|
~L ', /CtITY OPF ST. AUUSTIME
MAR A -M APCATIOM POR ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW
lllim1| BDAC Project No. 0O 2
PtAS PIINT OR TYPE
naig Thorn
IL %
1. NAME OF APPCANT C9
ueinem P (If apallem
Addmm P. 0. ox 2016
2. NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER C-rma r G-onart
Busanee (if apploaM) QClaMbia ReStaurant
Ad.4 96. t*. George St. rit S1
3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPERTY
Lot 1
Suhdivn City of St. Augustine
4. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS
5. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK
Daytime Telephone 904-829-2352
City St. Augustine State Fla. Zip 32085
Daytime Telephone 904-824-3341
t. Augustine State Fla. Zip 32084
Block
Parcel Number.
/ yvP L'I- I b7-A -T7
U m01 aa1111111 9
lNaw DAddition
OReeldenteial *Comercil
QOther
O Renovation/Remodeling
Square Feet_
o Demolition
Stories
6. AGREEMENT
Application is hereby made for Archaeological Rev naistent with the City Code of St. Augustine. The
applicant agrees to pay all required fees, a t review will be conducted after all applicable fees are
coLected by the CihV.
In fing this appilioton, I u it part of the official da of the ity of St. Augustine and
hereby certify that n he is true to the my kn ge.
7. SIMATURE OFP APPUCA DATE 5 /
sTAf USE ONLY
8. A=1CM1O111CN 1 02 03
9. RELATIEDPEMIT n OUty 0RIght-of-Way
10. FE CALCULATION
Valuation of construction
MIZone I fee @1%
OZone II fee 0.5%
OZone III fee 0 .26%
600,000.00
6.000.00
rt r tart
AAA. P. 0* Bw 2D16
BK:Iil n N 1I
J
I / 49 -7 41 0 -,r
y
EamawdA Addo -iidt*p
,IAuhUw Dafte
Mwv Ma-o Aa~w& 3Snbuie Date
Amount Cooleeed, Recept No. Date Paid.
13. REFUND OF DEPOSITS OR ADOmONAL CHARGES
Archeologcal Activity Cost (in *omes of original fe)
Depos Collected
Difference
ODue City
0 Due Applicant
Amiunt CdMtletd $ ea ipt No. Date Paid
AmeuWnlta _____ d Check No. Date Paid
,q
11. OIy ARCl' WMWS OMMUWTENYTOS
Ossed mmp fny MW admuselsda rulw the IOlOAw in s/we reqird:
Oft adiWO" welmob reviw
Camw~ ~~~~~ 4.imO ~ i 4 ~L,, A/v IZr, '-'O-!Z
419C~
12. D---OCUMWTATMIOWUASITIONAL OIPOST REUED
PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTURNT
SAINT AUGUSTINE. FLORIDA
July 6, 1989
Mr. Bruce Piatek
Senior Museum Curator
Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board
P.O. Box 1987
St. Augustine, Florida 32085-1987
RE: City Archaeology Program
Dear Bruce:
This letter relates to your correspondence dated June 21,
1989 (copy attached) concerning the Interlocal Agreement between
the City of St. Augustine and the Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board, with specific reference to 51 Abbott Street
(BDAC 89-270).
As you are aware, the City is in the process of amending
our Archaeology Ordinance 86-22, and, accordingly, on Monday, June
12, the City Coummission passed, on first reading, Ordinance 89-38.
This new ordinance will replace Ordinance 86-22, it will enhance
the City's overall archaeology program, it will substantially
clarify and better define the City's intentions and procedures
related to archaeology and it would require revisions to the
language, format and content of the existing Interlocal Agreement
for any future agreement that the City executes for City
Archaeologist services. The second reading and public hearing
regarding Ordinance 89-38 is scheduled for July 10.
