Sentinel Media records · public agendas and minutes, text only, refreshed nightly from each body's own site · not a newspaper
minutes meeting date 2026-02-23 · fetched 2026-09-17 · 31687 characters · read by OCR, check numbers against the source · official file · plain text
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
1
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Monday, February 23, 2026
3:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Call to Order and Roll Call
There were present:
Mayor Lisa Burtenshaw
Council President Jim Francis
Councilor Michelle Ziel-Dingman
Councilor Kirk Larsen
Councilor Brandon Lee
Absent (on City travel - attending APPA):
Councilor John Radford
Councilor Jim Freeman
Also present:
Pam Alexander, Municipal Services Director
Forrest Ihler, Planning Commission
TJ Nottestad, Impact Fee Committee Chair
Mary Scales, Planning Commission
Brooks Slyter, Assistant Finance Manager
Bill Scott, Planning Commission
Kerry Beutler, CDS
Matthew Meehan, Planning Commission
Wade Sanner, CDS Director
Dale Storer, Planning Commission
Scott Grimmett, Fire Marshal
Glen Ogden, Planning Commmissoin
Zack Jones, City Attorney
Kevin Mullerleile, Baker Tilly (via Teams)
Emily Geisler, City Clerk
Mayor Burtenshaw called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. with the following items:
City Council, Mayor – Discussion: Citywide updates, concerns, questions, reports
Councilor Lee, Councilor Larsen – Nothing at this time
Councilor Dingman:
•
Upcoming work session discussions on:
o
Kratom ban ordinance discussion on March 9
Council Member Francis
•
Provided an update on alcohol ordinance adjustments, specifically:
o
A proposal requiring server certification to help prevent overpouring.
o
Deputy Chief Galbraith and Sergeant Norman will present.
o
Complimented the City Clerk for helping refine the ordinance language.
o
Emphasized the goal is proactive prevention of overpouring rather than relying solely on
enforcement.
•
Gave a legislative update related to the Association of Idaho Cities (AIC):
o
A bill attempting to remove local non-discrimination ordinances has passed the House and
remains in State Affairs Committee.
o
Discussed concerns about a proposed annexation bill involving septic system responsibility, noting
that:
Septic failure determinations are made by the health department, not the City.
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
2
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Idaho Falls does not require property owners to hook up to City sewer upon annexation if
their septic system is functioning.
•
Raised concern that AIC will not take a position on allowing cities to opt into the state insurance pool.
o
65% of AIC’s board supported taking a stance, but 75% was required.
o
Expressed frustration that AIC chose neutrality.
o
Strongly recommended that Idaho Falls consider sending a letter (from the Mayor and/or Council)
to the Legislature supporting an opt-in option.
o
Noted that prior HR analysis suggests the insurance pool would likely benefit Idaho Falls
taxpayers.
o
Mentioned that school districts are allowed to participate, but cities are not.
o
Suggested acting quickly due to legislative timing.
•
Mayor Burtenshaw
o
Council will be having a conversation about Flock cameras
o
Asking that Parks bring the Memorial Day cemetery ordinance back to Council soon
Municipal Services - Update: Annual Audit (Director Alexander, Brooks Slyter, Kevin Mullerleile))
•
City staff provided a progress update on the FY2025 annual audit (fiscal year ending September 30, 2025).
The final audit report is expected by the end of March, with a full presentation to the Council planned for
early April.
•
The external auditor, Kevin Mullerleile from Baker Tilly, reported that audit fieldwork occurred in January
and that City staff have been responsive and cooperative, with documents provided in a timely manner.
•
Audit work included reviewing internal financial controls, year-end financial balances, the airport
passenger facility charge program, and the required federal “single audit” due to the City receiving more
than $1 million in federal funds.
•
One finding has been identified so far, related to procurement procedures for federally funded contracts:
o
Some contracts over $25,000 lacked required language stating the vendor is not suspended or
debarred by the federal government.
o
In several cases, the City did not document checking the federal SAM.gov database for suspended
or debarred vendors.
o
Auditors confirmed none of the vendors were actually suspended or debarred, so the issue is
considered an internal control deficiency, not a compliance violation.
•
Historically, the City had six findings in FY2023, one in FY2024, and currently one finding again so far for
FY2025, indicating improvement overall.
•
Staff explained the issue is largely due to timing and coordination between departments during
procurement. Proposed fixes include:
o
Checking SAM.gov earlier in the contracting process.
o
Documenting the verification with screenshots for the procurement file.
o
Improving coordination between departments, finance, and municipal services when federal
funds are involved.
