AGENDA ITEM 7 ST. JOHNS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Deadline for Submission - Wednesday 9 a.m. – Thirteen Days Prior to BCC Meeting
6/20/2017 BCC MEETING DATE
TO: Michael D. Wanchick, County Administrator DATE: May 30, 2017
FROM: Patrick Doty, Planner PHONE: 904 209-0667
SUBJECT OR TITLE: PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates PUD
AGENDA TYPE: Ex Parte Communications, Ordinance, Public Hearing
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Request to rezone approximately 19 acres from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the development of twenty-eight (28) single- family dwelling units, specifically located at 6521 US Highway 1 South. The Planning and Zoning Agency recommended approval with a 7-0 vote on May 18, 2017 based on nine (9) findings of fact and subject to the inclusion of a right turn lane and the widening of lots along the northern portion of the development. Please see the Growth Management Report for project details.
1. IS FUNDING REQUIRED? No 2. IF YES, INDICATE IF BUDGETED. No IF FUNDING IS REQUIRED, MANDATORY OMB REVIEW IS REQUIRED: INDICATE FUNDING SOURCE:
SUGGESTED MOTION/RECOMMENDATION/ACTION:
APPROVE: Motion to enact Ordinance 2017-__ approving PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates, a request to rezone approximately 19 acres from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), specifically located at 6521 US Highway 1 South, based upon nine (9) findings of fact. DENY: Motion to deny PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates, a request to rezone approximately 19 acres from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), specifically located at 6521 US Highway 1 South, based upon nine (9) findings of fact. For Administration Use Only: Legal: PS 6/5/2017 OMB: DC 6/6/2017 Admin: ALV 6/7/2017
Growth Management Department PLANNING DIVISION REPORT Application for Planned Unit Development Rezoning File Number: PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates
To: Board of County Commissioners
Through: Planning and Zoning Agency
From: Patrick Doty, Planner
Date: June 5, 2017
Subject: PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates, a request to rezone approximately 19 acres from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the development of twenty-eight (28) single-family dwelling units, specifically located at 6521 US Highway 1 South.
Owner/Applicant: Cypress US 1, LLC
Representative: Douglas N. Burnett, Esq.
Hearing dates: Planning and Zoning Agency – May 18, 2017 Board of County Commissioners – June 20, 2017
Commissioner District: District 3
APPROVE: Motion to enact Ordinance 2017-__ approving PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates, a request to rezone approximately 19 acres from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), specifically located at 6521 US Highway 1 South, based upon nine (9) findings of fact.
DENY: Motion to deny PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates, a request to rezone approximately 19 acres from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), specifically located at 6521 US Highway 1 South, based upon nine (9) findings of fact.
Page 2 PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates
MAP SERIES
Location: The subject property consists of approximately 19 acres of land located west of US Highway 1 South and north of State Road 206.
Page 3 PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates
Future Land Use: The subject property, along with the property to the north, south, and east are located within the Residential-B (Res-B) Future Land Use Map Designation. Lands to the west reside within the Rural/Silviculture (R/S) Future Land Use Map designation.
Page 4 PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates
Zoning District: The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Lands to the north are zoned Moses Creek Estates Planned Unit Development (PUD) and properties to the south are zoned Woodlake Planned Unit Development (PUD). Open Rural (OR) zoning is located to the south, east and west.
Page 5 PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates
Aerial Imagery: The subject property contains approximately 19 acres of vacant land and has approximately 400 feet of frontage along US Highway 1 South. The property contains approximately 5.31acres of wetlands, of which 0.20 acres are proposed to be impacted. The site consists of four (4) separate parcels.
Proposed Master Development Plan Map: The Master Development Plan Map depicted below reflects the revisions requested by the Planning and Zoning Agency at the hearing held on May 18, 2017. Specifically, the site plan reflects the reduction in lots from 30 to 28 due to the determination regarding the inability to utilize the density bonus for upland preservation adjacent to contiguous wetlands. Additionally, the site plan reflects the addition of a right turn lane. The site plan below does not, however, reflect the Agency’s recommendation to widen lots along the northern property boundary to address lot size compatibility concerns.
Proposed Site Development Data
Page 7 PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates
APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant is seeking to rezone 19 acres from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the development of twenty-eight (28) single-family residential lots.
Development Standards Total ground area to be occupied by buildings/structures: 25% Maximum lot coverage per lot: 65% Maximum impervious surface ratio: 35% Maximum height: 35 feet Density: 2.01 units per net acre Minimum lot width: 53 feet Minimum lot area: 5,830 square feet Phasing: The project will be developed in one (1) five year phase. Construction will be commenced within five (5) years of the effective date of this rezoning. Commencement of construction shall be deemed to be approval of final construction plans of horizontal improvements. Completion is defined as the final as-built approval, which shall be within five (5) years of Commencement. Central water and sewer will be provided by St. Johns County Utility Department Fire Services: The project is located within a five road miles of a fire station
Waivers The Applicant is requesting no waivers.
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW This application was routed to all appropriate reviewing departments.
Technical Division Review: All future site engineering, drainage and required infrastructure improvements will be reviewed pursuant to the established Development Review Process to ensure that the development has met all applicable local regulations and permitting requirements. No permits will be issued prior to compliance with all applicable regulations.
Office of the County Attorney Review: Planned Unit Developments are considered rezonings, and therefore the Applicant bears the initial burden for approval of demonstrating that the proposed rezoning is a) consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and b) complies with the procedural requirements of the Land Development Code. The Agency/Board may approve or deny the proposed request to rezone if there is evidence that maintaining the existing zoning serves a legitimate public purpose. A legitimate public purpose for keeping the existing zoning may include that the rezoning: produces an urban sprawl pattern of development; is spot zoning; produces an incompatibility or deviation from an established or developing logical and orderly development; produces significant adverse impact upon property values of the adjacent or nearby properties; or detracts from the character and quality of life in the neighborhood by creating excessive noise, lights, vibration, fumes, odors, dust, physical activities and other detrimental effects or nuisances.
Planning and Zoning Division Review: The subject property is currently zoned Open Rural, which allows one single-family residential dwelling unit per acre, and various non- residential use categories such as Agricultural and Cultural/Institutional. The current land use designation of Residential-B allows a maximum theoretical yield of two (2) units per net Page 8 PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates acre of uplands, which equates to 27 units of density. The Applicant is also utilizing a wetland density bonus to gain one (1) additional unit by preserving 5.11 acres of wetlands. Per LDC, Section 5.08.03, in order to exercise a wetland density bonus, the applicant is required to preserve wetland acreage by deed restriction, conservation easement, or other written evidence approved by the County.
The applicant initially requested a density bonus for preserving two upland acres adjacent to contiguous wetlands for an additional two (2) dwelling units. However, the wetlands did not meet the County’s definition of “contiguous”; therefore, the density bonus was not permissible as the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan only provide for a density bonus to preserve uplands adjacent to contiguous wetlands. The applicant contended that the wetlands met the St. Johns Water Management District’s definition of contiguous; however, the density bonus is only applicable if the wetlands meet the County’s definition of contiguous. Upon further review, the applicant determined that the wetlands failed to meet the Water Management District’s definition of contiguous. As a result, the applicant modified the Master Development Text and Map to eliminate the request for the aforementioned density bonus request.
Figure 1 below provides a comparison of the existing Open Rural zoning and proposed Planned Unit Development zoning.
Figure 1: Zoning Designation Comparison Permitted Use Categories OR PUD Residential (one dwelling unit per net acre) X Residential (two dwelling units per net acre) X Agricultural (subject to compatibility) X Cultural/Institutional X Mining & Extraction X Outdoor Passive X Neighborhood Public Service X Solid Waste & Correctional Facilities X
Figure 2 below provides a compatibility analysis of adjacent lands. The subject property is surrounded by a variety of residential Planned Unit Developments with densities similar to the proposed PUD. Specifically, Ordinance 1996-19 known as Moses Creek Estates PUD includes 109 dwelling units on 66 acres with an overall density of 1.65 dwelling units per acre. Woodlake PUD was approved by Ordinance 2005-03 allowing 94 dwelling units on 57.3 acres with a net density of 1.93 dwelling units per acre (Figure 2). The remainder of the surrounding lands are undeveloped to the west and low density lots are located to the south and east. The proposed configuration of the development and lot size is generally compatible with the surrounding development patterns.
Current development trends show a transition favoring residential development along this portion of Highway US 1 South. As such, the request to rezone to Planned Unit Development appears to be consistent with the development pattern and shows an appropriate rezoning to promote infill development. Staff finds that this request is a logical progression of existing development and zoning patterns in the immediate and surrounding area and that the request would be consistent with the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.
Page 9 PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates
Figure 2: PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates Compatibility Chart MAJMOD 2015-23 Compatibility Chart Subject Criteria North East South West Property Residential Residential Residential Residential Rural/ FLUM B B B B Silviculture Moses Creek Proposed Woodlake Zoning Estates PUD OR OR PUD PUD, OR
Area 19 acres 66 acres 11.9 acres 57.3 acres 93.4 acres
Minimum 100’/1 acre Lot (OR); 53’/ 5,830 ft2 90’/ 14,500 ft2 100’/1 acre 80’ / 10,000 ft2 Width/ Minimum 100 Area acre (R/S) 94 single- Present/ Vacant land; 109 single- Single-family family homes; Forest Proposed Single-family family homes homes single family lands/vacant Use residential homes
PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY HEARING On May 18, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Agency recommended approval of PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates with a vote of 7-0 based on nine (9) findings of fact and subject to specific suggested changes. Specifically, the Agency recommended approval subject to the inclusion of a right turn lane and the increase of lot widths along the northern property boundary to ensure lot size compatibility with the Moses Creek PUD. The applicant also agreed to eliminate the density bonus request for upland preservation adjacent to contiguous wetlands, thereby reducing the density of the development from thirty (30) dwelling units to twenty-eight (28). These three issues constituted the main topics of discussion during the public hearing. There was also discussion from adjacent property owners concerned about development impacts.
Following the Planning and Zoning Agency hearing, the applicant responded to the Agency’s recommendation by revising the text and map to require a right turn lane, and to reduce the density from thirty (30) units to twenty-eight (28) dwelling units. Instead of increasing the lot width of properties along the norther portion of the site to address lot size compatibility concerns, the applicant eliminated two dwelling units on the southern side of the internal roadway across from the park site on the development to the south. Staff recommends that the applicant review methods to modify the lot width along the northern property boundary to address concerns raised by the Agency.
CORRESPONDENCE Staff has received one phone call regarding the proposed development in relation to the property to the north. Staff has provided the inquirer with a site plan indicating the location of development in relation to their property. Following the PZA hearing, staff received a adjacent property owners response opposing the proposed development on the basis of preserving open space and drainage concerns. All correspondence has been attached to this report.
Page 10 PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates
RECOMMENDED ACTION NOTE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS NON-BINDING
Staff recommends approval of PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates, subject to nine (9) findings of fact based on the revisions made to the Master Development Plan Text and Map. This recommendation is based upon the application materials, consistency with the Residential-B Future Land Use Map designation, the surrounding development pattern, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and other relevant information available to staff.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Recorded Documents Section 2. Application and Supporting Documents 3. Cited Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Provisions 4. Water and Sewer Availability Letter 5. Archeological Survey & Cultural Resource Assessment 6. Correspondence
ATTACHMENT 1 DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED
ORDINANCE NUMBER: 2017-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ST. JOHNS, STATE OF FLORIDA, REZONING LANDS AS DESCRIBED HEREINAFTER FROM OPEN RURAL (OR) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), PROVIDING FINDINGS OF FACT; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; REQUIRING RECORDATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA:
WHEREAS, the development of the lands within this Planned Unit Development shall proceed in accordance with the PUD application, dated April 10, 2017 in addition to supporting documents and statements from the applicant which are a part of Planning and Zoning File PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates, as approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and incorporated by reference into and made part hereof this Ordinance. In the case of conflict between the application, the supporting documents, and the below described special provisions of this Ordinance, the below described provisions shall prevail.
SECTION 1. Upon consideration of the application, supporting documents, statements from the applicant, correspondence received by the Growth Management Department, recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Agency, and comments from the staff and the general public at the public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners, finds as follows:
1. The request for Rezoning has been fully considered after public hearing with legal notice duly published as required by law.
2. The PUD is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the 2025 St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goal A.1 of the Land Use Element related to effectively managed growth, the provision of diverse living opportunities and the creation of a sound economic base.
3. The PUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Designation of Residential-B.
4. The PUD is consistent with Part 5.03.00 of the St. Johns County Land Development Code, which provides standards for Planned Unit Developments.
5. The PUD is consistent with the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan specifically Policy A.1.3.11 as it relates to compatibility of the project to the surrounding area.
6. The PUD meets the standards and criteria of Part 5.03.02 of the Land Development Code with respect to (B) location, (C) minimum size, (D) compatibility, and (E) adequacy of facilities.
7. The PUD meets all requirements of applicable general zoning, subdivision and other regulations except as may be approved pursuant to Sections 5.03.02(G)1.t and 5.03.02.(F).of the Land Development Code.
8. The PUD would not adversely affect the orderly development of St. Johns County.
9. The PUD as proposed is consistent with Objective A.1.11 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan as it relates to an efficient compact land use pattern.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to this application File Number PUD 2016-23 Cypress Estates, the zoning classification of the lands described within the legal description, Exhibit “A”,
is hereby changed to PUD.
SECTION 3. The development of lands within the PUD shall proceed in accordance with the Master Development Plan Text, Exhibit “B” and the Master Development Plan Map, Exhibit “C”.
SECTION 4. To the extent they do not conflict with the specific provisions of this PUD Ordinance, all provisions of the Land Development Code as such may be amended from time to time shall be applicable to this development; except (a) that modification to this PUD by variance or special use shall be prohibited except where allowed by the Land Development Code; and except (b) to the degree that the development may qualify for vested rights in accordance with applicable ordinances and laws. Notwithstanding any provision of this ordinance, no portion of any impact fee ordinance, concurrency provision, building code, Comprehensive Plan or any non Land Development Code ordinance or regulation shall be deemed waived or varied by any provision herein. Notwithstanding any provision of this ordinance, no portion of any use restriction, title conditions, restriction or covenants shall be deemed waived or varied by any provision herein.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be recorded in a book of land use regulation ordinances kept and maintained by the Clerk of the Court of St. Johns County in accordance with Section 125.68, Florida Statutes.
SECTION 6. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the zoning classification shall be recorded on the Zoning Atlas.
PASSED AND ENACTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA THIS______DAY OF ______2017.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: ______James K. Johns, Chair
ATTEST: HUNTER S. CONRAD, CLERK
BY: ______Deputy Clerk EFFECTIVE DATE: ______
Legal Description – EXHIBIT “A”
CYPRESS TRACE PUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OVERALL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF PARCEL 7 OF THE "PLAT OF PARTITION OF DUPONT ESTATE", AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2, AND PART OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 3, 6, 7 AND 8 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA. A COPY OF THE "PLAT OF PARTITION OF DUPONT ESTATES" BY J. W. SUMMERVILLE, REGISTERED FLORIDA LAND SURVEYOR NO. 22, DATED OCTOBER 28, 1952 IS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 202, PAGE 116 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE AFOREMENTIONED PORTION OF PARCEL 7 BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 7 OF THE "PLAT OF PARTITION OF DUPONT ESTATE", SAID NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 7, BEING ON THE EXISTING, MONUMENTED, WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD NO. 5 (ALSO KNOW AS U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1); THENCE SOUTH 88°58'00" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL 7, A DISTANCE OF 2342.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD COMPANY (A 150 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY AS PRESENTLY ESTABLISHED), SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 7; THENCE SOUTH 09°17'56" EAST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 7, A DISTANCE OF 357.53 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 7; THENCE NORTH 88°57'57" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL 7, A DISTANCE OF 2337.11 TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD NO.5, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 7, THENCE RUN N 08°24'06" W, ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD NO.5 AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 7, A DISTANCE OF 356.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SUBJECT TO AN EASEMNT FOR INGRESS OR EGRESS AND UTILITIES ON THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1508, PAGES 1558-1562, OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 639, PAGES 1175-1176 AND OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1508, PAGES 1566-1567, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA.
SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 827,790.27 SQUARE FEET OR 19.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN TEXT A. Project Description
This project is to allow for the development of a single family residential site directly accessing U.S. Highway 1, north of State Road 206 and west of the South Library. The plan of development is consistent with existing development in the area. The Cypress Estates PUD will consist of 28 single family homes. The Master Development Plan Map illustrates the generalized layout of the site and access will be by a single entrance off of U.S. Highway 1.
