Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies PUD amendment for temporary food-truck pad at 3605 Wrights Creek Road
Summary
After a public presentation and applicant remarks, the Bartlesville Planning Commission voted to deny a proposed PUD amendment to allow a temporary food-truck parking pad and outdoor retail display at 3605 Wrights Creek Road; the applicant described a concept called 'Spice Junction.'
The Bartlesville Planning Commission voted to deny a proposed planned-unit-development (PUD) amendment and site-development plan for 3605 Wrights Creek Road that would have allowed a 12-by-135-foot concrete pad intended for temporary food-truck parking and outdoor retail displays.
Holly Mayhew, city planner, presented the proposal and said the 1.46-acre site is already served by required infrastructure and that the amendment would expand the list of allowed uses in the PUD to permit temporary food-truck parking and outdoor retail. Mayhew described required site improvements, street-tree relocations and noted staff had sent mailed notices to property owners within 300 feet; staff reported no written comments for or against the proposal in the file.
An applicant speaking in favor described a concept he called “Spice Junction,” saying he planned to rent four food-truck spaces and to emphasize cleanliness and rotating vendors: “We're going to call it the Spice Junction,” he said. The applicant also discussed drive-aisle dimensions and aesthetic preferences and said his plan would offer takeout and delivery-focused service rather than a sit-down restaurant.
During the hearing the planner confirmed the city has food-truck regulations and that the applicant must comply with provisions in the municipal code and any new food-truck rules when applicable: “We do have, food truck ordinance ... it's part of an ordinance within our municipal code,” the planner said. After public testimony was opened and no members of the public spoke, a motion to deny the PUD amendment was made, seconded and carried by voice vote; commissioners individually recorded “Aye” and the chair announced the motion passed.
The transcript contains inconsistent case-number references on the record; staff and the chair clarified the correct case number on the record after the vote. With the denial, no PUD amendment will move forward; staff and the applicant may pursue other, code-compliant pathways for the use if appropriate.
