Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner disputes city's parking-vs-storage enforcement, questions need for site development review
Summary
At the March 17 meeting, property owner Matt Kennedy told the Hubbard Planning Commission the city's interpretation that long-term parked vehicles constitute "storage" would improperly force him to file a site development review; city staff said some vehicles are inoperable and cited safety and enforcement concerns. The commission agreed to a staff-owner meeting to clarify next steps.
Matt Kennedy, a downtown property owner, told the Hubbard Planning Commission on March 17 that he does not believe the city can force a site development review for long-term parking on his gravel lot across from Engelmann Electric.
Kennedy, who said he bought the parcel from Union Pacific Railroad years ago, read portions of the Hubbard development code aloud, citing sections 3.10501 and 3.10503 and arguing the provisions apply to "development" not to the current use of his undeveloped site: "The development code applies to development. It doesn't apply to use," he said. Kennedy told commissioners he has historical evidence of parking on the lot "back to the 1930s" and said he has taken steps to improve the site's appearance.
Sean, city staff, disagreed with Kennedy's reading of recent staff direction. "No, Matt. That's not accurate," Sean told Kennedy, explaining that a 90-day guideline had been discussed as part of a review process and that vehicles left beyond that period, especially if inoperable, can be treated as storage under city code practice. Sean said staff had "verified that those vehicles, some of them do not operate" and that there had been criminal activity on the property, which informs enforcement priorities.
Kennedy said he has tried to comply and offered to have staff cite a tenant if that was appropriate; he also said he did not want the matter to be decided without his participation. "If there's an application, you can hear it at some point," Kennedy told the commission, but he maintained he is not performing development that would normally trigger site review.
Commissioners said they lacked the materials and formal testimony needed to adjudicate the dispute at the meeting and urged staff and the owner to coordinate. Chair Glenn suggested a roundtable with staff, the property owner and interested officials to assemble the facts but cautioned the commission must avoid creating a quorum outside a public meeting and must remain an impartial decision-maker if a formal application is filed. "We definitely can't do a quorum present at any roundtable because that would also be problematic," Glenn said.
The commission did not take formal action. Commissioners asked staff to follow up, and staff said it would try to schedule discussion before its indicated staff departure on April 9. If Kennedy files a site development application, the matter would return to the commission for formal review.
Why it matters: The dispute touches on how local officials distinguish permitted parking from storage or junkyard uses downtown and whether record-long parking patterns or inoperability of vehicles trigger land-use review or enforcement actions. The commission's follow-up could set expectations for other downtown property owners and affect the look and use of a central block of Hubbard.
Next steps: Staff and the property owner agreed to meet to clarify evidence and possible enforcement; the commission expects any formal application to be placed on a future agenda for public review and decision.