A PUD zoning classification was selected by the owner/developer to portray a single, unified development plan that is cohesive in its architectural design, landscaping, and site planning. This PUD shall provide additional controls and development review that avoids piecemeal development and promotes good planning practices. In addition to the positive aesthetic benefits of the project, the current residents of the area will benefit from new development that is more compatible with single family development than some of the potential uses allowed in Open Rural zoning.
The project may incorporate Low Impact Development principles as may be appropriate to the site conditions as outlined in the following documents/programs: http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/, the Florida Water Star Program; the Florida Energy Star Program; the Florida Friendly Landscape Irrigation and Florida Friendly Design Standards; Florida Green Industries Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources in Florida; Waterwise Florida Landscapes; and the Florida Green Building Coalition.
B. Total Acreage
The Subject Property includes all of the land area described in the Legal Description, Exhibit A. The total land area is approximately 19.00 acres, located within the Residential B Comprehensive Plan designated area.
C. Total Wetland Acreage
Total wetland acres on site 5.31 acres. The site is partially cleared and ready for development and the MDP Map does not contemplate a change to the existing wetlands other than 0.20 of wetland impacts.
D. Development Area
The total site area is 19.00 acres and total development area is 13.89 acres after 0.20 of wetland impacts. The Subject Property shall be developed exclusively as 28 lots of single family residential.
E. Residential Development
Residential development shall be limited to 28 residential units as shown on the MDP Map. This unit number is not only consistent but well below the Comprehensive Plan based upon a maximum base density within the Residential B category of two (2) units per acre on 13.89 acres of uplands yields 27.78 units (2 x 13.89 = 27.78 units). Adding the allowed ten percent (10%) wetland density bonus yields another 1.02 units (5.11 acres wetlands x 10% x 2 units per acre). May 26, 2017
Page 1 of 11 Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
Per LDC Section 5.08.03, in order to exercise a wetland density bonus, the applicant will preserve wetland acreage by deed restriction, conservation easement, or other written evidence approved by the County.
The density of the project is 2.01 units per acre based upon 28 residential units on a total of 13.89 developable acres. The projected population within the project is 68 persons based upon 2.44 persons per household, the St. Johns County concurrency standard. The estimated number of school age children within the project is 7.56 based upon the County standard of 0.27 school age children per household in the Pedro Menendez High School Concurrency Service Area. The builder selling homes in the Project will provide disclosure documents announcing the potential for children to be rezoned to different schools within the sales literature.
It should be noted that this residential density is consistent with the density allowed under the Residential B designation indicated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan.
F. Non-Residential Development
None.
G. Site Development Standards
Building Type:
Single Family Residential. The single family residential areas shall be developed with detached single-family homes with fee-simple form of ownership.
May 26, 2017
Page 2 of 11 Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
Minimum Lot Requirements:
Lot development criteria shall generally feature a minimum lot width of 53 feet (as calculated pursuant to Section 6.01.03A of the Land Development Code) except for the lots around the cul-de- sac which may have a minimum lot width of 25 feet pursuant to LDC Section 6.01.03.A. Any modification to lot layout shall be subject to Section 5.03.05 of the LDC.
Minimum Lot Dimensions: 53’ (5,830 sq. ft.) Maximum Impervious Surface: 35% Maximum Lot Coverage: 65% Maximum Lot Coverage Overall: 25%
Building Setbacks:
Front 20 ft. Side 7.5 ft. Rear 10 ft. U.S. Highway 1 50 ft.
• A minimum of 10 ft. shall be maintained between structures. All structures shall have a minimum separation, as measured from the furthest projection of any other structure to the furthest projection of any other structure. Setbacks shall be measured from the furthest projection. • Driveways may be located within setbacks provided they maintain a minimum five (5) foot setback from the side property line.
Building Height:
Maximum Building/Structure Height: 35 ft.
Accessory Structures:
Accessory Structures. Accessory Structures shall be allowed as per Section 2.02.04 of the Land Development Code.
• Mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units, pumps, heating equipment, solar panels, and similar installations, and screening and housing for such equipment, may project into the required Side Yard(s) or Rear Yard(s) but shall be not located within five (5) feet of any lot line, and may not project into the required Front Yards. No permanent improvements including eaves, mechanical equipment, pools, pool enclosures and fencing with a foundation are permitted to encroach into any drainage easements.
• Covered Patios and Covered Pools. Per LDC Section 6.01.03.H.3, covered patios and covered pools shall maintain a minimum five (5) foot setback from the parcel property line.
May 26, 2017
Page 3 of 11 Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
Parking:
Off-Street Parking: 2 spaces per lot
• Parking on individual lots may incorporate pervious pavers or permeable base surfaces to attempt to preserve existing trees subject to construction plan approval.
Fencing:
Rear and side yards may be fenced with a maximum 6-foot high masonry, wood, vinyl, or similar type fence and front yards may be fenced with a maximum 4-foot high masonry, wood, vinyl, or similar type fence.
Fencing may not be located within upland buffers.
Perimeter fencing of a unified design may be installed around the project’s boundary.
Signage:
Ground signs are limited to 32 sq. ft. in sign face area and may be double-faced. Ground signs shall be a wide-based monument style.
No subdivision identification signs will be placed in county right-of-way unless permitted through a right-of-way permit.
Lighting:
All lighting will be incompliance with the LDC, including Sections 6.09. and 5.03.06.H.
Existing Wells and Septic:
All existing wells and septic systems on the site will be properly abandoned consistent with the Florida Administrative Code and Environmental Health procedures prior to construction plan approval for any vertical construction. The only exception is for wells that may be used post- development if they are properly permitted. All wells and septic systems shall be located and abandoned prior to horizontal construction plan approval (clearing and grading).
H. Infrastructure
Stormwater:
The stormwater management system shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of St. Johns County and the St. Johns River Water Management District. Porous pavement, bulkheaded retention, and vault retention may be allowed in the PUD.
May 26, 2017
Page 4 of 11 Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
Stormwater management facilities may incorporate natural features into their construction that provide vegetation and buffers promoting wildlife habitat in accordance with Policy D.3.2.13. The native vegetation shall including grasses, tree and understory plantings on portions of the pond banks.
Water and Sewer:
All development within the PUD will be served by central water and sewer system. ST. JOHNS COUNTY UTILITIES will be the provider for potable water and for wastewater.
Construction:
All construction including roadway, drainage, and utility systems shall comply with the requirements of St. Johns County Land Development Code and the Manual of Water, Wastewater, and Reuse Design Standards & Specifications.
Excavation:
Excavation activities shall be shown on construction plans and shall be allowed within approved Development Areas (as defined by approval of construction plans) within the Project for the construction of stormwater management systems and ponds, wetland creation and/or wetland enhancement, lots and other similar uses and structures in conjunction with the development of the project, subject to all applicable permitting requirements. Additionally, fill dirt may be brought onto the project as needed to develop the project. This PUD shall allow early land clearing subject to permitting requirements of St. Johns County and the St. Johns River Water Management District appropriate for the stage of development. Prior to any such early clearing activity, the Developer shall provide to the County a tree inventory of protected trees as defined in Chapter XII of the LDC within the limits of the clearing for the road rights-of-way and the master drainage system. The Developer shall mitigate for any protected trees to be removed by such early clearing activity as required under Chapter IV of the LDC. No excavation activities will be permissible in areas utilized for density bonuses.
Utilities:
The Developer must confirm the Utility connection points for sewer at the design phase. The Utility connection points for sewer shall be installed as listed within the Availability Letter or as directed otherwise by ST. JOHNS COUNTY UTILITIES to minimize impact to the existing infrastructure or to the existing level of service.
Fire:
Fire protection will be installed in accordance with Land Development Code Section 6.03.
Access:
Access to the project shall be from a single access drive connecting to U.S. Highway 1, as depicted on the MDP Map. Site access improvements or related connection improvements shall be May 26, 2017
Page 5 of 11 Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
constructed at Developer’s expense, as well as a right turn lane, which design will be reviewed as part of the Subdivision Construction Plan review.
The internal roadways may be publicly owned and maintained, at the County’s sole discretion. The MDP Map depicts a preliminary vehicular circulation system that shows all proposed points of connection with public rights-of-way. The exact location and configuration of the internal roads shall be depicted on construction plans submitted for approval and shall be designed in accordance with the LDC.
Interconnectivity:
Interconnectivity is not practical for this site as area uses are well-established, fully built-out and do not favor interconnectivity.
Sidewalks:
A four (4) ft wide sidewalk will be constructed on one side of the internal roadway, continuing around the cul-de-sac, and a five (5) foot sidewalk will be constructed along the frontage of U.S. Highway 1, as part of the project as generally depicted on the MDP Map.
All pedestrian accessible routes 4' wide, in excess of 200' in length will require a passing area meeting the requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction (FACBC), adopted pursuant the current Florida Statues and based on the current ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
Upland Conservation:
Pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.03.A.3, a minimum of five percent (5%) of the site will be conserved as upland natural vegetation.
Park:
Active based recreational park area containing a minimum of 1.01 acres (1.0 acres minimum requirement met) of active based recreation will be provided, such as a dock/wildlife viewing platform, recreation stations (such as exercise equipment, tether ball and horseshoes), benches, water feature, dock, and/or tot lot, consistent with LDC Section 5.03.03.E.1. A non-ADA Nature Trail may also be provided. Additional passive and active recreation may be provided through pedestrian connections between residential parcels and other residential and recreation areas and through any open space or preservation areas, subject to compliance with applicable permitting requirements and construction plan approval.
The Developer shall be responsible for the construction of the park improvements described in this Subsection, and an approved property owners association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the improvements. The active recreation will be constructed prior to as-built approval of infrastructure. To the extent the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction applies to the project, such Code Requirements shall be met.
May 26, 2017
Page 6 of 11 Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
Open Space:
The project is required to maintain twenty-five percent (25%) Open Space or 4.75 acres. The project will actually provide significantly more Open Space as follows:
Neighborhood Park: 1.01 Acres Wetlands: 5.11 Acres Buffer: 2.62 Acres Total Open Space: 8.74 Acres
Solid Waste:
Solid waste collection shall be provided by the County-contracted waste collection company. Based upon an estimated generation of 5.71 pounds times 2.44 persons per dwelling unit, solid waste generation for 28 residential units results in an estimated 390 pounds per day.
I. Water and Sewer Use
Central water and sewer service will be provided by the ST. JOHNS COUNTY UTILITIES, connecting to lines along U.S. Highway 1. Water distribution and wastewater collection/transmission facilities will be dedicated to St. Johns County. Based upon an estimated use of 350 gallons per day per residence, water and sewer use for 28 residential units results in an estimated 9,800 gallons per day for potable water and an estimated 7,8401 gallons per day for sanitary sewer. The source for irrigation onsite may be reclaimed water but, because of the site’s small size, may not be practical. If reclaimed water is unavailable, stormwater management facilities larger than one acre shall be used as a source of irrigation, when not impracticable, until such time as reuse becomes available consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy D.5.3.1, E.2.1.6.g.
1. All utility construction projects are subject to the current construction standards within the Manual of Water, Wastewater, and Reuse Design Standards & Specifications at the time of review.
2. Utility connection points shall be installed as listed in the availability letter or as directed otherwise by the St. Johns County Utility Department to minimize impact to the existing infrastructure or to the existing level of service.
3. Water and/or Sewer lines that are to be dedicated to the St. Johns county Utility Department for ownership that are not in public right-of-way shall require an easement/restoration agreement.
4. No improvement such as pavement, sidewalk, and/or concrete walks are to be placed on top of water and/or sewer pressurized mains unless otherwise approved by SJCUD. Landscaping trees and landscaping buffers shall be placed at a minimum of 7.5 feet away from the centerline of utility pipelines.
May 26, 2017
Page 7 of 11 Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
J. Soils
Based on the Soil Survey of St. Johns County, Florida, as prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the following are the characteristics of the soil types encountered at the site:
Myakka fine sand (03) - The soil is poorly drained with a seasonal water table at a depth of O to 15 inches for 2 to 6 months and 15 to 30 inches within periods of lower rainfaJI. These soils are nearly level occurring in flatwoods and formed in marine deposits of sandy material.
Pomona fine sand (09) - This poorly drained, nearly level soils that occur in broad areas in flatwoods. The water table is within a depth of 10 inches for 1 to 3 months each year and is at a depth between 10 and 40 inches for more than 6 months during most years. During extended dry period, the water table recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches.
Smyrna fine sand (11) - This poorly drained, nearly level soils occurs in broad areas in flatwoods. The water table is within a depth of 10 inches for 1 to 4 months each year and is at a depth between 10 and 40 inches for more than 6 months during most years. During the rainy seasons, the water table rises above the surface briefly.
St. ,Johns fine sand (13) - The soil is poorly drained with a seasonal water table at a depth of O to 15 inches for 2 to 6 months and 15 to 30 inches within periods of lower rainfall. These soils are nearly level on broad flatwoods and landscapes adjacent to drainageways.
Floridana fine sand, frequently flooded (18) - This is a very poorly drained, nearly level soil, occurring on flood plains and in broad shallow drainageways. This soil is subject to flooding for 1 to 3 months during the rainy season. The water table is at a depth of less than 10 inches for more than 6 months during most years.
K. Land Use Classification
The Florida Land Use Cover Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) designations for the Subject Property are depicted on a FLUCCS Map.
During the site assessment LG2ES conducted a series of pedestrian transects throughout the subject property to classify the onsite vegetative communities according to FLUCFCS. The location of any natural resource issue of concern, and any occurrences, were located utilizing sub-meter rated global positioning system technology (GPS) for later use in generating report graphics and recommendations (Figure 4). Below is a brief description of the habitat communities observed:
Uplands - Upland Coniferous Forest (FLUCFCS 410) - Any natural forest stand whose canopy is at least 66% dominated by coniferous species. This community is comprised of mainly slash pine (Pinus elliotti) with scattered saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), bitter gallberry (flex glabra) and bracken fem (Pteridium aquilinum).
May 26, 2017
Page 8 of 11 Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
Wetlands - Cypress (FLUCFCS 621) - This community is characterized by pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) or bald cypress (Tax.odium distichum), which is either pure or predominant.
Wetlands - Wetland Forested Mixed (FLUCFCS 630) - This community is characterized by a mixture of conifers and hardwood tree species with an open to dense understory. Dominant vegetation includes slash pine, scattered bald cypress, sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), red maple (Acer rubrum), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), Virginia chain fem (Woodwardia virginica), and cinnamon fem (Osmunda cinnamomea).
The on-site communities are typical of those found in similar locations in North Florida, and there were no known unusual or unique features found during the survey. The upland and wetland communities found on-site are common in the landscape of St. Johns County and northeast Florida. Significant Natural Communities Habitat, as classified by St. Johns County, were not identified within the project boundary.
L. Significant Natural Communities
During the course of the field investigation, it was determined that no Significant Natural Community Habitats occurred within the property, as defined by St. Johns County, pursuant to St. Johns County Land Development Regulations Article IV, Section 4.01 .07 (Figure 4).
Sensitive species are those species listed by the State of Florida as Federally-designated Endangered (FE), Federally-designated Threatened (FT), Federally-designated Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (FT(S/A), State-designated Threatened (ST), or State Species of Special Concern (SSC). During the wildlife survey, LG2ES conducted a series of pedestrian transects over the subject property to determine the presence and extent of natural resource issues of concern, with emphasis on those areas with vegetative assemblages and soils potentially indicative of the presence of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), listed by FFWCC as threatened, and Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus), listed by FFWCC as a Species of Special Concern. One gopher tortoise burrow was identified on the southern property boundary (Figure 4).
A FFWCC permit will not be required if development activity on the project site avoids impacting the tortoise burrow by 25 feet in all directions. If the proposed development plans on impacting the tortoise burrow, A FFWCC relocation permit will be required. If gopher tortoise burrows are identified during subsequent site investigations, a 100% gopher tortoise survey will need to be performed.
M. Historic Resources
The project falls within the “Medium” probability zone. While there are no known resources of historical or archaeological significance, a Phase 1 will be conducted and confirmation from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be obtained to confirm the findings.
May 26, 2017
Page 9 of 11 Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
N. Buffering
Perimeter Buffer: The project shall have a ten (10) foot natural/landscape buffer along the project boundaries. Perimeter fencing to provide a minimum of eighty-five (85) percent opacity may be provided along portions of the project boundary to provide screening in those areas where there is limited existing natural vegetation or where a ten (10) foot buffer cannot be achieved, such as along the entry road between U.S. Highway 1 and/or adjacent to ponds. Additional vegetation will be considered and likely implemented during development to further enhance compatibility with the area. Screening will be provided consistent with LDC Sec. 6.06.04.B.6.
