Poulsbo hearing examiner hears Sandstone Ridge PRD; dispute over Knoll Road frontage and pedestrian path through stream buffer

Poulsbo Hearing Examiner Gary McLean held an open-record public hearing on the Sandstone Ridge planned residential development and preliminary plat, during which city staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval and the applicant sought changes to specific conditions related to frontage improvements on a north–south segment of Knoll Road and the alignment of a required public pedestrian connection.

The project is an 18+ acre planned residential development (PRD) proposed adjacent to Knoll Road. The staff report concluded that “As conditioned, the project is consistent with and meets the city's requirements, all other applicable city regulations, and Poulsbo comprehensive plan,” and recommended approval to the hearing examiner, a recommendation the Planning Commission also forwarded.

Why it matters: the key contested items affect the project’s environmental footprint, public access, and the extent of improvements required on a roadway that transitions from city jurisdiction to unincorporated Kitsap County. Neighbors told the examiner they are concerned about loss of forest buffer, privacy and construction traffic; the applicant argues the city’s preferred pedestrian alignment would cause unnecessary disturbance to a 200-foot stream buffer (identified on project plans as “Track A”) and that requiring full curb-and-gutter frontage on the north–south Knoll Road segment is not supported by the record.

Most important facts - Project scope and staff position: Senior Planner Edie Burghoff told the examiner that the preliminary plat, as conditioned, meets applicable Poulsbo zoning, environmental and subdivision regulations and the comprehensive plan. SEPA review was completed; Exhibit 25 in the record contains the SEPA threshold determination and associated mitigations, and the Planning Commission recommended approval before this hearing.

- The disputed public pedestrian connection: The city’s preferred route would place a 5-foot paved public pedestrian path through the property’s east-side buffer area (Track A) alongside a roadside ditch that staff and applicant identified as potential fish habitat. The city’s alignment would meander through the 200-foot buffer to connect the northeast corner of the site with a crosswalk on the east–west segment of Knoll Road.

- Applicant’s alternative alignment: The applicant, JKM Holdings (represented by Craig Steepe), proposed instead to place the public path within a disturbed corridor the applicant will open to install a required east–west water line and easement (a 15-foot waterline easement shown on project plans). Applicant engineer Elise Callahan (KPFF) testified their grading diagrams show the meandering, city-preferred path would require additional vegetation removal and includes segments with running slopes steeper than 5%, which she described as exceeding ADA running-slope guidance for an unconnected path: “those areas are steeper than what an ADA-compliant path can traverse,” Callahan said. The applicant asked the examiner to find their waterline-easement alignment is preferable on environmental, engineering and safety grounds.

- Frontage improvements on Knoll Road (condition E35): City engineering staff (City Engineer Joshua Raines and utility/engineering staff) said frontage improvements are supported by the city’s construction standards (cited by staff as Appendix B) and the city’s development regulations. The applicant’s attorney, Bill Lin, argued the record does not show the required legal nexus between project impacts and the scope of improvements the city seeks along the north–south Knoll Road segment that borders the site, citing statutory and case-law limitations on mitigation obligations and asking the examiner to delete or narrow the frontage-improvement requirement. Lin summarized his view: the SEPA threshold determination in Exhibit 25 addresses some path mitigations but “I all I see in that is a requirement for a path. Don't say anything about other frontage improvements,” and he argued the record does not demonstrate the nexus needed to impose additional roadwork.

- Neighborhood concerns: Multiple nearby property owners and residents spoke at the hearing. Neighbors asked the examiner to limit disturbance to the 200-foot critical-area buffer (Track A), to avoid a public trail that would cut through that buffer, and to require privacy fencing or other measures to protect existing backyards that border the proposed plat. Neighbors also raised practical concerns about construction traffic routing and staging and asked who will enforce construction-route conditions.

- Construction traffic and enforcement: City staff said construction routing and staging are addressed at the grading-permit stage and noncompliance with conditioned routing can lead to enforcement, including stop-work orders. City engineering staff told the examiner that construction routes are reviewed with grading permits and that the city enforces those routes.

What the applicant and staff agree and disagree on - Agreement: The applicant told the examiner it agrees with about 99% of the staff report and conditions and remains committed to required open-space, tree-retention and PRD amenity obligations. The applicant also said it will provide homeowner association (CC&Rs) and typical backyard fences for new lots, and that the public path and other roadways are intended for public use when required by city conditions.

- Principal disagreements: (1) whether the required public pedestrian path must follow the city-preferred meander through the stream buffer or may instead use the waterline easement corridor; (2) whether the applicant must construct full curb-and-gutter frontage improvements along the north–south segment of Knoll Road that abuts the property (condition E35) given that much of the segment lies outside the city limits and that the applicant's traffic analyses predict only a minority portion of project traffic would use that segment.

Record and next steps Hearing Examiner Gary McLean left the record open for additional submittals. City staff asked for two weeks from the hearing date to prepare a formal written response to issues raised by the applicant’s counsel; the applicant agreed to a one-week reply after the city’s filing. The examiner asked the parties to confer and try to reach agreement about the path alignment and any compensating changes to the PRD amenity package; he said he would consider any joint recommendations. The examiner also said he will perform additional site visits and expects to issue a written decision after the record closes. “I will take this all under advisement,” McLean said, and he announced a target to issue a decision by the end of July.

Votes and formal actions No formal vote on final approval occurred during the hearing. The Planning Commission previously issued a recommendation of approval to the examiner and staff recommended approval, both of which were entered into the record and discussed at the hearing.

Ending The record remains open for written submittals identified by the examiner and the parties. The issues likely to affect the final decision are (1) whether the public pedestrian connection can be routed within the waterline easement instead of the stream-buffer alignment the city prefers and (2) whether the city has established a nexus supporting the scope of frontage improvements it seeks along the north–south segment of Knoll Road. The examiner said he will consider written responses and any joint proposals submitted to the record before issuing his written decision.