species or for species proposed for listing under state or federal law. There are no prominent <br />topographic features or wetlands, intermittent and perennial stream corridors or riparian areas. <br />The area is not designated as a natural resource in the Metro Plan or identified in the City's <br />natural resource inventory. <br />Based on the above findings, this criterion is met. <br />b) Tree Preservation. The proposed project shall be designed and sited to preserve <br />significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, with trees having the <br />following characteristics given the highest priority for preservation: <br />1. Healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the base zone <br />or special area zone designation and other applicable approval criteria; <br />2. Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual isolated <br />trees subject to windthrow; <br />3. Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from glare, or shade expansive <br />areas of pavement; <br />4. Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses; <br />5. Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback areas; <br />6. Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors; <br />7. Trees with significant habitat value; <br />8. Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets; <br />9. Trees located along a water feature; <br />10. Heritage trees. <br />The applicant states that there are nine (9) trees over 8" in diameter at breast height (dbh) <br />along the west, north, or east exterior property lines. None of which significantly meet any of <br />the above criteria which would make them ideal candidates for preservation. <br />Referral comments from Land Use staff noted that based on the applicant's submitted site <br />plans the three oak trees located between building B and Lone Oak Way, at the northwest <br />portion of the subject site, should be protected unless additional information is provided. <br />As mentioned above at Description of Planned Unit Development Request, staff visited the site <br />on April 8, 2016. Staff confirms that the existing trees do not significantly meet any of the <br />criteria above aside from being located along the perimeter of the lot. However, the trees do <br />not provide a significant buffering or screening function and do not appear to be in good <br />health. This visit serves as additional information and staff supports the applicant's removal of <br />the existing trees provided the applicant complies with the condition at EC 9.8320(4)(c), below. <br />Based on the above findings, this criterion is met. <br />c) Restoration or Replacement. <br />1. For areas not included on the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the proposal <br />mitigates, to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, the loss of significant <br />natural features described in criteria (a) and (b) above, through the restoration or <br />replacement of natural features such as: <br />McKenzie Living Staff Report May 2016 <br />HO Agenda - Page 40 <br />190