SIDNEY — A replat request on Michigan Street was approved by Sidney City Council during its Monday evening meeting.

A resolution for the request of CESO, on behalf of Dale and Michael Jamieson, was adopted for a lot split replat of one parcel or land to create two new lots on the south side of Michigan Street, west of Vandemark Road. The property is located in the B-2, community business district.

A site plan review is in process for a commercial building on one of the lots, said Barbara Dulworth, community development director. Private easements include an access easement which will provide the drive access for both new lots from Michigan Street. The access easement makes a 90-degree turn and continues to the east property line to potentially connect to the semi-truck parking lot behind McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken to allow a secondary egress to Vandemark Road.

The Sidney Planning Commission waived the lot depth to width ratio for the smaller of the two lots at its Aug. 16 meeting and recommended City Council approve the lot split as presented. Mayor Mike Barhorst asked Dulworth why the commission opted to waive the lot depth to width ratio. Dulworth told him the lot was extremely deep and created development issues.

When Vice Mayor Mardie Milligan asked what will be going in at the location, Dulworth said an Aspen Dental and a Well Now Urgent Care will be developed in one of the lots. At the Aug. 16 Planning Commission meeting, Brad Copp, vice president of construction with Compton Addy, said they are not sure yet what will happen with the larger piece of land.

A brief discussion then ensued about traffic issues in the area near the proposed development. Dulworth said access in and out of the development would be reviewed as part of the site plan process in coordination with existing access management standards. Public Works Director Jon Crusey said limiting left turns out of McDonald’s could not be done without consent of the property owner.

In other business Monday evening, Crusey led a continued discussion from council’s July 26 meeting on regulations to operate a food truck in the city of Sidney. At that July meeting, City Council requested city staff “fine-tune the language” on the fee structure and the number of operating days, work with Sidney Alive on the proposed regulations’ impact on the downtown and bring them back for further discussion.

Crusey told council members during a conversation with Sidney Alive Executive Director Amy Breinich, she voiced several concerns, including the following:

• Sidney Alive already charges a $50 to $200 fee, depending on the event, how many people are expected to attend, and how much revenue food trucks are estimated to earn. An additional fee charged by the city could discourage food trucks from participating in downtown events.

• Food trucks participating in downtown events must complete a Sidney Alive application. Requiring additional paperwork for the city’s registration process could also discourage food trucks from participating. Sidney Alive contacts the health department and fire department when they have food truck events and trucks are inspected regardless of whether the city has additional regulations in place.

Crusey further shared he had reviewed several cities’ food truck regulations and learned Perrysburg and Huber Heights charge a $100 fee, while Oakwood charges $10. No other cities he reviewed charged a fee. Huber Heights was the only other city he found to limited the number of days per year a food truck could operate, at 26 days.

At the end of his presentation, Crusey asked City Council if it wished to proceed with legislation to establish city regulations.

Every council member, except Barhorst, were in favor of requiring no fee for the registration of food trucks. Barhorst expressed his opinion that if city staff time was invested to provide services, a fee should be charged to cover some of the expense. Members also discussed concerns about regulating food trucks for private events versus retail sales to the public. Milligan suggested regulations contain a distinction for private property as to where the food is being purchased versus consumed.

The consensus was most members were in favor of not restricting the number of days food trucks would be permitted to operate within the city. But at the end of the discussion, Crusey was directed to continue working on the language and bring the issue back for further consideration at a future meeting.