Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobile Food Vending topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conway council tables Smashburger mobile food-truck franchise amid downtown parking concerns
Summary
The Conway City Council unanimously voted Jan. 21 to table final consideration of an ordinance that would grant a six‑month trial franchise to Project Smashburger for three downtown parking spaces, citing fears the vending unit would remove scarce public parking during busy evenings.
The Conway City Council on Jan. 21 unanimously tabled final consideration of ordinance CA 2025-0121a, a proposal to grant a nonexclusive six‑month franchise to Project Smashburger to operate a mobile food truck in three parking spaces adjacent to Kingston Street near Palmetto Taps.
Council members and downtown business owners raised repeated concerns that reserving three public parking spaces for a private vendor would worsen long‑standing parking shortages downtown on busy evenings. The council paused the item to allow the applicant time to explore alternatives and return with a revised location or plan.
City staff said the request had been amended since first reading to make the franchise a six‑month trial, with the vendor required to return to council for a five‑year agreement if the trial succeeded. The amended site plan places the mobile unit within three marked parking spaces directly adjacent to Kingston Street.
The applicant told council the truck would generally operate weekday evenings (proposed 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) and Fridays and Saturdays beginning at noon, and that on Fridays they might arrive early to prepare. Council members asked how the vendor would secure the three designated spaces when the lot filled before the truck’s posted start time and whether the city would tow or otherwise move vehicles occupying those spaces.
Several council members said downtown parking is one of the city’s most valuable assets and that reserving spots for a private business could be difficult to justify to constituents. Suggestions during the discussion included exploring a private lot nearby, using a commissary or kitchen to prepare food offsite and deliver, or coordinating more closely with the adjacent business (Palmetto Taps) to reduce parking impact.
Council also discussed process questions: if the applicant sought a different location, the city’s ordinances and required public‑hearing advertising could require restarting the application for the new site. Staff said it would confirm the re‑advertising requirements if council wanted to table and ask the applicant to pursue other options.
After discussion, a motion to table the ordinance carried unanimously so the applicant could pursue alternatives and return to council.
The council’s action was procedural: tabling the item leaves the franchise request open rather than approving or denying it. The applicant said he would explore private parking options and logistical changes and may return with a revised proposal or new location for council consideration.
