Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hotel Parking Bridge Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff approves reduced parking for 50 Bridge Street hotel after demand analysis, developers to pay in-lieu fee
Summary
City planners accepted a parking demand analysis for the proposed 56 Bridge Street hotel and allowed elimination of an entire level of structured parking in exchange for a $400,000 in-lieu payment to the city's parking fund.
City planning staff approved an administrative reduction in required parking for the proposed hotel at 50/56 Bridge Street after reviewing a professional parking demand analysis and an offer from the developer to pay an in-lieu fee.
Jason Welker, Sandpoint's planning and community development director, said the hotel team submitted a study by national engineering firm Kimley-Horn that estimated peak demand for the operation would be about 144 parking spaces. Under Sandpoint's off-street parking rules, hotels and associated restaurants and event spaces typically trigger a much higher required parking count; when staff applied the code formula earlier in the process the raw requirement was 244 spaces. The developer's revised site plan proposed 145 spaces and removal of one level of structured parking. The developer also offered to buy 40 in-lieu spaces at $10,000 each, a $400,000 payment to the city parking improvement fund.
Welker told council the staff review found no technical problem with Kimley-Horn's analysis and that combining the demand-analysis-based administrative reduction with the in-lieu payment is allowed under Sandpoint City Code. "We determined the report was valid," Welker said at the Dec. 18 meeting, and added the in-lieu funds would be available for improvements to City Beach parking and other downtown parking projects.
The city's "in-lieu" provision and the parking-demand analysis provision in the municipal code allow administrative adjustments to the numerical parking requirement where justified by a professional study and if the developer commits to alternative mitigation, such as public parking improvements or payments. Welker and staff emphasized the decision was administrative (staff-level) and did not change adopted conditions on the conditional use permit that the Planning & Zoning Commission previously approved.
Councilors discussed possible overflow plans in high-demand situations and whether hotel guests or event visitors might use City Beach parking. Staff said a number of options exist, including leased spaces, shared use with nearby public parking, and future automated paid parking at City Beach that could be coordinated with the hotel if demand requires it. Council President Deb Ruhl emphasized the city is pursuing a broader plan for City Beach that could include paid and dynamic pricing to better match supply with peak demand.
Why it matters: The decision reduces up-front construction cost for the hotel developer (eliminating structured stalls is a significant savings) while securing $400,000 for public parking improvements; it also illustrates how local codes let staff weigh professional evidence to adjust prescriptive requirements.
What the record shows: The administrative change was taken under the city code provisions for parking demand analyses and in-lieu payments; the developer presented a Kimley-Horn memo estimating peak demand at 144 spaces and offered a $400,000 in-lieu payment to the city parking fund. Staff signaled they will target City Beach parking improvements in part with those funds.
