Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central council weighs filling station, storage and rezoning at Sullivan Road
Summary
Council debated a planned-unit development for ~12.6 acres at Sullivan and Lovett Roads that would add a filling station, convenience store and self-storage. Residents opposed rezoning to a higher-intensity district; the applicant said he could accept Planning & Zoning’s B‑1 recommendation but noted filing requirements previously listed B‑3.
Council members and residents sparred Dec. 9 over a proposed mixed commercial development on a 12.61-acre tract at Sullivan and Lovett Roads that would include a filling station, convenience store, offices and a self-storage facility. The agenda listed the applicant as Mitch Rotolo; when the developer spoke he identified himself in the record as Mitch Pertollo.
The most immediate procedural question, raised by the city attorney, was how the motion should be framed: council members must separately consider rezoning (underlying district) and approval of the preliminary planned-unit development (PUD) plan. Several council members said they intended to adopt the Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation, which reduced the applicant’s requested intensity and recommended B‑1 (neighborhood business) zoning with conditional use approval for a gas station and storage use.
In public comment, resident Renee Story said she opposed upzoning the site and objected to placing a 'downtown' style commercial area where homes remain. “There are still homes,” Story said, urging council to respect the residential character of the area. By contrast, Ron Erickson, who identified himself as working in the city economic-development office, urged council to weigh long-term fiscal needs: he cited the city’s strategic plan and argued that gas sales and storage rentals produce steady revenue for a city that relies on sales tax.
When the applicant addressed the council, he described outreach with the mayor’s office and planning staff and said his team would accept B‑1 if that is the council’s direction, explaining that application-portal constraints had required a B‑3 filing. He said the design would screen storage behind an eight-foot fence, include a two-acre detention pond, and that the location would generate tax revenue and local convenience.
Council debate centered on timing and fit: several members said the application may be premature while the city’s master plan and land‑use map are under revision, and several preferred to see a location that better matches the master-plan vision. Procedural roll call was recorded in the transcript; the record shows individual yea/nay responses but does not contain an explicit single-line announcement of the council’s final disposition in the public excerpt.
Next steps: the record shows that the Planning & Zoning Commission previously approved PD2502/PD2503 with stipulations; council discussion continued during the meeting without a clearly stated final council action line in the posted transcript excerpt. If council takes a formal vote in a later entry or meeting, staff and the applicant will need to confirm the final motion language (rezoning to B‑1 vs rezoning to B‑3 and any conditional-use conditions).
