Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pasco County approves Evans Properties modification with binding storefront and parking requirements after debate over lost housing
Summary
The Pasco County Board approved a substantial modification to the Evans C1 mixed-use plan (P34), increasing nonresidential square footage and binding design conditions that require ground-floor storefronts and rear/side parking after commissioners pressed the applicant on housing and drive-through concerns.
The Pasco County Board of County Commissioners voted to approve a substantial modification to the Evans C1 mixed‑use plan (agenda item P34), increasing nonresidential space from roughly 82,000 square feet to about 94,400 square feet on approximately 52.08 acres in Village C and attaching conditions intended to ensure a pedestrian-oriented main street.
Joel, a land‑use consultant speaking for Evans Properties, told the board, “at this point in time, we have absolutely zero users. Therefore, we cannot draw a specific user site plan,” and said the applicant has agreed to commit building frontage on McCabe with centralized parking and to honor a narrower cross‑section for the main street. David Egle, Pasco’s planning and economic development director, said staff and the applicant are working on stakeholder‑driven design standards and that “the applicant has agreed to abide by our new design standards.”
Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on whether eliminating the previously approved multifamily component would undermine the village character and whether the approval would allow a row of fast‑food drive‑throughs. One commissioner said, “I would rather have given them the residential and let them put it up above,” expressing a preference for housing over increased commercial square footage. Staff and the applicant responded that the conditions require storefronts on the main street and mandate that parking be placed to the side or rear of buildings to foster walkability.
Staff cautioned the board about legal limits on singling out specific business tenants: zoning and land‑use rules control site design and building placement but generally do not allow a municipality to ban a particular named chain; however, design standards and drive‑through placement restrictions can be used to shape what is physically feasible. The applicant said it will also help the county develop retail design guidelines to be brought back to the board for adoption.
The board approved the consent agenda motions for P32, P33 and P34 with the attached conditions and presentations; the consent motion passed and P34 was approved following the discussion. The applicant and staff said they will return with design‑standards language and that the development would be bound by rules the board adopts.
The board’s next procedural step is for staff to finalize the written conditions and, where applicable, present the design guidelines for formal adoption.