P.O. DRAWER 210. 75 KING ST.. 32085-0210
Mr. Bruce Piatek
July 6, 1989
Page 2
Until the City Commission takes final action on Ordinance
89-38 and requests proposals for archaeology services, and absent
any available funding in the City's current budget, I have been
directed not to forward archaeological applications to the Historic
St. Augustine Preservation Board. During this peiod, the City
will, to the best of our ability, monitor applic abe xcavations in
archaeological zones to ensure general compliance h the intent
of our Archaeology Ordinance. If significant historic resources
are uncovered, we will take immediate steps to solicit professional
advice to .record the resources. As you may be aware, we have not
received any archaeological applications since the City Commission
action relative to Ordinance 89-38 on June 12.
We appreciate your concern and interest related to the
archaeological resources in our community. I trust that this
letter addresses your question.
Sincerely,
und
Director, Planning and Building Department
TB:kst
xc: Michael A. Rourke, P.E., City Manager
Geoff Dobson, City Attorney
Jri6Loric (StLAuu6Un e
J-ee ria tion boa rad
Tfe State of Forida
April 19, 1969
Mr. Michael Rourke
City Manager
P.O. Drawer 210
St. Augustine, Florida 32085
Dear Mr. Nourke,
In your letter of April 10, 1989 you requested two proposals for
archaeological work on the properties at 41 Hypolita Street (BDAC
86-553) and 49 1/2 Carrera Street (BDAC 89-213). The budgets
weer provided to you, but I understand from Mr. Miron that there
may have been some misunderstanding concerning the costs. I wish
to clarify several points that may have led to this
mi sunderstandi ng.
1) The proposals you received were an estimate for the total
archaeological work on the two projects. As we have not yet done
the historical background research on the site, we do not know
the amount of modern disturbance to the site nor the likelihood
b of encountering significant features, structures, and such. We
can only estimate, based upon past knowledge of similar
situations, the amount of time required. I am sure you
understand that it is difficult to submit a proposal for work,
that may later-become a cap on expenses.
2) The archaeological work at the two sites may not progress at
a steady rate. Based upon past experience, this will be the
case. For example, 'the excavation phase may take place over
several months time depending upon the schedules of the
contractors and the subcontractors, changes in work required by
the Architbct, the ..-number of other Applications for
Archaeological Review, cd-site changes, the number of available
volunteers, and any number of unforseen difficulties that may
artse. Likewise, the analysis and report writing stages way not
take place for several. months, or in the case of some past
projects, for a year after the excavation phase. This may be due
to the number of additional Applications for Archaeological
Review, the number of volunteers to help in the washing and
sorting phases Of the analysis, or any number of reasons. As I
understand our situation, the city archaeologists must respond
POST O ICE BOX 17, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 32085
(04) I4m (SUNCOM) 865-5033
within 48 hours to any number of Applications, we are not able to
pick and choose projects, but must respond to all in an
acceptable, professional manner. We must always make fieldwork
the first priority-in order to avoid long delays in construction.
The system of providing proposals prior to city archaeological
work is new to the program. A proposal was requested on the
Florida National Suard Sewer Hookup project, but, to date, this
has been the only example prior to the recent request. A total
of thirty-six city projects has been done with the understanding
that we do the necessary archaeological work on all projects for
a set yearly amount.
I would suggest, in the interest of providing adequate
archaeological service within a reasonable time frame, that we
proceed as we have for the past year and a half. We would like
to begin work on the 41 Hypolita Street and 49 1/2 Carrera Street
properties, but need your permission to do so. We realize that
there are several :issues that need to be worked out between the
two agencies, the City of St. Augustine and the Historic St.
Augustine Preservation Board, but, by allowing the work to
proceed on these two properties, we are not jeopardizing the
City's archaeological resources nor causing unnecessary delay for
the property owners.
