[00:00:02]
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 2:30.
[1. Call Meeting to Order]
THIS IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.WE'VE TAKEN ATTENDANCE BY SIGNING IN.
[2. Attendance]
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS? THIS IS JUST THE WORKSHOP AND FEEL FREE TO COME IN IF YOU'D LIKE TO.COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? SEEING NONE.
WE HAVE ONE DISCUSSION ITEM AND IT'S ON THE CITY OF GALVESTON CONCESSION REGULATIONS.
[4. Discussion Items]
COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD ASK ONE THING AND I'LL ASK IT AGAIN WHEN WE START OUR REGULAR MEETING.I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL CALLS AND OH, I LOVE RECEIVING CALLS OUTSIDE OF THE MEETING THAT PEOPLE ARE LISTENING TO OUR MEETINGS OUTSIDE OF THE TIME THAT WE'RE MEETING, WHICH MAKES ME HAPPY THAT THEY ARE.
CAN'T HEAR OUR RECORDINGS BECAUSE OUR MICROPHONES ARE NOT TURNED ON.
I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ALL INCLUDING YOU, COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.
ARE NOT TURNING OUR MICROPHONES ON.
LET'S ALL PLEASE TURN ON MICROPHONE'S ON.
DANIEL, DO YOU WANT TO START AND THEN I HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF REMARKS BEFORE WE GET INTO IT.
DO YOU WANT TO START? DO YOU WANT ME TO START?
>> I GUESS I CAN START. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> YEAH. WE ONLY HAVE ONE AGENDA ITEM AND ASKED TO APPROVE WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN HERE SO WE CAN ALL GET THIS DONE LIKE JUST APPROVE IT AND WE'LL GO.
YEAH. WE'RE HERE TO TAKE ONE LAST LOOK OVER THE VERY HARD WORK THAT WE'VE ALL DONE LIKE THE 18 MONTHS OFF AND ON.
I DID A LITTLE TALLY. THIS IS, I THINK, OUR 13TH MEETING, LUCKY 13.
YEAH, THIS IS BASICALLY WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER EVERYTHING, MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS, AS EVERYONE HAS DISCUSSED TO THIS POINT, THAT EVERYONE IS HAPPY WITH THE FINAL PRODUCT SO THAT ON JUNE 23RD, WE CAN TAKE THIS TO COUNSEL.
IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY MUCH UP TO YOU ALL TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING LOOKS RIGHT.
THEN WE'LL FIX WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED OR NOTED AND YEAH.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
TODAY IS NOT ABOUT LOOKING FOR ANY BIG CHANGES.
UNBELIEVABLE THAT WE HAVE HAD 12 WORKSHOPS ALREADY ON THIS.
I HAVE TWO BIG QUESTIONS THAT I WANTED TO POSE TO THE COMMISSIONERS.IF ANYBODY IS LOOKING TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH THIS, THIS IS AN AGENDA ITEM ON OUR REGULAR MEETING AGENDA.
YOU WILL SEE ALL OF THIS ATTACHED AND VERY WELL MARKED UP BY DANIEL AS AN AGENDA ITEM.
WHAT AGENDA ITEM IS IT, DANIEL? I THINK EVERYBODY'S GOT IT ANYWAY.
>> I BELIEVE IT'S THE LAST ONE.
I THINK IT'S THE ONLY PA WE HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. ON THE PART WHERE WE DEFINE A CONCESSION PARK WHICH IS UNDER ARTICLE II, SECTION 19-51, WHERE WE DEFINE A CONCESSION PARK, MEANS ANY PARCEL WHERE TWO OR MORE CONCESSIONS GATHER UNDER A DESIGNATED PARK MANAGER.
DO WE FEEL AS A GROUP THAT THAT GIVES US A GOOD ENOUGH DEFINITION, A GOOD ENOUGH LIMITATION AND I'M REALLY LOOKING DOWN HERE TO MY FAR LEFT, WHEN I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION ABOUT LIMITING OURSELVES ON A CONCESSION PARK, TWO OR MORE CONCESSIONS GATHER UNDER A DESIGNATED PARK MANAGER. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT OUR LAST WORKSHOP WHERE SOMEBODY COULD TURN THEIR CONCESSION STAND INTO A PARK WITH RELATIVE EASE IN ORDER TO EXPAND THEIR OPERATION OR TO ADD SEATING, ETC.
THAT WOULD EXCLUDE THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THAT.
[00:05:02]
IN MY VIEW, IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO LET JUST EVERYBODY BECOME A CONCESSION PARK.BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THIS OVERALL ORDINANCE WAS HELP OURSELVES MOVE PEOPLE TOWARD PARKS AND AWAY FROM BEING JUST A FREESTANDING VENDORS ON EVERY STREET CORNER.
WE WANTED TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TOWARD PARKS.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TOWARD THAT COUNCILMAN?
WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE THESE SINGLE OPERATORS AND MOVE THEM INTO A PARK SO WE CAN REGULATE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENTLY AND JUST BETTER IN GENERAL.
>> DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS HELPS US ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL?
>> DO YOU FEEL THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENT WAY OR SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ADD TO THIS TO HELP US DEFINE CONCESSION PARKS TO DO A BETTER JOB OF THAT?
>> WELL, MY ONLY WORRY WITH THE WAY IT'S DONE HERE IS THAT THE GAS STATION OWNER IS GOING TO GO LOOK FOR A SECOND VEHICLE TO PUT IN HIS PARKING LOT.
>> THE ONLY THING I HAD THOUGHT ABOUT ADDING AND MAYBE OUR CITY ATTORNEY CAN HELP US HERE IS ANYTHING THAT WOULD HELP US FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF BEING A FOOD TRUCK PARK THAT COULD BE ADDED IN THERE OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP US WITH LIMITING PARKING THAT THE FOOD TRUCK PARK COULD NOT TAKE UP PARKING THAT WAS OTHERWISE DESIGNATED OR USED AS A PART OF THE BUSINESSES REQUIRED PARKING.
LIKE IF IT WAS IN A CORNER STORE PARKING LOT, IT COULDN'T TAKE UP ANY OF THE CORNER STORES REQUIRED BUSINESS PARKING.