All landscaping, tree removal and tree protection shall be in compliance with the Land Development Code in effect at the time of approval of construction plans.
O. Special Districts
N/A
P. Temporary Uses
Temporary uses (including but not limited to a construction trailer, etc.) shall be allowed to be placed on-site and moved throughout the project. A construction trailer and storage areas related to construction of the project will be necessary for the development of the project. The Developer may install a construction trailer upon submittal of construction/clearing plans to the County. Construction trailers must be removed within thirty (30) days after the completion of construction. “Completion of construction” shall mean the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy.
The dirt removed from the underground stormwater management system may be used on-site, anywhere within the boundaries of the PUD. Excavation will be limited to those areas delineated on the construction plans and will be performed only in areas with an approved development permit.
Model Homes may consist of no more than ten percent (10%) of the total number of Lots within the individual, approved Construction Plans, per Section 2.02.04.B.10. of the St. Johns County Land Development Code. Model homes may have one sign each, located on the lot. As allowed by the Land Development Code, model homes may be constructed prior to platting but cannot receive Certificate of Occupancy prior to site having approved as-builts. Model homes must be located on a residential lot shown on the approved MDP.
Temporary sales and construction trailers and other temporary improvements shall be allowed but removed from a lot or parcel before any improvements on such lot or parcel receive a certificate of occupancy from the County. Approximate locations of temporary sales and construction trailers will be shown on engineering and construction plans.
Temporary sales trailers, sales offices, and model homes shall meet all requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction (FACBC), including but not limited to accessible route, accessible parking, and signage.
May 26, 2017
Page 10 of 11 Cypress Estates PUD – Exhibit B
Q. Accessory Uses
Accessory uses shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code.
R. Phasing Schedule
The project will be developed in one (1) five-year phase.
Construction will be commenced within five (5) years of the effective date of the PUD rezoning. Commencement of construction shall be deemed to be approval of final construction plans of horizontal improvements. Completion is defined as the final as-built approval, which shall be within five (5) years of Commencement.
S. Impact on St. Johns County
There is adequate capacity to serve this project including water, sewer, and roadways. Cypress Estates has been designed as a master planned project that includes preserved natural areas, attractive landscaping and architecture, and retention ponds designed to enhance the beauty of the project.
The proposed development is at a size and scale compatible with the surrounding area and will not cause adverse impacts to surrounding property or the natural environment. In fact, this PUD significantly reduces the development density and intensity of the site and makes the property more compatible with existing uses.
T. Waivers
None.
U. Binder
The Owners of Cypress Estates hereby agree to bind all successors and assigns in title to all terms of the PUD Ordinance. All successors in title and/or assigns shall be bound to proceed with the development in accordance with the site plan(s), written description of the intended plan of development, and any condition(s) set forth by the Board of County Commissioners in the ordinance that approves the Planned Unit Development district.
V. Future Land Use Map Designation
There is a single FLUM designation on the Subject Property, Residential B.
May 26, 2017
Page 11 of 11
END DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED
ATTACHMENT 2 APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
ATTACHMENT 3 CITED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS
surrounding properties or the natural environment;
b) adequate public facilities exist to serve the intended Commercial development;
c) there is a demonstrated deficiency of other available lands designated Commercial to accommodate the proposed Commercial use, and the applicant has demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed Commercial development, based on the size, scale and population of the area being served; and
d) the proposed development will promote compact commercial centers or districts rather than a strip commercial development pattern, characterized by continuous linear commercial frontage along the roadway.
e) the amendment is consistent with the policies contained in Policy A.1.2.5 and the policies contained in Objective A.1.5 of this Plan.
A.1.3.11 When a Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning or development application is considered, the County shall ensure compatibility of adjacent and surrounding land uses. Land uses, include but are not limited to permitted uses, structures, and activities allowed within the land use category or implementing zoning district. Compatibility means a condition in which land uses can co-exist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use. Compatibility does not mean “the same as“. Compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development and environments. The compatibility of land uses is dependent on numerous characteristics which may impact adjacent or surrounding uses. These include, but are not limited to: type of use, density, intensity, height, general appearance and aesthetics, odors, noise, smoke, dust, vibration, traffic generation, sanitation, litter, drainage, fire risk, air quality, vegetation, topography, soil conditions, wildlife, aquifer recharge, surface waters, drainage, protection of Listed Species or Essential Habitat, maintenance of public infrastructure, availability of potable water, sanitary sewer and other necessary public services and nuisances.
In order to ensure compatibility with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the County may require the submittal of a companion rezoning application, such as a PUD, Special Use request or other application showing development of the property. Amendments that result in unreasonable negative impacts and do not provide sufficient compatibility measures should not be approved.
2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Page 7
A rezoning request may be approved only upon determination that the application and evidence presented establish that all the proposed permitted uses are compatible with conforming land uses located on adjacent properties.
The Board of County Commissioners shall utilize the following criteria as applicable in the consideration of all rezoning requests.
1. A rezoning request shall not be approved if the proposed permitted uses are determined to have an unreasonable incompatible impact on the contiguous and surrounding area in respect to sensory characteristics such as odor, noise, vibration, and lighting, as well as non-sensory characteristics such as pollution and traffic flow.
2. A rezoning request shall not be approved if the proposed traffic flow of the proposed permitted uses have an unreasonable impact on the contiguous and surrounding area, or if the proposed traffic has an unreasonable impact upon the projected wear and tear of any public roadway designed to carry lighter traffic than proposed with the rezoning, or if the proposed traffic results in an unreasonable danger to the safety of other traffic, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
3. A rezoning request shall not be approved if any of the proposed permitted uses or proposed activities results in a public nuisance.
4. A rezoning shall not be approved if it results in urban sprawl determined by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
5. A rezoning shall not be approved if it unreasonably or unduly impacts the natural environment.
6. With respect to the foregoing, the following factors may be considered as mitigation in order to negate a possible incompatibility:
a. permitted uses, structures and activities allowed within the Future Land Use designation;
b. building location, dimension, height and floor area ratio;
c. location and extent of parking, access drives, loading areas, and service areas;
d. hours of operation, noise levels, and lighting;
2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Page 8
e. roads, setbacks, buffers, fences, walls, landscaping, parks and open spaces, wetlands, conservation areas, drainage ponds, lakes, and other similar characteristics.
2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Page 9
E. Adequacy of Facilities
The adequacy of sewage disposal systems, water supplies, fire protection, police protection, drainage systems, transportation systems, school facilities and recreational facilities to serve the proposed Development shall be considered in order to ensure that demands generated can be accommodated. For water, sewer, drainage, transportation, and recreation facilities the demand and adequacy of the facility shall be determined in accordance with Article XI, Concurrency Management. For public safety facilities and services (e.g. police, fire, EMS), the demand and adequacy of such facilities and services may be determined by the Board of County Commissioners.
F. Relation of PUD Regulations to General Zoning, Subdivisions, or Other Regulations; Modifications on Equal Satisfaction of Public Purposes
1. The Planned Unit Development regulations contained in this Code shall apply generally to the initiation and regulation of all Planned Unit Development districts. Where there are conflicts between the special PUD regulations herein and general zoning, Subdivision, or other regulations or requirements, these PUD regulations shall apply in PUD districts unless the Board of County Commissioners finds, in the particular case, that provisions herein do not serve public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to such general zoning, Subdivision, or other regulations or requirements.
2. Where actions, designs, or solutions proposed by the Applicant are not literally in accord with applicable PUD or general regulations, but the Board of County Commissioners makes a written finding, in the particular case, that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, the Board may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case. However, where floor area and similar ratios, as well as maximum allowed densities have been established by these regulations, the Board shall not act in a particular case to modify such ratios or maximums.
3. Except as indicated above, and notwithstanding procedures and requirements generally in effect, those procedures and requirements set forth in this Article shall apply in all PUD districts.
G. Master Development Plan Required
Except as otherwise allowed in this Code or by applicable law, all PUD applications shall include a Master Development Plan Text (Text) and Master Development Plan Map (Map), as provided below. The Master Development Plan Text and Map create a unified Development Plan by which the Project shall develop. The Master Development Plan Text and Map shall apply to any and all Developers, contractors, and buyers within the Project, unless modified pursuant to the requirements of this Part. The Text shall include the following minimum requirements, as appropriate:
1. Text
The PUD text shall be provided in a format consistent with following
St. Johns County Land Development Code V-11 February 17, 2015 requirements. The Text shall be written in a clear and concise manner fully addressing each subsection. Extraneous information is discouraged. The Text shall include a written description of the intended proposed Project, including the following, as appropriate. Additional criteria may be requested, based upon the character, scope and location of the Project.
a. A description related to the design, character and architectural style or theme of the Project, which demonstrates an innovative, unified, cohesive and compatible plan of development for all Uses included in the Project. Mixed Use PUDs that contain different Uses or several Development Parcels must also demonstrate consistency in design and character and plan of development.
b. The total number of acres included within the Project as requested in the application.
c. The total number of Wetland acres included within the Project as requested in the application.
d. The total amount of Development area, including the total number of developable acres (including filled Wetlands) for each proposed land Use and the total number of Wetland acres to be preserved for each land Use. Each developable Parcel shall be limited to one Use Classification, as provided in Article II of this Code.
e. The total number of residential Dwelling Units and density of the Project, proposed density bonuses, the projected population, and projected population of school age children that may reside within the Project.
f. The total square footage and intensity of non-residential Development.
g. The residential and non-residential Structure setbacks, as measured from the property line, the minimum size of residential Lots, the number of parking spaces for residential and non-residential Uses, the use of Signs and signage to serve the Project, including the sign height, size and type, such as wall, ground or monument, pylon, etc., street lights or other required outdoor lighting within the Project, and the maximum height of all Structures.
h. The type and location of infrastructure needed to serve the Project, including at a minimum, drainage facilities, vehicle and pedestrian access to the Project, internal vehicle and pedestrian access within the Project, interconnectivity access points to adjacent properties, potential new or expanded thoroughfare or right-of-way location, park, open space and recreation facilities, types of active recreation that will be provided, the provision of water and Sewer, fire protection, and solid waste collection. Additional infrastructure requirements may be addressed based upon the character or location of the Project.
i. The amount of water and Sewer use, based upon the projected population, and the public Utility Providers, if applicable.
St. Johns County Land Development Code V-12 February 17, 2015
j. The type of underlying soils and its suitability for Development of the proposed Project.
k. The type and extent of upland forest and Wetlands on the site using the Level III classification of the Florida Land Use Cover and Classification System (FLUCCS). A map depicting the location of upland forest and Wetland vegetation shall be provided with the application submittal.
l. The type and extent of any Significant Natural Communities Habitat as defined by this Code. Listed Species information including locations, densities and extent of habitat.
m. Identification of known or observed Historic Resources as defined by this Code, including any sites listed within the State Division of Historical Resources Master Site File or the St. Johns County Historic Resources Inventory. In such cases, the requirements of Part 3.01.00 of this Code shall apply.
n. The type and extent of buffering, landscaping, Tree removal and Tree protection, and buffering between adjacent Uses as needed to aesthetically screen Uses and provide privacy.
o. PUDs located in Special Districts as defined by Article III of this Code shall include a statement identifying the particular Special District and referencing the requirements to comply with the provisions of such Special District.
p. The use, location and duration of temporary Uses, including Construction trailers, sales units, model homes, and temporary signage related to Construction of the Project.
q. The use and location of Accessory Uses for residential and non- residential Structures, including Guest Houses, A/C units and related heating/cooling units, setbacks, swimming pools, fencing, and similar Uses.
r. A phasing schedule, which shall include the amount of residential and non-residential Development to be completed within a specified phase; a specific commencement term with a definition of commencement, and a specific completion term with a definition of completion. Phasing of the PUD may be obtained by either of the following two methods:
(1) the provision of an estimate of Uses to be developed within five (5) to ten (10) year phases. The estimated phases may overlap during construction; however, a phase shall be fifty percent (50%) complete, before the next phase may proceed; or
(2) the provision of number of residential units or non-residential square footage that comprise a phase and the provision of specific development conditions related to the specific phase (e.g. prior to
St. Johns County Land Development Code V-13 February 17, 2015 the platting of one hundred (100) dwelling units, a park shall be provided).
The phasing schedule, using either option, shall also provide for a PUD Progress Report as required by Section 5.03.07.
An extension of the commencement or completion date of a PUD, of not more than one (1) year, may be approved by a Small Adjustment when the County Administrator has determined there are not significant changes to the surrounding area since the PUD was originally approved that would cause the PUD to negatively impact the surrounding area, and the Future Land Use Map designation of the subject PUD is the same as when the PUD was approved. If, in the determination of the County Administrator, either of these conditions are not met, or the extension of the commencement or completion date is for more than one (1) year, a Major Modification to the PUD shall be required, as provided in Section 5.03.05.C. An extension of any phase of a PUD may also be approved by a Small Adjustment so long as the commencement or completion dates of the PUD are not extended beyond one (1) year.
s. The projected impact of the Project upon St. Johns County, and an explanation of the Project’s benefit to the County, as compared to existing zoning or other zoning district, and justification of the Project.
t. A description of any requested waivers from the strict provisions of the Land Development Code to allow for innovative design techniques and alternative development patterns through the PUD zoning process. An explanation of the benefits arising from the application of flexible standards and criteria of this Code shall be provided to justify the need for such waivers.
u. A statement, and agreement to comply, binding all successors and assigns in title to the commitments and conditions of the Master Development Plan.
v. When the subject property is designated as more than one Future Land Use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, a map shall be provided depicting the boundaries between the designations and provide the total upland and Wetland acres for each land Use designation.
2. Map
The Master Development Plan Map shall be a detailed Site Plan, as appropriate, that depicts the proposed development within the PUD which is drawn to a legible scale. The Map may include more than one page, based upon scale and scope of the Project. Additional criteria may be requested, based upon the character, scope and location of the Project. For Developments of Regional Impact, phased multi-use projects, and phased commercial projects, an Incremental Master Development Plan (MDP) Map may be submitted depicting in detail the initial phase of development and a general depiction of the proposed
St. Johns County Land Development Code V-14 February 17, 2015 Uses for the remaining portion(s) of the project. Subsequent Incremental Master Development Plan Maps shall be submitted that provides detailed site plans for subsequent phases before construction plan approval of those phases. Adjustments may be considered to the MDP Map under the criteria of Section 5.03.05 of this Code. The MDP Map shall contain the following, as appropriate:
a. The general location of all land Uses described in the text, including the general location of all residential Lots and the general location of all non- residential Structures. The general layout of the internal street system in relation to the land Uses shall also be depicted.
b. The general location of Wetlands, conservation/preservation areas, open space areas, commonly owned areas, golf course and parks.
c. The general location of any Historic Resources as defined by this Code, and notation regarding any required action related to such resources.
d. The general location, width, extent and type of buffers proposed to conform, at a minimum, with the buffer requirements of Section 5.03.03.A. and other standards in this Code.
e. The general location of any Water Treatment Plant, Wastewater Treatment Plant, electrical, or other infrastructure stations and sub-stations.
f. The general location of parking areas other than residential driveways. Parking calculations demonstrating compliance with this Code shall also be noted.
g. The general location of all vehicle and pedestrian access to the Project, the internal vehicle and pedestrian accesses within the Project including all sidewalks, and the general location of internal and pedestrian connections between Uses.
h. The general location of retention, detention and other drainage facilities that may be used in the Project; however, final engineering may be approved upon review of final Construction Plans and in accordance with Article VI of this Code.
i. The general location of all Project identification signage.
j. A general location of the subject property in relation to the County.
k. The general location of future access points providing interconnectivity to adjacent properties.
l. A map showing the location of the 100-year floodplain in relation to the Project.
m. Any unique requirements, situations or provisions of the PUD shall be noted on the Map.
St. Johns County Land Development Code V-15 February 17, 2015 County’s Planned Development land development regulations.
(5) All new development in the Density Zone “C” or “D” designations shall be required to provide central water and sewer service for the proposed development except for residential development that is projected to generate less than four (4) Equivalent Residential Connections, or non- residential development that is projected to generate less than 500 gallons per day demand of potable water or sanitary sewer service.
(6) All development within the Coastal Area shall connect to central sewer as provided by Florida Statutes and County Land Development Code.
