Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Treatment Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks rezoning for 90‑bed detox center; staff flags incompatibility with future land‑use plan
Summary
A private, 90‑bed detox and recovery center proposed for College Street will be revised and returned to the planning commission after staff said the requested COM zoning conflicts with the area’s future land‑use designation; the applicant says the facility will be locked and private‑pay only.
Planning staff presented a rezoning request from the DiCillo Group to convert about 2 acres on College Street to an office/medical specific plan that would allow a 90‑bed, for‑profit detox and recovery center (staff score: 68/100). Staff recommended using chapter 2 use classifications and opposed the SP as inconsistent with the area’s commercial‑mixed use future land‑use designation, noting several residences within a 500‑foot measurement that could trigger conditional‑use requirements.
Applicant Mike Martin (speaker 7) said the proposed facility would be a locked, private‑pay treatment center with an on‑site operator and controlled transport arrangements. “We are a lockdown facility, and they will not be allowed to leave our facility,” Martin said, adding the program would accept private insurance only and “No Medicaid. No government assistance of any kind whatsoever.” He said patients would be brought to the site by private vehicles and that maglocks and sign‑out procedures would prevent residents from walking through the neighborhood.
Staff asked the applicant to resolve the 500‑foot proximity restriction in the SP language and to propose public benefits — staff specifically suggested incorporating roadway work from the Safe Streets for All Roadways Safety Action Plan as an ancillary benefit. Planning staff advised the applicant to address those items and other checklist comments before the packet goes to the regular planning commission; if the staff items are satisfied, the item can proceed to the preliminary planning commission review.
The commission did not vote on final rezoning at the meeting; the direction was procedural: the applicant should return with a completed packet addressing the staff recommendations before the matter advances.