AM I MAKING MYSELF CLEAR? DO YOU FOLLOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
>> I THINK WE HAVE THAT ALREADY.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
>> IT IS ALREADY IN THE DRAFT THAT THE CONCESSION CAN'T TAKE UP THE REQUIRED PARKING.
BUT IF THERE IS EXCESS PARKING AT THAT LOCATION, THEY COULD PARK IN PARKING SPOTS.
>> WE ALSO HAVE OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONCESSION PARK IN TERMS OF, IT HAS TO HAVE A CONCESSION PARK MANAGER AND IN TURN, WE HAVE A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONCESSION PARK MANAGER.
IT DOESN'T STOP WITH THAT ONE NUMBER DEFINITION.
IT CONTINUES TO GROW ALONG THROUGHOUT THE ORDINATE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONCESSION PARK MANAGER.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHAPTER OR VERSE THIS IS.
THIS IS SECTION 1, THE CONCESSION PARK SHOULD HAVE A DESIGNATED CONCESSION PARK MANAGER.
THEN UNDERNEATH THERE, YOU DO HAVE THE RESTRICTIONS AND THE ALLOWANCES THAT MAYBE WOULD ENCOMPASS ENOUGH.
BECAUSE RIGHT HERE, ALL YOU'RE TRYING TO DO RIGHT HERE IS, IS PROVIDE A DEFINITION IN THE VERY BEGINNING, RIGHT?
>> THE DEFINITION EXPLAINS WHAT IT IS AND THEN FURTHER IN, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, THIS IS HOW YOU BECOME ONE AND HOW YOU OPERATE ONE.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD THINK OF IS SEPARATE CONCESSIONS TOGETHER OR SEPARATE CONCESSIONS GATHER SO THAT IT CANNOT BE LIKE ONE-PERSON BE STORING UP FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES ADJOINING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE GOOD OR BAD, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING I COULD THINK OF.
>> ONE OVER HERE AND ONE OVER HERE AND ADD THEM UP IN THERE TOO.
>> THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE THOUGH, IS WITH THE SEATING PART.
I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE THE STICKY WICKED AND IT IS THAT BECAUSE A SINGLE CONCESSION IN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, CANNOT HAVE SEATING?
>> EXCEPT ON A CONCESSION PARK.
>> EXCEPT ON A CONCESSION PARK.
THE LOOPHOLE AND WHAT I THINK THAT WE HAD, I DON'T KNOW IF APPEASED OR HAD PUT FORWARD WAS THAT THE LOOPHOLE IS YOU PUT A CONCESSION PARK TOGETHER AND YOU GET THAT SEATING.
I GUESS THAT ONE PERSON COULD GET A SECOND CONCESSION STAND
[00:10:07]
OR ANOTHER PERSON TO COME TO THEIR AREA AND THEN THAT WOULD SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENTS OF A CONCESSION PARK.I STILL THINK THAT SEATING THOUGH, IS JUST A [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, IF STAFF HAD A RECOMMENDATION IN THE BACK TO THE CHALLENGE THEN I GUESS THAT WE PROVIDE SEATING IN [OVERLAPPING].
>> RIGHT. THAT'S ONE OF YOUR FOOTNOTES.
>> IF I MIGHT OFFER THIS, IF I UNDERSTAND THE UNDERLYING CONCERN, AT LEAST THE WAY I HEARD IT, AND MAYBE WE CAN JUST WALK THROUGH THIS AND FRAME THE ISSUE HERE.
IT WAS, WELL, IF WE'RE GIVING PEOPLE OR OFFERING THEM A DISCOUNT ON THEIR FEES FOR BEING A CONCESSION PARK WHAT'S TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM HAVING ONE CONCESSION AND SAY, '' WELL, I'M A CONCESSION PARK NOW GIVE ME MY DISCOUNT? '' THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS.
NUMBER 1, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THAT LINED UP UPFRONT AND WE WOULDN'T BE PRORATING ANYTHING, SO THE FIRST YEAR AT LEAST IT WOULD AVAIL THEM TO NOTHING.
THEY WOULD NOT BE GETTING ANYTHING.
THEY COULD PUT A SECOND PERSON THERE, BUT THEY WOULDN'T KICK IN UNTIL THE NEXT YEAR. THERE'S THAT.
BUT THE OTHER QUESTION IS, IS THE DEFINITION OF CONCESSION PARK SUFFICIENT? THIS IS WHERE I SUGGESTED MAYBE DONNA COULD WEIGH IN OR GIVE HER OPINION.
IS THAT LANGUAGE AS IT IS NOW TIGHT ENOUGH FROM THE ENFORCEMENT POINT STAFF COULD SAY, ''WELL, NO, SORRY, YOU'RE NOT A CONCESSION.
YOU CAN APPLY FOR THAT PARK WHEN YOU HAVE A SECOND PERSON ON BOARD, BUT YOU'RE STILL NOT GOING TO GET A DISCOUNT.'' THEY'LL GET A DISCOUNT, BUT THE FIRST GUY WON'T.
BY THAT, THE PERSON WHO'S TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THIS REGULATION ACTUALLY WILL NOT BE AVAILING HIMSELF OF ANYTHING THE FIRST YEAR, ONCE A CONCESSION PARK HAS BEEN GRANTED WITH A CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE IS WHAT WE WERE SUGGESTING.
THEN THE NEXT YEAR, EVERYBODY WHO'S THERE WOULD GET A DISCOUNT.
THE SECOND YEAR, IT COULD BE A LITTLE BIT OPEN TO SOME ABUSE, BUT THE FIRST YEAR WILL REALLY NOT, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD AVAIL THEM ANYTHING.
>> I DID HEAR ONE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THIS DEFINITION, THAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BEAR MORE AND MORE CONVERSATION.
SHOULD THOSE TWO IN THE DEFINITION WHERE IT SAYS IN CONCESSION PARK MEANS ANY PARTS WHERE TWO OR MORE CONCESSIONS GATHER UNDER A DESIGNATED PARK MANAGER.
SHOULD WE PUT THAT WORD CONTIGUOUS IN THERE? WHERE TWO OR MORE CONTIGUOUS CONCESSIONS GATHER? IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE TOGETHER OR CAN YOU HAVE ONE ON ONE SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT AND THE ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE, DOES IT MATTER?