Sincerely,
Christine Newman
City Archaeologist
Jiic^fic &LAUKui6nc
The State of Florida
April 12, 1989
Mr. Michael Rourke
City Manager
P.O. Drawer 210
St. Augustine, Florida 32085
Dear Mr. Rourke;
Enclosed you will find the proposals you requested in your letter
to Mr. Miron. The proposals are submitted for your approval so
that we may proceed with the archaeological work on the two
properties. Please understand that the following proposals are
based upon projected salary for the two "city archaeologists"
only, no margin of profit is included as the Historic St.
Augustine Preservation Board is a non-profit organization. It
shoiud also be noted that the proposal- does not reflect the time
that the historians curator, laboratory assistant, supervisor or
accountant will spend on the project, nor is general overhead
added to the proposal as this is time that the Historic St.
Augustine Preservation provides to the city at no cost. Please
also understand that the proposals may not reflect the actual
time spent in each of the phases, these determinations are very
difficult to make without proceeding with the actual work nor
doing a sufficient background search on the properties.
I understand that we may not proceed with any work on the two
Applications for Archaeological Review (BDAC 86-553 at 41
Hypolita Street and BDAC 89-213 at 49 1/2 Carrera Street) until
we receive authorization from your office. In the past we have
received the applications from the Planning and Zoning Office and
have been able to begin work on many projects almost immediately.
This new procedure, if indeed this is to be the usual route of
all Applications for,. Archaeological Review, will cause
unnecessary hardship on ydur office, the Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board and, most importantly, the property owner. In
the case of the two applications referenced in this letter, one
was submitted to the City on March 8th and the other on March
13th, we did not receive the application until April 10th and I
am assuming it will take your office at least one day to respond,
making the time elapsed 36 days rather than the 48 hours
specifically called for by the Ordinance (Section 13). While I
can certainly understand your need for accountability, I
sincerely believe that this new system will be detrimental to the
archaeological program as a whole. We appear to be complicating
a relatively simple procedure; the Historic St. Augustine
POST OmM KO~ 1987 ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 32085
(f4t 4-355 (SUNCOM) 821-5455
Preservation Board provides archaeological services to the city
through the employment of two professional archaeologists as well
as supporting services such as a vehicle, laboratory space,
curation space, management, and such. The city, in turn,
provides the salary dollars and some expenses for two people.
In your letter of April 10 to Mr. Miron you remarked that I had
"overtly circumvented" the City's administrative procedures and
requirements. I offer the following as explanation for what was
done. I had asked, at the City's request, Mr. Innes, the
contractor for Mr. Gonzmart, to please mail the Application for
Archaeological Review and the accompanying archaeological fee as
soon as possible because I knew that the site was important
arbhaeologically and would possibly require a good deal of
archaeological work prior to construction. I am responsible,
under Section 3(d) of the Ordinance, for assessing the
archaeological resources and work required for each site within
the City. It is also within ry duties to work with property
owners during the planning stages of applicable projects to
minimize the potential impact on archaeological sites (Section
11). We are finding that since the Archaeological Preservation
Ordinance is a relatively unusual piece of legislation, many
people do not understand how the ordinance works and often
believe that it may hold up their work. If properly
administered, this need not be the case and I believed that an
explanation to Mr. Innes was in order, particularly as I was the
person who urged him to submit the application and accompanying
fee well in advance of the anticipated construction commencement
date. I wanted him to understand that any delay from the time he
submitted his application and paid his fee was not due to
required archaeological work.
You also mention that there has been a lack of cooperation on the
part of the Preserviut.on Board concerning "the providing of
required information and proposals relative to estimated hours,
costs, time schedules, and reports necessary to authorize and
complete individual archaeology projects and work phases". I can
only assume that you are referring to the forms attendant to the
interlocal agreement which was recently submitted to the
Preservation Board for review. As the City and the Preservation
Board have not yet reached a revised agreement on either the
interlocal agreement or the new forms specified by your and
directly related to the new agreement, we have not yet begun to
provide you with information in that format. We have, however,
provided any other information requested by the City concerning
individual projects, the overall status of the program, and
budgetary data.
