOD AND WE DO DOORDASH. WE HAVE FOOD. AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR THAT. HE SAID, NO, YOU DON'T HAVE. HE JUST ADAMANT ABOUT THAT SPECIAL FOOD TRUCK FOR ME. I ASKED DAVID, I SAID, LOIS, HAVE A FOOD TRUCK. HOME DEPOT HAVE A FOOD TRUCK. I SAID, DO THEY NEED A SPECIAL FOOD TRUCK? WELL, I DON'T KNOW. THEY MIGHT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE THIS. WE HAVE TO BE FIRM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO KNOW WHY WE SHUT DOWN NOW IF WE DID SOMETHING WRONG. SERVE MINER. OH, WE SHUT DOWN THE SPOT. I 100%. I AGREE, WE OBEY THE LAW. CITY ORDINANCE ALL TIME FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. YOU CAN'T JUST COME ON BUSINESS. SHUT SIX BUSINESSES DOWN AT ONE TIME. AND I WAS I WAS KIND OF IN SHOCK. SO THEY SAID, HEY, WE HAVE A MEETING HERE TODAY, SO LET'S GO TALK TO THOSE GUYS. I MEAN, LET'S GET CLARIFICATION. AND WE READ UP AND I CALL MY FRIENDS AND THEY THEY READ UP. WE WE WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE CITY GUIDELINES. ONE FOOD TRUCK ON THE PARKING LOT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE. AND AND I SAID, WELL, LET'S GO UP AND SEE WHAT CITY COUNCIL HAS TO SAY. I MEAN, WE NEED A CLARIFICATION. WHAT FOOD TRUCK PARK WAS THE FIRST TIME IN TYLER, TEXAS, EIGHT AND A HALF AGO AND NOBODY HAD ANY IDEA. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS HESITANT TO GIVE US THREE YEARS, YOU KNOW, PERMIT THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU FOR ONE YEAR. THEN WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES AFTERWARDS. AND WITHIN THOSE YEAR, IT HAD NO ISSUES, NO PARKING LOT ISSUES, NO TRAFFIC THERE, NOTHING. AND WE REALIZED WE RAN LIKE THREE FOOD TRUCKS AT ONE TIME. AND DURING THOSE A YEAR AND A HALF. BUT WE REALIZED THEY WEREN'T MAKING ANY MONEY. AND THOSE FOOD TRUCKS SAID, HEY, WE'RE JUST GOING TO USE A COMMISSARY. WE'RE GOING TO GO IN DIFFERENT PLACES BECAUSE WE CAN'T WE CAN'T MAKE A LIVING HERE. SO, HEY, LET'S JUST MAKE IT INTO ONE. IT'S THE ONE CAN SURVIVE. SO THE REST OF THE PEOPLE AT THE COMMISSARY, THEY USE THEIR KITCHEN TO PREP THEIR FOOD, AND THEY GO TO THEIR DESTINATION. THAT'S HOW WE OPERATE IT. SO I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY FROM WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT WE CAN'T BE. WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE BORING. WE'LL ACCOMMODATE THE TRUCK. AND THAT WAS OUR GOAL FOR ALMOST LAST SEVEN, SEVEN MONTHS AFTER THAT EXPIRED. I DIDN'T KNOW IT EXPIRED. TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. WE GOT NO NOTICE, NO NOTHING. AND WHEN I GOT TO NOTICE, THAT'S WHAT WE REACTED. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE WERE NOT VIOLATING ANY LAWS WHATSOEVER. AND I WAS SHOCKED WHEN HE WALKED INTO THE CITY. HOW ARE WE GOING TO REVOKE YOUR SHIELD WITHOUT ANY REASON? YOU HAVE NO PROOF, I SAID. WE DO HAVE FOOD. WE HAVE DOORDASH. LOOK AT OUR ACCOUNT. WE HAVE FULL GAME. WE GAVE THE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT MENU IN ORDER TO GET THIS LICENSE, BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT GIVE US THE HEALTH. WE CANNOT OPERATE WITHOUT FOOD. WE KNOW THAT 100%. EVEN HEALTH DEPARTMENTS TRY TO REACH OUT TO THEM. SO WE NEED THAT CLARIFICATION. DO WE DO WE NEED THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOOD TRUCK TO OPERATE ONE. YES. I MEAN, I MEAN, SO IN ORDER TO HAVE A COMMISSARY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL PERMIT ONLY THING RUNNING. YEAH. THEY'RE NOT RUNNING. AND SO WHAT DO WE DO WRONG? WHAT DID HE DO WRONG? WELL, MY MY UNDERSTANDING IN THE FIRST PLACE IS THAT YOU OPERATED BEYOND THE ONE YEAR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND THAT IS IN ITSELF IS A IS A VIOLATION, AND THAT IT'S AT LEAST ONE OF [00:20:05] THE REASONS THAT THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING A DENIAL ON THIS. YES, SIR. WHEN YOU SAY WE OPERATE IT AFTER THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT, LIKE, YOU KNOW, I THIS IS MY FROM I THINK LAST WEEK. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME EVER SEEING THIS LANGUAGE. SO IT'S REALLY FRUSTRATING TO US BECAUSE WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS TO Y'ALL LAST YEAR, I FELT LIKE THIS LANGUAGE RIGHT HERE SHOULD HAVE CAME UP AND IT NEVER DID. THE LANGUAGE WE WAS GOING OFF OF WAS A MINOR FOOD TRUCK PARK, WAS OPERATING TRUCKS TWO OR MORE. SO WHEN IT SAID TWO OR MORE, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE I'M GOING OFF OF. I BUMPED IT DOWN TO WHERE WE ONLY WANTED RUNNING ONE TRUCK AT A TIME. SO I'M NOT CONSIDERED A FOOD TRUCK PARK. I'M NOT OPERATING AS A FOOD TRUCK PARK. I JUST HAVE SEVEN OTHER TRAILERS HERE THAT'S DOING COMMISSARY, AND I JUST HAVE THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, OPERATING IN A LANGUAGE THAT WE WERE READING AND GOING BY. I UNDERSTAND IT EXPIRED AND THE NEW STUFF CAME UP, BUT THE LANGUAGE WAS GOING BY. WE WASN'T OPERATING AS A FOOD TRUCK PARK. IT WAS ONLY OPERATING AS ONE TRUCK AT A TIME LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES. TOYOTA, BIG LOTS, LOWE'S PARKING LOT. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I MISSED OR THE DISCONNECT IS OR WAS. NOBODY WAS TRYING TO VIOLATE ANY LAWS. THEY WERE JUST, DO WE REALLY NEED THIS PERMIT IF WE ONLY OPERATE ONE TRUCK AT A TIME? YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE. KYLE, IS THE DIFFERENCE C1 VERSUS C2, WHICH IS LOWE'S IS IN THE BIGGER CLASSIFICATION THAN THE C1. IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE? YEAH. THE ABILITY TO HAVE ONE AT A TIME. AND SPECIFIC TO THE THE ZONING CATEGORIES YOU SEE HERE, C2, PCD, WHATEVER. AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERY PROPERTY IN THAT THAT THERE IS A FOOD TRUCK OPERATING. BUT. TO BE TO BE COMPLIANT, THEY WOULD NEED A TRANSIENT VENDOR PERMIT AND ALSO NEED TO BE WITHIN ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES. THIS THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IS NOT ZONED ONE OF THESE CLASSIFICATIONS. SO THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE. A MOBILE FOOD UNIT OR TRANSIENT VENDOR WOULD BE TO TO HAVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO IT'S KIND OF AN EXCEPTION MADE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT ACTIVITY WITHIN THE RETAIL OR C1, WHICH IS LIKE RETAIL WITH NO OUTDOOR DISPLAY OR STORAGE. SO IT'S KIND OF A EXCEPTION AND APPROVED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. I WOULD SAY THAT THE INTENT FOR A FOOD TRUCK PARK IS TO HAVE ESSENTIALLY A, YOU KNOW, A PRIMARY USE OR STANDALONE