>> WE WEREN'T PROPOSING THAT IT WOULD MATTER.
SOMETHING ELSE THAT I HEARD THAT MIGHT BE WORTH MENTIONING IS, IF SOMEONE WERE TO SAY BRING TO SAME PERSON, SAME OPERATOR, BRING TWO CONCESSIONS IN.
THEY OWN THEM BOTH, THEY RUN THEM BOTH.
MORE DEFINITIONS ALSO SAY THAT EACH CONCESSION APPLICATION IS SPECIFIC TO THE VEHICLE.
EVEN IF THEY TRIED THAT, THEY'D STILL BE PAYING FOR A SECOND TRUCK AND A SECOND PERMIT APPLICATION THE WHOLE NINE YARDS, SO THAT REALLY WOULDN'T AVAIL THEM OF MUCH EITHER.
BUT WE'RE NOT REALLY SAYING THEY HAVE TO BE SIDE-BY-SIDE, WE'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF AND IF THERE'S ANY, I GUESS, PENSION FOR ABUSE OR '' GAMING THE SYSTEM'' BECAUSE OF OUR DEFINITION.
>> I GUESS I'M STILL ON BOARD WITH KEEPING THE SEATING AS IT IS IN THE PARKS AND NOT FOR INDIVIDUAL TRUCKS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S ANOTHER REASON, ANOTHER WAY THAT WE'RE INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE TO GATHER IN PARKS AS OPPOSED TO BEING SEPARATE IN SEPARATE TRUCKS, SO I I'M GOOD WITH STICKING WITH THAT.
>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT STAFF'S POSITION ON THAT IS JUST BECAUSE IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN YOUR FOOTNOTES.
>> WELL, AS FAR AS OUR RECOMMENDATION OF LETTING THEM HAVE SEATING REGARDLESS? THE FIRST ONE JUST BEING THE INTERESTS FROM CONCESSION OWNERS WRIT LARGE.
THE SECOND IS THAT IF YOU ONLY GET SEATING IN A PARK AND YOU DON'T GET SEATING OF ANY OF YOUR STAND-ALONE, WOULD THAT POSSIBLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE WHO REALLY WANT
[00:15:03]
SEATING TO TRY TO ABUSE THE PARK THING? SO IT COULD HAVE A LITTLE SEC, IT WASN'T AN INTENDED EFFECT, BUT THE THOUGHT OCCURS TO ME NOW THAT IT MIGHT BE WORTH CONSIDERING THAT WAY AS WELL.THAT WELL, IT COULD ACTUALLY SERVE TO DISCOURAGE POTENTIAL, AND THIS IS ALL THEORETICAL, REALLY UNTIL THESE ARE ADOPTED IN SOME MANNER AND HAVE HAD A FEW YEARS TO WORK.
WE'RE NOT A 100 PERCENT SURE HOW EVERYTHING'S GOING TO WORK JUST LIKE FOLKS WEREN'T SIX YEARS AGO WITH THE ORIGINAL AD HOC.
WE CAN ONLY DO WHAT WE CAN DO.
BUT THAT MAY DISCOURAGE POTENTIAL, HYPOTHETICAL ABUSE BY SAYING, WELL, YOU'RE STILL GETTING SEATING, SO THERE'S ONE LESS REASON THEY MIGHT WANT TO TRY SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> JUST TO REFRESH MY MEMORY, IN A PARK, YOU'RE ALLOWED TWO TABLES AT SIX PERSON PER TABLE? I FORGOT WHAT WE SAID THERE.
>> I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS SIX PER CONCESSION, AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO NOT ALLOW FREE STANDINGS TO HAVE ANY SEATING, WHICH THEN ALSO COULD BE A WAY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GO INTO PARKS.
COULD POTENTIALLY WORK BOTH WAYS.
BUT THIS IS JUST HARD TO PREDICT HOW PEOPLE WILL REACT.
A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE GOOD ACTORS, I THINK, AND THEY'RE JUST GOING TO FOLLOW THE REGULATIONS, AND IF THEY NEED TO MOVE TO A PART, THEY'LL GO TO A PARK.
>> WE ALSO AS STAFF HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT ENFORCEMENT OF TABLES AND CHAIRS, SO IF YOU'RE AT A LOCATION WITH ANOTHER BUSINESS, WHAT'S STOPPING THE BUSINESS FROM PUTTING TABLES AND CHAIRS OUT?
>> BECAUSE THERE'S A BUNCH OF MORE TO HAVE THEM.
>> RIGHT. SO IF YOU'RE IN THE PARKING LOT OF A BAKERY AND THE BAKERY HAS TABLES AND CHAIRS OUTSIDE, AND WE GET A COMPLAINT ABOUT THERE BEING TABLES AND CHAIRS.
HOW DO WE KNOW WHO'S PLACED IT THERE? THAT'S ANOTHER ONE OF OUR CONCERNS.
>> WHAT ABOUT YOUR STAND-UP TABLES? THERE'S INDEPENDENT TABLE, THERE'S NO CHAIRS.
IT'S STAND-UP TABLES THAT YOU SEE IN A LOT OF CONCESSION PARKS.
WE DIDN'T REALLY ADDRESS STAND-UP TABLES.
ARE WE GOING TO JUST LET THAT BE THE GRAY AREA WHERE IF SOMEBODY COMES UP AND BECAUSE THERE'S NOT SEATING PER SE.
HOW ABOUT THAT FOR THROWING? [LAUGHTER] SORRY.
>> THANKS DAN. IT'S A LARGE COUNTER YOU THINK? LIKE A HIGH TABLE?
THAT WOULD BE A GRAY AREA TO ME.
>> GRAY AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO MARSHALL.
>> WHAT IF THAT WAS CHANGED TO BE SOMETHING LIKE, AND ONCE AGAIN, I'M NOT A 100 PERCENT ON THE LANGUAGE.
I'M JUST THINKING ALOUD HERE AS WELL.
WHAT IF THE LANGUAGE WAS CHANGED TO BEAT IT, TO BORROW A BAR OR RESTAURANT TERM TOPS.
