Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sandpoint council rules University Place PUD expired after failed extension vote
Summary
After a lengthy hearing and public applicant testimony, council declined to extend the University Place PUD and subsequently voted that the PUD had expired under Sandpoint City Code 10-3-10(m). The developer said infrastructure was installed within the two-year window and asked for an extension; the council split and ultimately found the permit was
The Sandpoint City Council on June 4 considered whether to allow an extension for the University Place planned unit development (PUD, city file PPUD 22-0001) and ultimately decided that the PUD had expired under Sandpoint City Code 10-3-10(m).
The council hearing focused on whether an applicant can request an extension after a PUD’s two-year construction-start deadline has passed. Building and planning staff told council the code includes an extension provision but that staff do not have authority to rule on that interpretation; the council must decide whether an extension requested after the PUD’s expiration can be considered.
"When staff reviews these projects ... we arrived at the point where we realized the project, PUD had expired," the city’s building planner told council, citing the code provision in 10-3-10(m) and explaining that the factual record showed no final plat or granted building permit at the time the two-year window ended.
Developer Derek Mulgrew told council he had deployed horizontal infrastructure — streets, sewer, water mainline work and other public improvements — and that those installations were inspected and signed off within the two-year period. He argued that, because infrastructure (not just vertical building) had been completed, the council should allow an extension so the project could be platted and building permits issued.
"All of the infrastructure is installed," Mulgrew said during his remarks. "...The infrastructure is not in by definition on the other phases — the infrastructure currently is in for on that map for 4b, 4f, and 4a. So that's a complete herring, EBIT tied into Boyer, Boyer widening, new turn lanes, uninstalled sidewalks, curb gutter, Avista utilities ... inspected, tested, and signed off for."
After deliberation, councilor Garrett Dick (who made the motion) proposed an eight-month extension; that motion received a second but failed on a roll-call vote. The council then voted on a motion to interpret the city code as meaning the PUD had expired and that an extension cannot be applied for after expiration. The motion to determine the PUD expired passed by roll call.
Council members divided in deliberations: several expressed sympathy for the developer and said the city’s staff turnover and complexity of permitting created confusion, while others said the text and intent of the city code meant extensions must be sought while the PUD is still valid.
Because the council’s action was an interpretation of code rather than an approval of a development agreement, councilors noted that any future development agreement or final plat would require a separate public hearing and formal approval if the applicant pursues further action.
No new plat or building permits were approved at the June 4 meeting. The council’s interpretation leaves the PUD void unless the developer pursues a fresh application or other remedies available under the city code.