OPERATION. SO IF THERE WAS TO BE ONE APPROVED, THERE SHOULD BE A RANGE, IT SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF TWO UP TO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER'S ESTABLISHED BY BY COUNCIL. SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS EVER THE INTENT TO APPROVE FOOD TRUCK PARKS TO HAVE ONE, ONE FOOD TRUCK IN A THAT THAT'S EFFECTIVELY OPERATING. ACCESSORY TO ANOTHER BUSINESS SUCH AS A LOUNGE OR A RESTAURANT. SO SO AGAIN, THE INTENT WAS NOT TO HAVE ONE OPERATING BY ITSELF AND SEE ONE. THE INTENT WAS, IS TO HAVE A FOOD TRUCK PARK WHICH IS TWO OR MORE, 2 TO 5 OR TWO TO 8 OR 9, WHICH IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING. AND SO IF THERE WAS A DECISION TO PROCEED, YOU KNOW, WITH AN EXTENSION OR ANOTHER APPROVAL OF SOME SORT, THEN MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM NUMBER TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE THE INTENT OF THE THE CODE IS. THANK YOU. IT THIS IS NOT IT'S NOT MY DECISION. IT'S THE COMMISSION'S DECISION. BUT I THINK THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF OF A SHORT EXTENSION OF TIME. SIX MONTHS MAYBE, TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY, EVERY CITY ORDINANCE AND EVERY CITY RULE, Y'ALL ARE COMPLYING WITH. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A POSSIBILITY. BUT WE WE DO HAVE PRETTY CLEAR VIOLATIONS IN THIS SITUATION. AND I, I BELIEVE THAT I WAS HERE WHEN THE WHEN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAS APPROVED IN SOMEONE, WHETHER IT'S ME OR SOMEBODY ELSE ALWAYS SAYS THIS IS A ONE YEAR, A ONE YEAR OPPORTUNITY. AND ONCE YOU GO BEYOND THAT, WE'RE BEGINNING TO HAVE SOME VIOLATIONS. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED [00:25:03] AT LIKE WE GOT ONE YEAR, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAS. EXPIRED. ALL RIGHT. ONCE THAT EXPIRED IN OUR HEADS, COOL. WE DON'T HAVE THAT. SO WE'RE NOT OPERATING OR WE'RE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED A FOOD TRUCK PARK. SO BY US JUST RUNNING ONE TRUCK, WE THINK IN OUR HEADS WE'RE NOT VIOLATING ANY RULES BECAUSE IT TAKES TWO OR MORE TO OPERATE AT ONE TIME TO BE CONSIDERED A FOOD TRUCK PARK. AND WE JUST HAVE THE ONE FOOD TRUCK OUT THERE OPERATING, AND WE HAD FOOD INSIDE. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS, BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE CAN HAVE RUFUS CAN HAVE ONE FOOD TRUCK, YOU KNOW, AND THEY WEREN'T CONSIDERED A FOOD TRUCK PARK. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DID APPLY FOR IT OR WHATEVER, BUT WHEN IT EXPIRED, WE WASN'T OPERATING AS A FOOD TRUCK PARK. WE WERE JUST A REGULAR PLACE WITH ONE FOOD TRUCK OPERATING AND A COMMISSARY. THAT'S THAT'S IT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I HEAR THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE US A LITTLE GRACE, PERIOD. SO WE FIX EVERYTHING INSTEAD OF JUST SHUTTING US DOWN ON THE SPOT. LIKE, I MEAN, WE DIDN'T KNOW, LIKE, HONESTLY, THE FIRST TIME THAT I SEEN THIS LANGUAGE WAS WHEN HE SHOWED IT TO ME AT THE OFFICE. WELL, HE SHOWED IT TO ME AT THE AT THE LOCATION. THAT'S THAT WAS IT. IT WAS MY THING. I KEPT GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH HIM. IT'S LIKE, WELL, I NEVER SEEN THIS. THIS DIDN'T COME UP IN THE MEETING WE HAD LAST YEAR. YOU KNOW, WE GOOGLED THE LANGUAGE OF WHATEVER FROM LIKE DIFFERENT PLACES, LIKE TYLER AUSTIN JUST TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE GUIDELINES OF A FOOD TRUCK PARK OR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH THE GO BY. SO TO CLARIFY, KYLE, WAS THIS LANGUAGE THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT EXISTED IN 22 AND 23 WHEN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO HAVE BEEN RENEWED? OR HAS THIS CHANGED THIS ORDINANCE ON WHAT ZONING IS ALLOWED TO HAVE A FOOD TRUCK PARK AT ALL OR A FOOD TRUCK? NO, THE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A TRANSIENT VENDING PERMIT HAS BEEN SEEN TO. YEAH, IT'S BEEN THE SAME. OKAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS I GUESS THAT'S THE MISUNDERSTANDING THEN, IS THAT THEY FELT LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE IN ANY PARTICULAR ZONE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ONE, BUT IN ACTUALITY, THEY'RE ZONING YOUR. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW FOR EVEN ONE WITHOUT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE MISUNDERSTANDING IN THE VERBIAGE. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THERE MAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN THE APPLICANT OR WHEN THE OWNERS BECAME AWARE OF THE EXPIRATION, AT LEAST FROM THE CITY, MAKING THEM AWARE OF THAT. IF THEY HAD STOPPED HAVING MORE THAN ONE, THEN THAT WOULD THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF OF OF THAT ASPECT OF IT. WHEN THERE WOULD BE A COMPLIANCE ISSUE IS, IS WITH IS THIS SECTION HERE? SO, SO YES, MAYBE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF HAVING TWO OR MORE ON THE PROPERTY AT A TIME, BUT IT WOULD ALSO BE THIS PART OF THE CODE WHERE THAT PROPERTY WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED IT AT ALL. ANYWAYS, THANKS. AND LOWE'S ALLOWS IT BECAUSE IT'S A C2 OR A SPECIAL ONE OF THE ABOVE LISTED. SO BASICALLY FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, NOT CONTROL. NOT SO EVERYBODY HAS AT LEAST ONE FOOD TRUCK OPERATING ON THEIR PROPERTY. EITHER GOT TO BE ZONED FOR OR HAVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR IS LIKE WE SAY, LOWE'S, TOYOTAS. RUFUS, RUBY'S LIKE. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR YOUR TIME, YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE HERE. CAN WE ADDRESS THE VIOLATIONS? OKAY. THE POLICE. YES. YEAH. CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT. THE THE UNDERSTAND THERE WERE SOME PROBLEMS FROM A POLICE STANDPOINT. STANDPOINT? YEAH I THINK THAT WAS JUST CALLS FOR SERVICE IN THE PAST YEAR OR SO. YEAH. I HAVEN'T CALLED MYSELF. YEAH. BUT IT WAS NO BIG ISSUES. I MEAN WE JUST I JUST FELT LIKE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, HOW PEOPLE STAND AROUND IN THE PARKING LOT AND THEY CAUSE PROBLEMS. SO I JUST CALL THE POLICE, LIKE, WE JUST. HEY, CAN YOU JUST COME AND GET THEM OUT THE PARKING LOT? BUT IT WAS NOTHING. I FEEL LIKE MAJOR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I MEAN, YOU NEVER GOT A WARNING OR ANYTHING IN THE MAIL ABOUT NOISE VIOLATIONS. THE POLICEMAN THAT CAME AND SAID, HEY, Y'ALL ARE TOO LOUD OR THIS WHAT'S GOING ON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? I NEVER GOT EVEN NOTICES LIKE THAT. AGAIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE HERE. ARE [00:30:06] THERE OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY. IS THERE A MOTION? DO YOU HAVE A LITTLE QUESTION? SURE. TYPICALLY I WE HAVE KIND OF ONE YEAR. TYPICALLY THE MINIMUM WE WOULD DO. IS THAT REALLY THE MINIMUM OR I MEAN SHOULD COULD WE DO A SIX MONTH JUST TO LET THEM HAVE THE TIME TO SMOOTH THINGS OUT AND REEVALUATE IT AT THAT POINT? SO THE THE DURATION IS ESTABLISHED BY, BY CITY COUNCIL. SO SIX MONTH WE THEY HAVE APPROVED SIX MONTH BEFORE. THEY CAN DO ANYWHERE YOU KNOW ANY TIME FRAME. REALLY. OKAY. AND SO I THINK IF, IF THAT WAS. IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED, IT'D BE GOOD TO KNOW WHAT THE I GUESS WHAT THE CONDITIONS OR CRITERIA. YOU KNOW, WE YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR THAT, THAT EXTENSION. I THINK THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR NONE. NINE FOOD TRUCKS IN THE LOCATION. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE LAYOUT AND THESE LOCATIONS, THE THE FOOD TRUCKS THAT THEY DO, THE ONE THAT'S OPERATING THE ONES OPERATING ONES, NOT IN ANY OF THESE LOCATIONS. IT WAS CLOSER TO THE TO THE ROAD. THEY DO HAVE SOME STORED THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE BEEN OPERATING THERE, BUT THERE WAS ONE RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE THAT ROAD PARKING. SO IF IF THERE WAS ANY APPROVAL, AGAIN, FROM A COMPLIANCE STANDPOINT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBJECT IN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS LAYOUT. THE NUMBER. AND THEN LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE INTENT AGAIN IS NOT TO APPROVE FOOD TRUCK PARKS FOR ONE ONE UNIT. SO. THE INTENT IS TO HAVE AGAIN THAT THAT IS ITS OWN THING. AND AND THE MINIMUM IS ALWAYS IS ALWAYS TWO. AND SO IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE OPERATING LIKE THE APPLICANT'S MENTIONED, THEN THAT'S JUST FROM A MARKETING STANDPOINT. THAT'S WHEN THE THAT'S ALL THAT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, COME TO FRUITION. THEN THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S THE INTENT OF APPROVING. SO THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SEPARATE HEARING ON THAT ISSUE. I ON A ONE. OR IS THAT JUST NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED IN THIS SITUATION? IT WOULD BE ALLOWED IF THERE'S NOT A CONDITION ON MINIMUM NUMBER OPERATING ON ONE TIME. SO THAT THAT LEADS ME TO A QUESTION, I GUESS, FOR TODD AND TAE, IF I UNDERSTAND, A MINUTE AGO YOU SAID THAT THE BUSINESS MODEL IS NOT FEASIBLE FOR MULTIPLE FOOD TRUCKS, BUT THE APPLICATIONS FOR NINE. I DON'T KNOW IF I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF WHAT THE BUSINESS MODEL IS TO GO FORWARD. IS IT ONE PERMANENT VEHICLE OR IS THERE NINE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO GO FORWARD WITH? WHEN YOU SAID THAT IT DOESN'T SUPPORT MULTIPLE FOOD TRUCKS? SIR, SIR, COME COME TO THE MICROPHONE. WELL THE DENYING WAS ACTUALLY EIGHT. AND THAT'S HOW MANY FOOD TRUCKS THAT WE CAN HAVE LIKE PLUGGED IN. SO THAT'S ACTUALLY FOR COMMISSARY. WHEN WE CAME FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS JUST FOR MULTIPLE TRUCKS OPERATING AT ONE TIME. SO THESE TRUCKS THAT'S THERE NOW THEY JUST STATIONARY AND PEOPLE COME UP, THEY GET THEIR TRAILER, GO TO ANOTHER DESTINATION, COME BACK, DUMP WATER, CLEAN WATER, YOU KNOW, PUT STUFF BACK UP. THAT'S THAT'S IT. SO IT IT NEVER WORKED TO WHERE WE WAS GOING TO HAVE. FIVE OR MORE TRUCKS OR TWO OR MORE TRUCKS RUNNING AT ONE TIME. THE MOST WE OR MOST TRUCKS WE EVER HAD RUNNING AT ONE TIME WAS THREE TRUCKS. THAT'S IT. AND IT RIGHT NOW WE WE ONLY JUST HAVE LIKE ONE TRUCK MAYBE OPERATING IN THE MORNING IT SHUTS DOWN AND MAYBE ANOTHER TRUCK OPERATING AT NIGHT OR THE NEXT DAY. THAT'S IT. IT WAS ONLY ONE TRUCK AT A TIME. SO THE REST OF THE TRUCKS ARE REALLY JUST THERE FOR COMMISSARY PURPOSES. MAYBE TWO TRUCKS OUT OF OUR OUT OF ALL THE TRUCKS WE HAVE FOR COMMISSARY ACTUALLY OPERATE IN THAT LOCATION? YES, SIR. ON THAT LOCATION AND WHERE THE TRUCKS ARE STATIONED ON THAT, [00:35:02] ON THAT PAPER. THAT'S WHERE WE INITIALLY SAID THAT. YES, THE TRUCKS WOULD BE, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE PARKING REALLY WOULDN'T CHANGE THAT. SOME OF THE TRUCKS WON'T MOVE UP FRONT WHERE THERE'D BE MORE NOTICEABLE. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE MOVED THE TRUCKS UP FRONT, BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T SEE THEM IN THAT BACK CORNER OFF THE ROAD, AND THEY WEREN'T MAKING ANY MONEY, SO WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE FAIR. IT WAS LIKE, HEY, JUST MOVE UP TO THE FRONT. BUT NOT SAYING THEY ALL FIVE OR 6 OR 7 TRUCKS WOULD BE UP FRONT RUNNING AT ONE TIME IF THAT WAS THE CASE, IF WE WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE ALL TRUCKS RUNNING AT ONE TIME, IT WOULD BE BACK IN THE BACK OF THE PARKING LOT. BUT THAT'S WHY YOU IF YOU DRIVE BY, YOU MIGHT SEE 1 OR 2 TRUCKS UP FRONT, THAT THAT'S BECAUSE THEY WASN'T GETTING ANY BUSINESS. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON. COULD YOU ALL GO BACK TO THE SLIDE WITH THE READ THE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE RED BOX AROUND IT? YES. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. SO THE THE THE LAYOUT THAT HAS APPROVED IS INTENDED TO BE WHERE THE TRUCKS WILL OPERATE. AND SO I'M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER THAT PLAN INDICATES WHERE THEY'LL BE STORED, AND THEN THEY CAN OPERATE ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY. IF THAT'S THE UNDERSTANDING, THEN THAT'S NOT CORRECT. BUT THE APPLICANT SHOULD SUPPLY THE THE LAYOUT THAT SHOWS WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO OPERATE ON THE PROPERTY. SO IF THEY WANT TO OPERATE UNDERSTANDING THE ROAD, THEY NEED TO SHOW THAT ON THIS. EXACTLY. SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IF THEY WERE MOVED TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, THAT THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED. IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT IS HOW THEY WANT TO OPERATE A FOOD TRUCK PARK ON THIS PROPERTY, THEN THAT LAYOUT HAS TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT. GO AHEAD. NOBODY. NEVER. THAT WAS THE THE PLACE WHERE WE WOULD STORE THE TRUCKS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND IF WE HAD ALL LIKE MULTIPLE TRUCKS RUNNING AT ONE TIME, BUT NO ONE EVER SAID THAT WE COULDN'T OR THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION IF WE MOVED THE TRUCKS. WE'VE JUST LOOKING AT IT LIKE, CAN'T NOBODY