Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Constraints topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners: land scarcity, overlay constraints and fees keep many Poulsbo projects from penciling
Summary
Staff told the commission that limited buildable land, critical-area overlays, infrastructure gaps and high connection/impact fees make small infill or hillside projects financially marginal; the planner used 4th Avenue and Hamilton Court as examples and estimated per‑unit infrastructure costs that can exceed $50,000.
The planner walked commissioners through local physical and regulatory constraints that make many infill and multifamily projects financially marginal, including stream buffers, steep topography, narrow access, and utility gaps.
Using local examples, staff said the 4th Avenue apartment project moved forward in part because the owner bought the land years ago at a much lower price, and that a nearby Hamilton Court project required a water‑main replacement that added roughly $52,000 to each unit.
"The only reason it actually moved forward is that the cost of land was so low comparatively that they were able to make a pencil as a project," the planner said about 4th Avenue. The planner also explained that frontage and infrastructure requirements for small infill lots can impose disproportionate costs compared with larger subdivisions, and that utilities, street lighting and stormwater upgrades often trigger costly, unpredictable work.
