Local Planning Agency

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDING OFFICER

2. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE

3. CELL PHONE ANNOUNCEMENT

4. ROLL CALL

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.A Approval of the following Local Planning Agency Minutes: March 12, 2026 and April

16, 2026

03.12.2026 LPA Minutes.pdf

04.16.26 LPA Minutes.pdf

6. PRESENTATION OF ITEMS

6.A Review of Ordinance 2026-15 - Recommending Exemption from Site Plan Review

for City Infrastructure Projects

Resolution 2026-02 City Infrastructure Exemption (2026-15).docx

Ordinance 2026-15 City Infrastructure Projects.docx

Business Impact Estimate - Ord 2026-15 City Infrastructure.docx

7. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ISSUES, COMMENTS, OR DISCUSSION

8. REPORTS OF CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF AND BOARD MEMBERS

9. NEXT LPA MEETING

10. PUBLIC COMMENTS

11. ADJOURNMENT

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2026 – 2:00 PM

10451 GULF BOULEVARD TREASURE ISLAND, FL 33706

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA

This meeting will immediately follow the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDING OFFICER 2. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE 3. CELL PHONE ANNOUNCEMENT 4. ROLL CALL 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5.A Approval of the following Local Planning Agency Minutes: March 12, 2026 and April 16, 2026 03.12.2026 LPA Minutes.pdf 04.16.26 LPA Minutes.pdf 6. PRESENTATION OF ITEMS 6.A Review of Ordinance 2026-15 - Recommending Exemption from Site Plan Review for City Infrastructure Projects Resolution 2026-02 City Infrastructure Exemption (2026-15).docx Ordinance 2026-15 City Infrastructure Projects.docx Business Impact Estimate - Ord 2026-15 City Infrastructure.docx 7. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ISSUES, COMMENTS, OR DISCUSSION 8. REPORTS OF CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF AND BOARD MEMBERS 9. NEXT LPA MEETING 10. PUBLIC COMMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2026 – 2:00 PM 10451 GULF BOULEVARD TREASURE ISLAND, FL 33706 MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA This meeting will immediately follow the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting 1

AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.A Item Cover Page DATE: May 21, 2026 SUBMITTED BY: Tia Payton, Administration ITEM TYPE: Minutes AGENDA SECTION: APPROVAL OF MINUTES SUBJECT: Approval of the following Local Planning Agency Minutes: March 12, 2026 and April 16, 2026 BACKGROUND: Minutes of public meetings are governed by Florida Statute 286.011. The minutes are not required to be verbatim. Minutes will, however, include: the location, time and duration of the meeting; identification of attending Commission Members; titles of topics that were considered; action taken, in the form of motions, seconds, and votes on the motions. The City Clerk's office recognizes the historical value of providing context. To that end, the City Clerk’s office may add a summary of discussions and additional details. POLICY/PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to review and approve the following minutes: March 12, 2026 and April 16, 2026 STRATEGIC PLAN RELEVANCE: . ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION: . FUNDING: There is no cost associated. MOTION: I move to approve the minutes, as presented. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AGENDA ITEM REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 03.12.2026 LPA Minutes.pdf 04.16.26 LPA Minutes.pdf 2

1 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2026 – 6:00 PM 10451 GULF BOULEVARD TREASURE ISLAND, FL 33706 Minutes 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDING OFFICER Chair Harris called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. 2. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE Chair Harris led in the pledge of allegiance. 3. CELL PHONE ANNOUNCEMENT Chair Harris asked all in attendance to silence their cellphones. 4. ROLL CALL Present: Richard Harris, Chair Ross Sanchez, Vice Chair Valerie Acree Daniel Billingsley Chris Downing Marvin Shavlan Grant Smith Mark Zdrojewski 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None 6. PRESENTATION OF ITEMS 6.A Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution Chair Harris noted Planned Development (PD) had been talked about before but there was no PD category in Treasure Island and many other municipalities had PD categories, wanted to do the framework alongside the Master Plan, named a few areas which could benefit from PDs and explained developers would be able to apply but the Commission would have to approve the application. 3