SEE US BACK HERE FROM THE ROAD? AND I HAVE, YOU KNOW, OWNERS ASKING, WELL, HEY, CAN WE MOVE UP FRONT WHERE WE BE MORE NOTICEABLE? AND THEN TWO, I MEAN, IF WE REDRAW THE LAYOUT, I MEAN, THE TRUCKS MOVE AT DIFFERENT DIFFERENT SPOTS. JUST IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. WELL. AND SO IF IT IF THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY SELLING FOOD, THEN THEY DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE ON THE LAYOUT. CORRECT. BECAUSE IF THEY'RE JUST THERE TO USE THE COMMISSARY, THEN THAT'S NOT REALLY A PART OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. THAT NEED TO BE THERE. YEAH. SO THEN WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO MAYBE TABLE THIS AND ALLOW THE GENTLEMAN TO WORK WITH THE PLANNING OFFICE TO, FOR THE PROPER PERMITTING, WITH THE PROPER NUMBER OF TRUCKS THAT MATCHES THEIR BUSINESS PLAN SO THAT EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE AND LOOK AT IT AT THE NEXT SESSION, WOULD THAT BE AN APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION HERE? WELL, IN THE MEANTIME, IN THE MEANTIME, THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE. RIGHT. IT SEEMS LIKE THEY NEED A TRANSIENT VENDOR PERMIT, WHICH THEY CANNOT RECEIVE UNLESS WE GIVE THEM A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO THEN RECEIVE. AND THAT WOULD JUST BE FOR ONE NC ONE. IS THAT CORRECT? THEY'RE MAXED OUT. HOW MANY TRANSIENT VENDOR PERMITS? ARE COMPLICATED. WE WOULD NEED A USE PERMIT. AND THEY WOULD NEED LIKE THE THE VENDOR. BUT I MEAN, I HAVE A FOOD TRADER MYSELF AND I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER. WE JUST I JUST REMEMBER GETTING A, I THINK AT THE TIME WAS A GREEN STICKER AND I WAS GOOD TO GO AS LONG AS THE COUNTY WAS. YEAH. SO ANY MOBILE FOOD TRUCK THAT OPERATES IN ANY LOCATION AT ANY POINT IN TIME BY ITSELF, IT HAS TO HAVE THE TRANSIENT VENDOR PERMIT AND THE C2 PROPERTY OWNER THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT TRANSIENT VENDOR PERMITTED TRUCK TO OPERATE THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. BUT I THINK BACK TO WHAT THE QUESTION REALLY IS, IS I DON'T THINK THE BUSINESS IN THE REQUEST MATCH. IT SOUNDS MORE LIKE IT'S A STORAGE FACILITY FOR FOOD TRUCKS, NOT WHERE THEY'RE SELLING AND PREPARING FOOD WITHIN THE TRUCK, BECAUSE IF YOU CALL IT A COMMISSARY AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS, IS THE FOOD BEING PREPPED AND STORED INSIDE THE STATIONARY THE BUILDING? YES. THEN THEY ALSO SELL FOOD. RIGHT. SO MY UNDERSTANDING WELL, WHAT I KNOW IS THEY USE ME AS A COMMISSARY IF THEY WANT TO SET UP OUTSIDE THEIR COMMISSARY, THEY CAN AND SELL FOOD OR THEY CAN PREP THEIR FOOD, GET THEIR TRAILER A TRUCK AND GO TO [00:40:02] ANOTHER LOCATION AND JUST COME BACK TO ME AND, YOU KNOW, CLEAN UP AND PUT UP THEIR FOOD AND GET READY FOR THE NEXT DAY. IT'S A DIFFERENT BUSINESS. SO WITH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND WE CLOSE DOWN, LIKE TATE SAYS, IT'S NOT JUST US. IT'S SIX OTHER VENDORS THAT'S THAT'S CLOSED AND CAN'T OPERATE. BECAUSE IF YOUR COMMISSARY IS NOT OPENING UP AND RUNNING, YOU CAN'T OPERATE NOWHERE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FUNCTIONING COMMISSARY TO EVEN RUN A FOOD TRUCK. WELL, IS IT THE COMMISSARY THAT LOST? LOST THE. YEAH, THERE'S PART OF THAT AS WELL. OR. OH, THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE. IT'S TWO SEPARATE THINGS GOING ON. SO THE COMMISSARY DIDN'T LOSE IT. IT'S JUST THE FOOD TRUCKS THAT LOST IT. JUST MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE COMMISSARY, THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. HAS BEEN SUSPENDED FOR THAT BECAUSE THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, RIGHT? THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. RIGHT? YES. YES, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT GOES INTO WHERE THEY'RE SAYING WE DON'T HAVE FOOD INSIDE THE BAR, WHICH WE DO. SO AS WHEN WHEN THEY SHUT DOWN THE FOOD TRUCKS. THAT'S THEY THEY'RE SAYING THAT'S WHERE THE FOOD IS COMING FROM. SO YOU GOT TO HAVE FOOD COMING INSIDE. SO THEREFORE THEY CAME IN AND VOIDED THE CO. AND THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS, IS FOR AS THE PAPERWORK I FILLED OUT LAST YEAR, IT WAS A SPOT TO WHERE I PUT BAR AND LOUNGE, AND I SHOULD HAVE PUT RESTAURANT AND COMMISSARY. IT'S A SPOT WHERE I WAS SUPPOSED TO CHECK FOOD AND I DIDN'T CHECK FOOD. AND I THINK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAPER, I PUT A RESTAURANT. I SHOULDN'T HAVE PUT ANYTHING BUT. AS I'M TURNING THIS PAPER IN, I'M THINKING IT'S CORRECT. NOBODY SAID IT WAS WRONG. 5 OR 6 PEOPLE SIGNED OFF ON IT. AND THEN I GET IT. ALMOST TWO YEARS LATER AND SAYING THAT I FILLED OUT THE PAPERWORK WRONG. AND THAT'S THE OTHER HALF OF THIS. THAT'S THE OTHER PART OF THIS. SO I HAD TO REDO THE THE PAPERWORK. AND I THINK, DAVID, THEY SHOULD HAVE IT NOW. SO SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WAITING ON NOW ALSO BESIDES THIS TO SEE IF YOU GET APPROVED. WELL THIS HAS BEEN A LONG IT'S BEEN A LOT OF FUN. YEAH. YOU KNOW. I'M WILLING TO DO ANYTHING. Y'ALL TELL ME TO DO IT. IT'S TO THE POINT NOW IS, IS I HAVE OTHER PEOPLE BUSINESSES DEPENDING ON MY ONE BUSINESS AND THEY HAVE FAMILIES TO FEED LIKE Y'ALL DO AND EVERYBODY ELSE DO HERE. SO, I MEAN, WE'RE WILLING TO WORK OR DO WHATEVER Y'ALL SAY. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET UP AND AND RUNNING. WE HONESTLY FELT LIKE WE WAS FOLLOWING THE RULES BY THE GUIDELINES THAT WE THE LANGUAGE WE HAD. THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO BREAK ANY RULES. I MEAN, WE WANTED TO COME HERE AND GET FIVE YEAR EXTENSION. MAY I ASK A QUESTION? SURE, I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD AND NOW I'M AFRAID I DON'T. WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY IS ONLY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WILL ALLOW TRUCKS AT THIS C1 BUSINESS TO SELL FOOD FROM THE TRUCKS. THIS GENTLEMAN HAS ANOTHER ISSUE, WHICH IS THAT THE BUILDING OPERATES AS A COMMISSARY FOR THESE TRUCKS OR OTHERS, AND THAT WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING AT ALL WITH TODAY. CORRECT. OKAY. SO OUR VOTE IS ONLY DO WE ALLOW THEM A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR TRUCKS TO BE IN THE PARKING LOT IN THESE DESIGNATED SPOTS, SELLING FOOD FROM THEIR TRUCKS, CORRECT. IF THE APPLICANT INTENDS FOR THEM TO BE SOLD BACK TO THE LAYOUT, WHICH IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY THEY DO INTEND FOR THEM TO BE SOLD IN THESE LOCATIONS, THEN. YES. WHEN YOU'RE ASKED, HERE IS WHETHER THE PROPERTY CAN HAVE 