>> YEAH. MEANING A PERSON IS OCCUPYING THAT SPACE, WHETHER IT BE STANDING OR SITTING, IT'S "A TOP".
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN WORK WITH.
>> PART OF ME WANTS TO SAY, NO DISRESPECT, BUT DO WE REALLY THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A BIG DEAL?
>> I'VE BEEN TO THE BREWERY OUT WEST, THEY'VE GOT TOPS.
>> THE ONLY THING I'M CONCERNED WITH IS, YOU'RE SUBJECTING A MARSHALL TO A GRAY AREA BECAUSE A GOOD MANAGER OF A CONCESSION PARK WILL GO, '' WAIT A MINUTE.
THAT'S NOT A TABLE. IT'S A TOP.'' THAT'S THE ONLY THING.
>> DO WE WANT TO [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE]?
>> I THINK A TOP WOULD BE, BECAUSE IT WOULD STILL SOLICIT THAT QUICK INTERACTION.
YOU'RE NOT SEATED EATING, YOU'RE STANDING [NOISE] AT A BAR TOP EATING.
[BACKGROUND] THAT COULD BE A CONCESSION TO THE SEAT.
>> I THINK THAT'S UP TO THE CONCESSION OWNER, RIGHT?
>> YOU CAN'T DO SITTING WHICH IS VERY CLEARLY ENUMERATED IN THE LANGUAGE.
A TABLE IS NOT PROHIBITED, RIGHT?
>> I THINK FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, THERE'S A CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEATS AND A TABLE.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE [INAUDIBLE].
[00:20:01]
>> WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THEN TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO JUST SAY TABLE AS A WAY TO COVER BOTH OF THOSE, WHETHER THEY'RE STANDING OR SITTING, IS THAT WHAT I HEARD IT OR I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT CHAIRS AND TABLES.
>> I DON'T KNOW, IS THE INTENT TO PRECLUDE TABLES FROM SINGLE CONCESSION OPERATIONS?
>> I THINK IT'S SEATING AND TABLES.
SHOULD WE CHANGE IT TO TABLE SLASH SEATING?
>> BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST SITTING.
>> LET'S CHANGE IT TO TABLE SLASH SEATING.
>> DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF THE MEMBERS.
>> DO WE WANT TO ALLOW THOSE TABLES THOSE HIGH-TOP TABLES ARE WE HEARING THAT?
>> TO ME I WOULDN'T ALLOW THE TOPS.
>> LET'S HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS ON THAT.
COMMISSIONERS WHO WANTS TO ALLOW THE HIGH TOP TABLES RAISE YOUR HAND.
AND WHO WOULD RATHER NOT, 1, 2.
LET'S WAVE TO THE CAMERA AND LET THAT BE KNOWN.
SO WE HAVE 4 TO 2, SO THE HIGH TOP, SO LET'S JUST LEAVE IT AT SEATING AND LEAVE IT OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION, DANIEL.
LET'S ALLOW PEOPLE TO BE CREATIVE, STAN?
>> I THINK ONE OF OUR PROBLEMS WITH THE SEATING WAS THAT PEOPLE WOULD STAY THERE A LONG TIME.
THAT WAS THE MAIN THING GENERATING THAT RULE.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE STANDING UP AND EATING, YOU DON'T HAVE AS MUCH INCENTIVE TO HANG AROUND AS LONG.
THAT WAS MY REASON FOR SAYING IT'S OKAY TO DO THAT.
I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, DANIEL.
SO IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO HAVE SEATING ALLOWED FOR BOTH A PARK AND THOSE NOT IN A PARK AND WHEN WE HAVE SEATING AS A PARK IS DEFINED AS WHAT'S OKAY.
IT'S FINE TO SIX PEOPLE PER CONCESSION.
IF WE WERE TO ALLOW SEEDING AND FOOD TRUCKS THAT WEREN'T IN PARKS, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT GIVEN THAT WE'RE STILL TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE PARKS, THREE PEOPLE NOT IN A PARK OR INCREASE SEATING IN A PARK TO 10 PEOPLE.
THERE STILL HAS TO BE SOME INCENTIVE THERE IF WE WERE TO HAVE SEATING IN BOTH SITUATIONS.
THERE MAY BE OTHER WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE THAT TOO, BUT THERE'S ALSO THE THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AS WELL AS OVERLYING CONCERN IS THE KISS PRINCIPLE.
AND SO THAT WOULD SIMPLIFY IT AS WELL.
BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, GOING BACK TO ENFORCEMENT, THAT GIVES THEM ONE STANDARD ON THIS ONE TOPIC TO ENFORCE, IT MAKES A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR THEM TO SAY, OKAY, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
YOU GET THIS REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU'RE AT.
SO THERE IS OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, BUT YES, THE BIG QUESTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN HONESTLY, HOW CAN WE INCENTIVIZE THE CARROT AND STICK THING AGAIN, HOW CAN WE INCENTIVIZE WITH THE CARROT FOR PEOPLE TO GO INTO CONCESSIONS BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS TAKE A HEAVY-HANDED APPROACH WITH A STICK AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS WANTED TO DO TO THIS POINT.
>> WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH A SEATING.
WE'RE ENFORCING IT WITH A STICK BY SAYING THAT YOU DON'T GET ANY SEATING UNLESS YOU'RE IN A PARK.
>> AND IT SADDENED ME TO GO AGAINST STAFF IN ANY WAY.
I REALLY DO. ESPECIALLY IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE DINO HAS WORKED SO HARD FOR SO LONG ON THIS LUCKY NUMBER 13 HERE.
BUT I THINK THAT IF THERE'S A CHANGE TO BE MADE ON THIS ONE, I WOULD BE TOTALLY HAPPY PERSONALLY WITH LETTING COUNCIL MAKE THAT CHANGE AS OPPOSED TO US MAKING THE CHANGE.
SO I'M HAPPY TO LET YOU ALL TELL ME IF YOU AGREE WITH ME OR NOT ON THAT.
>> I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A CHANGE, IT WOULD BE EQUAL SEATING IN BOTH PLACES IN ORDER TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.
>> RIGHT AND I'M HAPPY WITH KEEPING IT THE WAY IT IS.
