I Tract B, namely, that any future development would occur in the flag portion of <br />2 the site, consistent with whatever maximum building setbacks and frontage <br />3 standards, if any, which were in effect in 2006. Tract B was clearly not <br />4 configured with the expectation that future development would occur in the <br />5 pole portion of the site. On the contrary, the pole portion of the site was <br />6 presumably sized and configured to allow a driveway and utilities to access the <br />7 interior of the site, where future development would occur. Because the 2006 <br />8 decision accomplished that much, ORS 92.040(2) operates to preclude <br />9 application of different or conflicting post-2006 development standards, <br />10 specifically the new maximum building setback and frontage standards at LDC <br />11 3.6.30 and 4.10.60.0l.b, because those standards would effectively compel <br />12 development to be located in the pole portion of the site. Accordingly, we <br />13 agree with petitioner that the city erred to the extent it denied petitioner's <br />14 application for noncompliance with LDC 3.6.30 and 4.10.60.0l.b. <br />15 The fourth assignment of error is sustained. <br />16 FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />17 The fifth assignment of error is framed as an alternative challenge, if <br />18 LUBA concludes that the city is not limited by ORS 197.307(4) or that LUBA <br />19 agrees with the city that petitioner "opted" for application of discretionary <br />20 standards for purposes of ORS 197.307(6). Because we did not reach the <br />21 predicate conclusions, there is no need to address the alternative fifth <br />22 assignment of error. <br />23 DISPOSITION <br />24 We have sustained petitioner's challenges to the city's bases for denial. <br />25 Petitioner seeks reversal of the decision. The city does not argue that remand is <br />26 the appropriate disposition if petitioner's assignments of error are sustained. <br />Page 23 <br />