Item H04
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: June 21.2006
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: ~ No
Department: Planning & Env. Resources
AGENDA ITE1\-'I WORDING: A request for the refunding of the application fees of $18,055.00 for a project that
did not go forward.
ITEM BACKGROUND: The Craig Company submitted an application for the redevelopment of the property at
Mile Marker 70 known as SeaGlass. Staff researched the project and determined the project would not be viable as
presented. The applicant has withdrawn his application to make changes to the project and is requesting a refund
of the $18,055.00 submittal fee. Staff is requesting that 10% of the fees be retained for the research Staff
conducted to determine the viability of the project. The refund total would be $16,250.00.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: None
CONTRACT! AGREEMENT CHANGES: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOT AL COST:
$16.250.00
BUDGETED: Yes
NoX
COST TO COUNTY:
$16.250.00
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No X
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty --K- OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management_
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
7' P ,>{ h/z,~ /t
// . /. ,-c I" ~. '-<,.
Ty SymJldski, Directbr eff Growth Management
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X
To Follow
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
RESOLUTION NO. -2006
A RESOLUTION TO REFUND THE APPLICATION SUBMISSION
FEES OF $18,055.00, TO THE CRAIG COMPANY FOR A PROJECT
THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2006, the Craig Company submitted on behalf of their client, SeaGlass,
an application for a rezoning andproject development for a property at MileMarker 70; and
WHEREAS, the project application with documentation was taken in and the submission fees of
$18,055.00 were deposited; and
WHEREAS, staff proceeded with the project by doing the initial research for the request however it
was determined the project as presented would not comply with the 201 0 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing from the Planning department that the project as presented was not viable,
the Craig Company requested the refund on behalf of his client so the project could be brought into
compliance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
Upon completion of the initial review of the project, Staff informed the applicant the project would need to
be redone. The applicant requested a full refund of the submission fees. Staff feels that due to the research
done on the project that 10% of the submission fees should be retained to cover the cost of the time spent by
Staff to research the project, with 90% of the submission to be refunded to the applicant in the amount of
$16,250.00.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida held on the 21 st day of June, 2006.
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Mayor Pro Tem Dixie M. Spear
Commissioner Glenn Patton
Commissioner George Nugent
Commissioner David Rice
Board of County Commissioners
of Monroe County, Florida
By:
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Attest: Danny 1. Kolhage
By:
Deputy Clerk
APPROVAL FOR REFUND IN TIlE AMOUNT OF
$
DAY OF
nus
,20
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
REQUISITION FOR REFUND FROM COUNTY TREASURY
STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 193.40, FLORIDA STATUES,
The Craig Company
(PAYEE)
_OF Post Office Box 970 ~ Key West ~ . Florida 33043-0970
(MAILING ADDRESS/P.O.BOX#)
HEREBY MAKES APPLICATION TO TIlE BOARD OF COUN1Y COMMISSIONER FOR A REFUND
OF $ 18~055.00
SET UP TIlE FOLLOWING FACTS:
OF MONEYS PAID TO THE COUN1Y, AND AS GROUNDS THEREFORE
(STATE REASONS FOR REFUND)
An application for a proposed resort at Mile Marker 70~ known as SeaGlass was submitted to
our department. This application was later deemed incomplete and the applicant is requesting
a refund as anew approach to the project will be looked for.
Our department feels the request should be granted as the applicant will now have to redo and
resubmit a new application for the new project.
~.. ckr-/d
BUILDING OFFlCIAL
A IT ACHED HERETO IS ADDmONAL PROOF TO ESTABLISH SUCH CLAIM, AS FOLLOWS:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MONROE
SWORN AND SUBSCRffiED BEFORE ME TIllS 11th
DAY OF May
, 2006
BY Joe Paskalik. Bui lding Offiri...l
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
. c ~
'-777~ J ~<..4'~
SIGNA17lrRE CI NOTARY POOj;,.lrC - STATE OF FLORIDA
~~,\;:~t~t.~~ fAAYflA fE1ANOS f
"'m~' ",'", NotalyPubllC".stoMt:=' ., .
[",: t>1.....callriU .:................... ....'.."'c. AID FROM ACCT:
~ . . fi:"''f fW. n..................,. IY;
"\~ Z(l Commlulon /I 0I>2t6796 .
r....t~Off\:~"';.,...
'if"""., Bonded By National NoforjAsln.
MONROE COUNTY ***LIVE***
Page
1 of
1
MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPT
RECEIPT #
82477
PRINT DATE
PRINT TIME
OPERATOR
COpy #
05/11/2006
14:43:39
tedescod
2
RECEIPT DATE
02/22/2006
RECEIVED BY
REC'D. FROM
UDF 106.1
UDF 106.2
tuckerm
MM70,LLC
CASH DRAWER: 2
NOTES : REZONING - SEA GLASS RESIDENTIAL MAP AMENDMENT
FEE ID
AMOUNT
THIS RCPT
BALANCE
ZONING-024
18055.00
18055.00
0.00
------.............
.......-------
.....".,.-hHn'cn'n'n'r................._____
-<"'___'^""'"'''''''''"->hYn'-.".,.",.,...............
--------
--------
TOTALS:
18055.00
18055.00
0.00
METHOD OF PAYMENT
AMOUNT
NUMBER
CHECK
18055.00
604
----.................."""".....................................
-------..-..............._-
TOTAL RECEIPT
18055.00
. US Mail
Tt!t ~ ~
Comprehensive Planning
Resol1{fourlsm Planning
Land Use Regulation
Development FeaSibility
Site Design
Expert Witness
;vlarch 24, 2006
Mr. l\ref Joulani, Director of Planning
l\/Ionroe County
2798 Overseas Highway
l'vlarathon, Florida 33050
Mailing address. POBox 970
Key West. FL 33041-0372
Office iocation 600 White 3t.
Key West. FL 33040
Phone: 305i294-1515
Fax 305i292-1525
E-mail: don@craigcompany.com
Subject: SeaGlass Resort ~ Withdrawal of Application
Dear Aref:
This letter will serve as a request for withdrawal of the previously sublnitted application
for the approval of the proposed SeaGlass resort at mile marker 70 in Monroe County.
The reason for this action is the uncertainty created by your department as to the method, timing
and development standards to be applied to the approval of the project as communicated to me in
your recent e-mails, staff telephone calls to me and your interpretation of how the Land
Development Regulations apply to the proposal.
The requirement for a prc- application meeting determined by you to be required, when
the code clearly states that such meetings are a voluntary step by the landowner/applicant has
created in my client great uncertainty as to whether the County would expeditiously review, or
support at all, the project and under what circumstances.
The prospect of many months being required to identify methods for approval is too
daunting an exercise for my client. He would rather consider some other use or design for the
property, which has fewer concerns for County staff, and requests that his application and fees be
retuned as quickly as possible.
Should you have any questions, please call me.
D LC'j I'
cc: 'rom Willi, County Administrator
Key West. Breckenridge