AND IF THERE'S A CHANGE TO BE MADE TO MAKE EQUAL SEATING IN BOTH PLACES, LET'S LET COUNCIL MAKE THAT CALL.
DO YOU ALL AGREE WITH LETTING COUNCIL MAKE THAT DECISION?
>> RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU AGREE WITH LETTING COUNCIL MAKE THAT CALL.
LET COUNCIL MAKE THAT DECISION, JOHN PAUL, THAT CAN BE ON YOU GUYS COUNCILMAN.
SO ARE WE GOING TO LEAVE TO GO BACK TO MY INITIAL QUESTION, WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE DEFINITION OF FOOD TRUCK PARK AS IS AND I HAVE NOT HEARD
[00:25:06]
ANY CHANGE TO ADD ANYTHING DIFFERENT TO IT TO TIGHTEN UP THAT LANGUAGE.>> WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONCESSION PARKS, H IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE NEW REGULATION THAT STIPULATES REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKS. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I'M FLIPPING THAT WAY RIGHT NOW. YEAH.
>> AND SO IN THERE, REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT I'M SEEING HERE IS DESIGNATE THE CONCESSION PARK MANAGER, WHICH THEY HAVE TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE.
IF YOU GET A PERMIT ONE CONCESSION PER 1,000 SQUARE FOOT OF AREA, NO MORE THAN SIX SEATS PER CONCESSION.
CONCESSION PARK, AT LEAST 11,000 SQUARE FEET TO OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES AND THE LIGHTING.
>> IF YOU GO BACK UP TO THE FRONT, IF YOU GO BACK UP TO ARTICLE 3 AT THE VERY FRONT, IF YOU GO TO THE VERY FIRST PAGE UNDER DEFINITIONS, CONCESSION PART MEANS ANY PARCEL WHERE TWO OR MORE CONCESSIONS GATHER UNDER A DESIGNATED PARKING MANAGER.
SO YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO AND THEN THE DEFINITION OF THE PARK MANAGER SO THAT YOU'VE GOT THOSE THINGS.
>> BUT THERE'S NO OTHER REAL REQUIREMENTS HERE.
YOU GET YOUR ZONING LETTER, YOU GET YOUR PERMIT, YOU MAKE SURE YOU MEET THE SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENTS AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND YOUR PARK MANAGER DOES ALL THAT, AND YOU'RE PARK.
>> CORRECT. WITH ONE LITTLE CAVEAT THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO A CONCESSION WHICH WOULD BASICALLY SUPERSEDE THE PARK.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT WAS SOMETHING WITHIN 100 FOOT OF A ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY, NO REASON TO HAVE A PARK IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A CONCESSION THERE.
SO THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS LIKE THAT SPECIFIC TO TRUCKS.
>> THAT WOULD APPLY TO A SINGLE CONCESSIONAIRE.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING THAT GOES BEYOND A SINGLE CONCESSIONAIRE, WHATEVER.
SO THE PARK IS VERY EASILY DONE IT SEEMS LIKE, NOT A WHOLE LOT MORE REQUIREMENTS HERE TO GET DESIGNATED AS A PARK.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. WE ACTUALLY DID RECOMMENDING DOING AWAY WITH I SHOULD SAY, WITH AT LEAST ONE REQUIREMENT WHICH WAS TO PROVIDE POTTED PLANTS.
[LAUGHTER] BUT IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE EDITED? I'M SURE WE COULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER IT. BUT YEAH, IT IS VERY EASY.
>> RUSTY, I'M LOOKING FOR YOU FOR SOME ADVICE HERE ON THIS ONE.
I CONSIDER THIS WHEN DEVELOPING A CONCESSION PARKS, SOMETHING LIKE AN RV PARK.
YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING IN A VEHICLE THAT COMES IN THERE, STAYS THERE FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND LEAVES.
BUT TO FACILITATE THAT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A SEWER DISPOSAL POSSIBLY.
>> FOR CONCESSIONS PARK YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
YOU'D HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME INFRASTRUCTURE.
THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS HERE.
>> WELL, IT'S LIMITED, BUT BASICALLY IT'S LIMITED TO PARKING AND EMPOWER.
THEY CAN'T JUST PULL INTO YOUR PARK AND RUN GENERATORS, I DON'T THINK.
>> WELL, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT SAYS ANYTHING IN HERE ABOUT POWER REQUIREMENTS.
>> THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO JENNIFER.
>> WE JUST BASICALLY SPECIFIES THAT, HOWEVER THE TECH POWER HAS TO BE PROPERLY PERMITTED AND APPROVED FOR LIFE SAFETY CODES BASICALLY FOR BUILDING AND OR FIRE AND THAT WAS OF COURSE BECAUSE THE GENERATOR AND T POLL THING WAS CAUSING A PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY TOO LIMITED.
IF YOU REMEMBER WAY BACK. [LAUGHTER]
[00:30:04]
>> IT JUST SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS.
>> BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T CALL A GENERATOR IN THERE.
>> YOU CAN DO THAT IF YOU NEED TO AND YOU CAN PERMIT THAT AND HAVE YOUR PARK RUNNING OFF A GENERATOR.
>> BUT I ALSO THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT RESTROOM.
>> YES. BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS ULTIMATELY DROPPED AFTER THE DISCUSSION WITH GCHD IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
>> BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS.
>> JOHN, I THINK SOME OF IT WAS AND OUR EFFORTS IN THIS IS WE TRIED TO MAKE BEING A PARK EASIER SO THAT IF A GUY SAYS THERE'S TWO SIDES, HEY, I'M GOING TO GO TO TOWN AND GO OPEN UP A FOOD TRUCK PARK.
QUITE FRANKLY THAT'D BE SIMPLE.
THE FLIP SIDE IS TO TRY AND GET.
>> I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT AND THAT'S MY INTENTION IS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO BECOME A FOOD PARK.
SO SOMEBODY IS WILLING TO DO THAT AND THEN WE GET THE FOOD TRUCKS OUT OF GAS STATION PARKING LOTS.
BUT WHAT I GUESS MY POINT IS HERE IS THAT IT SEEMS VERY EASY AND FREE FOR A GAS STATION PARKING LOT TO BECOME A FOOD TRUCK PARK.
