Hayden Meadows Prelim Plat Approved

Well, the Hayden City Council just approved the Preliminary Platt Plan for the 53 homes of the Hayden Meadows Development.

Although the room was full with standing room only, Council members Panabaker, Saterfiel, and DeLange voted in favor, and Council member Roetter voted to deny.

The primary issue was the discussion of the new traffic that will be generated by the 53 homes, primarily on Maple St. The representative of the developer suggested that kids coming from the neighborhoods on west side of Maple will cut through the development and then up to a gate at the back of the school, or on to Finucane and up to the school, instead of walking north on Maple to Hayden and then to the school, as they probably have been forever.

I find it hard to believe that kids will walk south on Maple, then cut through the development and go north to the gate. Kids will take the direct route that they have been using forever, but there was no discussion about that.

There was discussion that Maple is a narrow, dangerous street, and has been forever. Not much emphasis was put on the increase of traffic during morning hours on Maple to increase the already increasing traffic on Maple from the 53 homes.

There was very little discussion about the Comprehensive Plan Traffic Plan that has identified Maple as in need of improvement. (Project 212). IMO, the city could have, should have, tabled the development until a resolution of how Maple St. was going to improved per Project 212.

The city does have grounds to delay the development based on the safety issue, but three members elected not to do so. In the environment of rapid and dense growth, safety is becoming an increasing issue that cities, if they wanted to, could use to slow down the growth until issues like Maple St. can be resolved.

The bottom line is that slow growth candidates must be found and people have to get out and knock on doors and then get people to vote in November.

I am certain, and have heard from people who are going to run in November, that Hayden will have choices in November. Please don’t be discouraged. Hang in with us and work for the day when slow growth people are in the majority. It will probably be status quo until November, but if people get active and network with friends and neighbors, we can change the direction.

You can leave your comments in the Reply Box below.

7 thoughts on “Hayden Meadows Prelim Plat Approved

  1. This insanity needs to stop!!! The amount of growth and influx is absolutely ridiculous. At some point it has to stop being about the money and these elected officials need to start answering for their actions. They need to start doing what is best for our county and this type of irresponsible growth is not what’s best!

  2. Are we obligated to accommodate everyone that wants to live here or are we able to determine the future of our community?

  3. July 13, 2021
    I went to the council meeting tonight to see Hayden in action. The topic tonight was the Hayden Meadows Subdivision. The crowd seemed uniformly opposed to the approval of the development.
    I am a newcomer here, and I am not pro-development. I came here to enjoy the small town feel of Hayden. I also realize that many other people are coming here to enjoy the same thing, and there’s the rub. I can clearly see that this is a hot-button issue for everyone concerned. There are some that demand ‘no growth’. Hard to tell what would have satisfied some of the folks there.
    I have to say, I was impressed with the leadership of Mayor Griffitts. Listening to the discussion with a neutral ear (as much as possible), I didn’t get the sense that the 3 yes votes were “pro development”; especially Mr. Panabaker. I could tell that Mr. Roetter was very passionate in his beliefs. There was a lot of concern voiced for the Maple Street situation- (lack of) sidewalks and safety concerns there. There was a lot of concern voiced for the increased traffic that 53 new homes would generate. There are supposedly traffic studies that showed that there would actually be less traffic with the new homes than with the previous soccer game traffic (that statement was met with wide skepticism!). It appeared that nobody in the room (except for the developer’s rep!) was happy with the outcome.

    So I have to ask, how did it get to this point? It was apparent from the discussion that a lot of planning had gone into this project. Infrastructure, traffic planning, safety… these items were all looked at by the city personnel responsible for them. Given the current city charter and codes, (which is what governs this) the developer met the statutory requirements. In some ways, they even went above and beyond. And in the cold light of day, this development is less dense than others nearby. Given that, still no one in the room was happy.

    Is there a solution to this? One that satisfies all parties? I don’t know if there is. Maybe it starts with people being involved more closely with the city government. Get down in the weeds. Revise the zoning laws and limit density. Create more transparency in the process. Make developers shoulder a bigger share of the infrastructure burden. Put a gate at the Idaho border and don’t let anyone else in!
    The discussion tonight was driven by many concerns and issues. Safety, traffic flows, water capacity, sewer capacity… I didn’t get the sense that Hayden is taking care of itself well enough in this arena.
    Sitting in on this one meeting, I got the sense that Hayden was doing things ‘by the book’. I’m not sure which council member made the comment, but lawsuits await if rules are not followed– (…”just because that’s how you feel”…) .
    Still… no one was happy, including me.
    Time to get down in the weeds.

