Hudson planning group begins redraft of Appendix A to clarify online submittals and streamline requirements

At a work session, planning commissioners and staff reviewed Appendix A of the city land‑development materials with the goal of updating application submittal requirements for online filing and clearer staff review.

The discussion focused on whether legacy, paper‑oriented language should be replaced with a "complete application provided by the community development department," how to avoid duplicating information already available in county records, and which items should remain core requirements versus moved into 'as applicable' sections. "A complete application would be better," Speaker 2 said when proposing an online‑first phrasing, and staff agreed to prepare a redline.

Why it matters: the appendix defines what applicants must submit for everything from minor conditional uses to major site plans. Commissioners said clearer wording and a staff‑provided checklist will help applicants avoid repeated resubmittals and reduce work for both applicants and staff.

Key decisions and details from the session included retaining owner/agent contact information but removing the requirement for applicants to cite the last instrument conveying title because staff can obtain deed data from county records; removing obsolete fields such as fax numbers; moving subdivision‑specific items (for example, subdivision plat notes and certain deed‑restriction materials) into the subdivision section or marking them "as applicable"; and asking staff to confirm whether the historic‑board‑review requirements should be consolidated or referenced in a separate HBR document. Speaker 1 said the deed information is valuable if the owner listed in the application does not match county records and recommended keeping a copy of the recorded deed where relevant.

The group also discussed how to implement the checklist in Viewpoint. Staff warned that automatically validating content is difficult but said Viewpoint can require applicants to acknowledge or check required items before advancing an application. "We could force them to read the submittal requirements before they move on and check a box," Speaker 2 said; the panel asked staff to make the checklist available and consistent across application types.

Technical submittals were reclassified in several places: tree and vegetation plans and some landscape buffer items will be moved to 'as applicable' sections; topography and certain engineering items (for major site plans) remain core requirements, with staff and commissioners agreeing that two‑foot contour intervals are appropriate for major submissions; and sign plans should be depicted on drawings so staff can check setbacks even if final aesthetics are reviewed elsewhere.

Commissioners suggested further clarifications and optional additions for major developments — a surveyed, stamped site plan by a licensed engineer; itemized cut/fill and stockpile quantities; and optional 3‑D pre/post‑grading renderings to help nontechnical reviewers visualize impacts. Staff said some of those items are already required in engineering standards and recommended keeping certain flexibility while capturing requirements where they are most useful.

The next step is a staff redline of Appendix A incorporating the discussed edits. Speaker 2 said he will circulate the redline and schedule follow‑up meetings; the group discussed tentative dates and planned to return the revised draft to the planning commission and then to council. The session adjourned at 09:32.