(7) Optional Density Factors shall be provided to encourage protection of natural resources. Application of these Optional Density Factors shall be as provided in the County land development regulations. Optional Density Factors are established as follows:
OPTIONAL DENSITY FACTORS Units/Acre Public Beach Access 2 Public Beach Parking 4 Dedication of Land for Public Benefit 2 Preservation of Open Space East of SR A1A 1 Preservation of Open Space West of SR 13 1 Preservation of Uplands Adjacent to Contiguous Wetlands 2 Dedication of Uplands Adjacent to State-Owned Navigable Waters for Public 4 Benefit with Public Access and Parking Mitigation of an Existing Non-conforming or Incompatible Land Use 2 Traditional Neighborhood Development or Green Development* 2 Wetlands Preservation See Note 1 Affordable Housing See Note 2
*Subject to approval through the Planned Development land development regulations
2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Page 37
Part 5.10.00 OPTIONAL DENSITY BONUS
Sec. 5.10.01 Generally
The Optional Density Bonuses, pursuant to this Part, are designed to allow and encourage creative land Development. Generally, the Optional Density Bonuses allow incentives for the Developer to provide the following benefits for the County: (i) to dedicate land for parks and open space, beach and water access, and land for other public purposes; (ii) to preserve and provide open space areas throughout the County by preserving uplands and Wetlands in a natural state, especially in areas where the depth of land affords a view or vista of bodies of water, marshlands and similar natural aesthetic viewing areas; (iii) to provide additional buffers, above the required buffering, between incompatible Uses; (iv) to mitigate an existing non- conforming Use or incompatible Use; and (v) to preserve open spaces along SR A1A and SR 13. In addition, the use of these Optional Density Bonuses assist the County in the control of urban sprawl, leapfrog Development, and strip Development and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Optional Density Bonuses may be utilized in all residential designations, as provided in this Part.
Sec. 5.10.02 Applicability
This Part may apply to all Development within the residential designations, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan.
Sec. 5.10.03 Standards
Optional Density Bonuses are illustrated in the following table:
St. Johns County Land Development Code V-61 February 17, 2015 TABLE 5.01
OPTIONAL DENSITY BONUS
Density Bonus Optional Density Based On Acres or Action Taken Factor
Dedication of Land for Public Benefit 2
Preservation of Open Space West of SR 13/CR 13 (William Bartram Scenic Highway) 1
Preservation of Open Space East of SR A1A 1
Preservation of Uplands Adjacent to Contiguous Wetlands 2
Dedication of Uplands Adjacent to State Owned Navigable Waters for the Benefit of the Public with Access and Parking being Provided 4
Mitigation of an Existing Non-conforming or Incompatible Land Use 2
Dedication of Public Beach Access 2
Dedication of Beach Parking 4
Traditional Neighborhood Development 2
Provision of Affordable Housing Refer to Part 5.07.00
Sec. 5.10.04 Density Calculations
A. The Optional Density Bonuses, as depicted in Table 5.02, are available with approval by the Board of County Commissioners through approval of a Planned Unit Development. In requesting an Optional Density Bonus, the Applicant shall provide the Optional Density Bonus requested, the calculations in obtaining total Dwelling Units (applying the bonus), and the justification as to the public benefit. The Board of County Commissioners shall review the request and render a decision as to extent of the public benefit and may approve or deny the request. Should the Board of County Commissioners deny the request for Optional Density Bonus, the application shall not exceed the density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan.
B. The Optional Density Bonus shall be calculated as the number of acres proposed for density bonus TIMES the density bonus factor added to the allowable number of units.
C. Optional Density Bonuses for preservation or dedication of open space or uplands adjacent to contiguous Wetlands shall only be calculated on the amount of land area provided exceeding the minimum requirements of this Code.
D. Optional Density Bonuses under this Part shall not be obtained on the same area within a Development Project that has obtained a Wetland Density Bonus provided in Part 5.08.00.
History: Ord. 2009-48, Ord. 2010-17, Ord. 2010-23, Ord. 2010-53, Ord. 2013-26, Ord. 2015-14
St. Johns County Land Development Code V-62 February 17, 2015
Concurrency Requirements: Means the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan requiring that public facilities for traffic, mass transit, Wastewater, potable water, recreation/open space, solid waste, and drainage are available at the Adopted Levels of Service concurrent with the impact of Development.
Confusing Sign: See Hazardous Sign.
Connected System: Means a publicly-owned or privately-owned Wastewater collection system that connects to and discharges into the a Wastewater System for purposes of treatment and disposal.
Connection, Vehicle Access: Driveways, streets, turnouts or other means of providing for the right of access to or from Public or Private Roadways.
Connection, Utility: Means the installation of a utility service connection to water or Wastewater infrastructure of a central utility system owned by any Utility Provider.
Conservation: To minimize or limit the impact of Development to the resource sought to be conserved. Conservation of the resource shall not require that the resource remain completely undisturbed.
Constrained Facility: A roadway segment on the Major Road Network that cannot feasibly be widened by at least two (2) through lanes due to physical, environmental, or policy reasons.
Construction Bond: An obligation to complete Construction improvements as depicted on the approved Development Permit by a money forfeit.
Construction Plans: Means those properly detailed and dimensioned construction drawings, plans, specifications and calculations prepared by an Engineer or other Registered Professional, as defined herein and as prepared in accordance with County and other applicable regulations, codes and standards, submitted to the County for approval of a Development Plan or Final Subdivision Plat, which sets forth the specific improvements to be made in conjunction with Development as they affect the existing site, its boundary conditions, topography, drainage, access, and associated road and other Rights-of-Way and Easements.
Construction Sign: Any Sign located on Premises upon which Construction is commencing or has commenced pursuant to a valid Construction Permit, the Copy of which is limited to the identification of the contractor, the sub-contractors, the Owners, the project name and financing information.
Construction: Any activity which results in the modification of surface features, including but not limited to grading, land clearing, or the placement or alteration of Buildings, Structures or utilities, unless specifically exempted by this or any other applicable St. Johns County Ordinance. Hand clearing as necessary for land surveying shall not constitute Construction.
Contiguous Wetland: A Wetland that has a direct hydrologic connection to waters of the state.
Contribution-In-Aid-Of-Construction: Any amount or item of money, services, or property received by a Utility, from any Person or Governmental Authority, any portion of which is provided at no cost to the Utility which represents a donation or contribution to the capital of the Utility, and which is used to offset the acquisition, improvement or Construction costs of the Utility property, facilities, or equipment used to provide Utility services.
St. Johns County Land Development Code XII-15 February 24, 2015 Right-of-Way or Access Easement.
Irreparable or Irreversible Violation: Shall be a violation of this Code which cannot be corrected within a reasonable time. The violation shall be considered irreparable or irreversible if restoration of the property to the original condition prior to the violation cannot be achieved within five (5) years for the unpermitted removal or disturbance of a Specimen or Historic Tree, Historic Resource or Landmark, Scenic Roadway Buffer, Upland Buffer, Significant Natural Communities Habitat, or other Environmentally Sensitive Area. The restoration and replacement requirements shall be determined by the County Administrator.
Intersection Analysis: A mathematical analysis of two intersecting roadways to determine its vehicular capacity and Level of Service.
Inventory of Trees: Inventory of Protected Trees provided by a State of Florida licensed Land Surveyor and Mapper, Landscape Architect, Architect, Engineer or a Certified Arborist. The Inventory shall include the Tree size (Diameter at Breast Height, DBH) and Tree type on a Site Plan prepared by a State of Florida licensed Engineer or Landscape Architect.
Isolated Wetland: A Wetland that is surrounded by uplands and without a natural connection to waters of the state.
Joint Use Driveway: A single connection that serves as a driveway to more than one (1) residential or non-residential property or Development, including those of different ownership.
Junk Yard: Place, Structure, or Lot where junk, waste, discarded, salvaged, or similar materials such as old metals, wood, slush, lumber, glass, paper, rags, cloth, bagging, cordage, barrels, containers, etc., are brought, bought, sold, exchanged, baled, packed, disassembled, stored, or handled, including used lumber and Building material yards, house-wrecking yards, heavy equipment wrecking yard, and yards or places for the storage, sale, or handling of salvaged house wrecking for structural steel materials. This definition shall not include automobile wrecking for storage yards, or pawnshops, and establishments for the sale, purchase, or storage of second hand cars, clothing, salvaged machinery, furniture, radios, stoves, refrigerators, or similar household goods and appliances, all of which shall be usable, nor shall it apply to the processing of used, discarded or salvaged materials incident to manufacturing activity. However, establishments for the sale, purchase or storage of second hand refrigerators, stoves, plumbing fixtures, and similar merchandise shall be considered a junk yard for the sole purpose of requiring that such establishments display their merchandise behind a visual barrier as required for junk yards in this Code.
Kennel: Any place or premises where four (4) or more dogs over four (4) months of age are kept for pay or for sale. This definition shall not apply to veterinarians operating under license from the State of Florida who board dogs.
Kindergarten: See Day Nurseries.
Lake: A body of standing water occupying a natural basin or man-made depression in the earth’s surface.
Lake Cleaning: Land excavation to restore a lake, as defined in this Code, to its natural or artificially constructed depth; and/or its natural or artificially constructed shape by the removal of land excavation materials.
St. Johns County Land Development Code XII-37 February 24, 2015
ATTACHMENT 4 WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY LETTTER
March 7, 2017
Bob Sherno VIA Email: [email protected] 5298 Medoras Ave. St Augustine, FL 32080
RE: Tax Parcel 183440 0000, 183445 0010, 183445 0020 Cypress Trace (fka DuPont Subdivision) Water & Sewer Availability
Dear Mr. Sherno:
This letter is to affirm that the St. Johns County Utility Department (SJCUD) will be able to meet the water and sewer plant capacity for a new 30 unit single family development with a total anticipated usage of 10,500 gallons per day of water and 8,400 gallons per day sewer. The water and sewer service will be provided by the CR 214 Water Treatment Plant and Anastasia Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, respectively.
Water: Potable water will be made available by an existing 12-inch water main along US 1 South. Please note that the applicant should contact the fire department regarding fire flow requirements for the site and make provisions if the required flow is not available.
Sewer: Sewer will be made available by an existing 12-inch force main along US 1 South.
Reuse/Conservation: To promote water conservation through more efficient landscape irrigation, the Developer shall provide a Landscape Conservation Plan, which may include features such as smart irrigation technology and Florida friendly landscaping.
Water and sewer conveyance is not absolutely guaranteed until the proposed development is issued a Concurrency Certificate. At that time, the developer must meet and agree with the SJCUD regarding any necessary infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the proposed development without affecting the existing level of services to its customers.
Note: The “Certification of Public Water and/or Sewer” or a receipt of paid Unit Connections Fees (UCF) is required to obtain a building permit.
The availability of capacity will expire in ninety (90) days from the date of this letter on June 7, 2017; unless a Concurrency Certificate has been issued. All necessary fees must be paid to guarantee a specific number of Equivalent Residential Connections pursuant to County Ordinance 2013-13. Prior to submitting construction plans, please have the Engineer of Record contact the SJCUD Engineering Dept. for copies of as-built information regarding the connection point and relevant Utility information related to FDEP permitting. It is your Contractor’s responsibility to field verify the size and location of all utilities prior to construction.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (904) 209-2652or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Teri Shoemaker, P.E. St. Johns County Utility Department
ATTACHMENT 5 Archaeological Survey & Cultural Resources Assessment
March 24, 2017
Mr. Myles Bland, RPA Bland & Associates, Inc. 1941 Savage Road, Suite 100A Charleston, SC 29407-4788
Re: An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment of the Cypress Estates Parcel, St. Johns County, Florida. Received by SJC, March 20, 2017. PUD 2016-23
Dear Mr. Bland:
This office reviewed the above referenced report in accordance with St. Johns County’s Land Development Code regulations Section 3.01.05. The report was reviewed for conformance with the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ Standards and Guidelines for Cultural Resource Assessment Survey reports, which is the standard the County uses for archaeological survey reports.
Review of this project indicates that the fieldwork conforms to these standards and the report is complete and sufficient. It is the investigator’s assessment that no cultural resources will be adversely affected by the proposed construction and no further investigation is needed with regards to cultural resources.
This office concurs with the determinations of the report and finds the archaeological work for this project complete.
Thank you for contributing to the identification of the county’s cultural resources. Please contact me if you have any further questions regarding these comments, or regarding the county’s Cultural Resource Program in general.
Sincerely,
Crystal Geiger, MA Cultural Resource Coordinator 904-209-0623 [email protected]
AN INTENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE CYPRESS ESTATES PARCEL, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA
Prepared for: EWR Properties, LLC
By:
Myles Bland Registered Professional Archaeologist No. 10650
BAIJ016098.01 BAI Report of Investigations No. 494 March 2017
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Jacksonville, Florida Charleston, South Carolina (c) 2017 by Bland & Associates, Inc. (BAI). All rights reserved. http://www.bland.cc TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... i
LIST OF FIGURES ...... ii
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 3
III. REGIONAL CULTURE HISTORY ...... 6 3.1 Paleoindian Period (10,000-8,000 BC) ...... 7 3.2 Archaic Period (8,000-500 BC)...... 8 3.2a Early Archaic (8,000-6,000 BC)...... 8 3.2b Middle Archaic (6,000-3,000 BC)...... 9 3.2c Late Archaic (3,000-500 BC) ...... 10 3.3 Woodland Period (500-AD 900) ...... 11 3.4 Mississippian Period (AD 900-1565)...... 12 3.5 Contact Period (1562-1587...... 14 3.6 Mission Period (AD 1587-1702)...... 15 3.7 Historic Period...... 17
IV. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 19
V. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY...... 22
VI. RESULTS...... 26
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 31
APPENDIX A: FMSF SURVEY LOGSHEET
i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Project Location ...... 2 Figure 2: Project Tract Soils ...... 4 Figure 3: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources...... 21 Figure 4: Testing Results...... 28
ii I. INTRODUCTION
During March of 2017, Bland and Associates, Inc. (BAI) conducted a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of a 19.00 acre parcel located in St. Johns County, Florida (Figure 1). This investigation was undertaken as part of the permitting for a proposed development in order to comply with County regulations regarding the identification and management of cultural resources that might occur within the project tract. This survey was conducted on behalf of EWR Properties, LLC. The purpose of the proposed project is to build a residential subdivision, with associated land improvements. This work was required by section 3.01.05.B.1 of the St. Johns County (SJC) Land Development Code (LDC). All work was performed in accordance with these regulations (Article III, Special Districts, Sections 3.01.00-3.01.08) as established by St. Johns County (Ordinance Book 23, Pages 72-81).
Specifically, these County regulations locally implement Florida Statutes Chapter 267, as set forth by the State of Florida, Florida Department of State. Chapter 267 mandates the identification and management of cultural resources that might occur within the lands of Florida in order to satisfy Section 106 requirements. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89-665, as amended) requires agencies to take into account the effects upon historic properties of projects ("undertakings") involving federal funding and/or permitting. The guidelines for fulfilling the provisions of Section 106 and determinations of effect are contained in the implementing regulations of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 36, Chapter VIII, Part 800 (36 CFR 800, as amended, 1999). The goal of this CRAS was to determine whether the tract contained evidence of historic human occupation, and fieldwork was conducted in order to locate cultural resources.
The term "cultural resources" as used herein is meant to refer to sites or objects that are archaeological, architectural, and/or historical in nature. This investigation included background research that focused upon the history of the tract, as well as a review of prior, nearby investigations to determine whether the project tract contained previously recorded archaeological sites, cemeteries, battlefields, bridges, historic districts, or historic structures. The project tract did not contain any such previously recorded cultural resources. Twenty (n=20) shovel tests were then excavated within the project tract, all of which were negative for cultural material. These shovel tests indicated that the soils present within the project tract consisted of very poorly drained soils which were fully indicative of the mapped soil types. A walkover survey of the tract was also conducted along road edges and other open areas; this pedestrian survey also failed to locate historic artifacts and/or historic structural remains.
In summary, all subsurface tests and pedestrian surveys were negative, and no artifacts, isolated finds, historic standing structures, or historic structural remnants were encountered. Although no cultural resources were recorded during the present investigation, this work will add to our current knowledge of aboriginal and historic settlement of St. Johns County. The negative results can be integrated into a broad-scale and comprehensive regional settlement model aimed at the prediction of prehistoric and historic site locations within the county. Based upon these results, it is recommended that the proposed project be authorized to proceed as planned without further concern for impacts to cultural resources.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 1 0 1000'
Source: USGS 1:24000, St. Augustine Beach, FL (1988) Quadrangle SCALE AS SHOWN
An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Figure: 1 Survey of the Cypress Estates Parcel Project No.: BAIJ016098.01 Bland & Associates, Inc. St. Johns County, Florida Scale: 1" = 1000'-0" Archaeological and Historic Preservation Consultants Date: March 2017 II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental variables have always had an important influence on the selection of habitation and special use sites by human groups. Local soil type is an important variable in site location because edaphic conditions generally guide, or are guided by, environmental factors such as drainage, relief, and flora/fauna. These factors are reviewed below.