    1. A couple of things that may help you understand. First, the goals of this group are to slow the growth and reduce the density of development and people. We are not advocating STOP or NO Growth. As I said when I spoke tonight: The people of Hayden want a small town feel, not a people dense community.
      What would have satisfied the people tonight would have been for the Council to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan Traffic Plan Project 212. Project 212 identified Maple St. as a narrow street that is rapidly becoming more heavily traveled and in need of improvements in widening, sidewalks, etc… What would have satisfied the people, would have been if the Council had tabled the approval of the development until a resolution can be found to make the Project 212 improvements to Maple St.
      As was repeatedly mentioned, Maple St. is used by children walking and riding bikes to the elementary school. What was not addressed, is the neighborhood west of Maple St and north of the ingress street to the development. Those children are not likely to travel south down Maple and then through the development and then north to the gate, if it is even open, or on to Finucane and then to the school. Most likely, those kids from that neighborhood west of Maple and north of the ingress, would travel north on Maple and then east on Hayden to the school, as they have been probably forever.
      As for the traffic comparison to the when the soccer field is used vs. the morning and afternoon school time traffic. Usually, the soccer field is used in the late afternoon for practices and games. Say around 4:00-7:00 or so. Parents taking and picking up kids from the soccer field at that time, are probably going to be at the same time as people coming home from work. Those 53 homes would increase current traffic, as Mr. Roetter pointed out, especially in the morning around 7:30-8:00.
      You hit the nail dead on the head about why and what needs to happen here. The people, for the most part have been apathetic when it comes to the Comprehensive Plan. If you listened to the city presenter, she listed the parties primarily involved giving input to the city planners for the Plan. They were Developers, builders, architects, lenders, real estate people. In other words, people who want density because it puts more $$$ in their pockets. If you want to see what the people really told the city they wanted, not what they were given as choices, but where they were able to give written comments, look up the Public Input Summary of the Comprehensive Plan. Go to the back and read the actual written comments. As I said when I spoke: nowhere do I see any comment telling the city that they want a people dense city. Instead, the written comments say that they want to keep the small town feel, control the traffic, control the overcrowding, control the density, etc… As the Mayor acknowledged, this growth has so outpaced the ability to keep up, that the city is falling farther behind each day. How, and who is going to pay for the needed infrastructure improvements. Why should those who have been here and paying for years, pay for those who are coming? The Mayor also acknowledged that, contrary to what the growth industry repeatedly claims, growth is not paying for growth. Far from it!
      The city plan is based on the projection that 36K people will want to move to Hayden in the next 15-20 years and the city appears to be planning to accommodate 36K people. The city is currently around 16K people. So, in 15-20 years, they are planning to accommodate double the population in the city. I don’t know where you came from, but I came from LA 27 years ago and saw my nice neighborhood that I grew up in go from an open area with orange and olive groves and a ton of open space. Within ten years it was wall-to-wall tract homes, just like I see happening to this area. With that came traffic, crowded schools, crime, higher taxes, fees, etc… We are seeing the same thing happening here.
      The city is under no obligation to annex in new land, and has the discretion to zone for less dense development. With all of the traffic, crowding of the schools and other places, etc… the city would be well within their rights to slow down, table, deny until infrastructure improvements could be made, etc… and I believe that it would stand up in court.
      Yes, and a primary focus of this group: It is vital that the people get active, at a grass roots level, and find slow growth minded people to replace those who continue to approve these projects. They need to elect people who will revisit the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map and zoning. The Comprehensive Plan needs to more accurately reflect the desire of the community to keep Hayden a small town, less dense community.

    2. Couple of things,

      Off the bat you make very well educated points, however you still sound like a newcomer that has the mindset of “once I move here no one else can.”

      The big picture is that no city council, here, cda, and post falls are actually aware of the growth that is really happening. They are green lighting development after development and then fast forwarding 2 years later and saying shoot what do we do with this failing infrastructure….

      It’s a backwards thought process of small city government fueled by greed. The bigger question is why does a very popular school have to sell off their 10 acre soccer field? They are the ones to point the fingers to, city government unfortunately have to check the boxes and say yes or no and they will say yes all day because of the tax revenue. But why are we in such a greedy position that we can allow a school district to auction off their soccer fields to developers…have we no thought for the future generations of our area? Oh sorry kids yeah we are going to just 50 more boxes here that start at $600k…. this is the larger problem unfortunately.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: