Developer Back With Hayden Apartment Plan Council Voted Down Complex, But Whitewater Is Trying Again

Last week the City Council turned away a developer’s request to put a 48-unit, mixedincome apartment complex smack in the center of downtown Hayden.

It’s a good idea in a bad place, council members say. Downtown just isn’t ready yet.

But next week, the developer is trying again.

“I’m really disappointed we can sit in a public hearing, hear public testimony, take a planning and zoning recommendation, a staff recommendation, turn this down and within the month, they are back again,” Darlene Ferrians said. “And they are back because they feel pretty confident they’re going to win.”

In many cities, a developer would have to wait as long as a year to resubmit such a request, but in Hayden no such law exists. As long as the mayor allows it, proposals can reappear on the agenda at the next meeting.

The developer, Whitewater Creek Inc., has asked the council for a special use permit to put a multi-family development in a commercial zone. Hayden Country Ridge would be a $3.1 million project on 3.1 acres, a block from City Hall, on Sargent Drive.

Generally, everyone agrees: The project could work someday, or somewhere else.

In the future, Hayden wants its downtown to be walkable, where residents can live in the same neighborhood where the grocery stores, restaurants, jobs, schools and other services are within blocks.

But for now there aren’t adequate sidewalks and crosswalks for children to maneuver around the heavy traffic that clogs Government Way each day. If a multi-family apartment complex goes up before downtown can handle it, disaster will be imminent, council members say.

“It’s the cart before the horse,” council member Nancy Taylor said. “To put a bunch of little kids in a concrete village downtown with no safe passage is not an appropriate thing to do.”

Hayden Country Ridge would offer a computer lab, a community center, a community garden and a weight room.

The “mixed-income” refers to breaks 80 percent of the residents would receive on rent, provided they meet income requirements. The remaining residents would pay market prices for their apartments.

The developer would get tax credits from the state for helping to revitalize downtown. Whitewater’s sales pitch is as follows: Because it can offer cheap rents without having to build substandard housing, the city gets the best of both.

For residents who qualify, the developer would offer a self-sufficiency program, modeled after a highly touted Housing and Urban Development initiative.

If residents sign a contract outlining self-set goals, then Whitewater would match a portion taken out of the rent and put it toward a desired objective: going to college, buying a house, necessary surgery.

Whitewater owners Todd and Maryanne Prescott say that if Hayden doesn’t jump at this opportunity, there may not be another.

“If Hayden turns away these tax credits now, they may not get them in the future, with this type of funding,” Todd Prescott said.

“It’s a competitive process.”

And because of the tax-credit status - designed to encourage walkable communities - there aren’t many places the complex could go and still qualify.

“Maybe it’s a chicken-and-egg problem,” Denny Davis, Whitewater’s attorney, said.

“How are you going to get a new downtown until you start getting some new developments in?”

Taylor says she’d rather wait for funding from the Idaho Transportation Department to help with downtown.

Prescott points to the $220,000 to $250,000 in permit fees the apartment complex would bring in.

Plus, Whitewater would pay for sewers, curbs and sidewalks, he said.

Council member Chris Beck is in favor of the project.

He says it would spur downtown development. And sidewalks should be installed quickly, rather than waiting for ITD funding.

But Whitewater is a client of Beck’s engineering firm, so he’s abstained from voting.

And that means even if Whitewater could talk council member Frank Martin into changing his vote, Ferrians and Taylor have the majority.

“The message has been given by staff, twice by planning and zoning and once, unanimously, by the City Council,” Taylor said.

“He’s not listening.”