Design guidelines for wieldier discretionary review: evidence from Portland

ABSTRACT

The use of design guidelines in development control continues to be popular, especially when regulators seek to limit the scope of discretionary latitude. However, the question of how a guidelines framework can be designed to suit the time-constrained and deliberative nature of review hearings remains unaddressed. Using evidence from Portland, this study concludes that boards and staff work around these difficulties by using guidelines in combination, and in so doing almost always undermine their intent. The paper suggests how predefined roadmaps to articulate and combine guideline use can make the process wieldier.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Guidelines B2, A8, and B6.

2. Guidelines B2, C2.

3. Guidelines B2, B3.

4. Guidelines C2, C5.

5. Guidelines in categories A & C; specifically, A1–C1, A6–C3, and A4–C4.

6. Guidelines A4, A5, and C4.

7. Guidelines C2, C3, C4, and A1, A4, and A5.