The compatibility standard warrants rethinking. The vague “compatibility standards” that all development projects are required to undergo may be better addressed via good development standards or criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganizing the current code is necessary so that it is easier for an applicant (including laypersons) to easily find all applicable provisions for an improvement, project, or development.
|
|
|
|
|
Vague development standards will be replaced with more definitive and articulate standards to enable more permits to be approved by staff, rather than through the costly and time-consuming process of Planning Commission & BOCC approval.
|
|
|
|
|
The time that it takes for all of the reviewing agencies to be notified and comment on the project slows the process for applicants and should be streamlined.
|
|
|
|
|
Codify the conditional requirements of past development approvals. Standards routinely required of applicants will be written into the code so that they are known up front.
|
|
|
|
|
Codify what is self-evident. When a regulation or restriction is going to be imposed on a property owner, the regulation needs to be written in the code, regardless of how obvious this might seem.
|
|
|
|
|
Increased certainty and more predictability are a priority. These result from a code with by-right land uses, clearly written standards, and processes that are clear, and which favor applications that comply with the Comprehensive Plan and code.
|
|
|
|
|