My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026.06.01 CC Packet
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Agenda/Packets
>
2026 CC Packets
>
2026.06.01 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2026 2:11:09 PM
Creation date
7/2/2026 1:55:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
6/1/2026
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Luedeke IUP Renewal 060126 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br /> 2 <br />reviews; staff simply visits the property and evaluated the business as it complies with the <br />approved permit. <br /> <br />Staff reported to the City Council on January 23, 2012, on the six month review. During <br />inspection of the property for the review staff found that there were more business related <br />vehicles than allowed by the IUP and vehicles not stored in the designated location. A neighbor <br />also made complaints on the hours of operation, business traffic, and the condition of the shared <br />driveway. <br /> <br />During the meeting the Council stated that Mr. Luedeke provided an important service in Hugo; <br />however, the business was having an effect on the neighbors and something needed to change <br />with the way he was conducting the business. They added that Mr. Luedeke needed to be aware <br />of his IUP conditions and comply with them. No formal action was taken at the City Council <br />meeting on January 23, 2012. <br /> <br />Mr. Luedeke applied for IUP renewal at the year expiration of the permit. There was a public <br />hearing conducted at the City Council meeting of July 16, 2012. There were several people <br />including property owners in the area that spoke during the public hearing in favor of renewal of <br />the IUP for the home occupation and that the business did not impact them. There was a <br />neighbor directly to the north that stated the business is still having an impact in regard to noise <br />and traffic. At that time, staff found that Mr. Luedeke was complying with the IUP on the items <br />that could be verified by staff at the time of the inspection. Mr. Luedeke has stated that it is his <br />intention to operate with the IUP limitations. The City Council approved the renewal of the home <br />occupation IUP on July 16, 2012 for six months. <br /> <br />Over the next six months following the renewal, staff conducted reviewed and monitored the <br />impact with several inspections. At that time, the IUP conditions were being followed. On <br />January 7, 2013, the City Council approved the renewal of the IUP for two years. <br /> <br />On October 21, 2013, the City Council approved an IUP amendment for the home occupation for <br />a building addition to the accessory building that is used for the business. This allowed more <br />work to be completed indoors. <br /> <br />The home occupation ordinance outlines the process for renewal of a IUP. This includes an <br />administrative process to be approved by staff up to five years at a time. Notices are sent to the <br />City Council, Planning Commission, and properties within 300 feet of the property. If a public <br />hearing is requested by any of the parties, staff schedules the public hearing and sends notices of <br />the meeting date. Mr. Luedeke applied for renewal of the IUP each time it expired. Over several <br />years, staff did not receive complaints, concluded that the IUP conditions were met, and the IUP <br />renewals have been approved administratively. <br /> <br />Staff has received three formal complaints on the business starting in 2023. The complaints state <br />the business is not meeting the conditions of the IUP related to hours of operations, vehicles not <br />stored in the designated location, exceeding number of business related trips, and business <br />related vehicles driving north on the neighbor’s driveway. The complaints included photos of <br />some of the violations. After receiving complaints, staff conducted site visits. During the site
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.