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
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
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, Jan 5, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jan 5, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-23-2100 in full →Heard once. PDD-23-2100 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Jan 5, 2023PlanningPC3▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 5m of recording, 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.
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.
That's PC three? Yes.
All right. Is the applicant present? Anyone here to object? Sorry, was the applicant present? Yes. Yes.
The applicant's present.
I'd like to to hear the case. Yes, sir.
Okay.
Okay, so we're pulling PC three. We go
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.
The applicant present?
Okay.
I'd like to hear that case too, please. Okay. Okay.
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.
Oh we knew. Yeah.
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.
All right. Is the applicant present? Okay. Any objections?
I
see no objections. I think I'm just to confirm there's still nobody on WebEx for any of these.
That is correct.
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.
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.
Yeah, maybe just before the board But if you want to approve it with an instruction that they change the plan
that you can just update it before it goes to the board.
Thank you. Okay, so you want to approve it with that model? Yeah,
I don't have a problem with that. I just want to clarify that. Correct.
Okay.
Since it's the only item on the consent agenda, you might just make a motion.
I'll make a motion to approve that uh as a consent agenda item without revision.
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.