Planning Commission approves Highland RV-storage site plan with modified paving and stormwater conditions

The Springfield Planning Commission on Tuesday approved a revised site plan for the proposed Highland RV, boat and trailer storage facility, adopting the final order with conditions amended to reflect the applicant’s requested flexibility on paving and stormwater landscaping.

The vote closed the continued public hearing on the Highland site plan review and passed on a roll call vote with six ayes, zero opposed. The commission approved the final order as shown in Attachment 4 of the agenda packet, with conditions in Exhibit B amended by the applicant’s memo.

The project would develop the northern portion of a former sand-and-gravel site off Highbanks Road, just south of the former Blue Water Boats property (now occupied by a food-processing tenant). City staff and the applicant described the current submittal as a “hybrid” design: paved driving lanes and vehicle maneuvering areas with compacted gravel for static storage stalls.

“[T]he applicant is terming it a hybrid design,” said Andy, a city staff member, summarizing the modified application. City staff said the change was proposed to reduce dust and prevent gravel and debris from being tracked onto the public street and shared driveway off of 50 Second Street.

Zach Galloway, a senior planner with TBG Architects and Planners, said the site-plan review is the final land-use action after prior steps that included zoning and comprehensive-plan map amendments and annexation work. “We’re here in the public hearing setting,” Galloway said, and asked that the commission adopt wording that gives reasonable flexibility for how stormwater and landscape areas are constructed.

Staff explained that the applicant’s revised design would not materially change the proposed on-site stormwater management: landscaped swales along the project edges plus infiltration trenches (rock-lined chambers) that would retain and infiltrate runoff on-site because there is no public stormwater outfall. If constructed as proposed, the stormwater facilities would be designed so minimal runoff reaches the adjacent remnant pond and so vehicles stored on-site could be moved in a flood event if necessary.

The staff report cites the relevant approval criteria in the Springfield Development Code (Section 5.170.125) and recommends approval subject to standard conditions. Staff also noted that the major variance application previously filed with the project was withdrawn, so the variance criteria are no longer applicable to this review. Staff reported there had been no public comments on the application between the initial notice in January and the continued hearings.

One condition highlighted during review is that the northern boundary of the development area be measured at the existing fence line rather than the property’s record line (which is farther north and intersects the shared driveway). The applicant asked — and staff supported — language allowing the required landscape setback and the stormwater swale to be combined on the private site so long as the combined feature meets the development code’s performance standards for stormwater and landscape areas.

The commission closed the record before deliberation and moved to adopt the final order with the applicant’s amended conditions incorporated. Commissioner Driggs seconded the motion; the roll-call vote recorded ayes from Commissioners Driggs, Thompson, Schmunk, Greenwell, Weber and Chair Buck. The motion carried; the final order will be issued with the conditions as amended.

The final approval still requires the applicant to obtain a floodplain permit specific to the site’s Floodplain Overlay District regulations before construction can proceed. That permit will clarify operational requirements for vehicles stored within the floodplain area and establish any base flood elevation requirements applicable to the site.

Staff and the applicant said they would work out technical specifications during the permit and construction-plan review phases. The commission did not record any public testimony in favor or opposition at the continued hearing.