Project Location
The 19.00 acre project tract is found in irregular Section 31, Township 08 South, Range 30 East, of the St. Augustine Beach, Florida, United States Geological Service (USGS), topographic quadrangle (1:24,000) map (1988). The project tract consists of a single, rectangular, parcel which is wooded, vacant land with the street address of 6521 and 6511 US Highway 1 South, St. Augustine, Florida. More specifically, the project tract has been assigned the Tax Parcel Identification (STRAP) Nos. of 1834400000, 183450010 and 1834450020. The project tract contains no structures and is zoned as “Vacant, Residential.” The current project tract is bordered by to the east by US Highway 1 South, to the west by a railroad, and to the north and south by fully developed, residential sub-divisions. The project tract lies at an elevation of circa 25 to 29 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
Soils
The soils of St. Johns County are primarily composed of granular quartz sands that are relatively young, sandy, and quite acidic. The soils currently mapped within the project tract (Figure 2) fall within the Myakka-Immokalee-St. Johns map unit (No. 5), a group of nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly drained sandy soils that have a dark subsoil stained by organic materials, or spodic horizon. These soils are classified as spodosols, which are soils characterized by a well-defined spodic horizon consisting of compact, fine-textured, dark organic matter mixed with aluminum and/or iron minerals (Brown et al. 1990:42-48). The spodic horizon is formed by the accumulations of organic and mineral compounds that collect through recurring episodes of hydrolic leaching and particle capture at the water table.
The specific soil types mapped within the current project tract are all poorly to very poorly drained and consist of: 3=Myakka-Myakka, wet, fine sands, 0-2% slopes; 9=Pomona fine sand; 11=Smyrna-Smyrna, wet, fine sand, 0-2% slopes; 13=St. Johns fine sand; and, 18=Floridana fine sand, frequently flooded. The primary soil type found within the project tract consists of Smyrna-Smyrna, wet, fine sand, 0-2% slopes (11). This poorly drained, nearly level soil is found in the mesic flat-woods of peninsular Florida, with intermittent, wet depressions. It is formed in sandy marine deposits (USDA 1983). Typically, the surface layer is very dark gray fine sand about eight inches thick. The subsurface layer, which is about 32 inches thick, is light gray and white sand. Shovel tests excavated within the project tract indicated that the soils present were fully indicative of the mapped soil type, and uniformly quite disturbed. None of the project tract soils were found to consist of well drained soils. It should be noted that no lithic outcrops, natural bodies of water, or salt-water marshes occur within, or border, the current project tract.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 3 Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Map Symbol: Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov 3 = Myakka-Myakka, wet, fine sands, 0 to 2 percent slopes Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) 4 = Myakka fine sand, frequently ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes 9 = Pomona fine sand This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of 11 = Smyrna-Smyrna, wet, fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes the version date(s) listed below. 13 = St. Johns fine sand 18 = Floridana fine sand, frequently flooded Soil Survey Area: St. Johns County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 28, 2016
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
'DWH V DHULDOLPDJHVZHUHSKRWRJUDSKHG 0DU²'HF
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
0 400'
SCALE AS SHOWN
An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Figure: 2 Survey of the Cypress Estates Parcel Project No.: BAIJ016098.01 Bland & Associates, Inc. St. Johns County, Florida Scale: 1" = 400'-0" Archaeological and Historic Preservation Consultants Date: March 2017 Hydrology
The St. Johns River is the major hydrologic feature in St. Johns County (USDA 1983:3-5). Specifically, this project tract falls within the drainage basin of Moses Creek, which empties into the Matanzas River, which in turn ultimately empties into the Atlantic Ocean. The Matanzas River estuary stretches approximately 21 miles southward from the St. Augustine Inlet, with its southernmost section located about seven miles south of the Matanzas Inlet. Moses Creek and Pellicer Creek are the major contributors of freshwater drainage to the Matanzas River in its southern component.
Physiography
Physiography refers to the study and description of landforms or the physical geography of an area. Following Brooks’ (1981) Guide to the Physiographic Divisions of Florida, the Florida is divided into two physiographic sections, each of which is subdivided into districts and sub- districts. These subdivisions are based on four principles: (1) type of rock and soil (2) geological structure of underlying rocks, (3) geomorphic processes that shape or modify the landscape, and (4) relief (Brooks 1981). The depositional and erosional activities of marine currents associated with sea level fluctuations, which at times covered the Florida land mass, combined with more recent erosion and windblown sand deposition have created the Florida landforms of today. The project area lies in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic section and the Eastern Flatwoods physiographic district (Brooks 1981). More specifically, the project area occurs within the St. Augustine Ridge Sets (1b), a complex, relict of a barrier island with beach ridge sets of different ages; elevations are generally between 30 to 50 feet AMSL (Brooks 1981:3). In geologic terms, this area consists of clastic and shell deposits (Qftg) of the Fort Thompson Group, which date to the Middle to Early Pleistocene.
Climate
The humid, subtropical climate of Florida is greatly influenced by the seasonal conditions of the Caribbean, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico (USDA 1983:1-3; Chen and Gerber 1990:11- 34). The climate of St. Johns County is characterized by warm humid summers and mild winters. During late spring and summer, afternoon and evening thunderstorms are common. Fifty-six percent of the annual rainfall is concentrated in the months of June through October; the annual average rainfall is 55 inches. During these same months, temperatures in St. Johns County vary little from day to night, with the mean monthly temperature about 80o F. Although the peak season for hurricanes and tropical storms is June through November, direct landfall of these storms is uncommon. However, rains, tidal surges, and wind gusts associated with passing hurricanes and tropical storms still generate severe flooding. The chance of a hurricane-making landfall in a given year within St. Johns County is approximately 1 in 40 (USDA 1983:2). Greater daily temperature ranges, less humidity, higher temperatures, and far fewer rainy days characterize late fall to early spring seasons. Prevailing winds are easterly, and the wind-speed is usually 10 to 12 miles an hour. Freezing temperatures in St. Johns County are rarely achieved, and they are confined to a timeframe of December 8 to February 20.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 5 III. REGIONAL CULTURE HISTORY
Archaeological research in Florida has established a general prehistoric chronology dating back some 12,000 years (Milanich 1994). Archaeologists have divided this long span of time into four general periods based on distinct cultural, technological, and environmental changes over time. From oldest to most recent, these include: Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian. It should be noted that for each period, artifact complexes, cultural trends, and archaeological manifestations vary by region. Geographically, Northeast Florida lies within the St. Marys archaeological area, which extends along the Atlantic coast from the St. Johns River, Florida to the Satilla River, Georgia (Russo 1992). A summary of each local prehistoric period is presented below.
Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Chronology of Northeastern Florida.
PALEOINDIAN 12,000 - 8,000 BC
ARCHAIC Early 8,000 - 5,000 BC Middle 5,000 - 3,000 BC Late1 3,000 - 500 BC
WOODLAND Deptford 500 BC - A.D 500 Swift Creek AD 400 - 850 Colorinda AD 850 - 900
MISSISSIPPIAN St. Johns II AD 900 - 1250 St. Marys II AD 1250-1500 San Pedro AD 1500 - Contact
SPANISH MISSION San Pedro AD 1587 – 1600+ San Marcos2 AD 1600+ - 1702
HISTORIC AD 1565 - Present
1. production of Orange pottery began around 2800-2500 BC 2. also referred to as Altamaha
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 6 3.1 Paleoindian Period (10,000 - 8,000 BC)
The earliest period of human occupation of the Americas is known as the Paleoindian period. Traditionally, the initial human colonization of North America has been attributed to “Clovis” people who crossed Beringia, a frozen land mass linking present-day Alaska to Siberia, and eventually dispersed themselves throughout North, Central, and South America some 11,500 or so years ago (Meltzer 1995). Several archaeological sites in South and North America, including the eastern United States (e.g., Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Topper site, Cactus Hill) suggest that pre-Clovis (pre 11,500 years ago) occupation of the Americas was possible (Fiedel 2000; Meltzer et al. 1997). Nevertheless, the earliest undisputed evidence of human occupation within the southeastern United States dates to approximately 10,000 BC.
The Paleoindian period is typically segregated into three sub periods (Early, Middle, and Late) based on diagnostic stone projectile point types (Anderson et al. 1996). The Early Paleoindian period is characterized by Clovis points, a distinctive fluted, lanceolate-shaped projectile point. In Florida, the Middle Paleoindian period is marked by the presence of Suwannee and Simpson points, whereas the Late Paleoindian period witnessed the production of Dalton-like projectile points. The emergence of smaller Dalton projectile points may indicate a transition from hunting large Pleistocene megafauna to smaller Holocene game, such as deer (Goodyear 1982). Archaeological evidence shows that lithic blades and unifacial scrapers, ivory foreshafts, bone pins, and atlatls (i.e., spear-throwers) were also used by paleoindians in Florida (Milanich 1994:48-52).
The first humans to occupy Florida were small hunting and gathering bands of paleoindians, who arrived around 10,000 BC. These highly mobile foragers encountered an environment warmer than the recently-ended Ice Age (Pleistocene), but cooler by today’s standards (Delcourt and Delcourt 1985; Watts and Hansen 1988). Because sea levels were lower at this time, peninsular Florida was more than twice its present width. The inland water table was also much lower, meaning that many of today’s wetlands and other hydric features were either nonexistent or retained little water. While paleoindians hunted mastadon, giant sloth, bison, and other megafauna that still wandered the Florida peninsula, they also hunted smaller game and gathered various edible plants (Milanich 1994; Webb et al. 1984).
Today, the distribution of paleoindian sites across the Florida landscape suggests that sinkholes and high quality chert outcroppings were primary considerations that affected paleoindian movement and settlement patterns. According to the “oasis model,” paleoindian bands frequented cenotes and springs to collect water and exploit the abundant flora growing there and the animals also attracted to these wetland loci (Dunbar 1991; Dunbar and Waller 1983; Milanich 1994; Webb et al. 1984). As an added bonus, many of these freshwater sources were located in areas of exposed Tertiary age limestone that provided paleoindians with raw material for tool manufacture.
The archaeological record indicates that most paleoindian sites in Florida are located in the tertiary karst region located beneath Gulf waters, along the central Gulf Coast and in the north- central panhandle part of the state (Dunbar 1991:193-194; Faught and Carter 1998).
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 7 Unfortunately, very few paleoindian sites in Florida have been subjected to intensive excavation, and those that have been tested date to the waning years of the Paleoindian period (e.g., Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987; Dunbar et al. 1988; Horvath 2000). To date, no evidence of paleoindian activity has been discovered in Duval County. In fact, extreme northeastern Florida is deemed an “outlying region” with regard to the distribution of paleoindian sites in Florida. The nearest indication of the presence of these early natives in northeastern Florida consists of a paleoindian projectile point purportedly collected by a local resident along the seashore at Jacksonville Beach (Dunbar 1991:208).
3.2 Archaic Period (8,000-500 BC)
The Archaic period environment was marked by warmer climatic conditions and higher ocean and interior water levels compared to paleoindian times, circumstances that resulted in the widespread emergence of hardwood forest communities in some upland locations and wetland habitants in low-lying areas (Smith 1986:21-24; Milanich 1994:62-63). With the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, Archaic foragers focused their attention on the procurement of smaller game (comparable in size to those found today), fish, shellfish (Claassen 1986), and various edible wild plants, nuts, and fruits. Throughout Florida, populations increased and groups became more sedentary, as reflected archeologically in the proliferation of regional material assemblages (Milanich 1994:85-104). Over time, Archaic populations utilized wider variety of archaeological site types arose, including villages or base camps, cave sites, procurement camps, cemeteries, and short-term resource extraction sites. The Archaic period would precipitate great changes in the regional cultures of Northeast Florida. The post-Archaic way of life in Northeast Florida would come to be characterized by population growth, the increased exploitation of coastal resources, the construction of burial mounds, the appearance of new ceramic styles, incipient plant cultivation, and the importation of exotic products from outside the region.
3.2a Early Archaic (8,000-6,000 BC)
The Early archaic populations of Florida exhibited subsistence practices that were quite similar to those of their paleoindian predecessors. Some researchers in Florida have suggested that terminal paleoindian and Early Archaic occupations should be treated as a single cultural entity because both populations roamed the same landmass unreduced by a rise in sea-level, experienced a diverse hardwood biotic regime, and shared similar subsistence-settlement strategies (Thomas et al. 1993:510). However, by the latter portions of the Early Archaic period, people were adapting from Pleistocene environmental conditions to the changing, wetter and warmer conditions of the Holocene period. With the emergence of more numerous and diversified natural communities such as riverine oxbows during the Early Archaic, regional specialization increased and led to greater interregional variation.
Projectile points utilized during the Early Archaic period consisted of side notched varieties, rather than fluted, lanceolate forms of the paleoindian period. Projectile points diagnostic of Early Archaic period in Florida include the Bolen and Kirk side-notched, projectile points, as
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 8 well as Santa Fe and Tallahassee projectile points. Other lithic tool types characteristic of the Early Archaic period include bifacial Edgefield scrapers and a variety of unifacial end, side, and tear drop-shaped end scrapers that were presumably hafted (Coe 1964).
The earliest Early Archaic populations exhibited settlement patterns similar to their paleoindian predecessors. Pleistocene megafauna were extinct by the Early Archaic period, and it appears that Early Archaic populations were composed of small nomadic bands that sought biotic resources (small game, plants) that were seasonally available during wide-ranging forays. Although proof of extensive Early Archaic plant use is lacking in Southeastern North America, “the relatively limited evidence of plant processing implements and plant remains in comparison to later time periods does not constitute a strong argument in support of the minimal use of plant resources” (Smith 1986:10). Wooden mortar and pestles were used by people in the Early Holocene, if but they do not preserve well in the archaeological record. Examples such as the small oak mortar uncovered at Little Spring Florida are rarely found (Clausen et al. 1979).
Within Northeast Florida, evidence of the earliest Archaic occupations usually consists of lithic scatters containing chert debitage and rarely Early (8,000-6,000 BC) or Middle (6,000-3,000 BC) Archaic projectile points. These deposits evince short-term and intermittent occupation of the region during the Early and Middle Archaic periods.
3.2.b Middle Archaic (6,000-3,000 BC)
During the Middle Archaic period, the post-glacial environment of the Southeast began to stabilize, eventually reaching nearly modern conditions (Schuldenrein 1996). The major climatic event of the Middle Archaic is the Altithermal, a warming trend that occurred from circa 8,000 to 5,000 B.P. and affected the Southeast and the continent as a whole. As water availability increased in the Middle Archaic, “new food gathering fishing and hunting economies were increasingly possible as wetlands expanded” (Watts, Grimm, and Hussey 1994:38). In regard to subsistence shifts in the Southeast during the Middle Holocene, Smith writes: “they do not reflect a uniform pan-southeastern convergence on a single ultimate adaptive solution. Rather they suggest a variety of local adjustments some major, some minor, to alterations in the habitat and changes in the potential resources of the catchment areas of different populations, with the availability of lithic raw materials rather than localized food resources perhaps dictating settlement location” (Smith 1986:21, 25). One exception to this statement is the broad scale intensification of floodplain occupation that occurred 6,500 to 6,000 years ago at or about latitude 34° and west of the Appalachians (Smith 1986:22).
This intensification trend correlates with a shift from the Early Holocene pattern in rivers of pulses of sediment removal and river incision to the Middle Holocene phase of river aggradations and stability (Smith 1986:22); this shift is believed to cause the formation of backwaters walks and resource abundant shallow water habitats. During the Middle Archaic period, the Native Americans of Northeast Florida collected large quantities of mystery snails (Vivaparus spp.) from the freshwater areas of the upper St. John's River. These mystery snail
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 9 middens contained artifacts indicative of a Middle Archaic culture referred to as Mount Taylor (Goggin 1952: 40- 43).
Artifacts diagnostic of the Middle Archaic period in Florida consist of stemmed, broad- blade projectile points which are identified as variants of the Florida Archaic Stemmed point; these point types include the Newnan, Levy, Hillsborough, and Marion projectile points (Bullen 1975:30-32). Expedient, flake tools also become more common. Some Middle Archaic shell middens in Florida have also demonstrated that animal bone was an important source of raw material for tool and ornament production (Milanich 1994:82).