•
Council discussed possibly including verification in Council memos for contracts, though many contracts
under $75,000 never come to Council, so internal process improvements are also needed.
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
3
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
CDS – Presentation/Discussion: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Standards, Questions, & Concerns, with
Planning Commission Attendance/Participation (Director Sanner, Kerry Beutler, Scott Grimmett)
The City Council held a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss issues related to Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) and how they are reviewed and approved.
•
The discussion focused on concerns with how PUDs are currently used, particularly when they are applied
to projects that may not fully meet zoning standards but seek flexibility through the PUD process.
•
Council members and committee members discussed the original intent of PUDs, which is to allow
creative or flexible development in exchange for clear public benefits, rather than simply bypassing
existing zoning requirements.
•
There was conversation about whether the current process is working as intended, including questions
about:
o
The criteria used to approve PUDs
o
Whether the public benefits are clearly defined and measurable
o
How consistently the standards are applied
•
Several participants emphasized the importance of clear findings and objective standards when approving
or denying land-use applications, since cities in Idaho must base land-use decisions on adopted criteria
rather than personal preference.
•
The discussion also highlighted the role of the Planning Commission as the initial reviewing body, where
testimony, staff analysis, and deliberation occur before items move to the City Council for final decisions.
•
The Mayor expressed appreciation for the Planning Commission’s work, noting that their questions,
analysis, and discussion help the Council better understand issues before making final decisions.
•
Overall, the joint meeting served as a policy-level conversation about improving clarity, expectations, and
consistency in the PUD review process, while reinforcing the collaborative roles of staff, the Planning
Commission, and the City Council in land-use decision making.
Discussion topics included:
1. Common Space and Open Space Calculations
•
PUDs require 25% of gross project acreage to be dedicated to common space, measured from the total
project before subtracting roads or other areas.
•
Certain areas cannot count toward this percentage, including roadways, driveways, parking areas, and
required landscape strips (20 ft along public streets, 10–15 ft along private streets).
•
Usable common space generally includes clubhouses, tennis courts, playgrounds, and other amenities.
Typical green space ranges from 30–40%.
•
Some front-yard or lightly landscaped areas are not counted as common space since they are private to
individual units.
•
Pressurized irrigation has influenced design, often consolidating green space into a single common lot for
efficiency, especially in townhomes.
2. Amenities in PUDs
•
Amenities are required at a rate of one per 50 units, with additional amenities for larger developments.
The 50-unit threshold is based on average project sizes and amenity distribution.
•
Amenities can include playgrounds, clubhouses, gazebos, or other features. To count stormwater
retention ponds toward common space, an amenity must be incorporated.
•
Public access to amenities is generally not required, especially in developments with small HOAs, as this
could create undue financial burdens. Exceptions occur when amenities are on already publicly owned
land.
•
Placement of amenities should be logical and accessible to most residents.
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
4
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
3. PUD Benefits and Purpose
•
PUDs are intended to be a higher standard than standard zoning, allowing negotiation to achieve better
outcomes for both the community and developer.
•
They provide housing diversity, including townhomes, rowhomes, and duplexes, contributing to “missing
middle” housing that may not otherwise be built.
•
PUDs have added 14,400 units to housing stock over 2016–2025, compared to ~1,200 units via standard
development in the same period.
4. Spatial Distribution and Density
•
PUDs are well-scattered across the City, not concentrated in a single area, though northern and western
neighborhoods show slightly higher density.
•
Average PUD size is ~7 acres, with a few as small as just over 1 acre. Average density is about 10 units per
acre, comparable to R1–R2 zoning standards.
5. Long-Term Maintenance Considerations
•
Developers must account for road, sidewalk, and amenity maintenance, especially for private streets.
•
Discussions include requiring financial reserves to fund long-term infrastructure replacement, ensuring
PUDs remain sustainable decades after construction.
•
Larger PUDs are generally more capable of maintaining amenities and roads due to economies of scale;
small PUDs may struggle with costs if too many amenities are required.
6. Policy and Oversight Considerations
•
PUD approvals involve weighing community benefits against the concessions granted to developers (e.g.,
density increases, private streets).
•
City staff suggested including explicit statements in presentations about why PUDs are requested and
what community benefits they provide, to increase transparency.
•
Consideration of code revisions may be warranted to clarify amenity requirements, public access, and
maintenance obligations.
7. Summary of Trends and Observations (2016–2025)
•
PUDs are not frequent but contribute meaningful green space, amenities, and housing diversity.
•
Most PUDs exceed the minimum 25% common space requirement, averaging ~28% with amenities
included.
•
Negotiation during the PUD process allows the City to optimize community benefit, balancing developer
feasibility with neighborhood needs.
Municipal Services, Legal, Mayor’s Office, CDS, Advisory Committee – Discussion: Impact Fee Study Update
(Director Alexander, TJ Nottestad) *A portion of this topic was discussed prior to the PUD agenda item and was
discussed again at the end of the meeting.
1. Current Methodology & Population Assumptions
•
Current adopted method uses per-person housing units: 2.66 for single-family, 1.84 for multifamily.
•
Using square footage instead of unit type increases projected population significantly (up to ~5,000
people).
•
Larger homes generally house more people; finished basements significantly affect occupancy, as ~86% of
new single-family homes include finished basements.
2. Advisory Committee Recommendations
•
The advisory committee initially sought ways to lower impact fees, particularly for single-family homes.
•
They recommended multiple tiers (up to 10) for fee calculation, considering unit size, finished basements,
and type, but this complexity proved cumbersome.
•
Census data was used to determine typical household sizes per unit type and square footage.
City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes
5
680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
3. Discussion on Tiers and Square Footage
•
Debate over whether to calculate fees by unit type (single-family vs. multifamily) or square footage.
•
Decision: adopt three tiers based on square footage regardless of unit type:
1. ≤1,499 sq ft – small homes / starter homes
2. 1,500–2,999 sq ft – medium homes
3. ≥3,000 sq ft – large homes
•
This simplifies fee calculations while reflecting actual occupancy patterns from census data.
4. Equity Considerations
•
Square footage better correlates with number of residents than strictly using unit type.
•
Multifamily units are included in the same square-footage tiers, without separate classification.
•
Finished basements are counted in square footage, reflecting true living space.
5. Capital Improvements & Exclusions
•
Certain items, like police cars, are excluded from the impact fee calculations, as they are not considered
true capital improvements.
•
Other tax-exempt entities will not pay impact fees.
•
Affordable housing will be excluded.
6. Next Steps & Implementation
•
Staff will update the study, CIP plan, and fee calculations using the three square-footage tiers.
•
Updates will ensure total revenue from impact fees remains consistent with prior projections.
•
Further review may occur if additional discrepancies arise, but the framework is set for streamlined,
equitable calculation.
7. Context & Closing
•
The discussion resolved long-standing debates over complexity in fee calculations, reducing 10 tiers to 3,
focusing on square footage-based equity.
•
Mayor emphasized the importance of data-driven decisions and thanked staff for their work on these
complex issues.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 PM
/s/ Emily Geisler___________________
/s/ Lisa Burtenshaw
_____________
Emily Geisler, City Clerk
Lisa Burtenshaw, Mayor
Category
Impact Fee: 75% Fire,
Police, Parks; 100%
Transportation
(Current)
Maximum Supportable
(100% all fees )
Difference between
Impact Fee (Current
and 100% all fees)
Maximum
Supportable (2025
Study)
Difference between
Impact Fee 100%
all fees (2025 &
2021)
Square Footage
Per Housing Unit By
Square Footage
Maximum Supportable
(100% all Fees)
Difference between
Impact Fee (current
75% and square footage
Difference between
Impact Fee (2021 100%
and square footage)
Difference between
Impact Fee (2025 100%
and square footage)
Single-Family
5,273.50
$
6,027.00
$
(753.50)
$
5,822.00
$
-
6,027.00
$
5,822.00
$
Multi-Family
2,943.25
3,479.00
(535.75)
$
3,219.00
$
-
3,479.00
3,219.00
$
2,943.25
$
3,479.00
$
(535.75)
$
3,219.00
$
(260.00)
A
Under 1,000
2,177.00
$
(766.25)
$
(1,302.00)
$
(1,042.00)
$
5,273.50
6,027.00
(753.50)
$
5,822.00
(205.00)
B
1,000 to 1,499
3,209.00
(2,064.50)
$
(2,818.00)
$
(2,613.00)
$
