Poulsbo hearing examiner takes public testimony on Sandstone Ridge PRD; dispute centers on Knoll Road frontage and pedestrian route through stream buffer

Hearing Examiner Gary McLean opened an open-record hearing on the Sandstone Ridge planned residential development and preliminary plat application for the City of Poulsbo, saying, "This is called the Sandstone Ridge planned residential development and preliminary plat application." The hearing took public testimony, received new exhibits and left the record open for written responses.

City senior planner Edie Burghoff told the examiner that the staff report found the proposal consistent with Poulsbo code and the comprehensive plan, and recommended approval with conditions. "As conditioned, the project is consistent with and meets the city's requirements," Burghoff said. The Planning Commission had earlier recommended approval to the hearing examiner.

The most contested items at the hearing were (1) a five-foot paved pedestrian connection the city asks be routed from the northeast corner of the site to an existing crosswalk on Knoll Road, and (2) required frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) on the north-south segment of Knoll Road that abuts the project.

Craig Steepe, representing applicant JKM Holdings/Entitled Fund 4 LLC, said the applicant "agree[s] with 99% of the staff report" but asked the examiner to modify condition E-35. The applicant proposed routing the public pedestrian path along a waterline easement that will already be disturbed by construction, rather than the city's preferred meandering alignment through the critical-area buffer (labeled Track A). Engineer Elise Callahan (KPFF) said the staff-preferred alignment contains sections that are steeper than ADA-compliant running slope: "those areas are steeper than what a ADA compliant path can traverse." She argued the waterline-easement alignment would reduce tree removal, shorten the connection and improve maintainability and wayfinding.

City engineers, including City Engineer Joshua Raines, said the city code and construction standards support frontage improvements and that the Knoll Road corridor is identified as a bike route in coordination with Kitsap County. Utility/engineering staff stated they consider the frontage work warranted under municipal standards; the applicant's counsel, William (Bill) Lin, countered with a legal argument that mitigation must have a demonstrated nexus to project impacts and cited case law and RCW 82.02.020 in arguing the applicant should not be required to build improvements on a county-owned segment that the project will only partly serve.

Neighbors raised privacy and buffer concerns. Residents living immediately east and north of the site asked the examiner to limit disturbance to the 200-foot stream buffer and to require privacy fencing at the rear of new lots. Applicant representatives said they typically build backyard privacy fencing for new homes and offered that approach to reduce encroachment into retained buffer/open-space tracts.

Other public comments included construction-traffic routing and enforcement, questions about draft CC&Rs and whether the HOA rules address short-term rentals, and a question about current owners' history (city staff said a 2012 review had not presented outstanding restrictions and that property tax and sale processes remain the appropriate mechanisms to confirm title issues).

The hearing examiner kept the record open for further written submittals. The examiner directed the city to submit a written response (two-week window) and gave the applicant an opportunity to reply (one week after the city's filing). The parties agreed to try to negotiate language clarifying E-35 (the pedestrian alignment and any resulting amenity-point calibration under the PRD code) and possible fence wording; if they cannot agree the examiner will decide.

No final land-use decision was announced at the hearing; the examiner said he would take testimony and exhibits under advisement and issue a written decision, subject to appeal to superior court.

The record contains engineering memos, a letter from applicant counsel (entered as an exhibit), applicant exhibit materials and public comment emails and photos; staff and the applicant agreed to exchange additional exhibits and legal citations to support their respective positions.

Looking ahead, the record remains open as scheduled for written responses and the examiner said he intends to issue a written decision after those submittals.