In relevant part, EC 9.010 requires that all land use applications filed by other. <br />than a public agency must be signed by the property owner. In this case, all of <br />the modifications proposed pertain to development- on Lot 4. The property owner <br />of Lot 4 signed the modification application. As is the case with most land use <br />applications, the proposed modification application will have some impact on <br />development on neighboring lots within the PUD. However, that impact is <br />evaluated under EC 9.8370 and EC 9.8455, and is not pertinent to the threshold <br />inquiry of whether all necessary parties have signed an application. 4710 LLC's <br />second basis-for appeal is denied. <br />3. Interpretation and Application of Modification Criteria <br />As appellants and staff noted in their testimony during this appeal, in the past the <br />city's modification provisions have been very narrowly applied to situations where <br />the applicant proposes extremely minor changes in layout, building configuration <br />and uses. This is the first appeal of a modification decision that tests the limits of <br />a more expansive interpretation of EC 9.8370 and EC 9.8455. <br />Each modification application must demonstrate thatthe applicable approval, <br />standards have been met. In some cases, the only means to assure compliance <br />is to-abide by the prior approval in all but the most minor of circumstances. As <br />staff testified, when they counsel applicants at the counter, they tend to advise.a. <br />more conservative. approach to modifications in order to better assure that a - <br />particular modification application will withstand appeal. However, there is <br />nothing in the text of the modification provisions that require such strict <br />adherence to the original approval if evidence demonstrates that the applicable <br />approval criteria have been met. Therefore, the Hearings Official declines to <br />Adopt a bright line rule that requires adherence to current code standards and <br />uses or no more than the absolute minimum in changes in order to satisfy the <br />modification procedures set out in EC 9.8370 and EC 9.8455. <br />With respect to' appellants' arguments that "significance" under EC 9.8370(2) and <br />EC 9.8455(2) must be evaluated based on the changes between what was <br />originally approved for Lot 4 and what is now proposed for that lot, rather on the <br />evaluation of the effect of those changes on the PUD as a whole, again, the <br />Hearings Official declines to make such a bright line interpretation. While a <br />decision- must identify the facts that the decision maker relies upon to determine <br />a standard is met; nothing in EC 9.8370 or EC 9.8455 requires that consideration <br />of those factors be limited to the property itself rather the property in relation to <br />other lots in the PUD that were approved at the same time. <br />With that said, the Hearings Official does not agree with the applicant that <br />significant changes in uses outside the PUD may be used to support the <br />proposed modification. Certainly those changes may justify a modification under <br />a new application for PUD development, but the purpose of EC 9.8370 and EC <br />Decision of the Eugene Hearings Official Page 6 of 9 <br />Summer Oaks/Crescent Center PUD (MDX05-02)(10/14/05) <br />975 <br />