The City of Pacific Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to define “food trucks” and regulate their operation on private and certain public property; commissioners discussed scope, hours, permit types and enforcement, then voted to table the amendment so staff can obtain legal guidance.

The proposed ordinance would add a definition of food trucks to section 400.040 of the City of Pacific municipal code and create a new Chapter 402 to establish where and how food trucks may operate in the city. Commissioners and staff debated whether the rules should apply only to food trucks stationary on private property or also to mobile vendors such as ice cream trucks, lunch trucks that circulate through industrial parks, and vendors operating from pickup trucks.

Commissioners noted the draft contains inconsistencies on scope: Section 402.01 (purpose) states the intent is to regulate food trucks operating on private property, while Section 402.03 (scope) says the rules shall apply to food trucks operating on private property and public property owned by the City of Pacific. Staff and commissioners said they will ask the city attorney to clarify which locations the ordinance should cover.

Commissioners and staff discussed permit structure and fees. The draft includes a temporary 48-hour permit with a $100 fee; several commissioners said $100 for 48 hours seems high and suggested alternatives such as a quarterly permit for vendors who return repeatedly during a season. The commission discussed a layered approach: short-term temporary permits that staff may approve in-house, quarterly permits for repeat short-term vendors, and a longer-term permit that would require Planning and Zoning review and Board of Aldermen approval if a vendor intends to remain in one place for an extended period.

Staff said a business license and required health-department approvals would still be necessary for food service operations. Commissioners asked staff to confirm whether the fire department conducts inspections (as occurs in St. Louis County) and whether Franklin County has additional health or safety requirements; staff agreed to check with the fire department and the licensing staff.

Other substantive changes discussed: a buffer radius around garbage/maintenance areas was proposed to increase from 60 feet to 100 feet; an explicit requirement that temporary vendors provide documented permission from the private property owner on the permit application (commissioners suggested notarized permission or clear contact information for verification); and including permit-revocation language so staff can cancel permits for noncompliance without lengthy court processes. Commissioners also asked staff and legal counsel to include a hold-harmless clause and standard indemnification language on the permit application.

The commission discussed hours of operation and flagged a typographical error in the draft ordinance (the draft listed an end time of 04:59 a.m.; commissioners said it should read 05:59 a.m.). They also debated whether ice cream trucks and mobile lunch vendors that circulate rather than remain stationary should be explicitly covered; after reviewing the proposed definition — “a merchant engaged in preparing and selling food, coffee, or soft drinks for immediate consumption from an enclosed mobile truck, trailer, or cart” — commissioners concluded ice cream trucks would fall under the definition unless the attorney advises otherwise.

Enforcement was a frequent topic. Commissioners and staff noted existing city resources — public works, police, and code enforcement — would be used to check permits and follow up on complaints. Several commissioners urged language allowing immediate revocation of permits for noncompliance rather than prolonged fines or court actions; staff said the city attorney will be asked to draft enforcement and revocation language consistent with legal requirements.

After discussion, the commission voted to table the text amendment so staff and the city attorney can resolve the scope inconsistencies and incorporate the clarifications requested by commissioners. The motion to table was made and seconded; the roll-call vote recorded in the meeting was unanimously in favor.

Next steps: staff will review the ordinance with the city attorney, revise the draft to resolve scope, permitting, enforcement and application-language questions (including any hold-harmless/indemnification language and whether notarized landowner permission is required), and bring the amended ordinance back to Planning and Zoning for further consideration.