It was and continues to be my understanding that the operation of
the Archaeological Preservation Ordinance was not meant to pay
for itself through permit fees and that the City of St. Augustine
and the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board would together
provide support for it. It was my understanding that the
inclusion of Section 8 into Ordinance 86-42 was meant to provide
a means whereby funds could be generated that would support
additional labor, .other than that of the city archaeologists or
preservation board staff, and/or atypical laboratory analysis
that may be required on a site. It was not meant to be used on
each city project as a means of cost justification. I hope that
your request for proposals on these two projects is not the way
business will be done in the future.
ik
In closing, I sincerely hope the resolution of the various
problems confronting us will soon be reached. I believe that the
preservation of St. Augustine's archaeological resource is the
goal that both the City and the Preservation Board wish to see
realized. The achievement of this goal is, in my opinion,
directly dependent upon our ability to streamline the processes
necessary to implement the ordinance.
Sincerely,
Christine Newman
City Archeologist
xcs Hector Miron, Director, HSAPB
Bruce Piatek, CRM Division, HSAPB
Mayor and City Commissioners
Troy Bunch, Director, Planning and Building Department
Proposal for
City Archaeological Work
49 1/2 Carrera Street
Lot 8, Block -
Kirkside Subdivision
EstLimated Hours
Background Research
Testing
Monitoring
Analysis
Write-up
16 hours
16 hours
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
$ 11.25/hr
Estimated Total Cost
$ 180.00
180.00
270.00
270.00
270.00
$1170.00
Notes The proposal is based upon the average of the two city
archaeologist's salaries only. No additional expenses nor
salaries saw included.
Submitted to City Manager April 12, 1989.
Proposal I for
City Archaeological Work
41 Hypolita Street
Lot '1, Block 14
City of St. Augustine
Estimated Hours:
Background Research
Testing and Excavation
Monitoring
SAnalysis
Report Preparation
40 hours
640 hours
80 hours
1920 hours
80 hours
/
$11.25/hr
, -
$ 450.00
7200.00
900.00
( 900. 00
Estimated Total Cost
Notes The proposal is based upon the average of the two city
archaeologist's salaries only. No additional expenses nor
salaries aws included. -...
Submitted to City Manager April 12, 1989.
,.,
CITY MANAms
SAINT AUGUSTINE. FLORIDA
April10, 1989
Mr. Hector Miron
Director, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board
P.O. Box 1987
St. Augustine, Florida 32085-1987
RE: City of St. Augustine
Archaeology Program
Dear Mr. Miron:
Since the early part of 1988, the City has continuously
experienced difficulties with the Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board related to the City's archaeology program.
These problems have included (1) The Preservation Board's
misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the Interlocal Agreement
between the City and the Board, (2) application of the Board's own
interpretations to the City's Ordinance 86-42, (3) a general lack
of respect for City administrative responsibilities, procedures and
requirements and (4) a general disregard and lack of respect for
City budgetary matters, financial requirements and legal
constraints. Also, there has been a lack of cooperation by the
Preservation Board concerning the providing of required information
and proposals relative to estimated hours, costs, time schedules
and reports necessary to authorize and complete individual
archaeology projects and work phases.
As you are aware, we have discussed these matters on
numerous occasions and, most recently, the City has drafted
proposed revisions to the existing May 14, 1987, Interlocal
Agreement in an effort to address and eliminate the problems which
we have experienced with the Preservation Board. City staff spent
considerable time and effort to develop the possible revisions,
which we presented to you on March 15. It is our understanding
P.O. DRAWER 210. 75 KING ST.. 32088.0210
Mr. Hector Riron
April 10, 1989
Page 2
that you will complete your review and offer comments during the
week of April 10.