1 TO 9 FOOD TRUCKS IN THESE LOCATIONS FOR SELLING, FOR SELLING, FOR SELLING FROM THE TRUCK. RIGHT. THAT'S ALL WE'RE VOTING ON. CORRECT. GOT IT. AND IT IS. ONE WOULD REQUIRE THAT ONE WOULD REQUIRE IT. BUT THAT APPROVAL OF FOOD TRUCK PARK TO TO HAVE ONE WHEN THAT'S BEEN THE IT'S BEEN THE MODEL WOULD NOT BE KEEPING IN KEEPING WITH THE INTENT OF OF HAVING FOOD TRUCK PARKS IN C1 PROPERTIES. THE INTENT WOULD BE TO HAVE SMALL SCALE FOOD COURTS, YOU KNOW, TO THE FOUR AND THE FIVE OR SO. OPERATING KIND OF BY ITSELF. AND SO IF WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THIS LAYOUT IS [00:45:10] NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DO IN TERMS OF SELLING OR HAVING OPERATING FOOD TRUCKS SELLING ON THE PROPERTY, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I THINK THIS NEEDS TO COME BACK WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT PLANS TO, WHERE THEY PLAN TO HAVE THE TRUCKS SELLING ON, ON THE PROPERTY PROPERTY, AND THEN ALSO WHETHER THEY FEEL HAVING A MINIMUM OF TWO. IS WORTH WORTH THIS, WORTH DOING THIS, THE SIDE OF THE THE BUSINESS. AND TODAY THE LOCATION CANNOT BE CHANGED. WHERE WHERE THESE ARE SHOWN. IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE THERE IS SOME CONFUSION AS TO WHERE THAT THIS DID NOT INDICATE WHERE THEY CAN OPERATE, BUT FROM A FROM AN ORDINANCE STANDPOINT, FROM THE STANDPOINT, THIS DOES INDICATE ONLY WHERE THEY CAN OPERATE. SO AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT TODAY OR I WOULDN'T I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND DOING IT IN THE MOMENT. NO OKAY. SO CARL SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF I GET APPROVED I CAN HAVE A 1 OR 2 TRUCKS UP FRONT. THEY HAVE TO BE RIGHT HERE IN THE BACK CORNER. THAT'S THE EFFECT OF WHAT THIS IS SHOWING US. AND SO IF THAT'S NOT YOUR INTENT, IF YOU DO WANT THEM NEAR THE FRONT NEAR BROADWAY, THEN WE NEED WE NEED TO SEE THAT BECAUSE I HAVE PLUGS ALL HERE FOR THE FOOD TRUCKS. IT WAS JUST BASICALLY THIS WAY, LIKE THE COMMISSARY PEOPLE STORE THEIR TRUCKS. I DON'T THINK WE EVER SAID THAT THEY HAD TO SELL FROM OUT HERE, BUT YEAH, I WOULDN'T PUT 5 OR 6 TRUCKS UP FRONT. I WOULD, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE MY ISSUE IS, IS I JUST DIDN'T I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A BIG DEAL TO MOVE 1 OR 2 TRUCKS UP HERE WHERE THEY CAN GET NO NOTICE, WHERE THEY CAN ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY RIGHT BACK HERE IN THE BACK CORNER, AND NOBODY CAN SEE WHERE THOSE THREE ARE SHOWN THERE. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO OPERATE FROM THOSE THREE LOCATIONS, THE THREE THAT ARE IN LINE WITH THE PARKING LOT? I CAN TRY I MEAN, I MEAN, IF THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO DO, I MEAN, I'LL DO IT. I MEAN, I JUST HAVE TO TELL THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE TRUCK YOU HAVE TO SELL FROM, YOU KNOW, WE DID THIS FOR SIX MONTHS. IT WOULD GIVE YOU A WAY TO GET GOING FOR SIX MONTHS AND THEN POTENTIALLY CHANGE SOMETHING. SOUNDS GOOD. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST AN OPTION. BUT, YOU KNOW, I MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT PART OF THE APPEAL OF THIS APPLICATION IN THE VERY FIRST PLACE WHEN I WAS HERE, WAS THAT THIS LITTLE AREA IN THE BACK HERE WOULD BE SORT OF NOT VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. AND IT WOULD IT WOULD CREATE A SORT OF A PRIVACY ISSUE AS FAR AS EXPOSURE TO THE PUBLIC. IT IS THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION, RECOLLECTION, RECOLLECTIONS, THAT'S MINE. I DON'T MY UNDERSTANDING. I THINK COUNCIL'S UNDERSTANDING WAS WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS WHERE THE ACTIVITY WILL BE, WHERE THEY'LL BE OPERATING. THAT'S THE FOOD TRUCK PARK. THAT'S THE COURT. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY UNDERSTANDING THAT FOOD TRUCKS WILL BE OPERATING CLOSE TO CLOSE TO BROADWAY. AND NOW AGAIN, IF THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO, THEN THIS NEEDS TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SURE. IF, SAY WE STORE OUR TRUCKS RIGHT HERE AND WE OPERATE ONE TRUCK, WOULD IT BE HARMFUL TO MOVE JUST ONE TRUCK UP FRONT LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, HAVE THEIR TRUCKS, LIKE OUT BY THE ROAD WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE THEM? BECAUSE YOU GO ANYWHERE TO PRETTY MUCH THE FOOD TRUCK IS CLOSE BY THE ROADWAY. IT'S VISIBLE. I UNDERSTAND IF I HAVE LIKE 3 OR 4 TRUCKS, BUT JUST ONE TRUCK, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE LIKE THE PROBABLY THE CLEANEST PATH FORWARD WOULD BE TO TO HAVE A ZONING CHANGE, BECAUSE I THINK THE ONES THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, MOST OF THOSE ARE C2. AND SO THE OUTDOOR STORAGE IS KIND OF WHAT, WHAT WHAT KIND OF COMES INTO PLAY THERE. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I MEAN, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, I WOULD HAVE TO FIND OUT WHAT OTHER WHAT THE OTHER PLACES ARE TO, TO SEE BECAUSE I JUST KNOW WE'RE SEEING SO. I'M SAYING THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, MR. CAIN, IS WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS LAYOUT, WE ARE LOOKING AT ENSURING THAT THERE'S GOOD FIRE SAFETY, FIRE ACCESS, AND FOR [00:50:01] ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT COME INTO PLAY, IF WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE OPERATING, I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO TO THIS BODY OR TO CITY COUNCIL AS TO WHETHER THAT IS A GOOD LAYOUT. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, ONE SHOWN HERE, THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY'S UNDERSTANDING IS OF HOW THIS IS GOING TO OPERATE ON, ON THE PROPERTY. SO. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHETHER IT'S OKAY OR NOT, OKAY. IN A MOVING CLOSE TO BROADWAY, WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW MORE DETAILS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT EVALUATION. BUT IT WOULD BE THE LOCATION PUT ON THIS LAYOUT WOULD BE. WOULD BE WAS ALLOWED AND WAS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THE THE CASE AND THAT WAS THAT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE. THIS IS THE THE LAND USE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING FOR, FOR THE PROPERTY WHERE, WHERE YOU HAVE LIKE, LIKE DAVID SAID, YOU HAVE THIS LITTLE AREA IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S NOT BEING UTILIZED FOR ANYTHING BUT OVERFLOW PARKING. BUT BUT INSTEAD, COUNCIL AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED FOOD TRUCKS TO OPERATE BACK THERE FOR A FOR A UNIQUE, YOU KNOW, OPERATION. BUT THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT WAS WHAT YOU INTENDED IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHAT DO YOU MEAN, LIKE TO HAVE THE FOOD TRUCK PARKED BACK HERE? SUGGESTS TO IT FOR IT TO BE THERE. BUT WE WAS ONLY OPERATING ONE AT THE MOST, THREE AT A TIME. AND LIKE I SAID, NOBODY COULD SEE THOSE THREE TRUCKS BACK THERE. NOW, IF I WAS RUNNING OR WE WAS RUNNING FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT TRUCKS ALL AT ONE TIME, I FELT LIKE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE NOTICEABLE, YOU KNOW? SO AND OUR HEADS, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, HAD THEIR, YOU KNOW, 1 OR 2 TRUCKS UP BY THE, THE STREET WHERE THEY'RE NOTICEABLE. SO WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WRONG. I MEAN, I CAN'T, I CAN'T SPEAK, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE COUNCIL, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR P AND Z AND AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS OUR INTENT TO HAVE THIS ROLE OF OPERATIONS THAT CLOSE TO BROADWAY OR EXPOSED TO BROADWAY AT ALL. WHAT WHAT HAVE WE MOVED THE TRUCK LIKE, SAY, IF I MEAN, WE I'M JUST GIVING AN EXAMPLE. I MEAN, WE CAN PUT THEM BACK WHERE YOU WANT THEM, BUT EVEN IF THEY'RE DONE, OPERATE THEM. YOU PUT THEM BACK IN THE STORAGE LOCATION. I DON'T THINK IT WAS THE INTENT OF THOSE THOSE LOCATIONS TO BE THERE. YEAH. I WAS OPERATING OUT OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR THE CITY COUNCIL. NO, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT IF WE START MESSING WITH THE SITE PLAN TODAY, THEN THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TODAY AND THE PUBLIC WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANY NOTICE OF WHAT THE ULTIMATE PLAN'S GOING TO BE. SO I WOULD JUST RAISE THAT CAUTION SO I CAN SEE WHY PLANNING AND ZONING WOULD WANT A DETAILED PLAN OF WHERE EVERYTHING IS, AND THAT JUST LETS THE PUBLIC KNOW, IN ADDITION TO THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED. THANK YOU STEVE. CHRISTINA, YOU MADE A COUPLE POINTS EARLIER. DO YOU WANT TO? ATTEMPT A MOTION OR. OR NOT? I WOULD MOVE THAT. WE ALLOW THIS BUSINESS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SIX MONTHS, UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IS WHAT WE ARE APPROVING UNDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. MY MY MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE IT FOR SIX MONTHS. ABSENT ABSENT THIS IN TERMS OF LOCATION WHERE THE BLUE PLACES ARE NOT THIS LONG STREET, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PLACE THEY COULD PUT THEM. THE ONLY PLACE THAT MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS MAY BE PARKED ARE ARE NINE LOCATIONS THAT ARE NOTED ON THIS A1 SITE PLAN. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S. I SECOND HELPFUL AND FIGURED ALL AND MOTION'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? LET'S. PAY [00:55:15] ATTENTION TO WHAT THE ORDINANCE WANTS. AND BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO RESPOND TO. AND IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS COMPLICATED. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE DONE ON THIS ITEM. YOU TALK TO THE STAFF AFTER AFTER THE MEETING. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK [V.4. Z25-019 CLEAN LIFE BUILDERS, LLC (2209 AND 2213 DAVE STREET)] YOU. NEXT IS Z25 DASH 019 CLEAN LIFE BUILDERS, LLC. THIS IS A ZONE CHANGE FROM CC2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE TO BUILD TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE THERE ON. LOCATED EAST OF THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF 10TH STREET AND DAVE STREET. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND WEST ARE ZONED R-1, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND EAST ARE ZONED M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ARE DEVELOPED WITH WAREHOUSE USES. WHILE THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS UNDEVELOPED, THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE IDENTIFIES THE PROPERTY AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE. THIS REQUEST WOULD AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE TO SINGLE FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY. THE PROPOSED DETAILS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE TO BUILD ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON EACH LOT THERE. IN 2013, THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED TO THE CURRENT ZONING OF C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USES. DAVE STREET IS CURRENTLY NOT A PLATTED RIGHT OF WAY IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE ADJACENT LOTS WOULD NECESSITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STREET THAT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS. THIS REQUEST DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ALIGN WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES IN THE AREA. SO AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAREHOUSES RIGHT THERE, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. OF THE TEN NOTICES MAILED, NO NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND ANTICIPATE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON SERVICES AND FACILITIES. BY THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST, STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE REQUEST AND FINDS THAT IT IS GENERALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM CITY STAFF? IF NOT, ARE THE PERSONS HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FOR OR AGAINST? IF NOT, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY. IS THERE A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE, WE DENY Z 25 019 SECOND MOTION'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO DENY THIS APPLICATION. ANY DISCUSSION OF MODELS IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? [V.5. Z25-020 OLVI LANDAVERDE (3101 SHAW STREET)] ITEMS DENIED. NEXT IS Z 25 020. WELL ALL THE I'M SORRY. VERDE. VERDE THE LAND. LUNDA VERDE. I GET THAT CLOSE. YES OKAY. THANK YOU. SHEILA. THIS IS ALSO A ZONE CHANGE FROM THE CURRENT ZONING OF R1, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE TO BRING THE LOT INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO FOUR LOTS ON .37 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF BRITTON AVENUE AND SHORE STREET. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE ZONED AG, ARE ZONED I'M SORRY ARE ZONED R1, A THE [01:00:06] PROPERTIES TO. BASICALLY SURROUNDED BY R1 AND R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND TO THE SOUTH IS THE INT, WHICH IS THE LOCATION OF A SCHOOL. THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE. IDENTIFIES THE PROPERTY AS. SINGLE FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. THE PROPOSED DETAILS. FOR THIS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONING CHANGE IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO FOUR LOTS. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THERE ARE FOUR HOMES EXISTING ON A SINGLE LOT. THE HOMES WERE BUILT IN THE MID 1930S AND 1940S, SO THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE. TWO OF THE HOMES ARE OCCUPIED AND THE OTHER TWO ARE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING RENOVATIONS. THE REQUESTED R1 ZONING WOULD ALLOW EACH PROPOSED LOT TO MEET THE REQUIRED DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, AND ALLOW THE LOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED. OF THE 18 NOTICES THAT WERE SENT OUT, NONE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND ANTICIPATE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON SERVICES AND FACILITIES BY THE PROPOSED REZONING. STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE REQUEST, AND FINDS THAT IT IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ARE THE PERSONS HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, MA'AM. IF IT'S NOT NECESSARY. IF YOU'RE CONTENT. ARE THERE OTHER PERSONS WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FOR OR AGAINST? IF NOT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS COMMISSIONER MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM Z 25 020. SECOND MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. SECONDED TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. ANY DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED ITEM IS APPROVED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. NEXT IS Z 25 [V.6. Z25-024 JOHNNIE MASS (719, 731, 805, AND 809 BRITTON AVENUE)] 2024 JOHNNY MASS. SURE. THIS IS ALSO A ZONE CHANGE FROM R1. A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO A PLANNED MULTI-FAMILY AND R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR TWO FAMILY DUPLEXES AND 34 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON THE LOTS THAT YOU SEE THERE. THERE ARE FOUR LOTS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4.02 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF DELLWOOD ROAD AND BRIGHTON AVENUE. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE ZONED R1, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND C1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND ARE CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND THE SOUTH ARE ZONED R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND UNDEVELOPED LOTS. THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ARE ZONED PMF PLANNED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND R1, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH THE MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH AND UNDEVELOPED LOTS. THE ADOPTED TYLER FIRST FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE IDENTIFIES THIS PROPERTY AS SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM LOW DENSITY. THIS REQUEST WOULD AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE TO SINGLE FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THE ZONE CHANGE TO TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. INCLUDES. THERE WILL BE SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND I THINK THAT IS TO THE FRONT OF THAT. IT DOESN'T REALLY SHOW THOSE LOTS THAT'S ON THE BRITAIN AVENUE SIDE, BUT IT ALSO FEATURES FOUR DUPLEX UNITS [01:05:06] AND 34 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARRANGED ALONG AN INTERIOR DRIVE AISLE WITH SIDE ACCESS PARKING. A TOTAL OF 74 PARKING SPACES WILL BE PROVIDED, ALONG WITH A DESIGNATED COMMON AREA. THE OVERALL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS PROJECTED TO BE OVER 13 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. WOULD LOOK AT THE. THE CURRENT SITE PLAN DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS, WHICH MANDATES THAT ONE BEDROOM UNITS HAVE 1.5 SPACES. PER UNIT, AND THE TWO BEDROOM UNITS ARE ALLOWED. TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL PROPOSED AN ADDITIONAL 5% TO ACCOMMODATE VISITOR PARKING. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DENSITY EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABLE UNIT DOUBLING PERMITTED UNITS PER ACRE. A ZONING DESIGNATED A DESIGNATION OF R1 B WOULD ALLOW FOR AN INCREASED DENSITY, SUPPORTING UP TO 7.26 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, BUT STAFF WOULD NEED TO GET A MORE ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHAT THE PROPOSED DENSITY WILL BE AFTER THE SITE PLAN IS COMPLIANT WITH THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH THEIR ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER ON MAKING SOME EDITS TO THAT SITE. PLAN THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU. OF THE 47 NOTICES MAILED, NONE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND ANTICIPATE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. ON SERVICES AND FACILITIES. BY THE PROPOSED REQUEST, STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE REQUEST AND FINDS THAT IT IS GENERALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA. STAFF RECOMMENDS TABLING THE REQUEST TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH ADDITIONAL TIME TO FURTHER DEVELOP THE SITE PLAN. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR SHEILA? SHEILA? WAS THERE ANY WORD ON HOW LONG THEY WOULD NEED TO MAKE THE UPDATES OR ALTERATIONS? I THINK GIVING THEM PROBABLY 30 DAYS TO THE NEXT MEETING WOULD GIVE THEM ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY COULD COMMUTE, THAT WE COULD COMMUNICATE WITH THEM AND ENSURE THAT THE THINGS THAT WE SEE BE DISPLAYED ON THE ON THE NEXT SITE PLAN. THANKS. AND WOULD ANY MODIFICATIONS THAT THEY MAKE STILL LEAVE IT OUT OF LINE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE? IF WITH THE CURRENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE RECOMMENDATION IS. THE SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM LOW DENSITY? I THINK RECOMMENDING THE R1 BE INSTEAD OF WHAT THEY ARE THE R1 D THAT THEY ARE THAT THEY REQUESTED CHANGING WOULD ALLOW A LOWER DENSITY AMOUNT, WHICH WOULD BE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE FUTURE LAND USE IDENTIFICATION. THANK YOU. 30 DAYS SOUNDS FINE TO ME, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THIS APPLICATION. SO IS THERE A PERSON HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT? NO. ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? RECOMMENDATIONS TO TABLE FOR 30 DAYS? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND A MOTION TO TABLE Z 20 5-024 FOR 30 DAYS. SECOND MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO TABLE THIS FOR 30 DAYS. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT THOSE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. SO THAT'S SIX TO 6 TO 1. NEXT IS Z 20 5-021. LETZI VENTURES. YES, SIR. GOOD [V.7. Z25-021 LETC VENTURES LLC (422 REEVES STREET)] AFTERNOON. WE HAVE A ZONE CHANGE FROM R1 TO R2. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE FOR TWO FOR A TWO FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF OAKLAND AVENUE AND REEF STREET. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND WEST ARE ZONED R [01:10:07] MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS ZONED C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND IS AND IS UNDEVELOPED. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ARE ZONED M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH INDUSTRIAL USES. THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE IDENTIFIES THIS PROPERTY AS SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM LOW DENSITY. THE REQUEST WOULD AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE TO SINGLE FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONING CHANGE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED WITH EITHER A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, OR A TWO FAMILY DUPLEX. IN 2022, THE PROPERTY WAS WAS REZONED FROM RMF TO R1 BE. THE GENERAL AREA IS DEVELOPED WITH A MIXTURE OF SINGLE FAMILY, TWO FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES. AS OF FRIDAY, AUGUST 28TH, 2020, FIVE OF THE 12 NOTICES MAILED, NO NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND ANTICIPATE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON SERVICES AND FACILITIES. BY THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST, STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE REQUEST AND FINDS THAT IT IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? IS THERE ANY TECHNICAL PROBLEM WITH THAT? IT'S IT SAYS FROM ZONING RMF TO R1, D IT DOES NOT SAY FROM R1 B TO R1 D I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. IS THAT A LEGAL PROBLEM? IS THAT HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO? WHERE DID IT SAY THAT? NUMBER EIGHT IT SAYS FROM RMF WE'RE ON SEVEN RIGHT. THAT'S THE NEXT CASE. THE NEXT CASE. OH SORRY. OKAY. NEVERMIND. AWESOME. WELL IT GOES FROM OUR NUMBER SEVEN GOES FROM R1 TO R2. ISN'T THAT ISN'T THAT ACROSS THE STREET. THIS THIS IRRELEVANT ISN'T THAT BILL WANTS TO FERTILIZER PLANT ACROSS THERE WHERE IT SAYS LEDC VENTURES. DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER THAT BESIDES ME. NO. OKAY. IT NEEDS TO BE OKAY. SO THERE. IT'S NOT A FERTILIZER PLANT THERE ANYMORE. IT USED TO BE OKAY. IT'S IRRELEVANT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NOT, ARE THE PERSONS HERE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IF YOU'D LIKE. OKAY. IF YOU'RE ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? YES, SIR. WOULD YOU COME? PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE. JUST IDENTIFY YOURSELF. YES, SIR. YEAH. MY NAME IS MATTHEW YOUNG. I WORK FOR LATC VENTURES. IN THIS CASE, LIVE HERE IN TOWN. JUST. I DON'T KNOW. AND I CAN TELL A LOT, BUT ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS THAN WE HAVE TO. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? ARE Y'ALL THE ACTUAL OWNER OR ARE YOU JUST ACROSS THE STREET? SO WE ARE ACTUALLY WE WE ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. SO LATC VENTURES IS THE HOLDING LLC OF STANLEY'S BARBECUE. OKAY. LATC STANDS FOR THE LITTLE ENGINE THAT COULD. SO WE ARE GOING TO KEEP MOVING, BUT WE ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, BOTH SIDES OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. AND THEN AS WELL AS THIS SINGLE LOT HERE. OKAY. AND YOU ALL ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? YES. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION, THE MOTION, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF IS TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. IS THERE A COMMISSIONER LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE 25021 SECOND. SECOND MOTION'S BEEN SECONDED TWICE. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? APPLICATION IS APPROVED. NEXT IS THE 25 022 [V.8. Z25-022 REGINALD JENKINS (1310 AND 1314 CLAUDE STREET)] REGINALD JENKINS. YES, SIR. WE HAVE A ZONE CHANGE FROM RMF TO R1. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE TO BUILD A22 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LOCATED WEST OF THE SOUTHWEST [01:15:06] INTERSECTION OF NORTH CONFEDERATE AVENUE AND CLAUDE STREET, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS ZONED R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND IS CURRENTLY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. ALL OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE ZONED RMF MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND ARE GENERALLY DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE TYLER THE TYLER FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE IDENTIFIES THIS PROPERTY AS SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM LOW DENSITY. THE REQUEST WOULD AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE TO SINGLE FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY. THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. R1 ZONING IS APPROPRIATE ZONING TO ACHIEVE THIS, GIVEN THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE EXISTING LOTS. AS OF FRIDAY, AUGUST 28TH OF THE 24 NOTICES MAILED, NO NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND ANTICIPATE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON SERVICES AND FACILITIES. BY THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST, STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE REQUEST AND FINDS THAT IT IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR HUNTER? ARE THERE PERSONS WHO YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FOR OR AGAINST? IF NOT, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM Z 20 5-022. SECOND MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. ANY DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.