3.2.c Late Archaic (3,000-500 BC)
Shell middens excavated near the mouth of the St. Johns River indicate increased utilization of extreme northeastern Florida during the Late Archaic period (3,000-500 BC). In fact, by 3,700 BC preceramic Archaic groups were living along the Atlantic coast of northern Florida on a year-round basis and subsisting largely on estuarine fish and shellfish (Russo 1992:111). The earliest good evidence of plant cultivation also occurs during the Late Archaic period (Yarnell 1993:13). Other types of plants flourished in the disturbed areas around habitation sites and these “camp followers” were also utilized by Late Archaic populations in North America. These “camp followers” included maygrass (Phalaris caroliniana), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), and carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata) (Yarnell 1993: 13-16). There is good evidence that plant use by Late Archaic societies in the eastern woodlands was sophisticated and complex (Chapman and Watson 1993:34). In general, Late Archaic components are also much more prevalent throughout the Southeast than are earlier Archaic and Paleoindian components. Late Archaic sites also exhibit increased sedentism; recent archaeological investigations have demonstrated that Late Archaic populations were building structures. A structure dated to 3,895 + 102 B.P. and 3,867 + 79 B.P. has recently been discovered at 9WR4, the Mill Branch site (Ledbetter 1995:178).
By 2,000 BC, natives in northeastern Florida began to manufacture for the first time, fired-clay pottery, known to archaeologists today as Orange pottery. This early ware was tempered with vegetal fibers, either thin strands of palmetto or Spanish moss (Griffin 1945:219; Bullen 1972:9). Over a span of approximately 1,500 years, plain, incised, and punctated types of fiber-tempered pottery were manufactured, with decorated variants undergoing phases of stylistic popularity. With regard to vessel form, early pots were hand molded and tended to be flat-based rectangular containers, whereas some of the later vessels showed more variety in form and were produced by coiling (Sassaman 2003). The Late Archaic period was witness to other innovations in cooking technology as well. Perforated soapstone (steatite) slabs were commonly used after 5,000 BP as indirect heat sources for stone boiling (Sassaman 1993). Late Archaic populations also used steatite for the manufacture of bowls, and steatite bowls from quarry sources in Georgia and South Carolina have been found in Georgia. Grooved axes and cruciform drills are also found in the Late Archaic artifact assemblage.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 10 The Late Archaic period is also marked by a proliferation of linear and ring shaped shell middens on the coastline of the South Atlantic slope (Stoltman 1974). Along the coast of South Carolina, Florida and Georgia, Late Archaic populations occupied marine estuaries that appear to have been less intensively inhabited by earlier Middle Archaic populations. The Late Archaic inhabitants began to collect shellfish (oysters) from the Atlantic during the late fall to the early spring, and accumulating the debris from these activities in shell rings. Zooarchaeological evidence from Georgia coastal shell middens and rings (linear and circular) indicate a strong subsistence dependence on vertebrate and invertebrate tidewater fauna (Reitz 1988).
To date, most Late Archaic sites in Northeast Florida are manifested as low to moderate density scatters of fiber-tempered pottery on the mainland, as well as on Amelia, Martins’ and Crane islands (Bullen and Griffin 1952; Dickinson and Wayne 1999; Griffin and Steinbach 1991; Hemmings and Deagan 1973; Hendryx et al. 2000; Johnson 1988; Smith 1998). Numerous Late Archaic shell middens are known for Fort George Island and various small, tidally inundated marsh islands, immediately north of the St. Johns River (Russo et al. 1993). Russo (1992:111) has suggested that some of the larger shell middens, such as Rollins Shell Ring on Fort George Island, represent base camps. Coquina middens dated to the Orange period occur to the south near the Atlantic shoreline.
3.3 Woodland Period (500 BC - AD 900)
The first Woodland period occupations of the region occurred around 500 BC and are represented by Deptford pottery assemblages containing plain, check stamped, and simple stamped types (Bullen and Griffin 1952; Dickinson and Wayne 1987, Hendryx et al. 2000; Russo 1992:115 Sears 1957; Vernon 1984:108;). Deptford and “chalky” St. Johns pottery are also known to co-occur on some northeastern Florida middens (Kirkland and Johnson 2000). The Deptford archaeological culture represents a continuation of a coastal way of life that was well established in the region by Late Archaic times, possibly earlier.
Along the Atlantic coastal strand, Deptford communities were situated in maritime hammocks near tidal marshes, with subsistence centered essentially on the exploitation of estuarine and maritime forest resources. Deptford groups (or possibly subgroups) may have moved inland seasonally to the river valleys to gather plant foods, hunt game, and trade with non-coastal peoples (Milanich 1971, 1973, 1980). Deptford community organization is thought to have been composed of bands of 30 to 50 kin-related individuals (Milanich 1971:199). Furthermore, it is speculated that these bands occupied small settlements containing 15 to 25 houses, each comprised of a single nuclear family. Both ceramic scatters and shell midden site types are associated with Deptford pottery in Northeast Florida.
Swift Creek is another Woodland culture, easily identified by its distinctive sand-tempered complicated stamped pottery (Ashley 1992, 1995, 1998). The occurrence of Swift Creek ceramics in northeastern Florida was first recognized by John Goggin (1952), who observed that such complicated stamped wares were found in local Woodland period mounds along with non- local mortuary items, such as copper, galena, and mica. Interaction networks appear to have
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 11 allowed Early Swift Creek design concepts to spread from northwestern to northeastern Florida, where the ware was locally produced as a sand-tempered and charcoal-tempered variety between AD 400 and 500 (Ashley 1998).The recovery of Late Swift Creek pottery in northeastern Florida, similar to that found along the Atlantic coast to the north in Georgia, suggests that interaction networks emanating out of northeastern Florida had shifted to the north between AD 500 and 850 (Ashley 2003b).
Swift Creek pottery on sites in Northeast Florida tends to be grit-tempered (like that from southeastern Georgia), whereas Swift Creek pottery to the south along the St. Johns River is mostly sand-tempered. Individual (household) shell middens dated to local Swift Creek times are dotted across several sites on or near Amelia Island, including Crane Island Shell Midden B (8NA709), Ocean Reach Site (8NA782), and Honey Dripper (8NA910) site to name a few (Dickinson and Wayne 1999; Hendryx and Smith 2001; Johnson et al. 1997). Presently, at least 15 Swift Creek burial mounds are known for Duval County (Ashley 1998).
Colorinda represents the terminal Late Woodland period in northeastern Florida. This little known archaeological culture is represented by a sandy ware tempered with crushed St. Johns pottery (Sears 1957). Colorinda pottery is part of a ceramic complex that also includes sand- tempered plain, St. Johns Plain, and small amounts of St. Johns Check Stamped (Ashley 2003a). This distinctive pottery type appears to be sparsely scattered across northeastern Florida, although a few sites contain high-density concentrations (Ashley 2003a; Russo et al. 1993; Sears 1957). Although initially interpreted as a St. Johns II mound, the Walker Point Mound (8NA28) on Amelia Island may actually date to the Colorinda period (Ashley 2003b). Recent calibration of a corrected radiocarbon date on oyster shell from Coffee Mound and two new calibrated radiometric dates from the Cedar Point site (on Black Hammock Island) date the Colorinda period to ca. AD 850-900 (Ashley 2003a).
3.4 Mississippian Period (AD 900 - 1565)
The Mississippian period in northeastern Florida is marked by the introduction of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery. St. Johns is a unique pottery type that contains microscopic sponge spicules, which give the ware its hallmark “chalky” tactual quality (Borremans and Shaak 1986). Controversy surrounds the nature of these bio-silicate inclusions, with some researchers suggesting that sponge spicules are natural constituents of certain clays (Borremans and Shaak 1986; Cordell and Koski 2003), while others argue that the material represents the byproduct of added sponge temper (Rolland and Bond 2003). In addition to plain, check stamped, and punctated St. Johns types, Ocmulgee Cordmarked (mostly grit-tempered) is also found on St. Johns II sites in northeastern Florida (Ashley 2002).
For the broader St. Johns region, the St. Johns II period begins around AD 750 and extends into the early contact period (post-AD 1565). In northeastern Florida, however, the St. Johns II period is restricted to ca. AD 900-1250 and followed by the St. Marys II period. St. Johns II coastal sites are often manifested as diffuse shell middens composed mostly of oyster. Small sand burial mounds similar to those of the preceding Woodland period are often found on St.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 12 Johns II village sites; at least two massive sand mounds are also known for the period (Ashley 2002; Thunen and Ashley 1995:5-8). The emergence of St. Johns II sites in northeastern Florida around AD 900 appears to herald a settlement shift within the river valley, with some St. Johns II people from the south relocating to the extreme northeastern part of the state (Ashley 2003b).
St. Johns II subsistence emphasized the capture of estuarine fish and shellfish along the coast and freshwater species along the river (Ashley 2002:165; Russo 1992:118; Milanich 1994:262-267). Zooarchaeological evidence indicates that fish species such as Atlantic croaker, mullet, silver perch, catfish, seatrout, flounder, and drums were taken from the marshes and shallow tidal sloughs. Presently, there is no evidence suggestive of an ocean or deep-water fishing economy. Oyster was by far the most intensively collected shellfish species, but quahog clam, Atlantic ribbed mussel, stout tagelus, and whelk were also collected and eaten. Deer, raccoon, opossum, and other mammals were also hunted or trapped, but were exploited to a far lesser degree than aquatic animals.
The St. Johns II period appears to represent the zenith of prehistoric sociopolitical organization in northeastern Florida. The Shields (8DU12) and Grant (8DU14) mounds, located less than a kilometer apart along the south bank of the St. Johns River in Duval County, together comprise the Mill Cove Complex (Thunen and Ashley 1995:5-8; Ashley 2003b). Both were large St. Johns II mounds that contained human burials, copper plates, copper beads, galena, ground stone implements, and other pieces of exotica (Moore 1894; 1895). Current evidence indicates that the Mill Cove Complex was the ceremonial and population center of the local St. Johns II culture (Ashley 2003b). There may have been as many as 10 other St. Johns II village-and-mound sites in northeastern Florida, including three on Amelia Island; these include Mitchell Mound (8NA48), Fernandina Lighthouse (8NA2), and Old Town (8NA248) (Ashley 2003b).
In northeastern Florida, the St. Johns II period is supplanted by the St Marys II period (AD 1250 - 1500). St. Marys Cordmarked, sand tempered plain, and fabric and net impressed, make up the ceramic series; lesser amounts of St. Johns series pottery may also occur on St. Marys II sites (Ashley 2003b; Ashley and Rolland 2002; Bullen and Griffin 1952; Larson 1958; Russo 1992; Saunders 1989; Sears). Some time after AD 1500, St. Mary’s pottery is replaced by the San Pedro series, which continues in production until the early 17th century. San Pedro pottery is a grog-tempered ware that has been recovered at numerous coastal sites, including Spanish missions in northeastern Florida and southeastern Georgia (Ashley and Rolland 1997a).
St. Marys II habitation sites typically occur as groupings of discrete shell midden heaps that range from 2 to 15 meters in diameter. Sites containing these household middens (as they are frequently interpreted) are known for all barrier islands in the St. Marys region, including Black Hammock Island (Russo et al. 1993; Ellis and Ellis 1992), Fort George Island (Jones 1967; Dickinson and Wayne 1987; Russo et al. 1993), Amelia Island (Ashley and Rolland 1997b; Bullen and Griffin 1952; Hemmings and Deagan 1973; Saunders 1992), and Cumberland Island (Ehrenhard 1976, 1981). St. Marys II sites have also been recorded on Crane and Martin’s islands (Dickinson and Wayne 1999; Hendryx and Smith 2000). Their occurrence on mainland northeastern Florida (Ashley 2002; Lee et al. 1984) and southeastern Georgia (Adams 1985;
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 13 Crook 1984, 1986; Smith et al. 1981) has also been noted. St. Marys II sites are more numerous and dispersed compared to the nature of St. Johns II sites.
Zooarchaeological and seasonality data suggest that St. Marys II groups lived along the coast throughout the year, with a subsistence economy focused on the capture of small estuarine fish, shellfish, and other aquatic resources; terrestrial mammals were exploited but to a far lesser extent (Russo 1992:118-119; Russo et al. 1993:172). Species exploited by St. Marys II groups were very similar to those utilized during St. Johns II times and included menhaden, catfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, sea trout, flounder, drum, and mullet (Lee et al. 1984). While the specifics of the yearly cycle are still not fully understood at this time, there seems to be little doubt that the St. Marys II people of northeastern Florida were sedentary coastal fishers and shellfish collectors, who at times employed foraging mobility.
3.5 Contact Period (1562-1587)
The contact period in northeastern Florida began with Jean Ribault’s (1964) brief exploration of the lower (northern) St. Johns River and Florida Atlantic coast in 1562. Two years later René Laudonniére, who had earlier accompanied Ribault, returned and established Fort Caroline (La Caroline) along the south bank of the St. Johns River, about 10 miles from its mouth (Bennett 1964, 1968, 1975; Lawson 1992). The French were told that Paracousi Saturiwa was the dominant native ruler near the fort and that he “had under his authority thirty other paracousis and whom ten were all his brothers, and for this reason he was greatly feared in these regions” (Lawson 1992:64). According to Laudonierre, the title Paracousi Saturiwa was “equivalent to King Saturiwa,” and that his sons “bore the same title of paracousi” (Lawson 1992:50). However, the title was used by Laudonierre to refer to several other village leaders near the fort, and elsewhere along the St. Johns River.
The natives inhabiting Northeast Florida at the time of European contact were Timucua- speakers, who were possibly allied with the Saturiwa (Swanton 1922; Deagan 1978; Hann 1996; Milanich 1996). Before encountering the French, however, Timucua on the north end of Amelia Island may have briefly met a scouting party associated with the Spanish expedition of Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón centered on the northern Georgia coast (Milanich 1996:70-71).
With the building of Fort Caroline in 1564, the St. Johns River estuary became the hub of sixteenth century French-Indian relations in southeastern North America. From the French fort, correspondence was established with local native villages, and patrols were made up (south) the St. Johns River and north along the Atlantic coast to South Carolina (Bennett 1964, 1968, 1975; Lawson 1992). As a result of these forays into the interior of Florida, valuable information was recorded about other native polities in northern Florida and southeastern Georgia. Through these expeditions, the French experienced first-hand Timucuan warfare and diplomacy as well as native social and political intrigue.
Information gleaned from French documents and maps suggest that the Timucuan village of Sarabay was on Big Talbot Island and the village of Tacatacuru was on Cumberland Island. The
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 14 French colony at Fort Caroline was brief, and by late 1565 it had fallen to Spanish forces under the command of Pedro Menéndez de Avilés. The Spaniards assumed control of the French stronghold, renaming it Fort San Mateo. Mutinous revolts by Spanish soldiers, combined with Timucua hostility toward the interlopers, made Fort San Mateo a source of grief for Menéndez (Lyon 1976:153). The French Catholic Dominique DeGourges, along with a large contingent of local natives, attacked and burned the fort in April 1568 (Bennett 1965). DeGourges was more intent on revenge than re-colonization, so he and his men returned to France upon destruction of the fort.
A weak attempt was made by the Spanish to re-outfit the fort, but it was soon abandoned for Fort San Pedro on Cumberland Island (Barrientos 1965; Hann 1996:66-67; Lyon 1982:57; Solís de Merás 1964). Placed near the native settlement of Tacatacuru, the Spanish soldiers stationed at the fort were also repeatedly harassed by local Timucua, resulting in its eventual abandonment in 1573. Written accounts present strong support for the existence of a native alliance between Saturiwa, Tacatacuru, and the other Timucua groups in the St. Marys region at contact. The documents indicate that at the same time the relations between Saturiwa and inland Timucua groups, such as the Outina along the middle reaches of the St. Johns River were volatile and at times violent (Bennett 1975; Lawson 1992).
With the removal of the French, it was the Spanish, based primarily in settlements at St. Augustine and Santa Elena, who interacted almost exclusively with the Timucua of northeastern Florida and southeastern Georgia after 1568. Between AD 1565 and 1587, relations between the Spaniards and the coastal Timucua were uneasy, with the natives repeatedly attacking soldiers who happened to stray from their fortified outposts (Hann 1996; Lyon 1976). European presence clearly challenged the political might of the indigenous societies. While documentation is rather mute with regard to native activities during the 1570s, it appears that the Spaniard’s retaliatory tactics were intensive, as they burned or destroyed native villages, fishweirs, plantings, and other holdings (Hann 1996:68; Solís de Merás 1964).Hann (1996:70) suggests that the “fire and blood” strategy on the part of the Spaniards “convinced enough of the Indians of the desirability of peace to force the hands of leaders who had chosen war.”