Recently, City staff received a memorandum (copy
attached) from Christine Newman, "City Archeologist," referencing
two Applications for Archaeology Review (BDAC 86-553 at 41 Hypolita
Street and BDAC 89-213 at 49-1/2 Carrera Street), and an
accompanying letter (copy also attached) addressed to Mr. Innes
Irwin concerning one of the applications (BDAC 86-553). The noted
telephone call and subsequent letter to Mr. Irwin represents an
overt circumvention by Ms. Newman of the City's administrative
procedures and requirements, and such action is totally
unacceptable to the City. The Historic St. Augustine Preservation
Board is a contractor (via the Interlocal Agreement) to the City
and, without question, it has always been our intention and
requirement that you and your staff act only at the direction, and
with the authorization, of the City. Your responsibilities relate
only to the City's archaeology program, and specifically Ordinance
86-42, and they must be in response to the City's building, utility
and right-of-way permit process, and then only at the request and
direction of the City. In spite of our numerous clarifications and
specific directions concerning the City's procedures and policies,
the Preservation Board continues to violate its role (or
unilaterally expand its responsibilities) in the City's archaeology
program and permit review process.
Attached hereto I am providing the two Applications for
Archaeology Review as noted above (BDAC 86-553 and BDAC 89-213).
These applications are submitted for your consideration with the
specific understanding that the City is not directing or
authorizing the Preservation Board to proceed with any formal
archaeology efforts related to these two projects and, further, we
will not consider any reimbursement to you until such direction and
authorization to proceed hhas been processed. The City will
consider approval and authorization only after receipt of
individual proposals for archaeology efforts, including estimates
of scope of work, anticipated manhours, costs and time schedules
necessary to complete, in the opinion of the Preservation Board,
all applicable phases of these two archaeological projects. This
requirement is based upon Section 8 of Ordinance 86-42, it is
consistent with numerous previous communications to the
Preservation Board concerning this procedural matter, and it is
necessary in order to determine if proposed work and related costs
are in excess of the permit fees prescribed by the Ordinance. It
is absolutely imperative to the City that our archaeology program
be satisfactorily conducted, with proper accountability, and the
Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board must adhere to all City
requirements.
Mr. Hector Niron
April 10, 1989
Page 3
As a further elaboration of the preceding paragraph,
Ordinance 86-42 clearly contemplates that archaeology fees are to
be determined in advance of the permit (building, utility,
right-of-way) being issued. The Ordinance further suggests that
the permit is to be issued prior to the beginning of the
archaeological work. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary to
determine, based on the Ordinance, the scope of work for the
archaeology efforts. so that the appropriate fees (including both
the "percentage" fees and the "additional/excess" fees) can be
collected. In essence, the City and its applicants cannot be
expected to give the Preservation Board a blank check in advance
for whatever work you later determine is desirable. Likewise,
neither the City nor the applicant can afford to embark on an
archaeology project if the course is undefined and if there is an
unknown potential for additional costs/fees. Under some
circumstances, particularly related to projects with a substantial
archaeology fee, an .applicant may wish the archaeological work to
be done in advance of the actual issuance of a building permit so
as not to delay subsequent construction. It would then,
nevertheless, still be imperative that a determination of the scope
of work and fees be made in advance so that the necessary fees can
be collected prior to you undertaking work. As you may know, a
public agency may not extend public credit to private individuals
and, thus, as a legal matter the City may not authorize work to be
undertaken relative to the Archaeology Ordinance until it has
properly advised the applicant and collected the applicable fees in
advance. The public agency may not perform the work and then
attempt, after the fact, to collect the money from the applicant.
In essence, General Fund revenues of the City may not be "loaned"
to an applicant for the completion of archaeological work.
Referencing your letter of March 14, 1989 (copy attached)
and your requmt for an additional funding approval of $26,000 for
the balance of the City'. FY 88-89, please be advised that I will
address this matter with the City Commission at a later date.
Please note, however, that additional funds would and should not be
required if the necessary archaeology fees were properly set forth
and collected from the various projects related to the archaeology
program. In the meantime, City staff is evaluating various
alternatives relative to the appointment or designation of the
"City Archaeologist", as well as the basic provisions and content
of the Archaeology Ordinance 86-42, and we will discuss these
matters with the Commission at the appropriate opportunity.
