pedestrian access, and enclosed dumpster/recycling facilities better conform to <br />default design .standards. <br />Based on the evidence, the Hearings Official disagrees that the proposed <br />modification meets this standard. The crucial word in EC 9.8370(2) and EC <br />9.8455(2) is "insignificant." The EC does not define "significant." The dictionary <br />defines "insignificant" as "not large enough to consider or notice," "not worthy-of <br />notice," and "of little importance, or influence or power." <br />www.hyperdictionary.com. The proposed building, which will increase the <br />opportunity for office space by up to 21,440 square feet (See applicant submittal <br />page 2 of 14) and will be physically very different than the restaurant/bar use and <br />lot configuration proposed in the original approval are greater than what may be <br />allowed under these standards. As appellants note, the uses on their adjoining <br />lots are based in part on complimentary uses and structures in the PUD that will <br />support their.uses-.. The proposed use at the prop.osed scale competes with the <br />uses anticipated for those adjoining properties and thus will have more than an <br />insignificant impact on surrounding properties. While the proposal may be <br />ultimately better for the PUD and surrounding community, it must be evaluated <br />as a new application rather than a modification, of the 2001 decision. <br />The Hearings Official recognizes that the applicant has not proposed any <br />changes to design features, or requested changes that-will result in additional <br />transportation-related demand. However, those are only aspects of the factors to <br />be considered under EC 9.8370(2) -and EC 9.8455(2). While consistency in <br />design and insignificant changes in trip generation and parking needs may be <br />necessary to show that a proposed modification is insignificant, they do not <br />demonstrate conclusively that such is the case. <br />A few other conclusions made by the planning staff merit comment, as future <br />applications may be based in part on assertions that if a proposed modification <br />better meets design criteria, or is an in sign ificant.charige, or that if a modification <br />is consistent with conditions imposed on a prior approval those modifications are <br />necessarily insignificant. It may be that the changes will include feature that'will <br />make the development more consistent with existing design standards, but that is <br />not relevant to the question of whether the proposed modification is <br />"insignificant." A waiver or change to a particular design standard may make a <br />development more consistent with existing development', while consistency with <br />new design standards may change the "feel" of the approved development in <br />significant ways. Similarly, as this application shows, a proposed modification <br />may be consistent with prior approvals for the property, yet still result in more <br />than insignificant changes in the physical appearance of the development, the <br />use of the site and impact on the surrounding properties. <br />EC 7.600 provides that on appeal, the planning director's decision "maybe <br />affirmed, reversed, or modified." For the reasons explained above, Arlie's and <br />Decision of the Eugene Hearings Official Page 8 of 9 <br />Summer Oaks/Crescent Center PUD (MDA 05-02)(10/14/05) <br />977 <br />