From an archaeological perspective, the contact era Timucua of northeastern Florida are represented by San Pedro pottery, a distinctive grog-tempered ware (Ashley and Rolland 1997b). In terms of surface treatments, the series consists mostly of plain, check stamped, and cob marked wares, and to a lesser extent, cord marked, textile impressed and complicated stamped types (Ashley and Rolland 1997b; Deagan 1978; Herron 1986; McMurray 1973; Milanich 1971b, 1972). Recent analysis suggests that while the overwhelming number f vessels in assemblages are grog tempered, the range includes some sand and sand/sparse grog tempered wares (Ashley and Rolland 1997a; Ashley and Thunen 2000). Details concerning some technological aspects of San Pedro pottery can be found elsewhere (see Ashley 2001; Ashley and Rolland 1997b).
Another archaeological occurrence in northeastern Florida coincident with the emergence of San Pedro pottery is the recovery of preserved corn. Thus the cultivation of corn by coastal Timucua appears to be a very late development (post AD 1500).
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 15 3.6 Mission Period (A.D. 1587-1702)
Spain established a garrison community at present-day St. Augustine in 1565, and soon afterwards Jesuit friars set out to convert native populations to Christianity through missionization (Gannon 1965; McEwen 1993; Milanich 1999). Beginning in the late-sixteenth century, the coastal Timucua along with Guale Indians to the north were the first to be congregated at mission villages, taught the Catholic doctrine, and introduced to the Hispanic way of life, as part of Spain's colonization process. Sustained Spanish interaction with the native peoples of the St. Marys region began in earnest with the arrival of Franciscan friars and the establishment in 1587 of the missions San Juan del Puerto on Fort George Island and San Pedro de Mocama on Cumberland Island (Gannon 1965:38). San Juan and San Pedro were each a doctrina since they maintained a resident priest. Such villages included a church, convento (friar’s residence), and possibly a detached kitchen (Saunders 1990; Worth 1998:42). Satellite villages located near a doctrina and within a priest’s evangelical jurisdiction were referred to as visitas, which themselves may also have had a small church or open chapel for a priest’s use. The Mocama visita of Santa Maria de la Sena was located on Amelia Island (possibly at Harrison Homestead site) during the first half of the seventeenth century (Worth 1997).
The imposition of missions at Timucuan villages without incident intimates that the once antagonistic coastal Indians had become more tolerant of Spanish presence in the St. Marys region. There is no mention at this time or in documents of the 1570s and 1580s of any of the early high-profile Timucans, like Saturiwa or Tacatacuru. The demise of these two prominent individuals, relentless enemies of the Spanish, very well may have factored into the coastal Timucua’s apparent reversal of attitude toward Spanish presence in the region (Hann 1996:70). Ironically, Don Juan, the reported cacique at the mission San Pedro (Tacatacuru) in 1587, was a fervent supporter of the Spanish (Deagan 1978:102; Hann 1996:146), and one would suspect that if traditional rules of inheritance were in practice, he was a blood relative (nephew?) of Tacatacuru.
The early mission period in the St. Marys region is also represented by San Pedro series pottery, which has been recovered at several mission-related sites in Camden County, Georgia and Nassau, Duval, and northern St. Johns counties, Florida (Ashley and Rolland 1997b). The archaeological location of the missions of San Juan and San Pedro are known and have been subjected to varying degrees of archaeological investigation. San Juan del Puerto (8DU53) has received the most attention, but detailed broad-scale excavations are lacking (Dickinson 1989; Dickinson and Wayne 1985; Griffin 1960; Hart 1982; Hart and Fairbanks 1981; Jones 1967; Russo et al. 1993). Work at San Pedro (Dungeness Wharf, 9CAM14) has consisted mostly of surface collections (Milanich 1971b), and the limited testing that has taken place has been poorly reported (Ehrenhard 1976, 1981).
At least four suspected early seventeenth century visitas have been sampled to some extent as well, and all have yielded San Pedro pottery (Ashley and Thunen 2000; Johnson 1998; Johnson and Ste. Claire 1988; FAS 1994; Russo et al. 1993; Smith et al. 2001). Admittedly, however,
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 16 these are all large multi-component sites that have also produced both St. Marys and later mission-period San Marcos wares. Strangely, European artifacts (e.g., beads, axes, hoes, etc), save for small amounts of olive jar, have been infrequently recovered at these suspected satellite villages
By the mid-seventeenth century, non-local Guale Indians from coastal Georgia were relocated to missions in northeastern Florida, including ones on Amelia Island (Saunders 2000; Worth 1995). Native sites of the seventeenth and early eighteenth century in northeastern Florida are marked by the presence of San Marcos (Altamaha) series pottery, a grit-tempered ware often stamped with complicated or simple designs (Larson 1978; Otto and Lewis 1974; Saunders 1992, 2000; Smith 1948). Although the appearance of San Marcos pottery on sites in Florida has traditionally been interpreted as evidence of Guale occupation, it now appears that San Marcos pottery was dominant mid-seventeenth century mission ware manufactured by coastal Guale, Yamassee and Mocama Indians (Hann 1996; Saunders 2000; Worth 1995, 1997).
During the latter half of the seventeenth century, a series of Yamassee and Guale settlements were relocated to Amelia Island. According to the a 1675 Pedro de Arcos list, Worth (1995:28) states
The northernmost [pagan town], inhabited by 60 Yamassee, was located on the tip of the [Amelia] island, followed by the town of Ocotoque a league to the south, with 40 residents. Two leagues southward was the town of La Tama, containing 50 pagan Indians, and half a league away was the town of Santa Maria, recently resettled by Yamassee immigrants after the disappearance of the original Mocama mission during the 1660s…In total, the immigrant Yamassee population of Amelia Island reached 190 individuals, making it the second most populous island of Guale and Mocama [Provinces] in 1675…”
The mission or visita of Santa Maria de Yamassee was established along Harrison Creek between 1665 and 1773 and abandoned in 1683 (Saunders 1992; Worth 1995:28). The church, located at the Harrison Homestead site, was excavated by Rebecca Saunders during the late 1980s (Saunders 1992, 2000). In 1684, Guale Indians from the missions along the northern Georgia coast were relocated to Amelia Island, where they constructed a church and mission complex (Santa Catalina de Guale) immediately north of the Santa Maria church. The Santa Catalina mission at Harrison Homestead site was the scene of extensive excavation by Saunders (1992, 2000) as well. In 1685, two more Guale missions (Santa Clara de Tupiqui and San Phelipe) were moved to the north end of Amelia Island (Worth 1995). At this time, Amelia Island represented the northernmost extent of the coastal Spanish Mission system.
The Atlantic coastal mission system same to an end in 1702, when Carolina militia and allied Yamassee Indians attacked and burned Mocama and Guale missions north of St. Augustine (Arnade 1960). Those Guale Indians inhabiting Amelia Island at the time of attack dispersed themselves, with many heading to St. Augustine. The missions on Amelia Island were never rebuilt, and by the first decade of the eighteenth century, Northeast Florida was void of Native American populations.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 17 3.7 Historic Period
The first recorded encounter between northeastern Florida natives and Europeans in the Jacksonville area began with Jean Ribault’s (1964) brief exploration of the St. Johns River estuary in 1562. In the ensuing years, French, Spanish, and British colonists would all claim and occupy northeastern Florida at various times. The French colony at Fort Caroline was short lived, and by late 1565 it had fallen to Spanish forces under the command of Pedro de Menéndez (Bennett 1964, 1968, 1975; Lawson 1992). With the removal of the French from La Florida, it was the Spanish, based primarily in settlements at St. Augustine and Santa Elena, who interacted almost exclusively with the natives of the St. Marys region after 1568. Spain controlled Florida from 1565 to 1763 and again from 1783 to 1821. During the intervening twenty years (1763- 1783), Great Britain controlled what is today present-day Florida.
Florida was acquired from Spain in 1819 and officially became a U.S Territory in 1821, with Duval County being established the next year. In 1832, the community of Cowford, renamed Jacksonville in honor of Andrew Jackson, became the ninth Florida town to incorporate (Tebeau 1971:146). During the Territorial Period (1821-1845), Jacksonville became a major shipping point, from which agricultural produce grown within the interior of the peninsula was dispersed to other areas (Davis 1964; Ward 1985). Lumber processing and shipping also became important economic enterprises. As the general economic prosperity of the Territory grew so did interest in statehood, with Florida officially accepted into Statehood in 1845 (Tebeau 1971).
St. Augustine first attracted the attention of American travelers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson in the 1820’s, and citrus production flourished in the area until a severe freeze occurred in 1835. During the Seminole Wars, it served as a major military headquarters. During the Civil War (1861-1865), St. Augustine was one of the first (1862) important ports in the South to be captured by Union troops, but it was spared hostile bombardment and widespread destruction (Davis 1964). After a brief period of economic decline, the city rebounded and grew into a major railhead, while steamboat traffic along the St. Johns River opened the entire central portion of the county to exploitation and settlement via settlements such as Switzerland, Orangedale, and Picolata.
St. Augustine expanded quickly, with the population center spreading out from the downtown business district into outlying areas, largely due to the construction of magnificent hotels by Henry Flagler. In the 1890’s, Thomas Hastings began growing vegetables for these hotels, which soon sparked widespread potato production; today, potatoes remain the major agricultural crop of St. Johns County. The early 1900 were also marked by several decades of intense naval stores activity within the pine flat-woods of St. Johns County. With the advent of the automobile, additional bridges and roads were built, and St. Augustine continued to grow in population and size. Today, the Castillo de San Marcos of St. Augustine is a major tourist attraction, and the city itself is a flourishing business center.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 18 IV. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
William Bartram (1958:42-43, 349-350) was among the first to mention the presence of prehistoric archaeological sites in Florida, when, in the 1770s, he noted earthen Indian mounds outside Old Town Fernandina in Northeast Florida. Later nineteenth century investigators of Florida antiquities included Brinton (1859, 1872), Wyman (1868, 1875), Mitchell (1875), Stearns (1869), and LeBaron (1884). Among the most well known individuals in early Florida archaeology was a wealthy Philadelphia socialite named Clarence B. Moore (1896), who excavated sand burial mounds in Florida and throughout the southeastern United States in the1890s. Although some sites were investigated in the middle 20th century by researchers such as Goggin (1951) and Wiley (1949), prior to the 1970s relatively few archaeological investigations had been conducted within St. Johns County. However, this situation changed with the emergence of legally mandated archaeological investigations. Cultural resource management (CRM), as it is now called, has changed the pace and scope of archaeology within the Southeast. Most CRM projects are funded by governmental agencies or private organizations responsible for certain kinds of construction or development projects. Under specific conditions, these entities must fulfill legal requirements concerning the proper recording and evaluation of archaeological sites and cultural resources before their undertakings can commence.
In 1987, a wide-ranging survey of Northeast Florida by Stanley Bond located historic period resources from the British and Second Spanish periods. In addition, the ubiquitous presence of 19th century sites associated with the turpentine industry was also noted throughout the area; Bond (and others) have observed that Herty cup fragments indicative of 20th century turpentine activities are commonly observed in the pine forests (Smith and Bond 1984; Blount 1993; Butler 1998). More recent, large-scale surveys within St. Johns County include the West Augustine survey and Elkton-Hastings survey, both of which were conducted by Bland & Associates, Inc. (BAI) in 2008 and 2009. Today, there are over 19,000 cultural resources recorded in the county.
In regard to the current project tract, a December 2016 review of the archaeological site file records maintained by the FMSF-DHR indicated that no archaeological sites, historic bridges, historic cemeteries, standing historic structures, historic resource groups, historic linear resources, or NRHP-listed cultural resources had been previously recorded within the current project tract. However, numerous CRM surveys have been conducted in the general vicinity of the current project tract (CRM Survey Nos. 6516, 6612, 10390, 12225, and 13763).
While these surveys did record numerous archaeological sites, historic structures, and other cultural resources within the general vicinity of the current project tract, none were located within the current project tract. The cultural resource(s) which are located within the general area of the current project tract (Figure 3) are briefly reviewed below. It should be noted that there is very substantial variation in the mapped locations of these resources, depending upon which cartographic resource is consulted, so the original site location maps, as depicted in each individual CRAS report, were utilized to generate Figure 3 with correctly reconciled map plots.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 19 8SJ05036: This linear resource is the Florida East Coast (FEC) railroad line. The Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad was recorded during FMSF Survey No. 14490 in 2006 and recommended ineligible for the NRHP. It has also been recorded in places as 8SJ5272. This railroad dates to the early 1880s and was originally known as the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Halifax River Railway. Measuring about 36 miles, the track ran between Jacksonville and St. Augustine. In 1885, Henry Flagler purchased the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Halifax River Railway. Soon thereafter, Flagler built a bridge across the St. Johns River that made rail transportation from Jacksonville to St. Augustine much more efficient. Flagler's plans for developing Florida blossomed through the late nineteenth-century, resulting in the Florida East Coast Railroad which spanned the entire eastern coast of Florida. While this resource does parallel the western boundary of the current project tract, it should be noted that the current project maintains a full 50-foot setback from the entire length of this linear resource, and it will not be impacted.
8SJ05508: The resource group consists of two drainage ditches, excavated prior to 1917. They range in width from 4 to 5 meters (m) and in depth from 0.5 to 1.0 m. Spoil piles are located along the sides of the ditches. It was recorded as a linear resource in 2011 during FMSF Survey No. 18203. This resource was determined to be ineligible for the NRHP.
8SJ04818: This archaeological consists of a large turpentine camp which was recorded in 2004 during FMSF Survey No. 10390. This “turpentine camp” was initially noted on a 1937-era map. At total of 296 historic artifacts were then collected from 18 positive shovel tests within this site, which was discovered during a survey of the Woodlake tract. This resource was determined to be ineligible for the NRHP.
8SJ02957 / 8SJ04283: This standing structure is the “Mickler House.” It was built circa 1890 and is located on Cubbage Road. It was first was recorded as Record Number (RN) 527 (8SJ02957) in 1985 during the first county-wide survey of historic structures in St. Johns County (FMSF Survey No. not assigned). It was then re-recorded during FMSF Survey No. 6612 as 8SJ04283. It was not evaluated for NRHP eligibility status.
8SJ02994 / 8SJ04282: This standing structure is the “Dupont Center” and was built circa 1920- 1936. It was first was recorded as Record Number (RN) 565 (8SJ02994) in 1985 during the first county-wide survey of historic structures in St. Johns County (FMSF Survey No. not assigned). It was then re-recorded during FMSF Survey No. 6612 as 8SJ04282. It was not evaluated for NRHP eligibility status.
8SJ04276: This historic standing structure is located at 6625 US Highway 1 South. It consists of a circa 1940, wood frame vernacular residence built on concrete blocks. It was recorded during FMSF Survey No. 6612. It was not evaluated for NRHP eligibility status.
8SJ04283: This historic standing structures is located at 6740 US Highway1 South. It consists of a circa 1890, wood frame vernacular residence. It was recorded during FMSF Survey No. 6612. It was not evaluated for NRHP eligibility status.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 20 0 500'
Source: USGS 1:24000, St. Augustine Beach, FL (1988) Quadrangle SCALE AS SHOWN
An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Figure: 3 Survey of the Cypress Estates Parcel Project No.: BAIJ016098.01 Bland & Associates, Inc. St. Johns County, Florida Scale: 1" = 500'-0" Archaeological and Historic Preservation Consultants Date: March 2017 V. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
A project-specific research design was developed before fieldwork commenced. Its formulation was preceded by: a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) to determine the presence of previously recorded archaeological sites within the study area; an examination of USDA soil maps for the area; perusal of aerial photographs to identify anomalies, waterways, vegetation patterns, and greatly disturbed areas; the attainment of familiarity with USGS topographic maps of the project area so that elevation data could be utilized; and an investigation of previous archaeological research pertaining to the region. In addition, data regarding past aboriginal settlement and subsistence patterns within Florida were considered.