Please be assured that the City is committed to a goal of
facilitating the preservation of archaeological resources in the
City and, to accomplish the goal, we intend to enforce our
ordinances and properly manage the archaeology permitting process.
Mr. Hector Miron
April 10, 1969
Page 4
We will await your expeditious response and proposals
concerning the two referenced project applications and we will
gladly advise you and your staff in developing/presenting the
estimates. If you have any questions concerning this
correspondence, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Michael A. rke, P.E.
City Manager
MAR:sjs
Attachments
xc: Mayor and City Commissioners
Troy Bunch, Director, Planning and Building Department
Geoffrey Dobson, City Attorney
I JIi6ofric 6L.Ju AUnc RECEIVED
JThrc ervatio oart AR 201989
The State oFlorida planning Building Dept.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Troy Bunch
Planning and Building Director
FROM: Christine Newman J
City Archaeologist
DATE: March 17, 1989
RE: Archaeological Review Applications
I understand.. .that- your office has received two applications for
archaeological- review that have not been forwarded to the city
archaeologist. The archaeological fees have been paid on both
applications. One application refers to the construction of-i4
swimming pool at the corner of Carrera an'd.-Riberia Street and- thl
other concerns construction on Hypolita and St. George Streets.
The failure of immediate action on the part of the city in the
turning over of these applications to the city archaeologist may
cause undue harm to both the city and the city's archaeological
prog ram.
I understand that the construction on Hypolita and St. George
Street should, under its current status, begin by July 25. I
have spoken on the phone to Mr. Innes Irwin, the contractor for
the project, and urged him to send his application for
archaeological review and.fees in early to avoid any chance of
delay because of the necg1ssary archaeological work. Due to the
downtown location of the project, the historic and archaeological
potential of the site, and the size of the project the
archaeological work should begin as soon as possible. He
understood the circumstances and complied with the request. The
problem now lies in the city releasing the application to the
city archaeologist so work can begin.
While I understand that problems exits between the City and the
S't. tor c 23c. Augustine Preservation Board at an administrative
level, I had hoped that these problems would not jeopardize the
fq 'xtingq program. I hope that you agree and will comply with
'hi :. request to release all apple i cati ons for archaeological
*':.'io.w a', ,.oon as they are received by your office.
POST OFFICE BOX 1967 ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 32085
(964124-3355 (SUNCOM) 821-5455 *
ilcoc 6ttinRCEIVED
fti LrfcGLa6UnP e~ RECEIVED
Prc-re 6eo oarcL t
The State of Florida
PlanningfBuilding Dept.
March 17, 1989
Mr. Innes Irwin
Irwin Cqntracting Incorporated
150 Second Avenue North, Suite 920
P.O. Box 429
St.. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0429
"Eear Mr. Irwin;
This is to confirm our telephone conversation of March 17, 1989
at which ..time you were notified that your Application for
Archaeological Review and accompanying fees has been received by
the City of St. Augustine. You were also notified that the
Application has not been passed on to the City Archaeologist and
that this may cause delay in the projected- start date for the
project.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate .to contact me at
904/825-5033. Thank you. I
Since ely,
Christine tlewman
City Archaeologist
xc: Troy Bunch, City-Planning and Building Director
POST OFFICE BOX 1987
(904 U24-33SS
ST. AUdUSTINE, FLORIDA 32085
(SUNCOM) 821-5455
MR A ?.0 0 IJOU
Ji6toric 6LtAuu6tncnD cgSW P
J resrvation board A' 193 9
The State o Florida City Manager's Office
March 14, 1989
Mr. Michael A. Rourke
City Manager
P.O. Drawer 210
St. Augustine, FL 32085
Dear Mike:
This is a request for additional funds to continue the implementation of
the Archaeological Preservation Ordinance through the remainder of fiscal
year 1988-1989. We were informed at the special City Commission meeting of
September 27 that should it become apparent that the -funds budgeted were
insufficient to conduct the responsibilities of the Archaeology Ordinance,
the City Commission, through your office, would make the proper adjustments.
