Summary not yet generated for this topic.
Community sentiment
Related issue
Fortner Rezone for Higher Density Housing→At a glance
- Public comments
- 19
- Last 30 days
- 0
Last discussed Mar 10, 2026.
Public comments (19)
Expressed opposition to the Fortner rezone, warning that it does not fit the neighborhood and could set a negative precedent.
City Council - Mar 10, 2026 · 3:06:04 →Strongly opposed the Fortner rezone via written comment read by staff, emphasizing that the neighborhood is comprised of single-family homes.
City Council - Mar 10, 2026 · 5:10:00 →Expressed strong opposition to the Fortner rezone, citing concerns about increased multi-family density and neighborhood character.
City Council - Mar 10, 2026 · 2:59:22 →Opposed the Fortner rezone, voicing concerns about safety, rental properties, and preserving single-family neighborhood character.
City Council - Mar 10, 2026 · 3:02:52 →Expressed concern about the precedent set by rezoning and its impact on the single-family residential character of the area.
City Council - Mar 3, 2026 · 466111:06:40 →Opposed the rezone, believing it would create traffic and safety issues at an already difficult intersection.
City Council - Mar 3, 2026 · 466111:06:40 →Opposed the rezone to higher density, citing concerns about traffic, street parking, and impact on home values.
City Council - Mar 3, 2026 · 1:20:16 →Opposed the higher density zoning, citing concerns about potential rentals and safety issues in the area.
City Council - Mar 3, 2026 · 1:23:38 →Shared concerns relating to safety and the crosswalk.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 26:00 →Asked how the development aligns with current zoning.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 39:17 →Stated the development sets a bad standard for the neighborhood and does not support the project, citing density and traffic concerns.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 16:57 →Argued the property should remain zoned for single-family homes, noting the area's growth has been into single-family lots, not higher density, and that the proposed density is double the current average.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 20:13 →Expressed concern about the crosswalk at 8600 S. and 1000 E., asking for the development to be contingent on its improvement or for the city to hold off on approval until it's fixed.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 10:00 →Shared concerns relating to the crosswalk at 8600 S. and 1000 E.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 33:16 →Shared concerns relating to safety.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 37:26 →Questioned if the same development requirements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, property dedication for street width) would be imposed on this developer as were on him, noting the current concept lacks these.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 13:00 →Shared concerns about traffic and safety related to the development.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 27:35 →Shared concerns about traffic and safety related to the development.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 28:14 →Shared concerns relating to safety.
Planning Commission - Feb 19, 2026 · 34:20 →