9.8455 is to allow for. insignificant changes in prior approvals to allow for the <br />development to occur as planned and approved. <br />For the above reasons, the, Hearings Official concludes that these bases for <br />appeal are denied. <br />4. Is the planning director's conclusion that the proposed <br />modification satis-fies EC 9.8370(1) and EC 9.8455(1) correct? <br />EC 9.8370(1) and EC 9.8455(1) require a demonstration that "the proposed <br />modification is consistent with the conditions of the original approval." The <br />Hearings Official agrees with the planning director's conclusion that the proposed <br />change in *use is consistent with the 2001 decision, which contemplated that <br />changes in use would occur over time. That understanding is made particularly <br />clear by the 2001 Hearings Officer's refusal to impose use limitations on the uses <br />allowed within buildings constructed within the PUD. See 2001 decision, page 4.. <br />Similarly, the proposed building height is consistent with the maximum building <br />height approved in the 2001. decision. That decision concluded that so long as <br />buildings on the southern portion of the property do not exceed 55 feet (65 feet <br />with HVAC and other mechanical equipment), that taller buildings are compatible <br />with uses allowed. on the C-2 and 1-1 zones located adjacent to the subject <br />property. See 2001 decision, pp. 10-11. If, as appellants suggest, the 2001 <br />decision should be read to require modulation in heights so that the taller <br />buildings are in the center of the property, the Hearings Official would have <br />imposed height restrictions to that effect.- <br />The planning director's decision with respect to EC 9.8370(1) and EC 9.8455(1). <br />is affirmed. <br />5. Is the planning director's conclusion that the proposed <br />modification satisfies EC 9.8370(2) and EC 9.8455(2) correct? <br />EC 9.8370(2) and EC 9.8455(2) require a demonstration that the "proposed <br />modification will result in insignificant changes in the physical appearance of the. <br />development, the use of the site and impact on the surrounding properties." The <br />planning director concluded that these standards are met because (1) the <br />applicant does not propose to modify the approved design standards for the <br />PUD; (2) the proposed building height is consistent with the height limitation <br />approved in the 2001 decision; (3) the subject property is a small portion of the <br />larger development and therefore its. impacts, when measured against potential <br />impacts of changes in the larger PUD area, are generally not significant; (4) the <br />anticipated traffic. pattern will result in fewer peak hour.trips; (5) use of the <br />property would be limited to those that would use no more than 57 parking <br />spaces; (6) site improvements such as increased landscaping and setbacks, <br />Decision of the Eugene Hearings Official Page 7 of 9 <br />Summer Oaks/Crescent Center PUD (MDA 05-02)(10/14105) <br />976 <br />