Zoning Amendment (Regular) – Jaipur Realty Partners LLC/ Lakeshore Workforce Apts – Change in Zoning from an A-C Agricultural District to a MF-3 Multiple-Family High Density District – Northwest Pasco County – Northeast Corner of Dallas Drive and Lakeshore Boulevard – Containing Approximately 2.53 Acres
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jul 7, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jul 7, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-22-7628 in full →PDD-22-7628 was taken up 2 times between Jul 7, 2022 and Aug 9, 2022 — this is appearance 1.
- Jul 7, 2022PlanningP13▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Aug 9, 2022BoardP95▶Approved
What was said
Machine transcription of 3m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 70% of 20 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
So this next item, item P13, is PDD 227628. It's a zoning amendment under the under the name of JIPOR Realty Partners LLC, Lakeshore Work Wake Work Court Workforce Apartments. It's for a change in zoning from an AC agricultural district to an MF3 multiple family high density district. And the applicant has actually volunteered, it also comes together with a with a voluntarily agreed upon deed restriction to reserve 30 units, a minimum of 30 units for workforce
housing, comes to you with a recommendation of approval.
Okay, is the applicant present?
Uh is there anybody here to speak in opposition or anybody here to speak to item P thirteen?
Can I ask a question of staff?
Sure. Yes.
This would have to do with the substandard road conditions.
Okay.
Can we explain what the substandard road conditions are? And I'm not understanding It says that the petitioner intends to request an alternative standard during the site plan process. to pay a proportionate fair share in lieu of correcting the roadway conditions which would be contrary to the substandard road ordinance.
So I believe we have someone online from the county who can speak to that item.
Have to notice the state approaches.
Uh yes, as far as the um substandard roadway information, it the road was in poor condition. So it was looked at from Lake Shore on that area a little bit past the uh project entrance. and that area needed to uh needed more pavement. I know that it's not usually uh within our ordinance to uh do the fair share, but the applicant had just asked that doesn't necessarily mean that staff will uh approve it,
but that was one of the things that was uh requested by the applicant.
Christian, thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, okay. Uh any other discussion?
Motion.
I'd move to approve item P thirteen. However, I'd caution staff not to set a precedent, otherwise all of my clients and some of our other land use attorneys out there's clients will be asking for the same if that is approved.
I'll second.
Okay, motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.