The Hudson Planning Commission Subcommittee (Sarah Norman, Chair; David Nystrom, Member; joined by City Planner Nick Sugar) met on Monday, July 7, 2025, from 6:34 PM to 7:22 PM in the City Hall Board Room. The purpose was to review and finalize revisions to Appendix A of the Land Development Code, which contains submittal requirements for various development applications. The subcommittee worked through a redlined version of the document, addressing each proposed change and reaching consensus on most items.
It's 6 34, and I'm gonna call the scheduled meeting of the appendix A subcommittee to order at uh at 6 34 p.m. on July 7, 2025. And present we have Nick Sugar for the City and Dave Nystrom and Sarah Norman from the Planning Commission. And we will open up now, excuse me, our work session and discussion on appendix A. And um, Nick, you had sent us the uh red line version for I think all of the recommendations we've made here to four. Is that so? Okay. Do you want to tell us about those or um we'll just organize them and have updates in kind of highlighted in yellow here for you to keep track? Um so just kind of been building upon this red line. And uh, yeah, ultimately, when we go back to planning commission, I'd probably have a red line and then a cleaned up version. So you'd have like two copies so they can see what happened, what changed, and um and see it all uh as it would be. I think what I'd like to do, um you have several that are noted as update for 7725 meetings. So let's just go through and have you explain some of that to finish the conversation because I think where we started was you know, we're walking through appendix A and um and recommending changes, and and I'm sure you captured those, but now you've got new notes. So, like um what was what was the point? Uh is this number two? The first one I'm looking at is on the first page, and I think it points back to number two, name of development or subdivision. And you noted this is not captured in the subdivision requirements. Yes, name name and development of subdivision, names of adjacent subdivisions. Um we wanted to make sure that this was captured in the subdivision requirements. It's not uh I suggest keeping this here in lieu of like repeating it in the other areas. Well, how many times would it need to be repeated? Is it preliminary? Oh, I see. So we'd have minor subdivision. Yeah, uh major preliminary subdivision plan, final subdivision plat. Um, why would it need to be included multiple times if the process, let's just say this is a minor subdivision that would be one that would be a standalone, right? Is that the way that functions? Because I don't we don't the planning commission doesn't see minor subdivisions, am I right? That's an administratively handled thing. So you would need it there, and you would need it in preliminary subdivision plan because that is the one for a major subdivision that the planning commission is going to see. But would you necessarily need it in final subdivision plat? Because you can't get to final without going through preliminary, right? Yeah, we would um you would need the new subdivision name. So maybe I maybe I didn't read the intent of the comment, but um it's in the core, it says as applicable, and I think we're questioning if we should be re taking this out and then re making sure that it's captured in all the subdivision requirements, but it just seemed like we'd be adding a lot more text if we were to add it in the other and the others. What I don't like about the as applicable part is that it is open to some interpretation. Now we would agree that if you're not doing a subdivision, then you wouldn't have to provide the name of a subdivision. But to the extent some of these items are captured as necessary fields in the electronic version that people are filling out. I wouldn't I wouldn't want, I guess I want to keep it in the place where it really belongs, and that doesn't seem like it is a core submittal requirement to that's applicable to the most number of things. Do you have an opinion on that, Mr. Nystrom? It feels like it's a specialized thing that should be more in the specialized areas because it's not actually core if you're doing a text amendment. There's a lot of things we referenced back to the core submittal, but require all the items. So do you want to just see it added in the subdivision standards? I would. Okay. That would be my preference because it is specific to those subdivisions. And if you're obviously let's let's take an example of a conditional use. If you're coming to the planning commission for a conditional use permit, you may not have a name of a development or a name of a subdivision. And the names of the adjacent subdivisions are not first of all, they're things that are easily found by you, and that's not necessarily it's not a necessary component of our consideration. I sort of feel like core submittal requirements should be things that we can require basically of every applicant, no matter what they're applying for.