whether to grant a modification to the density requirements, the hearings official <br />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 of <br />whether the site was already developed with non-residential uses or had <br />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 the <br />site for non-residential use. <br />Table 9.2740 does not subject telecommunications tower or facility to density requirements, as such <br />this criterion is not applicable. <br />An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 <br />of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard. Additional criteria may <br />also be required based on the applicability of other sections of this land use code. <br />All applicable development standards including telecommunications standards at EC 9.5750 have <br />been addressed in the PUD. The applicant has proposed noncompliance with the screening standard <br />for the south side of the facility that is next to the building. The findings and conditions above at EC <br />9.8320(11)(k) are incorporated herein by reference to demonstrate compliance with this criterion. <br />Otherwise no other adjustments are proposed or required and all other development standards <br />appear to have been met or will be required to be met at the time of development permit application. <br />This criterion is met. <br />EC 9.809.0(9): The proposal complies with the Traffic Impact Analysis Review provisions <br />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 cell <br />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 />Staff Recommendation: <br />Based on the available information and materials, and the findings and conditions of approval contained in <br />this report, staff recommends that the Hearings Official grant tentative PUD approval and CUP approval <br />with the following conditions, to ensure compliance with the applicable approval criteria and request the <br />Hearings Official determine if a CUP is required for this proposal. <br />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 39 <br />HO Agenda -Page 1 <br />