approval in its case, and the same rigor should be applied to the application at <br />issue in these appeals, <br />Second, 4710 LLC argues that if the city interprets EC 9.8370 and EC 9.8455 to <br />allow modifications to lots located within PUDs based on an analysis of whether <br />the entire PUD is significantly affected by the change on not just the impact of the <br />change on one lot, then applications to modify PUDs must include the signatures <br />of all owners of the PUD and not just the owner of the one lot. 4710 LLC argues <br />that .as' a result of the city's broad reading of the impact area to include the entire <br />PUD, the city may not process the modification application because the Code. <br />requires that all owners within the PUD must sign the application and in this case <br />only the owner of Lot 4 signed the application. <br />Third, 4710 LLC argues that the Condition 1 of the 2001 decision limited uses of <br />the property to those that were identified on the final plan for the PUD. According <br />to 4710 LLC, the list of uses identified in Condition 3 could only have been <br />approved if they were identified on the approved final plan, Because those uses <br />were not identified for Lot 4 on the final plan, 4710 LLC contends that the <br />applicant may not use the modification process set out in EC 9.8370 and EC <br />9.8455 to allow those uses because those uses are inconsistent with conditions <br />imposed on the initial approval and thus do not satisfy EC 9. 8370(1) and EC <br />9.8455(1). <br />D. Analysis, Interpretations and Conclusions of Law <br />The Hearings Official will address 4710 LLC's arguments-in reverse order before <br />turning to the combined arguments of Arlie and 4710 LLC. <br />9. Limitation of uses to those identified in the approved final plan <br />The Hearings Official agrees with the Planning Director's analysis on page 4 of <br />the July 21, 2005 Findings and decision. Condition 1 ensures that the final plat <br />generally conforms to the lot, building and parking layout considered by the <br />Hearings Officer in making the initial decision to approve the plan as proposed. <br />Condition 1 of the 2001 decision should not be read to prohibit modification <br />applications that change uses after the final plan is filed. As Condition 3 and <br />findings included in the 2001 decision make clear, the Hearings Official <br />anticipated that uses of the property would change over time, and limits those <br />changes to uses allowed under the 2001 C-1 code and medical clinics, if <br />changes to the Willakenzie Plan after the decision allowed-such uses in the C-1 <br />zone. Therefore, that basis for 4710 LLC's appeal is denied. <br />2.. Signatures of all PUD property owners on modification <br />applications pertaining to one lot within the PUD <br />Decision of the Eugene Hearings Official Page 5 of 9 <br />Summer Oaks/Crescent Center PUD (MDA 05-02)(10/14/05) <br />974 <br />