The City budgeted amount for the City Archaeology Program, excluding
the Walled City Concept, was $22,800.00. To date the City has been billed
$15,440.79 for the fiscal year 1988-1989. An additional amount of $26,000.00
is requested to complete fiscal year 1988-1989.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
-Si erely,
Hector L. Miron
I Director
HLM/jh
xc: Bruce Piatek
Christine Newman
POST OFFICE BOX 1987 ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 32085
(904) 824-3355 (SUNCOM) 821.5455
JIi Ltoric St &Auu tine
F Jre erfa tion B oardc
The State of Florida
MEMORANDUM
TO: BRUCE PIATEK
FROM: MARY HERRON
DATE: MARCH 28, 1989
RE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS
When Chris and I last met with members of the city's planning and
building department on March 17, 1989, we were informed that two
applications for archaeological review had been received by the
department but not forwarded to the city archaeologist. The
archaeological fees had also been paid at the time that the
requests for review were submitted. One of these projects is the
construction of a swimming pool on the southeast corner of
Riberia and Carrera. The other is the construction of a number
of small structures on the property running from St. George to
Spanish Street south of Hypolita Street (Gonzmart).
Because of their locations, both of these projects will almost
certainly require intensive archaeological testing and promise to
be rather lengthy investigations. This and other obvious
considerations prompted Chris to write a memo to Troy Bunch,
Director of Planning and Building, voicing our concerns about the
unnecessary and frankly incomprehensible delay in releasing the
archaeological review-applications to us.
We have just returned from another meeting with the city planning
personnel at which Mr. Bunch was present. As we had not received
any response to our inquiries regarding the two applications, we
once again asked when we could expect their release. We were
informed that these two applications (and I can only assume
upcoming applications) have not been released to us on
instructions of Mr. Rourke, the city manager. The reason for
this, according to Mr. Bunch, is Mr. Rourke's unwillingness to
forward these applications until a new interlocal agreement
between the city and the preservation board has been reached.
Mr. Bunch promised to speak to the city manager about this matter
and would try to contact us by the end of the day. Mr. Bunch
speculated however, that we would not have a response from Mr.
Rourke regarding the status of the applications until sometime in
POST OFFICE BOX 1987 ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 32085
(904) 824-3355 (SUNCOM) 821-5455
the first week of April. This of course means that a period of
three weeks will have passed before we can expect even an initial
response from the city regarding their failure to forward these
applications.
Chris and I are quite concerned over the city manager' s
noncompliance with the implementation of the archaeological
ordinance in these two instances. We further feel that Mr.
Rourke's actions surely are not in accord with the intentions of
the city commission or the spirit of the city archaeological
ord i nance.
Please check into this matter as soon as possible. Chris and I
hope that you will be able to bring some influence to bear on a
problem which we feel could have very grave consequences to the
archaeological resources of this city.
YJIidtoric &LAut utiLne
redcf ratonrBoard
The State of Florida
MEMORANDUM
TO : Troy Bunch
Planning and Building Director
FROM: Christine Newman
City Archaeologist
DATE: March 17, 1989
RE: Archaeological Review Applicat ions
I understand that your office has received two applications for
archaeological review that have not been forwarded to the city
archaeologist. The archaeological fees have been paid on both
applications. One application refers to the construction of a
swimming pool at the corner of Carrera and Riberia Street and the
other concerns construction on Hypolita and St. George Streets.
The failure of immediate action on the part of the city in the
turning over of these applications to the city archaeologist may
cause undue harm to both the city and the city's archaeological
program.