2 Mr. Downing inquired about what the LPA could or could not do in connection with PDs. Chair Harris explained the LPA resolution would be a recommendation to the City Commission and said the letter sent by City Manager Charlie Van Zant was superseded by further instruction. Attorney Brookes noted the City Manager was present to address the letter. City Manager Van Zant explained he had approached the City Commission in two meetings for height and density increases and the Commission responded with wanting to have a master planner review the changes and said he would give a report on the outcome of the meeting. Mr. Shavlan explained the document prepared was to start a conversation. Attorney Brookes explained a PD enabling section would need to be added to the code first. Mr. Shavlan inquired if it would be included in the Land Development Regulations (LDR). Attorney Brookes confirmed that it would and said it did not need to be in the Comprehensive (comp) plan. Mr. Shavlan asked if the PD enabling section was not in the comp plan then could be challenged. Attorney Brookes explained that it would have to state that the PDs would have to be in compliance with the comp plan. Mr. Shavlan suggested putting the enabling PDs in the comp plan. Chair Harris explained that each developer would need to put in an application and must comply with the comp plan and explained if the developer would like to modify the comp plan then an application must be put in to do so. Mr. Shavlan asked if they would be amending it for that property. Attorney Brookes answered the PD created the enabling and rezone, then if they go over their current planned land use they would have to apply to amend the comp plan. He then explained once recommended to the City Commission they would have to approve it, the ordinance would have to go to LPA for review then to forward Pinellas/county and said that it could be passed and entered by the end of May. Mr. Shavlan inquired if developers would have to wait for the Master Plan to be done to apply. Attorney Brookes answered yes. Mr. Downing explained implementing PDs gave the Commission the ability to create zoning districts, said it gave a lot of power to the City Commission. Attorney Brookes noted the developer would be limited by the comp plan. Mr. Grant inquired about the pd process and the criteria for it, asked if it would make sense to create the application process before anything else. Attorney Brookes noted a development agreement could be required. Mr. Grant explained the criteria should be made while creating the enabling section. Attorney Brookes explained that the criteria would be included in the PD enabling section. Mr. Grant asked if the developer would have to ask for public input. Attorney Brookes explained there would be public comment during LPA and the two commission meetings, noted the developer may have to put a notice out, and the board could add additional criteria. Vice Chair Sanchez inquired if the comments could be called out and noted the process was difficult for developers. Attorney Brookes explained there would be more flexibility for developers and compatibility for residents. Attorney Brookes further explained the developer could be asked to provide public benefits. Discussion continued how PDs benefited the public. Chair Harris would like to discourage bubble plan PDs. Attorney Brookes agreed with Chair Harris statement. Chair Harris noted the more detailed the PD the better. Mr. Shavlan asked if the board would require detailed plans. Mr. Grant inquired if the individuals’ seeking changes for height and density would the comp plan be changed for one proposal or would it be a permanent change to the comp plan. Attorney Brookes explained PDs would have to 4

3 stay within the comp plan, a comp plan amendment would be needed for any PDs outside of what the comp plan allows, said a change future land use or for map amendment would affect that particular property only. Attorney Brookes explained developers could ask for small scale plan amendment which would just be for 50 acers or less and said small scale plan amendments that have an expedited process. Mr. Shavlan inquired if a small-scale plan amendment would only apply to that one parcel. Attorney Brookes answered yes. Mr. Downing warned the board that this would give too much power to the Commission. Mr. Shavlan explained PDs would give an opportunity for developers and expressed heigh and density needed to be raised. Mr. Downing does not agree with the approach. Mr. Grant explained the property tax revenue was small. Chair Harris called for public comment. Mr. Mark Hohe, 225 104 th Ave, explained the Reddington’s did not have PDs, and asked who would negotiate for the public benefit. Mr. Erikk Norri, resident, was in favor if it could make it more efficient for developers then he was in favor for it. Chair Harris explained PDs would have a lot of requirements for developers but would offer flexibility. Mr. Shawn Byrnes, Pirate Square, explained Ms. Diana Crabill, District 2, thanked the attorney for his expertise, would like LPA to make the decision for PDs, and suggested safety nets for protecting what the residents want. Mr. Robert Bozo, District 1, expressed concerns about giving a lot of power to the Commission and noted the Master Plan would guide the PDs. Ms. Sara Pennington, District 2, stated the Master Plan would give the data the city needs to make proper decisions and expressed concerns about having an unbiased Commission to approve PDs. Mr. Gillie Thunderbird, explained the Master Plan would be finished in 1.5 to 2 years, explained it would take 3 years for something to happen if PDs are put in place but with the master plan could take up to 5 years. Chair Harris encouraged the Thunderbird to be as detailed as they can. Chair Harris read a letter from Mr. Alan Biltz, closed the public hearing, and stated his support for PDs. Vice Chair Sanchez inquired if negotiations would it come through the LPA board. Attorney Brookes explained the applicant would propose it and then LPA and Commission would review it. Vice Chair Sanchez explained that PDs would be a benefit to residents. Discussion continued. Mr. Downing explained he was positive towards PDs that had guard rails on it, heard the Commission has asked the board to not makes plans until the Master Plan was done, and said the board could not force the issue. Mr. Smith noted he would like 5

