City planner Tammy Verana detailed the proposal, which includes a shift in development intensity. The amendment proposes increasing the maximum residential density to 60 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio of 2.0, compared to the existing cap of 18 units per acre and a floor area ratio of 0.6. This change is intended to support more urban, mixed-use development, potentially transforming approximately 17.32 acres of land, excluding roads, into a vibrant, economically diverse district.

The proposed amendment was assessed for its consistency with the city’s comprehensive plan. Verana emphasized the importance of considerations such as transportation impact, integration of uses, and compatibility with existing developments. Key factors like building massing, parking, landscaping, and protection of environmentally sensitive areas were highlighted as crucial elements at the development stage. However, she acknowledged that the proposed densities might be inconsistent with the existing low to moderate intensity development patterns in the vicinity, raising concerns about the community’s character.

The meeting also addressed the city’s existing infrastructure deficiencies, particularly in potable water and stormwater management. The level of service for US Highway 19 is currently rated at an “F,” well below the city’s acceptable standard of “D.” Despite a surplus of parkland, the board acknowledged that these deficiencies could impact the proposed developments’ feasibility.

Resident Don Hernandez criticized the current traffic conditions on Ridge Road, calling it one of the worst traffic spots globally. He expressed skepticism about the city’s ability to create a safe, walkable community under the proposed conditions. Similarly, Jen Cook, an engineer and orthopedic surgeon, stressed the importance of separating opinions from facts, highlighting issues like unsafe sidewalks and flooding problems while clarifying misconceptions about the proposed developments.

Economic implications were a focus, with discussions on the potential revenue from new developments. This revenue is important for funding community improvements, such as parks and sidewalks.

Board members expressed concerns about the potential for overdevelopment. One member voiced fears that setting a high density threshold could lead to undesirable developments, potentially transforming Port Richey into a high-rise-dominated area like Clearwater or Largo. The planner clarified that while density and height cannot be regulated under the new Live Local Act, other factors such as design standards and setbacks could still be governed by local codes.

The discussion extended to the waterfront district’s future, considering its potential for attracting new residents and businesses. A vision was presented for buildings set back from the water, providing space for pedestrian access and a proposed boardwalk. However, skepticism was expressed about the feasibility of extending the boardwalk past established businesses, which might resist changes affecting their property values and customer experience.

The board also touched on the relationship between proposed developments and the city’s infrastructure. Concerns were raised about the city’s water supply nearing capacity and the potential increase in vehicle traffic. Specific roads like Old Post Road were identified as likely to become congested, increasing the likelihood of accidents, particularly for older residents.

A motion was made to approve the original proposal, including a map that encapsulated the three waterfront areas while excluding the mobile home park. The motion proposed a change in the floor area ratio to 2.0 and a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre.