By 4-3 Richland City Councilmembers voted to increase building height limits to 100 ft. on land it owns near the Columbia River between the Riverfront Hotel and the Columbia Point Golf Course. City staff admitted that the change was being offered to help a potential developer.

Nothing was mentioned about the landfill that lies underneath about half the 20 acres the city wants to develop. With about half the acreage currently undevelopable and parking minimums required, the site could have one tall building surrounded by asphalt parking lots.

A recent city contractor’s study provided to the Observer and described by Deputy City Manager Joe Schiessl as a “draft, unsigned and unvetted report,” indicates that it could cost anywhere from $3 million to $19 million to clean up the garbage to make the land buildable. The landfill has been there since 1953 when the federal government ran the city before Richland was incorporated in 1958 and closed the site in 1962.

Funding for the cleanup has not been identified.

Maul Foster &Alongi, Inc. of Coeur d’Alene, ID, the city contractor reported that state and federal funding could be available for cleaning up the landfill. Schiessl wrote the Observer that funding couldn’t be identified until the scope of the remediation had been determined.

 Not everyone on the council was happy about the timing of the change.

“I feel like we’re bringing this back up before we resolve the situation we said we would resolve last time,” he told the council.

In February, Councilmember Kurt Maier had pointed out that while he didn’t object to the density in the location, he was concerned about the city’s parking minimum resulting in too much valuable building area being consumed by parking lots. The council agreed then to postpone the discussion.

Both Maier and Councilmember Jhoanna Jones said that they would vote against the increase in height until the parking and other development requirements had been discussed. The council’s meeting schedule includes a Dec 9 workshop on the issue.

Change benefits a “prospective purchaser.”

The city staff proposed to make the height change in a “zoning overlay.”  According to Planning Manager Mike Stevens, the city didn’t want to increase the height in the waterfront district near the Willow Point development in north Richland or the Wye district along Columbia Park Trail east. They only wanted to allow the 100 ft. building height in north Columbia Point.

Councilmember Kurt Maier wondered why the city was putting the “cart ahead of the horse,” creating “additional bureaucratic boundaries”  rather than using the appeal process to the planning commission already in place. Planning Manager Mike Stevens had the answer.

 “From discussions that have taken place between the city and prospective purchaser, they are looking at something higher than 55 ft,”  Stevens told the council.

“So the city is preemptively requesting the zoning change on their behalf,” Councilmember Kurt Maier responded.

Schiessl quickly interjected, “If the city’s objective for an urban style density project is to be realized whether this buyer or another buyer, additional height is necessary.”

Old landfill remains a stumbling block to development.

Location of sample sites investigated by Maul Foster & Alongi, the city’s contractor.

Stevens explained that the 200 ft. from the high water line in the river would still be restricted to 35 ft. without a special exception allowance to 55 ft..

That 200 ft of shoreline at Columbia Point north is currently restricted from any kind of development because it is contaminated with garbage including oil.

Approximately half of the 20 acres the city calls Tracts D and Q have trash underneath it. The area was a dump from 1953 to 1962.

Final vote

Mayor Pro tem Sandra Kent joined Maier and Jones in voting no on the overlay zone. She said she was against tall buildings near the riverfront.

Mayor Theresa Richardson, Councilmembers Ryan Lukson, Ryan Whitten and Shayne VanDyke voted yes.

Lukson said that he thought parking was a “red herring.” because the council would have to approve a plan and could require a “parking structure” at that time.

Stacking the cars in a parking structure would preserve space for development but would add about $25,000 per unit to the cost of any building according to 2022 figures. If a 10-story building had 100 efficiency units, with the city’s minimum of one parking place per efficiency unit, a parking garage could cost about $2.5 million. Larger building units would require 1.5 parking spaces driving the cost of the parking garage even higher. That wouldn’t count any spaces required for ground floor commercial space like restaurants.

In voting yes on the 100 ft. height, VanDyke said, “I’m really concerned that further deliberation is going to scare off the development.”