5,273.50
6,027.00
(753.50)
$
5,822.00
(205.00)
C
1,500 to 1,999
4,278.00
(995.50)
$
(1,749.00)
$
(1,544.00)
$
5,273.50
6,027.00
(753.50)
$
5,822.00
(205.00)
D
2,000 to 2,499
5,064.00
(209.50)
$
(963.00)
$
(758.00)
$
5,273.50
6,027.00
(753.50)
$
5,822.00
(205.00)
2,500 to 2,999
5,699.00
425.50
$
(328.00)
$
(123.00)
$
5,273.50
6,027.00
(753.50)
$
5,822.00
(205.00)
3,000 to 3,499
6,230.00
956.50
$
203.00
$
408.00
$
5,273.50
6,027.00
(753.50)
$
5,822.00
(205.00)
3,500 to 3,999
6,676.00
1,402.50
$
649.00
$
854.00
$
5,273.50
6,027.00
(753.50)
$
5,822.00
(205.00)
4,000 to 4,499
7,073.00
1,799.50
$
1,046.00
$
1,251.00
$
5,273.50
6,027.00
(753.50)
$
5,822.00
(205.00)
4,500 to 4,999
7,425.00
2,151.50
$
1,398.00
$
1,603.00
$
5,273.50
6,027.00
(753.50)
$
5,822.00
(205.00)
E
5,000 or more
7,731.00
2,457.50
$
1,704.00
$
1,909.00
$
Adding Unfinished
Basement
Using the Multi-Family Current Fee vs SFR
Under 1000 sq ft
$2,177
-766.25
Using Single Family Residence
A
1000 sq ft to 1999 sq ft
$2177.00 to $4278.00
-3096 to -995.50
Using Single Family Residence
B
2000 sq ft to 2999 sq ft
$3209.00 to $5699.00
-2064 to 425.50
Using Single Family Residence
C
3000 sq ft to 3999 sq ft
$6230.00 to $6676.00
956.50 to 1402.5
Using Single Family Residence
D
4000 sq fto to 4998 sq ft
$7073.00 to $7425.00
1799.50 to 2151.50
Using Single Family Residence
E
5000 sq ft to any
$7,731.00
2457.5
Notes:
The Average Single Family Detached with a basement is 4373 sq ft: Per City of IF building Department: The average single family residence would see an increase in impact fees by a min. of $1799.50
The Average Single Family Detached with NO basement is 3009 sq ft: Per City of IF Building Department: The average single family residence no basement would see an increase by a min. of $956.5
The Average Single Family Attached (Duplex, twin homes, town homes) with basement is 2452 sq ft: The average SF attached with basement would see an increase by a min of $2120.75
The Average Single Family Attached (Duplex, twin homes, town homes) with NO basement is 1884 sq ft: The average SF attached with basement would see an increase by a min of $1334.75
The Average Multi-Family Aparment Units (using only livable sq ft calculations) is 968 sq ft; The average apartment unit using these calculations would see a decrease in impact fees by $766.25
The Average Multi-Family Aparment Units (using entire building sq footage divided by units) is 1165 sq ft; The average apartment unit using these calculations would see an increase in impact fees by $265.75
The fee schedule was calculated using current impact fee costs vs the square footage update in the 2025 study
Impact Fee (Current)
75% Fire, Police;
100% Transportation
Maximum Supportable
(Current)
Per 1,000 Square
Footage (100% All Fees)
Retail
5,548.00
$
6,119.00
$
4,930.00
$
(618.00)
$
Office
1,961.25
2,135.00
2,445.00
483.75
Industrial
997.00
1,085.00
1,106.00
109.00
Institutional
3,347.50
3,935.00
4,316.00
968.50
Impact Fee Comparison Table By Land Use
Residential
Non-Residential
https://d.docs.live.net/4bafaaa93214870e/Documents/Impact Fees/Impact Fee Table
Planned Unit Development
Discussion
IDAHO FALES
SERVICES
What is a PUD?
• A PUD as a type of site-specific development where elements of the
zoning is negotiated
• Developer gains flexibility in their development proposal, while cities have
more input on the development of a site
• PUD is reviewed as a conditional use per city code
• City Council can establish Conditional Use to mitigate off-site impact
• City Council can approve variations in the development standards
PUD – Pros & Cons
• Pros
• More input from City Council on development, and know what is being
developed
• Add to tax base on difficult to develop land
• Guaranteed amenities for neighborhoods
• View development holistically
• Cons
• More extensive and complicated reviews by staff
• Perception of circumvent zoning regulations
Ex Parte and Quasi-Judicial
“Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters specifically
authorized by statute, a presiding officer serving in a contested case shall
not communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any substantive issue in
the proceeding, with any party, except upon notice and opportunity for all
parties to participate in the communication.” Idaho Code § 67-5253.
• This statutory duty is triggered once a PUD application is filed.
Due Process Clause I
• Council members are not held to the same strict standards as judges—
you “are free to take phone calls from concerned citizens and listen to
their opinions and arguments prior to a quasi-judicial proceeding.” S Bar
Ranch v. Elmore Cnty., 170 Idaho 282, 304, 510 P.3d 635, 657 (2022).
Due Process Clause II
• If you do have ex parte communications, at the beginning of the hearing
you must disclose (1) the identity of who you spoke with and (2) a general
description of what the person said. This provides the opposing party
“with an opportunity to rebut the substance of any ex parte
communications.” Eacret, 139 Idaho at 786, 86 P.3d at 500.
• If you engage in ex parte communications regularly, there is a risk that you
may not document every conversation or remember to disclose each and
every ex parte conversation you have had.
Scope of Conditions Council Can Require I
• The process for a CUP allows Council to “impose additional conditions,
including, but not limited to:
• Minimizing adverse impact on other developments or adjacent properties.
• Controlling the sequence and timing of development.
• Controlling the duration of development.
• Assuring the development is maintained properly.
• Designating the exact location and nature of development.
• Requiring landscaping of on-site or off-site public facilities or services.
• Restricting the hours of operation of any business or other commercial activity
conducted on the premises.
• Such other conditions as may be necessary to preserve the character and harmony
of the zone and avoid conflict with the general characteristics of the area
designated in the Comprehensive Plan.” City Code 11-6-5(B)(3).
Scope of Conditions Council Can Require II
• Reason for the focus on criteria:
• The “approval standards and criteria shall be set forth in express terms in land use
ordinances in order that permit applicants, interested residents and decision
makers alike may know the express standards that must be met in order to obtain
a requested permit or approval.” Id. (bolding added).
• A “failure to address compliance or noncompliance with express approval
standards or relevant decision criteria is grounds for invalidating a governing
authority’s decision.” N. W. Neighborhood Ass’n v. City of Boise, 172 Idaho 607,
614, 535 P.3d 583, 590 (2023).
Anderson Townhomes
•
Zoning: R-3A
•
1.03 Acres
•
16 Units
•
Design Density: 16 Units/Acres
•
25% Common Space
•
Amenities: 1
Linden Trails – 46 Units (9 Units/Acre)
•
Zoning: R-2
•
16.8 Acres
•
152 Units
•
Design Density: 9 Units/Acres
•
36% Common Space
•
Amenities: 4
Linden Trails - Amenities
Coachman Place
•
Zoning: R-3A
•
2.43 Acres
•
48 Units
•
Design Density: 20 Units/Acres
•
25% Common Space
•
Amenities: 1
Saturn Park Townhomes
•
Zoning: R-3A & LC
•
2.9 Acres
•
54 Units
•
Design Density: 19 Units/Acres
•
36% Common Space
•
Amenities: 2
PUD Density
Dimensional Standards for Residential Zones Table: 11-3-4
Residential Zone
Maximum Units/Gross
Acres
Maximum Lot
Coverage in %
Maximum
Building Height in
Feet
RE
1
30
24
RP
4
40
24
R1
6
40
24
R2
17
80
36
TN
15
50
*
R3
35
80
R3A
35
80
RMH
35
50
24
Maximum Residential Density Table:
11-2-4
Base Residential
Zone
Dwelling
Units/Gross Acres
RE
2
RP
5
R1
8
R2
17
TN
17
R3
35
R3A
35
RMH
35
PUD Height
a) The maximum structure height for a
residential PUD shall be determined
by the underlying base zone, except
where a structure is set back from
required setback lines by at least two
foot (2’) for each additional one foot
(1’) of building height.
*TN Building Massing, Scale and Form.
a) For in-fill development or additions to existing structures, the building shall not exceed the tallest height or
greatest width of other residences on both sides of the street within the same block.
b) For new development (including additions to existing structures), the primary building face that fronts the
street shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25’) in width or the front facade shall be divided into subordinate wall
planes or modular sections that do not exceed a total of an aggregate of twenty-five feet (25’).
c) Building forms shall consist of simple rectangular shapes and height from finished floor to finished floor shall
not exceed twelve feet (12’).
d) Roof forms shall be gabled, hipped or shed. Flat roofs are not prohibited but discouraged (unless flat roofs
are the predominant roof form in the neighborhood).