>> BUT THEY'VE GOT TO GET TWO PEOPLE AND A MANAGER.
>> I CAN POINT OUT ONE RIGHT NOW, IT'S GOT TO BE.
>> I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. MAYBE THAT'S OKAY.
MAYBE A FOOD TRUCK PARKED ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT ALSO HAS A GAS STATION IN IT IS FUN BUT NOT REALLY MY INTENT.
BUT IT'S HARD TO PUT SOME REGULATIONS IN PLACE THAT WOULD PREVENT THAT.
>> YEAH. REALLY IT'S A BALANCING ACT.
IF YOU MAKE IT TOO HARD THEY WON'T DO IT, IF YOU MAKE IT TOO EASY YOU MAY END UP WITH FOOD TRUCK PARKS WHICH ARE ALSO CONVENIENCE STORES.
BUT TO OFFER ONE THING I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST CONCERN OR THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE THAT WE'VE I THINK IDENTIFIED TO THE CURRENT CONCESSION PARKS IS THE FEE, $1,000.
SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT OTHER LIMITATIONS THERE MAY BE I THINK KEEPING THAT FEE TO SOMETHING MORE REASONABLE WOULD BE A BIG HELP AND THAT'S WHY THE CERTIFICATE WAS ONLY COMPLIANCE IDEA WAS PRESENTED.
>> LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. DO YOU ALL SEE THE DEFINITION FOR COMMISSARY? DO WE PUT A REQUIREMENT FOR OUR COMMISSARY IN THERE OR DID THAT GET MISSED SOMEWHERE?
[BACKGROUND] UNDER SECTION 19-53.
>> ALSO I'VE LEARNED THAT IN ALMOST ALL INSTANCES I GUESS GCHD ALSO ASKED FOR A COMMISSARY AGREEMENT.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY BEING CAUGHT IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES.
THEY SHOULD CATCH IT, WE SHOULD CATCH IT.
>> THANK YOU. I SAT OVER ABOUT FIVE TIMES.
JOHN, THAT COULD HELP US AND THAT'S WHY I REALLY WAS BEATING THAT DRUM.
BECAUSE WHAT THAT WILL DO IS THAT'LL KEEP THOSE GUYS FROM GOING AND PARKING THEIR TRUCK AND IT ENDS UP WITH A TAP ROOT OR THE TIRES.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO A COMMISSARY OR MAKE THEIR GAS STATION ONE AND SO I THINK THAT MAY HELP US.
I DOUBT THAT'S GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT IT COULD HELP.
>> THANK YOU. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S GOING TO DO A LOT FOR US TOO.
I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION TO MOVE ON FROM THAT BIG POINT.
MY SECOND BIG QUESTION IS EFFECTIVE DATES.
I THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE ANY EFFECTIVE DATES IN HERE, CORRECT DANIEL?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. JUST ONCE AGAIN, TO GIVE EVERYONE A BIT OF A BACKGROUND.
A STAFF ACTUALLY HAD AN INTERNAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
ONCE AGAIN, IT'S SIX OF 1.5 DOZEN OF THE OTHER AND WE ALSO CONFERRED WITH THE CITY MARSHALL.
THE IDEA WAS, WELL, WE'LL GIVE THEM TILL JANUARY THE 1ST OF 2023 WHICH IS WHEN EVERYTHING IS GOING TO EXPIRE ANYWAY TO GET USED TO THE NEWER LEARN ABOUT AND GET READY FOR THE NEW REGULATIONS.
HOWEVER, THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY PARTICULAR REASON,
[00:35:06]
THE CITY MARSHALL HAS INDICATED THAT THEY DIDN'T FIND, I THINK IT WOULD BE BY CITY MARSHALL, I MEAN I BELIEVE BY TALKED TO BUTCH AND JANET JAMES POPOV, I REMEMBER RIGHT.THAT THEY THOUGHT IT WOULDN'T BE TOO BAD TO BASICALLY FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR, WHOEVER HAS A VALID PERMIT, ESSENTIALLY GRANDFATHERED UNTIL NEXT YEAR.
THAT WOULDN'T BE THAT BIG A DEAL TO THEM.
ONE THING THAT STAFF ALSO THOUGHT ABOUT WAS IF COULD WE POSSIBLY SUGGEST TO COUNSEL THAT AT THE VERY LEAST WE ADOPT THE TEMPORARY CONCESSIONS IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONTINUED HUGE DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY CONCESSIONS OF SOME SORT.
SO ONCE AGAIN, REALLY EITHER WAY IT DOESN'T MATTER.
THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THE CONCESSION FOLKS HAVE SOME TIME TO LEARN ABOUT THE NEW REGULATIONS REGARDLESS OF WHICH ONES THEY FALL UNDER. THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> I CAN ALSO SAY THAT WE'VE HAD ORDINANCES WHERE THERE HAD BEEN ADOPTED AND HAD BEEN IN EFFECT BUT THE CITY MARSHALL DOESN'T GO OUT AND DO CITATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR A GRACE PERIOD.
IF YOU WANT 45 DAYS TO COME UP TO SNUFF OR 60 DAYS, THE ORDINANCE IS IN EFFECT BUT ANY VIOLATIONS WILL BE HELD OFF FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
>> WELL, IF IT'S ON THE TEMPORARY PERMITS, THE BIG THING ON MAKING THEM EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY IS WE COULD PUT THE NEW FEE STRUCTURE INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY WHICH WOULD BE GREAT, RIGHT DANIEL?
>> YEAH, THOSE WOULD CERTAINLY APPLY.
WE'RE HOPING THAT WE'LL GET APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL ON THE 23RD.
LET ME ALWAYS DEFER WHENEVER WE NEVER KNOW, WE'RE HOPING FOR THAT.
BUT THAT WOULD STILL BE WELL WITHIN OUR PEAK TOURIST SEASON.
SO WE'RE PROBABLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO HOPEFULLY HAVE THAT AT LEAST IN PLACE.
>> YOU COULD GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY AND HAVE SOME LANGUAGE IN THEIR OF EXISTING PERMITS WILL STAY VALID UNTIL THEY EXPIRE.
>> I DON'T MEAN TO SAY ANYTHING AGAINST THE JUNE 23RD MEETING BUT COUNCIL, DO YOU THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL WANT A WORKSHOP FIRST? IT WAS TYPICALLY BUILT ON A WORKSHOP SOMETHING AND THEN VOTE ON IT THE FOLLOWING.
>> I WOULD PROBABLY SAY YES SINCE IT'S BEEN WORKSHOP 13 TIMES IN THIS [LAUGHTER] MEETING AND I MIGHT AS WELL GIVE THEM A WORKSHOP TO AT LEAST ONE.
>> I'LL BE LOOKING AT [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT I WOULD SAY TOO, WE COULD WORKSHOP THAT IN THE MORNING AND POSSIBLY HAVE IT ON THAT AND JUST PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE AFTERNOON IF COUNCIL FELT THAT THEY NEEDED MORE TIME, WE CAN ALWAYS DEFER THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING.
SO IF WE WANT TO TRY TO FAST-TRACK THIS TO GET IT IN PLACE, I'D PUT IT ON THE WORKSHOP IN THE MORNING, PUT ON THE AGENDA IN THE AFTERNOON, AND LET COUNCIL DECIDE IF THEY NEED MORE TIME.
>> DO YOU NEED TO DO COUNCILMAN?
>> I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. [LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK IT'D BE GREAT TO GO AHEAD AND GET THOSE TEMPORARY PERMIT FEES ON THE BOOKS.
>> I'M FINE WITH PUTTING IT ON THE WORKSHOP IN THE MORNING AND THEN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA IN THE AFTERNOON.
IF THERE'S MEMBERS THAT FEEL THEY NEED MORE TIME TO REVIEW IT THEN WE DIFFER.
>> GREAT. ARE YOU FINE WITH THOSE EFFECTIVE DATES? OF DOING THE TEMPORARY IMMEDIATE AND THEN PERMANENT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE NEXT YEAR.
>> WELL, I WOULD PUT THE ORDINANCE INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY AND JUST HAVE SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS ANY PERMITS THAT WILL BE VALID OR WILL BE GRANDFATHERED UNTIL THEY EXPIRE.
>> THEN ANY PERMANENT FEES THAT THE PERMANENT ONES THAT COME IN NEW PERMANENT ONES WOULD BE UNDER THE NEW FEE STRUCTURE.
>> WOULD YOU WANT THE NEW ONES TO NOT EXPIRE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR BUT THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
>> THEY WOULD NORMALLY EXPIRE AT THE END OF 2022.
SO THEY WOULD JUST EXPIRE AT THE END OF '22 AND THEN THEY WOULD BE UNDER THE NEW FEE STRUCTURE AT THE START OF 2023.
YEAH. ACTUALLY, THE NEW PERMANENT FEE STRUCTURE WOULD START IMMEDIATELY TO WITH ANY NEW PERMITS.
AND THEN THE OLD PERMITS WHEN THEY CAME UP FOR RENEWAL, WOULD START ON JANUARY 2023.
>> JOB PRORATE ANY OF THOSE PERMITS?
>> WE ALL KNOW THAT DANIEL TAUGHT US WELL.
YEAH, DANIEL, YOU TAUGHT US WELL.
[00:40:01]
>> I KNOW I LOST MY POKER FACE ON THAT QUESTION.
>> DO YOU WANT TO GRACE OF THOSE THAT ALREADY DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
>> I HEARD ONE WAS A GRACE PERIOD OR EXISTING PERMITS, BUT THEN I HEARD ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE AND USE THE EXISTING [OVERLAPPING].
>> GRACE PERMIT FOR WHAT THE SEATING THOSE STANDALONE THAT HAVE SEATING, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND EVEN THOUGH I KNOW WE HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO GET FOOD TRUCK OPERATORS HERE, THERE ARE SOME THAT STILL HAVEN'T COME AND THERE ARE SOME THAT QUITE HONESTLY JUST DON'T KNOW IT'S FIXING TO HAPPEN TO THEIR BUSINESS.
AND IN ALL FAIRNESS, I THINK WE SHOULD OFFER SOME GRACE PERIOD TO THEM SO WHEN THEY SHOW UP AND THEY GO TO GET THEIR NEW PERMIT AND HOW THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING FOR THE LAST HOWEVER MANY YEARS THEY AT LEAST HAVE SOME PERIOD OF TIME TO GET THEIR BUSINESS IN ORDER.
AND I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THESE PEOPLE, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME OF THEM OVER ON BROADWAY.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN HERE. AND IN ALL FAIRNESS, THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS AND THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND WHEN THEY SHOW UP, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU AND JUST FOR SOME CLARIFICATION WHEN I SAY THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE FOR ANY EXISTING PERMIT, THEY WOULD STILL BE UNDER THE OLD REGULATIONS BASICALLY.
>> SO MY CONCERN WITH THAT IS WE'VE HAD SOME VENDORS COME AND EXPRESS THEIR OUTRAGE AT THOSE THAT HAVE NOT COME UP TO THE CURRENT REGULATIONS THAT WE HAD.
IF WE GIVE THEM THE GRACE PERIOD UNTIL DECEMBER 31ST, WE'RE TALKING SIX MONTHS OF THEM OPERATING CLEARLY NOT WITHIN THE REGS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE CHANGING THEM, HOW DO YOU THINK THOSE FOLKS WOULD FEEL? IF WE DO A GRACE PERIOD OF SIX DAYS OR SO FOR THEM TO COME UP.
>> YOU'RE SAYING THAT OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS THERE OPERATORS THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE?
>> WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS, IF I COME IN AS A NEW STANDALONE FOOD TRUCK OPERATOR ON AUGUST 1, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A TABLE.
>> BUT IF I RUN OVER TO SOMEBODY ELSE OVER HERE ON BROADWAY, THEY GET TO KEEP THEIR TABLE UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY PERMITTED.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE'S SAYING THOUGH.
>> THAT IS PART OF IT, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE VENDOR BUT I THINK SHE WAS VERY ADAMANT ABOUT HE HAD TO COME UP AND DO ALL THESE THINGS AND OTHER FOLKS HAVEN'T AND SO SHE WAS ADMISSIVE ABOUT THAT.
