The Independence Planning Commission continued a public hearing on proposed revisions to the city's mobile‑vending standards after lengthy discussion about a possible downtown cap, infrastructure requirements and who would be responsible for grease traps and restrooms. Fred, the city planner, told commissioners the draft separates approval of a prepared site from the permit that lets a vendor locate on that site, and recommends different standards for single vendors versus multi‑vendor 'pods.
Why it matters: the proposed changes aim to make permitting clearer for property owners and vendors, to require adequate wastewater and restroom arrangements for pods, and to give the city a clearer basis for site management. The issues have drawn public comment from downtown business owners who said too many food trucks could harm brick‑and‑mortar restaurants.
Fred said the rewrite would create "two separate permits: one as it applies to a site and essentially preparing a site to accept a mobile vending device, and then the second would be an actual permit to locate a mobile vending device on that site." He explained that multiple vendors on a single site would generally trigger infrastructure requirements such as permanent water and wastewater connections and a public restroom, while a single vendor could rely on onboard graywater storage.
In public comment, Eric Chase, owner of the Moltenov Saloon at 20515 Independence Highway, asked the commission to include a numerical limit for the downtown overlay zone, saying downtown businesses already struggle and that unlimited spaces could damage their customer base. Chase said the current downtown count is seven approved locations and urged the commission to consider a cap of eight while allowing existing spots to remain in place. Another speaker, identified in the record as Heather J., asked whether a vendor that moves between different sites would need a separate permit for each location; Fred replied that the draft envisions a simple second permit for vendors to change locations but that the site permit would establish how a site functions.
Commissioners raised operational questions: how existing sites would be handled, who would manage restroom access if a business'owner provided the facility, and how grease traps would be maintained if multiple units used the same system. Fred said the site permit would clarify whether the property owner installs shared grease traps that serve multiple units or whether each unit needs its own trap. He also noted county health inspections and the county's regular food‑safety permitting remain part of the enforcement framework.
The commission did not adopt the draft; rather, commissioners voted to continue the public hearing to Oct. 6 so staff can restore or revise proposed language on a downtown limit, clarify ADA‑accessible restroom language and refine how the code treats moved locations and shared infrastructure. A motion to continue the hearing to Oct. 6 passed during the meeting.
What comes next: staff will return with revised code language and clearer draft language about ADA‑compliant public restrooms, grease‑trap responsibilities, and whether to recommend a numeric cap in the downtown overlay zone before the matter is forwarded to the City Council.