Summary not yet generated for this topic.
Community sentiment
Related issue
Bangerter Crossroads Development→At a glance
- Public comments
- 19
- Last 30 days
- 0
Last discussed Apr 7, 2026.
Public comments (36)
Claimed proper public notice signage was lacking on 300 East and criticized code deviations.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 2:39:22 →Clarified that residents wanted an 8-foot wall and emphasized the need for pedestrian safety measures.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 2:42:43 →Asked for clarification on traffic signal installation timing and supported 8-foot fencing.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 2:45:49 →Highlighted deficiencies in the traffic study and questioned why the council was voting before a peer review.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 2:47:42 →Requested strict enforcement of truck restrictions and height requirements for berms and walls.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 2:50:27 →Reiterated that conditions were unmet and warned of permanent financial devastation for neighboring families.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 59:22 →Urged the council to hold the developer strictly to landscaping and design details.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 2:54:29 →Stressed the need for complete landscape buffers, mature trees, and noise mitigation.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 2:56:52 →Questioned the necessity of high pole light counts and requested details on wall-pack lighting.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 2:58:40 →Expressed concern over vehicle headlights shining into residential yards from turning movements.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 3:01:19 →Questioned why housing wasn't built instead and requested speed reductions on 13800 South.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 3:01:29 →Expressed deep frustration with the council and questioned who was pushing the project.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 3:03:41 →Asked for minimum 8-foot walls and mature tree plantings to cover building heights.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 3:08:50 →Noted neighborhood egress constraints and traffic buildup on 300 East.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 3:09:02 →Represented adjacent property owners, requesting removal of parking spaces violating landscape buffer rules.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 3:10:25 →Described dangerous traffic conditions around schools and heavy congestion on 150 East and 300 East.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 3:13:45 →Advocated for housing rather than commercial development on the property.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 3:17:02 →Asked if local intersections would be included in future traffic studies.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 3:18:24 →Urged the council to postpone the vote until a real traffic study was conducted.
City Council - Apr 7, 2026 · 3:19:00 →Requested an 8-foot wall and additional screening trees along the detention pond backing up to his property.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 2:45:26 →Detailed massive violations of lighting ordinances, severe traffic generation, and incompatible placement of service areas facing residential homes.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 1:23:09 →Argued the project is incompatible with the area, shifts traffic burdens onto 300 East, and falls short on buffer and tree requirements.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:21:48 →Requested an 8-foot wall, a HAWK pedestrian crossing signal on 300 East for school children, and adjustments to temporary access lighting.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 2:52:59 →Expressed concern over noise projection from the loading bay facing his residential property and requested removal of parking rows to widen landscape buffers.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 2:55:26 →Noted a property line overlap, requested a condition of approval to resolve it, and argued the north landscape buffer is inadequate under DCMC section 9-23-110.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 2:57:36 →Asserted the traffic study is flawed because it assumes general retail instead of drive-thrus, projecting 16,000 daily trips instead of 9,000, and requested an independent peer review.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:00:50 →Stated lighting is excessively bright, questioned tree sizes and detention basin planting restrictions, and urged stricter tenant use prohibitions.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:04:09 →Asked whether approval will be conditioned on a 300 East traffic signal, questioned monument sign heights and plant size reductions, and raised truck routing and amenity concerns.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:09:51 →Expressed concern that delivery truck backing up, trash, and shopping carts behind Smith's will face residential homes and increase neighborhood cut-through traffic.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:09:56 →Noted his property on 13800 South experiences severe traffic accidents and road rage, questioned ingress/egress viability, and criticized postponing the traffic signal to phase two.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:13:36 →Highlighted severe existing traffic delays and headlight glare affecting her home, expressing fear for children crossing the street near bus stops.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:12:13 →Praised resident research, emphasized that three sides of the project abut residential neighborhoods, and urged the commission to protect existing homeowners from overdevelopment.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:15:34 →Suggested it is far easier to decline approval than to forward a conditional recommendation with dozens of required changes.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:18:46 →Stated turning left onto 300 East is already very difficult and dangerous, highlighting major safety issues at local pedestrian crosswalks.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:20:11 →Encouraged the traffic study to account for constrained neighborhood exit routes that force residents to navigate roundabouts and parks to return home.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 3:21:48 →Noted 300 East is increasingly used as an I-15 overflow artery during crashes, worsening local congestion.
Planning Commission - Mar 26, 2026 · 1:21:15 →