I more than 18 dwelling units. As petitioner argues, such code language grants <br />2 the city a considerable degree of discretion. <br />3 However, regardless of how LDC 4.0.60.c.2 is correctly interpreted, or <br />4 what interpretations might survive review under ORS 197.829(l), the fact that <br />5 the city had to interpret LDC 4.0.60.c.2 in order to determine (1) whether it <br />6 applies at all to the proposed needed housing, and (2) whether it imposes <br />7 mandatory approval standards, means that LDC 4.0.60.c.2 is not a clear <br />8 standard for purposes of ORS 197.307(4). It is the city's burden to demonstrate <br />9 that LDC 4.0.60.c.2 is a clear and objective approval standard. ORS 197.831. <br />10 The city has not met that burden. <br />11 The third assignment of error is sustained. <br />12 FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />13 As noted, Tract B was created in 2006 with a 27-foot wide, 40-foot long <br />14 flagpole connecting the interior of Tract B to NW Mirador Place. After the <br />15 2006 subdivision was approved, the city adopted LDC 3.6.30, which requires a <br />16 maximum 25-foot front yard setback. As applied to Tract B, LDC 3.6.30 <br />17 would require that any proposed building be located in the 27-foot wide <br />18 flagpole. Further, after 2006 the city also adopted LDC 4.10.60.0l.b, which <br />19 requires 40 percent of the street frontage to be occupied by a building. Again, <br />20 as applied to Tract B, this would require that any proposed building be <br />21 constructed in the flagpole. A staff report incorporated as findings concluded <br />22 that residential development of any density on the site would be "nearly <br />23 impossible" under LDC 3.6.30 and LDC 4.10.60.0l.b, and recommended that a <br />24 variance to those standards be allowed. Record 1552. Although it is not clear, <br />25 the planning commission apparently did not approve a variance to LDC 3.6.30 <br />26 and LDC 4.10.60.01 .b. <br />Page 18 <br />