Setbacks and Lot Size
• PUD Setbacks. Setbacks reflect standards of the area and character of the
neighborhood
• Setbacks of residential properties contiguous or across the street can
constitute the minimum setback for the PUD perimeter
• Internal setbacks can be established as part of the PUD process
• PUD Lot Size. No minimum lot size
Common Space
• Common space may include:
• Land, area of water, or combination of both
• Can be public or private
• Ball courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, drainage facility developed with
physical amenities, exercise rooms or similar facilities, deck or patio, gazebo
or pavilion designed and accessible for outdoor living, recreation or park-like
facilities and shall include landscaping.
• Usable outdoor space shall not include parking areas or communal facilities
of a non-recreational nature.
Common Space Calculations
25% of Gross Property Area
Cannot include any road, driveway,
parking area, required landscape
buffers, drainage facilities that do not
include an amenity.
Calculating Common Space
Amenities
• The number and size of amenities should increase as overall acreage
and scale of the development increases.
• At least one (1) amenity shall be provided for the first fifty (50) residential
units proposed, and one (1) additional amenity shall be provided for each fifty
(50) residential units proposed thereafter.
• Amenities should be placed in logical areas that allow convenient
access to most of the occupants of the development
Pedestrian Connectivity
• Pedestrian System.
• PUDs shall provide pedestrian connections to existing or proposed schools,
parks, public lands or pathways on adjacent properties.
• The pedestrian connections shall form a logical, safe, and convenient system
for pedestrian access to all structures, project facilities and amenities, and
principal off-site pedestrian destinations.
PUD Data I
Year
Total
PUDs
Total Unit Count
Density
(Units/Acre)
(Avg)
Total #
Amenities
Common
Space %
(Avg)
Common Space
Acreage
Total Acreage
of PUDs
Total Acreage of
PUDs (Avg)
2025
3
295
11
9
26%
6.5
25.8
8.6
2024
1
56
13
4
25%
5.1
4.3
4.3
2023
1
16
16
1
25%
0.3
1.0
1.0
2022
5
399
11
12
26%
8.2
34.0
6.8
2021
1
28
3
1
26%
2.7
10.4
10.4
2020
5
267
27
10
29%
10.6
44.9
9.0
2019
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2018
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2017
1
72
11
2
42%
2.9
6.8
6.8
2016
3
313
12
9
24%
25.5
31.2
10.4
Total
20
1,446
10
48
28%
61.6
158.5
7.2
Largest PUD
(Unit)
Largest PUD
(Acres)
Smallest PUD
(Unit)
Smallest PUD
(Acres)
260
26.71
14
1.03
PUD Data II
PUD/Standard Development Comparison
Total Single-Unit Attached by PUD
1,153
Total Single-Unit Attached by Standard Development
431
Total IRC Mult-Unit by PUD
293
Total IRC Mult-Unit by Standard Development
768
Total Units by PUD
1,446
Total Units by Standard Development
1,199
Total IRC Attached Units 2016-2025
2,645
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Unit Total - PUD vs. Standard Development
PUD Unit Total
Standard Development Unit Total
E-17th St.
aE Tona-Rd_,
afl
>
E 12th St
E 65th W
Ls
JE 9th St
et
fl
ec
' }
hs
=
r=]
tot
oe
| oe |
1 t
1 1
J 4
— airs
[tna ae ~~ |
io iyel
i =I cates ot
' i)
i I
a | i
med hPa oo) ooh
Face a. Speman os
cI i } boa
‘Se, egy. i
s
5 Sera
%
aie ad |
AT iay 1
7 T
M 25th E z jena H bape oooh 3-5 OG th-Ee=ee +
a ee UF f i =
a raaenel iL. H |
f if a
¢ ! i | wi
uw = “
i a] = ran pe
| eee a4 " Hl ‘ae
{i i til ad
| .-| - mers it i
o i 4 rd ——* wy w
8 ie e an vee
LJ & Leet + HEA
i a | wr iy dat
ra , ie a] ]
dees 7 in re
i =
7 ] uw
i a
wi
_---E-65th-N
i
$-------7
fe
SST berg te
(oon Ne
‘ FAL
tz fe
= *
Spe
PAT 5y
Ge 53 - 263
=
[=
2
o
=
i=
=
Hl e¥e€qQ GNd
© doa)
if
tee
yhsk-ea
1
ad
bonny ee | !
i el
T t
an
i
y
I
1
f
1
i]
La ee ie Se,
i
ca.
frcccra=
i
Text is extracted by machine from the official file linked on each page; the official file is the record. Sentinel Media, LLC.