Skip to main content
Pasco Countymeeting record

PDD-23-2100

Published agenda

Heard once, at the Planning Commission on Jan 5, 2023.

No final outcomeThe minutes show no disposition for any appearance of this case. That is a gap in the record, not a decision.

Official title

Variance Request (Consent) – Elizabeth A Kutsch – Reduce the Minimum 5 Foot Setback for Accessory Structures to 2.9 Feet for a Screen Room and Carport in an R-2 Low Density Residential District – East Central Pasco County – On the East Side of Abbey Drive Approximately 600 Feet West of the First Intersection of Happy Hill Road and Abbey Drive – Containing Approximately 0.39 Acre

Every appearance1 of 1 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 55% of 40 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

  1. 1
    Planning CommissionPC3Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes
    Open this item →
    5m
    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Items. PC three is uh a variance request in the name of Elizabeth A. Kutch to reduce the minimum five-foot setback for accessory structures to two point nine feet for a screen room and carport in an R2 low density, low density residential district and in the east central Pasco County, on the east side of Abbey Drive, approximately six hundred feet west of the first intersection. of Happy Hill Road and Abbey Drive containing approximately point three nine acres and this

    comes with a recommendation for approval with conditions.

    All right.

    Charles GreyChair

    That's PC three? Yes.

    All right. Is the applicant present? Anyone here to object? Sorry, was the applicant present? Yes. Yes.

    Liam Devine

    The applicant's present.

    Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

    I'd like to to hear the case. Yes, sir.

    Charles GreyChair

    Okay.

    Okay, so we're pulling PC three. We go

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    into regular items.

    Uh the item PC four is a zoning amendment, Angel Senior Living M PUD Master Plan Unit Development, in the name of ASL SR fifty-four real estate LLC. It's a rezoning request from an AR Agricultural Residential District, R for High Density Residential District, and C One Neighborhood Commercial District to an M PUD Master Plan Unit Development District. allow the development of a maximum of 180,000 square feet of commercial and 181,000 square feet of residential treatment

    and care facilities on approximately 31.77 acres. And this comes with a recommendation for approval with conditions.

    All right.

    Charles GreyChair

    The applicant present?

    Okay.

    Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

    I'd like to hear that case too, please. Okay. Okay.

    Charles GreyChair

    Eric, don't use John as an example of what you

    I'll be brief.

    Okay. So that will that was was the consent agenda.

    Jon Moody

    Oh we knew. Yeah.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Yeah. Uh item A P C seven is a zoning amendment in the name of or excuse me, it's US forty one and Shuttle Road MPUD Master Plan United Development in the name of D D W Lester and Sons Inc. It's a rezoning request from an MPUD. Master Plan Unit Development District between MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow the development of a maximum of forty thousand square feet of office, twenty thousand square feet of commercial retail, and three hundred and thirty multifamily apartments containing approximately seventeen point zero

    eight six acres, and this comes with a recommendation of approval with conditions.

    Charles GreyChair

    All right. Is the applicant present? Okay. Any objections?

    I

    Jon Moody

    see no objections. I think I'm just to confirm there's still nobody on WebEx for any of these.

    Liam Devine

    That is correct.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Can I get just get one clarification though? I don't necessarily think it needs to be pulled but On the actual master plan itself, the lot coverage is listed at a hundred percent and I think in the conditions of approval it's listed as either eighty five or ninety.

    I'm trying to get there.

    I'm assuming the eighty five to ninety is correct, but I was just wanna give you a clarification.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Yeah. Yeah, the typically typically the text governs. So the the eighty eighty to ninety percent is probably more likely.

    Yeah.

    Yeah, typically the text is what governs and the conditions of approval.

    Jon Moody

    Yeah, maybe just before the board But if you want to approve it with an instruction that they change the plan

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    that you can just update it before it goes to the board.

    Charles GreyChair

    Thank you. Okay, so you want to approve it with that model? Yeah,

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    I don't have a problem with that. I just want to clarify that. Correct.

    Charles GreyChair

    Okay.

    Jon Moody

    Since it's the only item on the consent agenda, you might just make a motion.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    I'll make a motion to approve that uh as a consent agenda item without revision.

    Charles GreyChair

    Do we have a second? Second. Any further discussion? If not, I'll signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Like signed. Okay. Good. Big big consent agenda there.