4 to see if height and density would need to be raised by the Master Plan. Mr. Shavlan moved to recommend to planned development enabling ordinance in parallel with the recommendation of the master plan; Seconded by Ross Sanchez and passed five to one. Chair Harris called for a 10-minute recess. Chair Harris called the meeting back in order at 7:45 pm. 6.B TI Commercial Activity Update Economics Director Joan Goodrich presented as detailed in the background material. Vice Chair inquired what the Tahitian permit was for. Director Goodrich explained the Treasure Island Plaza was waiting for an electric permit and tenants. Director Goodrich continued the presentation. Mr. Shavlan asked how foot traffic was measured. Director Goodrich answered through an AI tool based off GPS location on phones and then continued the presentation. Mr. Downing inquired about the unified messaging. Director Goodrich explained it was in development. Vice Chair Sanchez inquired if there were any discussion with developers and property owners. Director Goodrich explained there were no updates. Vice Chair Sanchez asked about if Director Goodrich had spoken to TI Club and noted the property current state. Director Goodrich answered she has not spoken to them and noted CDD was having conversations with all property owners out of compliance. Vice Chair Sanchez asked the process for code compliance. Assistant Director Maryellen Edwards explained the code compliance process. Vice Chair Sanchez inquired if Director Goodrich had a plan for the space on 108th. Director Goodrich noted that private partnerships were being considered. Mr. Downing noted some of the property on 108th would be added to Master Plan. Chair Harris inquired where office space was. Director Goodrich answered there were various small office spaces. Vice Chair Sanchez received confirmation the economic dashboard would be given quarterly. Director Goodrich would be giving an update quarterly. Attorney Brookes noted Director Goodrich was a part of the Master Plan team. 7. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ISSUES, COMMENTS, OR DISCUSSION Mr. Shavlan would like to have an LPA meeting every month, even if there are no items. Mr. Byrne questioned what the price per square foot was for the properties in Director Goodrich’s presentation, questioned the Ms. Donna would like to know of current projects underway. 8. REPORTS OF CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF AND BOARD MEMBERS - None 9. NEXT LPA MEETING Vice Chair Sanchez informed the board of his absence at the next Planning and Zoning meeting. 6

5 10. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Robert Bozo, District 1, said the meeting was informative. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:18 pm. _________________________ Richard Harris, Chair Attest: ___________________________ Tia Payton, Deputy City Clerk 7

1 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2026 10451 GULF BOULEVARD TREASURE ISLAND, FL 33706 MINUTES 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDING OFFICER Chair Harris called the meeting to order at 5:02 pm. 2. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE- None 3. CELL PHONE ANNOUNCEMENT Chair Harris asked all in attendance to silence their cellphones. 4. ROLL CALL Present: Richard Harris- Chair Ross Sanchez- Vice Chair Valerie Acree (arrived at 5:30 p.m.) Daniel Billingsley Chris Downing Marvin Shavlan Grant Smith Absent: Mark Zdrojewski 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None 6. PRESENTATION OF ITEMS 6.A Review of Ordinance 2026-10 Planned Development (PD) Interim Community Development Director Maryellen Edwards read the ordinance by title only and began a presentation, as detailed in the background materials. During discussion, Mr. Downing asked for clarification on the term “consistent,” to which Interim Director Edwards explained that a PD rezoning must comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (CP). Chair Harris stated his preference for allowing developers to submit site-specific land use plans. Mr. Downing reiterated that although PDs must remain consistent with the CP, applicants could request allowances beyond it. Attorney Stuparich clarified that the Local Planning Agency’s (LPA) role was to ensure that the 8

