the acreage of land considered shall include the entire development site and <br />exclude public property, such as public streets, parks, and other public <br />facilities. In considering whether to grant a modification to the density <br />requirements, the hearings official shall evaluate the following factors: <br />1. The availability of the development site for residential use on August 1, <br />2001. The term "availability" in this section shall include consideration <br />of whether the site was already developed with non-residential uses or <br />had other site constraints impacting its suitability for residential use. <br />2. The necessity of the development site to be developed with residential <br />uses to be able to achieve the minimum residential density for the area <br />designated on the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram for either medium- or <br />high-density residential use. <br />3. Adopted plan policies indicate the suitability and appropriateness of <br />the site for non-residential use. <br />Table 9.2740 does not subject telecommunications towers or facilities to density requirements, <br />as such this criterion is not applicable. <br />An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC <br />9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard. Additional <br />criteria may also be required based on the applicability of other sections of this land <br />use code. <br />All applicable development standards including telecommunications standards at EC 9.5750 <br />have been addressed in the PUD. Although the applicant proposed a variance to the <br />requirement to place equipment underground, the hearing official did not grant the variance. <br />The applicant is not proposing any other adjustment to the standards. <br />EC 9.8090(9): The proposal complies with the Traffic Impact Analysis Review <br />provisions of EC 9.8650 through 9.8680 where applicable. <br />With a projected increase in traffic limited to one maintenance visit per month, the proposed <br />cell tower facility does not meet any of the thresholds established in EC 9.8650 through 9.8680. <br />Accordingly, there is no requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis. <br />Decision of the Hearing Official <br />Based upon the available information and findings set forth in the preceding evaluation, the <br />hearing official approves the proposed development in these applications PDT 10-2 and CUP <br />11-1, as required to be modified by the findings above and conditions of approval below. The <br />hearing official specifically notes that this decision denies the rquested variance to place the <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 52 <br />