approval for a modification to the 2001 PUD and site plan to allow the <br />establishment of a two-story office building on Lot 3. <br />In early 2005, Jok Ang (applicant) applied for a modification to the 2001 approval <br />to allow the establishment of a three-story office building on Lot 3. The applicant <br />also requested that the structure's building orientation be modified to better serve <br />office-related needs, and clarification that uses on the subject property would be <br />allowed as provided for in the 2001 decision, so long as those uses do not <br />exceed the parking thresholds'set -out under the current provisions of the EC. <br />The applicant asserted that such a clarification was needed because current C-1 <br />code provisions do not permit more than 5,000 square feet of floor area per <br />business on lots zoned C-1. See EC 9.2161(1)(2004). <br />The applicant's modification was processed pursuant to-EC 9.8370(1) and EC <br />9.8455(1). EC 9.8370(1) and EC 9.8455(j) include identical approval criteria in <br />that they both require findings that: <br />(1) "the proposed modification is consistent with the conditions of the original <br />approval" and <br />(2) the "proposed modification will result in insignificant changes in the . <br />physical appearance of the development, the use of the site and impact-on <br />the surrounding properties." <br />EC 9.8370 and 9.8455 also provide that "[i]f the planning director determines that <br />the proposed modification is not consistent with the above criteria, the proposed <br />modification may not occur unless a new PUD application is submitted * * <br />'The planning director approved the application, based on his conclusion that the <br />proposed modification did not significantly change. the total area to be developed <br />within the PUD as a whole, that the number of peak hour trips generated by the <br />proposed office space is not significantly greater than what was anticipated and <br />approved in the 2001 decision for restaurant peak hour trips, and ,because the <br />proposed changes in lot coverage, parking design and landscaping were not <br />significant, again viewed in context of.the entire PUD development. <br />Arlie & Company and 4710 LLC appealed the planning director's decision. The <br />appellants' arguments are set forth below. Where appropriate, the appellants' <br />arguments have been combined for review and analysis. <br />B. Arlie & Company's Appeal <br />Arlie & Company (Arlie) asserts that the modification does not satisfy either of the <br />modification criteria, in that it both results in significant changes to the physical <br />appearance of the site, the use of the site, and has a significant impact on the <br />surrounding properties and the proposed modification is inconsistent with the <br />Decision of the Eugene Hearings Official Page 3-of 9 <br />Summer Oaks/Crescent Center PUD (MDA 05-02)(10/14/05) <br />972 - <br />