2 Land Development Regulations (LDRs) were consistent with the CP, noted PDs must align with the CP and County regulations, explained that enabling PDs would require a CP amendment and that the Board’s task was to determine whether the ordinance itself was consistent with the CP and appropriate to forward to the City Commission. Mr. Shavlan questioned why there was no mechanism for prior approval of increased height and density, and Attorney Stuparich responded that CP amendments were separate from PD applications. Chair Harris described the ordinance as an enabling document to establish PDs. Mr. Downing expressed concern that developers could circumvent existing LDRs. Mr. Shavlan asked what options developers would have if seeking additional height and density, and Attorney Stuparich explained they could apply for both a PD and a small-scale CP amendment. Vice Chair Sanchez noted that height was not specifically addressed in the CP and emphasized that the proposed language was intended to facilitate discussions between developers and staff. Mr. Downing preferred delaying action until completion of the master plan, whereas Vice Chair Sanchez argued that PDs could proceed concurrently. Chair Harris agreed, stating he did not want to wait for the master plan. Discussion continued, including Vice Chair Sanchez’s question about how the City could encourage development and confirmation that PD applications would come before the LPA. Ms. Acree arrived at 5:30 p.m. Chair Harris acknowledged the complexity of the PD process. Mr. Downing and Mr. Smith both emphasized the importance of resident input, particularly regarding height and density. Vice Chair Sanchez asked whether residents would have a role in PD decisions. Mr. Grant responded that the ordinance did not include a requirement for applicants to adhere to resident input. Chair Harris called for public comment. Mr. Mark Hohe, 225 104th Avenue, submitted a document for the record and questioned the reintroduction of RFM-30 into the ordinance, expressing concern about unelected officials making changes. Chair Harris explained that residential areas were excluded, stated opposition to limiting properties under one acre, and confirmed RFM-30 had been added. Board members indicated the Commission had not directed its removal. Mr. Shawn Byrnes, Pirate Square, discussed density, noting 22 units per acre and questioning community understanding of existing density standards and development goals. Ms. Lauren Rubenstein requested to speak after the City’s presentation. Ms. Sarah Pennington, District 2, raised concerns about moving ahead of the master plan, potential impacts of County maximums, and the need to take resident concerns seriously. Mr. West Evans, Isles of Palms, voiced opposition to maximum allowances and expressed distrust, prompting clarification from Vice Chair Sanchez. Chair Harris responded to accusations against Board members and reiterated that the ordinance would only enable PDs. Donna Jollimore, Thunderbird Hotel Manager, referenced the master planner’s support for PDs and recited Raftelis believed PDs could be run alongside the master plan. Interim Director Edwards continued the presentation. Vice Chair Sanchez asked whether development agreements were standard with PDs. Attorney Stuparich confirmed they generally were, though not always, required. Mr. Downing asked whether development agreements could be implemented without PDs. Attorney Stuparich said they could, depending on the project. Further discussion addressed the relationship between the City and County CPs, with Chair Harris asking 9

3 about small-scale land use amendments. Attorney Stuparich explained that consistency with the County did not automatically determine CP compliance and that proposed rezonings must be evaluated for conflicts with the CP. As Attorney Stuparich reviewed the ordinance and redline changes, Mr. Smith sought clarification that consistency meant developments could not exceed County limits but may be less intense. Attorney Stuparich confirmed and added that applicants must follow the City’s CP. Attorney Stuparich further explained that while height was not specified in the CP and deviations could be requested, density must remain consistent. Additional discussion covered design guidelines and applicability to smaller PDs. Vice Chair Sanchez suggested including all elements except ground-floor activation, while Mr. Downing noted that some items could be incorporated into the CP. Attorney Stuparich stated such elements could instead be added to the ordinance. Chair Harris then called Lauren Rubenstein for public comment, and she expressed support for the PD ordinance, citing its flexibility. In closing, Chair Harris stated he would not support heights exceeding an additional 20 feet but supported recommending the ordinance to the City Commission. Mr. Downing opposed moving forward. Mr. Smith expressed concern about vague and unmeasurable language. Mr. Shavlan moved to recommend approval of 2026-10 to the City Commission, seconded by Vice Chair Sanchez, and carried five to two; Mr. Downing and Mr. Grant voted no. 7. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ISSUES, COMMENTS, OR DISCUSSION – Not covered. 8. REPORTS OF CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF AND BOARD MEMBERS – Not covered. 9. NEXT LPA MEETING The next LPA meeting would follow the Planning and Zoning meeting on May 21, 2026. Vice Chair Sanchez requested Economic Development Director Joan Goodrich attend the next LPA agenda and expressed concerns about the dumpsters at the Treasure Island Yacht Club. 10. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Harris called for public comment with no response. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm _________________________ Richard Harris , Chair Attest: ___________________________ Tia Payton, Deputy City Clerk 10

AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.A Item Cover Page DATE: May 21, 2026 SUBMITTED BY: Maryellen Edwards, Community Development ITEM TYPE: Ordinances AGENDA SECTION: PRESENTATION OF ITEMS SUBJECT: Review of Ordinance 2026-15 - Recommending Exemption from Site Plan Review for City Infrastructure Projects BACKGROUND: Chapter 70 of the City of Treasure Island Code of Ordinances establishes site plan review requirements for development and redevelopment activities within the City. Section 70-33 currently identifies several categories of improvements that are exempt from formal site plan review due to their limited land use impacts or routine nature. Municipal infrastructure and public works projects are often undertaken to maintain essential public services, improve resiliency, address aging infrastructure, respond to emergency conditions, or meet capital improvement and grant funding timelines. Many of these projects occur within existing public rights-of-way, easements, or publicly owned property and typically do not involve changes in land use, density, or intensity. Under the current regulations, some municipal infrastructure projects may still require site plan review even when the projects are operational, maintenance-related, or necessary to protect public infrastructure and public safety. The site plan review process can increase administrative processing time, delay construction schedules, and create additional project costs without providing substantial land use review benefits for LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AGENDA ITEM REPORT 11

these types of public infrastructure improvements. The proposed ordinance adds exemptions for qualifying municipal infrastructure and resiliency projects while clarifying that projects remain subject to applicable engineering review, permitting requirements, and other code-related approvals. POLICY/PURPOSE: The purpose of this ordinance is to streamline the construction, maintenance, repair, and upgrade of essential municipal infrastructure projects by exempting qualifying public infrastructure improvements from formal site plan review requirements. The ordinance promotes efficient government operations while maintaining applicable engineering, permitting, environmental, and safety review requirements. STRATEGIC PLAN RELEVANCE: Bold Action 1: Perform a review of local ordinances and Land Development Regulations Bold Action 2: Update the City's Comprehensive Plan, local ordinances and Land Development Regulations ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION: Following discussions with the Public Works Director, staff drafted the proposed ordinance, which is intended to provide administrative efficiency for routine and necessary municipal infrastructure projects that primarily serve a governmental or public utility function. By exempting qualifying municipal infrastructure projects from site plan review, the City may reduce project delays, improve coordination of capital improvement projects, and more effectively respond to infrastructure failures, storm recovery efforts, resiliency initiatives, and grant funding deadlines. The ordinance maintains important safeguards by limiting the exemptions primarily to public infrastructure projects and excluding new principal occupied governmental buildings intended for administrative, office, or public assembly purposes. In addition, exempted projects remain subject to applicable engineering standards, construction permitting requirements, environmental regulations, and other technical reviews required by the City Code. 12

Overall, the ordinance is consistent with the City’s goals of maintaining critical infrastructure, improving resiliency, supporting efficient government operations, and protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. FUNDING: No funding is requested. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution 2026-02 recommending approval of Ordinance 2026-15 to the City Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2026-02 City Infrastructure Exemption (2026-15).docx Ordinance 2026-15 City Infrastructure Projects.docx Business Impact Estimate - Ord 2026-15 City Infrastructure.docx 13

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-02 A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND CITY COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 70, “PLANNING AND ZONING” OF THE CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND CODE OF ORDINANCES BY REVISING SECTION 70-31 “EXEMPTIONS FROM SITE PLAN REVIEW” BY ADDING AN EXEMPTION FOR CITY