conditions of the original approval. Arlie emphasizes that significance should be <br />based on the impact to the lot by itself, and not on the PUD as a whole. Viewed <br />in that context, Arlie argues that the building size increases by 257 percent over <br />the approved building size for Lot 4, and results in a 13 percent decrease in <br />proposed landscaping, percentages Arlie contends clearly. indicate that the <br />proposed changes are not "insignificant." <br />Arlie also argues that even if the proposed modification is viewed in context with <br />the remainder of development within the PUD, the proposed change in use to <br />office use will convert what was planned as a mixed use development to primarily <br />an office park, a use that was neither contemplated during the original application <br />process or approvable under current the C-1 development standards. As a _ <br />result, Arlie concludes, the proposed modification will be a significant change in <br />use that is not approvable under 9.8370(2) and EC 9.8455(2). <br />Arlie asserts that the modification processes under EC 9.8370 and EC 9.8455 <br />should not be used.. to allow uses that could not be otherwise approved, <br />especially because modifications under those provisions are made by the <br />planning director withouta hearing. Arlie concedes that the word-"insignificant' <br />has many {possible interpretations and applications, but argues that in this case, <br />the types of modifications allowed under EC 9.8370(2) and EC 9.8455(2) should <br />not exceed those that could be allowed under current C-1 standards. According <br />to Arlie, the current C-1 standards establish an acceptable "bright line" to assess <br />modification proposals. Arlie argues if the C-1 standards are used as the ceiling <br />for modifications, this modification could only be approved if a new PUD <br />application" is submitted and considered in light of current conditions under <br />current standards. <br />C. 4710 LLC's Appeal <br />4710 LLC applied for and received development approval to convert Lot 3 from a <br />"family restaurant' use to a two-story-office building in.2004. As approved, the <br />office building on Lot 3 retains the same building footprint, parking design and <br />major building design features approved for the family restaurant in the 2001 <br />decision. 4710 LLC adopts the arguments proffered by Arlie, and adds three <br />additional arguments. <br />First, 4710 LLC contends that the modification provisions should be applied <br />narrowly to ensure that changes such as the ones proposed are fully vetted in a <br />public hearing process with standards that address all of the impacts from the <br />change in use and appearance. 4710 LLC argues that to the extent modifications <br />are allowed under EC 9.8370 and EC 9.8455, those modifications should. be <br />allowed only if it can be shown that the modified development is so similar to the <br />previously approved development as to be.essentially indistinguishable in look <br />and impacts from that prior approved development. 4710 LLC states that city <br />staff interpreted EC 9.8370 and 9.8455 to require strict adherence to the prior <br />Decision of the Eugene Hearings Official Page 4 of 9 <br />Summer Oaks/Crescent Center PUD (MDA 05-02)(10/14/05) <br />973 <br />