Sandpoint council rules University Place PUD expired under city code after staff and applicant missed a two‑year start window

The Sandpoint City Council on June 4 determined that the University Place planned unit development (PPUD22‑00001) had expired under Sandpoint City Code 10‑3‑10(m) after staff and the applicant failed to meet the code’s two‑year commencement requirement. The council’s formal interpretation followed a multi‑hour hearing that included staff briefing and an appearance by the project’s developer, Derek Mulgrew.

City planner Bill Dean and Community Planning and Development Director Jason Welker briefed the council on the code provision that allows a PUD approval to be void if construction has not begun within two years of approval and no current building permit exists. Dean told council the record showed no approved final plat or building permits existed at the time the two‑year window closed. Legal counsel and staff said council could interpret the code and determine whether an after‑expiration extension was allowable; several councilors noted the code language is ambiguous about whether an extension must be requested prior to expiration.

Developer Derek Mulgrew told council he had installed substantial public infrastructure—water and sewer lines, road widening, curb and gutter and other horizontal improvements—and said those works had been inspected and signed off by city engineering staff within the two‑year period. He asked the council to grant an extension (he had asked earlier in the process for a longer maximum but said the code limited extensions) and said the project would provide fee‑simple townhomes and public amenities, including a pump track and other open‑space improvements intended to serve families and workforce housing needs.

Councilors debated several questions: whether the code allows an extension filed after the PUD’s expiration; whether the developer’s infrastructure work met the code’s construction commencement standard; and whether the public interest favored allowing more time. One council motion to grant an eight‑month extension failed on a roll call vote. Council then voted that the PUD had expired under SCC 10‑3‑10(m); the motion passed by roll call and was entered into the minutes.

What this means now: With the council’s interpretation that the PUD is void, the developer may need to reapply through the city’s land‑use process or seek other remedies; staff said a separate development agreement and final plat would be required before building permits could be issued. Council members and staff discussed plans to revise the code language so future applications and staff do not face similar ambiguity about the timing for extension requests.

Council also asked staff and the developer to continue to coordinate on outstanding technical items; if the developer seeks to reapply or to seek a new PUD, the public hearing and development agreement processes would be required.

The council action was procedural and limited to interpreting SCC 10‑3‑10(m); no new approvals or development agreements were adopted at the meeting.