Commission forwards Tang City PD66 amendment to council with negative recommendation after lengthy public protest

The Planning & Zoning Commission voted to forward a proposed amendment to PD66 (Tang City Plaza) to city council with a negative recommendation after an extended public hearing in which dozens of residents and tenants aired concerns.

Staff presented a request to amend PD66 so that the existing three-story building could be converted: first-floor retail would remain LC3; the second and third floors would be residential condominiums (34 units) rather than the plan'ed age-restricted independent-living facility previously associated with the PD. Staff recommended conditions including restrictive covenants, designated resident/guest parking and a requirement that 50% of required residential parking be covered (carports). The staff report also noted that parkland requirements would only apply if a residential use is added.

Developers and supporters said they plan owner-occupied condominiums and claimed the HOA and covenants would prevent short-term rentals. Developer representatives described existing utilities and a plan to build out units to higher standards. Architect and legal representatives said strict covenants have been drafted and will be recorded.

But the public hearing produced extensive opposition. Multiple nearby residents and several local business owners testified to problems at the plaza: loud noise from a bar, food trucks and events that draw late-night crowds, past criminal incidents including a massage business that was cited for trafficking, and long-standing vacancy in the development. Speakers questioned whether a developer-controlled HOA could enforce prohibitions on subletting or short-term rentals and cited past litigation involving prior project owners. Concerns included insufficient information about parking counts, unit sizes and amenities and skepticism about how 34 owner-occupied condos would be marketed and managed.

Commissioners questioned whether the existing physical development and management record supported a change that would eliminate the PD's age restriction. Commissioners noted that the site was built under LC3 regulations and that many of the originally approved senior-living elements were not constructed; several commissioners expressed discomfort approving a non-age-restricted condominium conversion given the management complaints and community protests.

After deliberation a motion to forward the amendment to city council with a negative recommendation carried. Commissioners recorded that the alternative to the amendment is for the owner to pursue age-restricted occupancy under existing PD allowances. The commission's negative recommendation will be provided to council for final action.