AND IS THAT STILL GOING TO CONTINUE UNTIL THE END.
>> WHAT SHE WAS SAYING THERE WERE EXISTING OPERATORS THAT WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS.
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. DO YOU RECALL THAT, DANIEL, DO YOU RECALL WHAT THAT ISSUE WAS?
>> I THINK IT WAS A COMPLAINT OR A CONCERN IN GENERAL, I DO REMEMBER.
BUT JUST TO OFFER A FEW THOUGHTS.
NUMBER 1, COMPLIANCE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE ONGOING, AND PLANNING STAFF AND SAY, MARSHALL, WE DO OUR BEST TO GET EVERYBODY TO COMPLIANCE.
NUMBER 2, JUST TO GO BACK TO THE WHOLE QUESTION ABOUT GRANDFATHERING VERSUS A GRACE PERIOD, IT'S THE SAME THING REALLY BECAUSE IF EVERYTHING EXPIRES ON THE 31ST OF DECEMBER ANYWAY, THEN THAT'S AN AUTOMATIC BUILT-IN GRANDFATHERING AND ANY NEW PEOPLE THAT COME IN YET, MAYBE THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO GET TABLES BECAUSE THEY'RE STANDING ALONE.
BUT THERE'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE AROUND IN THREE PLACES AND THE FOLKS WHO ALREADY HAVE ONE, THERE'S STILL STUCK, SO GOES BOTH WAYS, SUAREZ GRANDFATHERING.
>> AND THIS HAPPENS WITH EVERYTHING.
ANYTIME WE PUT IN GRANDFATHERING, THERE'S ALWAYS OPERATORS THAT COME IN AFTER WE CHANGE REGULATIONS AND THEY GOT TO FOLLOW THE CURRENT POLICY.
BUT THERE'S PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE STILL OPERATING UNDER OLD POLICIES AND REGULATIONS.
THAT'S GOING ON ON ALL DIFFERENT THINGS AROUND THE HOUR.
>> THEY TRYING TO SAY THAT THERE'S SOMETHING UNFAIR ABOUT IT, I THINK IS WHAT THEY'RE COMPLAINING.
BUT REALLY, IT'S NOT NOTHING REALLY UNFAIR IT'S JUST THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS.
I THINK YOU CREATE AN ORDINANCE, IT GOES INTO EFFECT ON A CERTAIN DATE.
EVERYBODY IS ALREADY APPROVED UNDER A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE.
>> IF THOSE PEOPLE WANT TO COME IN AND THEY WANT TO PAY THEIR FEE AGAIN BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT THE NEW ORDINANCE IS BETTER FOR THEM,
[00:45:02]
THEN GO FOR IT, OPERATE UNDER THE NEW REGULATIONS.>> OKAY, SO KATHERINE, WE ARE IN WORKSHOP.
DO WE NEED TO TAKE AN ACTION TO RECOMMEND THIS OR WE WILL TAKE OUR ACTION DURING OUR ACTUAL MEETING. YES, SIR.
>> I HAD ONE MORE COMMENT ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
>> LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT NUMBER THIS IS.
I THINK IT'S 13, H, D, AND E. IT'S ANYWAY, IT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONCESSION PARKS.
AGAIN, AND IT'S ON D AND E WHERE YOU REFERRED TO ARTICLE 8 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT CONCESSION PARKS HAVE AT LEAST 1000 SQUARE FEET MUST PROVIDE TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.
AND SO ON, SHALL CONFORM TO ARTICLE 8 AND THEN THE NEXT ONE, E SAYS ALL LIGHTING AND CONCESSION PARKS SHALL CONFORM TO APPENDIX A ARTICLE 7.
TO ME, IF I'M READING THAT, I'M GOING WHAT IN THE HECK DOES THAT SAY AND WHERE CAN I FIND THAT? WHAT I'M WONDERING IS THEY ALL PROVIDE APPENDIXES WITH THESE TWO REFERENCES IN THEM OR HOW DOES THE APPLICANT FIND THOSE THINGS?
>> I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
E SHOULD ALSO MENTION LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE ACTUALLY, YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT'S NOT CLEAR, BUT IT ACTUALLY IS BOTH FROM THE LDR AND THERE JUST TO BASICALLY TELL PEOPLE, HEY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKING, IT HAS TO BE PAVED AND DEMENTIA AND ACCORDINGLY, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS AND IF YOU PUT UP LIGHTING ENHANCE AND WE GET OUR REGULATIONS BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.
SO IT TIGHTENS IT UP. BUT NO, YOU'RE RIGHT.
I SHOULDN'T SAY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND E AS WELL BECAUSE IT HAS BOTH.
THAT'S WHERE IT'S REFERRING TO IN BOTH CASES, OUR LDR.
>> THE TITLES OF THE ARTICLES AS WELL [INAUDIBLE].
>> HOW WILL THE APPLICANT HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE REFERENCED DOCUMENTS.
WE HAVE THEM AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, AS AN APPENDIX OR SOMETHING OR HOW DO YOU DO IT?
>> ALL THE R'S ARE QUITE EXTENSIVE AND THEY ARE ONLINE.
SO ARTICLE 8 IS PROBABLY SOME NUMBER OF PAGES AND ONLY PART OF THAT WILL APPLY TO THEM, SO IT'S ONLINE.
SO AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THE CORRECT REFERENCE LANGUAGE THEY CAN JUST LOOK THEM UP.
>> AND REALLY IF A CONCESSION COMES IN THERE, WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE THIS STAFF WOULD REVIEW IT AS NORMAL JUST LIKE OF A NEW BRICK-AND-MORTAR WE'RE GOING IN AND WE WILL REVIEW THEIR PARKING WITH THE SAME STANDARDS.
>> MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THESE TWO.
>> ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE TAKE A LITTLE BREAK BEFORE MEETING? DANIEL? WE DID IT LUCKY NUMBER 13.
>> SO THIS ISN'T COMING BACK AROUND US.
>> WOULD YOU PLEASE BE QUIET? JOHN PAUL, WOULD YOU PLEASE BE QUIET? ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONERS WE'RE ADJOURNED UNTIL 3:30.
WE'LL START BACK UP THEN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.