I understand that the construction on Hypolita and St. George
Street should, under its current status, begin by July 25. I
have spoken on the phone to Mr. Innes Irwin, the contractor for
the project, and urged him to send his application for
archaeological review and fees in early to avoid any chance of
delay because of the necessary archaeological work. Due to the
downtown location of the project, the historic and archaeological
potential of the site, and the size of the project the
archaeological work should begin as soon as .possible. He
understood the circumstances and complied with the request. The
problem now lies in the city releasing the application to the
city archaeologist so work can begin.
While I understand that problems exits between the City and the
Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board at an administrative
level, I had hoped that these problems would not jeopardize the
existing program. I hope that you agree and will comply with
this request to release all applications for archaeological
review as soon as they are received by your office.
POST OFFICE BOX 1987 ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 32085
(904) 824-3355 (SUNCOM) 821-5455
tIe St.atf of Wia
March 17, 1989
Mr. I ines Irwin
Irwin Contracting Incorporated
150 Second AverMe North, Suite 920
P.O. Box 429
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0429
Dear Mr. Irwin|
This is to confirm our teleph .ne conversation of March 17, 1989
at which time you were notified that your Application for
Archaeological Review and accompanying fees has been received by
the City of St. Augustine. You were also notified that the
Application has not been passed on to the City Archaeologist and
that this may cause delay in the projected start date for the
project.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at
904/8e5-S033. Thank you.
Christine Newman
City Archaeologist
xcs Troy Dunch, City Planning and Building Director
VRoa~ sox p ST. AUdUSTO, n sOA 320M
(We4XMS (SUNCOM) 21-5455
-___ #ypo///a 5/riel --
-
I .1
* ...O **/L 3 1
I, I I /?5'
__................. ,@___. -I- __.
--------------"---
ii, l~ I -- I-~=7
" ** :. I|
.-. *. : ., / /.. _
.... I ,,-i I
.s- S ) 8
-, ..... I _
* I-------_ _---
-I -- ..." &
-- ------ /] - --- i-t -S
-, l" **'I
_- -I -
I
ied
-'4'
/3
/3,
13
13.
/A4
/4
144
id #
1764
0 Joas C/menfln.e de/ Cas/;//o
/ Ani Perez
2 Anwioni MA zon
3 Andres Crisesomow
4 Ita MIePan
5 Don /Fancisco sonaA/es
C Lo' of ./wan a6 As Aryes
7 fnacv ie* MoAr
SDon yfguel lopez
9 Ramn 6azoales
0 Josefa Yanes
A Don Juan de Salas
? An*rnk /liJio
F Juana Wa A/aneda
SFrancisco Cabrere
5r J.1 C/..ane af/Cas*M'&
f Mar/'na /ferfx'
/7.__.__
-Ekam*eW aevar M
o- --- -A - *
J/an Iai'Sarap FerraiM
J S.Sf Mr'wvSmmer
Dan ,ewh Cauifac/o.
ca /800
-.-f ^.-- a---
Don Pedro Cos$//c/o
Don Josef Maria gBonez
Don Juan BSo//s'a Ferreira
/Juan Baswsa Aerre/ra
./4en Ponce
Joaqvn Ae MQc ZLug A/in
/834
/ Peer Coeac., -
2 Joseph MA..wez -
Wr of A& AMiosh
3 Jona 5. w -m
4 JohAn m---
Ohea1a4 Cager
I 7~
~-.
- Ca,
~ is-
'.9-
$
i.-: 1-5 S Ir/".
/S4 ga/r wiarMlan,,d fea.,.
e/a~fewsd r *9.
//_f
//fj
'2,
/23
_
o/, /
I Kn d4TAr
&Sf
CU G&0 t e.AL )2v~-f>
rakT 7.
cLeQ &tnta x
Mi(r
149-3
18 0 .
Jzr 4A w
Z/1 4'4fl ** 4ed. A &r i t
- 7t*el-
I. ," _.. 2L , *'.^
/ /
" ^ .. ( ^>^ --- -.... --.Y :-----
,r-,^ jr^,,-'/ .d
/
-1
^ 1. / c / . - ^
3.
-4----
2>
|
RSS