The goal of this survey was to locate, identify, and assess cultural resources which might occur within the project tract. Field methods used during the present investigation included subsurface shovel testing and surface inspection in areas of exposed ground surface. Shovel testing was conducted throughout the project tract. Tests were spaced in order to compensate for the presence of push piles, wet/low-lying areas, and currently existing landform modifications such as paved areas. Horizontal accuracy was maintained through the use of Suunto, KB-44 and KB- 77, line-of-sight handheld compasses. As recommended by the office of the Florida State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), all shovel tests were approximately 50-cm square and dug to a depth of at least one meter below surface. All excavated soils were sifted through ¼” wire mesh. Surface inspections were also extensively conducted in clearings and disturbed areas; surface visibility was good in some locations since portions of the project tract consisted of broken grassy areas. In addition, close attention was also paid to vegetational or soil patterns that might mark the location of any cultural resource.
Relevant field information was recorded for each shovel test, which included shovel test number and location, soil conditions, stratigraphic description, degree of disturbance, and depths at which artifacts were recovered. All shovel test locations were plotted on a boundary survey map supplied by the client, and flagged in the field. Informant interviews were also conducted with the client, as well as any available project tract neighbors, and a copy of this report was provided to the pertinent, CLG (Certified Local Government) planning professional; any data generated via these sources is included in the Results section of this report.
Procedures to Deal with Unexpected Results
Archaeologists sometimes encounter unanticipated features that require efforts that exceed the scope of project expectations. In such cases, it may be necessary to reevaluate the research design, and/or execute additional work to address unexpected discoveries. It is our policy to amend a project research design as needed to ensure that proper treatment and evaluation are afforded to unexpected findings. Coordination with the County and the office of the SHPO is a necessary step in such an approach. Unexpected findings might include the discovery of human remains, which would require additional coordination with the state archaeologist in compliance with Chapter 872.05, Florida Statutes, or the District Medical Examiner (DME) if the remains appear to be less than 75 years old. The recovery of unexploded ordnance or hazardous materials (HAZMAT) would also constitute an unexpected discovery.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 22 In the event that an unexpected discovery of significant archeological or historic materials occurs during the construction phase of the project, work activities in the immediate vicinity of the find are to be suspended, pending notification to Ms. Crystal Geiger, Archaeologist, St. Johns County Planning Department (Ph. 904-209-0623) and to Myles Bland, Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) No. 10650, Bland & Associates, Inc. (at [email protected]; Ph.1-800-605- 4478). Should such inadvertent discovery be made, the County will advise the land owner of the appropriate, cultural resource management, evaluation or mitigation plan to be developed in consultation with all parties.
These notifications and requirements also apply to the discovery of human remains, in accordance with Title XLVI, Chapter 872, Florida Statutes, Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves, the provisions of which must be carefully followed. Briefly, Chapter 872, Florida Statutes, strictly mandates that if human remains are discovered, you must: 1) Cease all activity that may disturb the human remains, and make reasonable efforts to protect the remains from additional impact - unauthorized disturbance of human remains and graves is illegal even on private property. 2) Immediately notify law enforcement or your District Medical Examiner (DME), and Myles Bland, Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) No. 10650, Bland & Associates, Inc. [at [email protected]; Ph.1-800-605-4478] of the discovery. 3) Leave the bones and nearby items in place and do not disturb the scene; moving or removing items can destroy valuable forensic or archaeological data that are vital to understanding the nature of the human remains. 4) If the remains are human and less than 75 years old, the DME and local law enforcement officials will assume jurisdiction. If the remains are found to be human and older than 75 years, the State Archaeologist will be notified and may assume jurisdiction of the remains, and a plan for the avoidance of any further impacts to the human remains and/or mitigative excavation, re-interment, or a combination of these treatments, will be developed in consultation with all necessary parties.
Informant Interviews
Local residents can often provide a wealth of information about a project tract. Informant interviews are always conducted with the client. The client is specifically asked about numerous historic topics such as battlefields, cemeteries (marked and unmarked), structures (residential and commercial), previously recorded cultural resources, historic markers, previous property owners, historic land use and improvements (industrial and agricultural), roads, waterways, docks, and any other relevant factors.
We also speak with the project tract neighbors, as well as the current inhabitants of the project tract during the fieldwork phase of each project, if such people exist. Also, a copy of each report is provided to any pertinent, CLG (Certified Local Government) historic preservation professional. Informant interviews and historic property usage patterns as reviewed in the environmental audits are also reviewed, as are property appraiser records. We also check local county history data (local historic society books, websites, local librarians, etc.) as well as our in- house collection of historic aerials and historic maps (USDA, USGS, DOT) and atlases.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 23 Laboratory Methodology
Because no artifacts were recovered, laboratory processing and analysis was not necessary. Any paper field documents pertaining to the survey were labeled and packed for permanent curation. Presently, field documents, photographs, notes, forms, drawings, and maps are being housed at the BAI laboratory pending selection of a permanent curation facility.
Defining Cultural Resources and Archaeological Sites
The goals of the present survey were to locate and define cultural resources within the project area and to evaluate their significance and potential for contributing additional data through future research. Cultural resources are nonrenewable and historical resources that include archaeological sites, architectural features, and objects (natural and human-made) associated with human activity. An archaeological site is a discrete and potentially interpretable locus of cultural material. For the present study, an archaeological site was defined as a concentration of two or more artifacts (older than 50 years) within 30 m of each other that indicate past human activity within area they were recovered. Finds consisting of only one artifact older than 50 years are referred to as isolated finds (IF).
Issues of Significance
All recorded cultural resources must be evaluated with respect to their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Determinations of site significance are made with reference to the guidelines established by the Department of the Interior for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. In order for an archaeological site (cultural resource) to be deemed significant in the legal sense, it must satisfy one (or more) of four rigid criteria (labeled A through D) established in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60.4. These include:
Criterion A: association with important events (or patterns of events) in prehistory or history.
Criterion B: association with important people of the past.
Criterion C: possess distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, architecture, etc.
Criterion D: known or likely to yield data important in prehistory or history.
In practice, these criteria must be applied to each component of all cultural resources that occur within a project tract. Most historical or archaeological sites generally qualify under Criterion D; i.e., have yielded or are likely to yield information important to interpretation of the past. In accordance with National Register Bulletin 15 (National Register Branch 1982, as revised 1995:39-50), cultural resources must be assessed with regard to “seven aspects of integrity:”
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 24 location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To “retain historic integrity, a historic property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects” (National Register Branch 1982, as revised 1995:44). Traditionally, artifact frequency, artifact diversity, site integrity, and site clarity (Glassow 1977), as well as the ability of the site to contribute to the regional and theoretical database (Butler 1987:821-826) are the physical and substantive characteristics upon which an archaeological site is evaluated.
In sum, significant cultural resources are those meeting the criteria of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), based upon interpretations of site integrity, preservation, uniqueness, and future research potential. According to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), any significant cultural resource included in or eligible for NRHP is deemed a historical property.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 25 VI. RESULTS
Records maintained at the FMSF indicate that the project tract does not contain any archaeological sites, historic bridges, cemeteries, NRHP-listed resources, resource groups, underwater resources, historic structures, or historic districts, although two, previously recorded, linear, cultural resources are quite nearby. A review of the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) database to check whether the project tract encompassed any battlefields indicated no military sites were near the project vicinity. The current project does not fall within a Spanish land grant. The project area lies within the expansive area known as St. Lorenzo de Aramasaca, St. Nicholas, and St. Geronimo, which were large, unsettled areas that spread across much of the interior west of St. Augustine and south beyond the Matanzas Inlet (Hulbert 1915:56; Adams, Bell and Weaver 1985:18, 22). A review of the Scenic America Organization (SAO) and the Alliance of National Heritage Areas (ANHA) holdings to determine the presence of historic corridors indicated the project tract does not border any scenic byways governed by a corridor management plan. Sanborn fire maps do not exist for this project tract.
There is also indication of any 18th or 19th century, military activity within the project tract (cf. Blake and Mckay Map of Second Seminole War Activities in Northeast Florida, 1839, as published in the Jacksonville Florida Times Union 18 December 1973). Other cartographic resources which depict the project tract were also reviewed to determine whether historic activities occurred within the project tract before, up to, and after the Second Seminole War (See, Map From a Reconnaissance Under Direction of Major Jos. A. Ashby, 1841(?), Drawn by order of Gen. Taylor, Commander of the Army in Florida, by Jos. W. Gunnison, Topography Corp; State Archives of Florida Image N034525; see also, Map of the Part of East Florida between the Atlantic and the St. Johns River extending from the Picolata Road to the Head of Dunn's Lake, 1841; D. McClelland, Captain, Topography Engineers, State Library of Florida, OCLC No. 43804501). These maps do not indicate any the Second Seminole War activity (roads or forts) within the project tract. In addition, the Civil War Atlas also indicates a lack of military activity within the project tract during that conflict.
Other maps of the current project tract were also reviewed. These maps include the 1849 General land Office Survey (GLOS) Map of Range 8 South, Township 30 East (Randolph 1849); the 1937 and 1943 Geological Survey maps of Crescent Beach, Florida; the 1988 and 1992 U.S. Geological Survey maps of St. Augustine Beach, Florida, as photo-revised [PR]; the St. Johns County Property Appraiser records, plat maps, aerial photographs (2008 - 2016), and tax records. In addition, USDA maps (USDA 1917), soil surveys (USDA 1983) and Department of Army aerial photographs from 1943, 1950, 1952, and 1960 were also reviewed. The 1943 aerial photograph does indicate that most of the project tract had been clear-cut (timbered) at that time. But, in all cases, no historic structures or land improvements are mapped, nor have they ever been mapped, within the current project tract. There have been no buildings built alongside this section of US Highway 1 South within the current project tract. In summary, with the exception of typical, fairly intensive silvicultural land use during the 20th century, there is no record of historic land use within the current project tract.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 26 The purpose of the current project is to build a residential subdivision, with associated land improvements, streets, and parking. Today, the 19.00-acre project tract consists of a wooded area zoned as “Vacant Residential.” The project tract is unimproved and it contains mesic flat- woods composed of immature pine trees, gall-berry, magnolias, and palmettos. As with nearly every parcel of land in Northeast Florida, the project tract has been cleared, and/or utilized, at one time or another over the decades, for silvilculture / timber / turpentining activities.
Initially, pedestrian surveys were conducted within the project tract. While modern trash was noted within the project tract, no historic structures, structural remains, or cultural materials on the ground surface were encountered. Since the project tract lies in a setting which could have conceivably witnessed historic development, the entire project tract was then shovel tested with (Figure 4) twenty negative shovel tests (n=20). These shovel tests (ST) were placed in a grid pattern designed to cover the project tract evenly, and intensively. Shovel tests (ST) were also judgmentally installed in those areas which appeared to be the least disturbed.
All of the STs revealed soils which were fully indicative of the mapped, poorly drained, soil type and also highly disturbed. The soils in the project tract are primarily classified as Smyrna- Smyrna, wet, fine sand, 0-2% slopes (11) by the USDA. More specifically, a general soil profile encountered within these STs consisted of mottled, dark grayish brown, fine sand from 0 to 20 centimeters below surface (cmbs), which was followed by grayish brown fine sand to a depth of 55 cmbs, which underlain by a dark black spodic horizon from 55 to 70 cmbs. The water table was encountered at 60 to 70 cmbs in all STs. All STs were also negative for cultural material. Upon completion, each ST was carefully back-filled, packed and flagged. Finally, as previously noted, while the FEC railroad line (8SJ05036) does parallel the western boundary of the current project tract, it should be noted that the current project maintains a full 50-foot setback from the entire length of this linear resource, which is still used a modern railroad line today, and it will not be impacted.
In summary, all subsurface shovel tests and pedestrian surveys were negative, and no artifacts, isolated finds, historic standing structures, or historic structural remnants were encountered. The tract is, and has functioned historically, as vacant, wooded lot(s) alongside a road. Although no cultural resources were recorded during the present investigation, this work will add to our current knowledge of aboriginal and historic settlement of St. Johns County. The negative results can be integrated into a broad-scale and comprehensive regional settlement model aimed at the prediction of prehistoric and historic site locations within St. Johns County.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 27
Shovel Test 100 North, 280 East, looking east, west central portion of the project tract.
Shovel Test 100 North, 790 East, looking south along US Highway 1 South.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 29 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
During March of 2017, Bland and Associates, Inc. (BAI) conducted a cultural resource reconnaissance survey of a 19.00 acre parcel located in St. Johns County, Florida. This investigation was undertaken as part of the permitting for a proposed development in order to comply with County regulations regarding the identification and management of cultural resources that might occur within the project tract.
The goals of this project were to locate, identify, delineate, and evaluate cultural resources within the tract. The term "cultural resources" as used herein is meant to refer to those districts, structures, sites and objects that would qualify as “historic properties” as the latter term is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(1), as those such entities meeting the criteria for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places given at 36 CFR 60.4.
No previously recorded cultural resources occur within the project tract. No artifacts, historic structures, or historic structural remnants were noted during fieldwork. Based upon the absence of cultural material and the lack of evidence for occupation, as well as the environmental conditions on-site, no further archaeological investigation is warranted, and it is recommended that this project be allowed to proceed without further concern for impacts to cultural resources.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 30 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, William Hampton (editor) 1985 Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality, Vol. 1. University of Florida, Department of Anthropology Reports of Investigations No.1, Gainesville.
Adams, William R., Valerie Bell, and Paul Weaver. 1985 Historic Properties Survey of St. Johns County. St. Augustine, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board.
Anderson, David G., Lisa D. Osteen, and Kenneth E. Sassaman 1996 Ecological and Environmental Considerations. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, pp. 3-15, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman. University Press of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Ashley, Keith H. 1992 Swift Creek Manifestations Along the Lower St. Johns River. The Florida Anthropologist 45:127-138 1995 The Dent Mound: Excavation of A Coastal Woodland Period Burial Mound at the Mouth of the St. Johns River, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 48:13-34. 1998 Swift Creek Traits in Northeastern Florida: Ceramics, Mounds, and Middens. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp197-221. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2001 Beyond Potsherds: A Technofunctional Analysis of San Pedro Pottery from the North Beach Site (8SJ48). The Florida Anthropologist 54:123-150 2002 On the Periphery of the Early Mississippian World: Looking Within and Beyond Northeastern Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 21:162-177. 2003a Archaeological Testing at the Cedar Point Site (98DU81): Results of the 2003 UNF- NPS Summer Field School. Report on file, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Jacksonville. 2003b Interaction, Population Movement, and Political Economy: The Changing Social Landscape of Northeastern Florida (AD 900-1500). Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Ashley, Keith H. and Vicki L. Rolland 1997a Grog-Tempered Pottery in the Mocama Province. The Florida Anthropologist 50:51-66. 1997b Phase II Test Excavations at the Thundercrack Site (8NA43), Nassau County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee. 2002 St. Marys Cordmarked Pottery (Formerly Savannah Fine Cord Marked of Northeastern Florida and Southeastern Georgia): A Type Description. The Florida Anthropologist 55:25-36.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 31 Ashley, Keith H. and Robert L. Thunen 2000 Archaeological Survey of the Southern One-Third of Big Talbot Island, Florida. Report on file DHR, Tallahassee.
Barrientos, Bartolome 1965 Pedro Mendez de Aviles, Founder of Florida. Translated by Anthony Kerrigan. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Bartram, William 1958 The Travels of William Bartram, Naturalist's Edition. Francis Harper, ed., New Haven, Yale University Press.
Bennett, Charles E. (translator) 1964 Laudonniere and Fort Caroline. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1968 Settlement of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1975 Three Voyages: Rene Laudonniere. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 1981 Florida's French Revolution, 1793-1795. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Bland, Myles et al. 1997 A Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Proposed River Oaks Development, Nassau County, Florida. Florida Archeological Services (FAS), Jacksonville, Florida. 2004 An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed Bells River Estates, Nassau County, Florida. Bland and Associates, Incorporated Report of Investigations No. 114.
Bland, Myles et al. 1998 An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Lighthouse Pointe Development, Nassau County, Florida.
Bland, Myles and Keith Ashley 2004 An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed Hideaway Development, Nassau County, Florida. Bland and Associates, Incorporated Report of Investigations No. 113.
Bland, Myles, Keith Ashley and Sidney Johnston 2004 An Archaeological Survey of Unincorporated Nassau County, Florida. Bland and Associates, Incorporated Report of Investigations No. 115.
Bland, Myles et al. 2002 An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the MBO Tract, St. Johns County, Florida. Manuscript on file, DHR Tallahassee.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 32 Bland, Myles et al. 2004 An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Swan and Kittredge Parcel, St. Johns County, Florida. Bland and Associates, Incorporated (BAI) Report of Investigations No. 125. Manuscript on file, DHR Tallahassee.
Bland, Myles et al. 2004 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of the Treaty Park Parcel, St. Johns County, Florida. Bland and Associates, Incorporated (BAI) Report of Investigations No. 185. Manuscript on file, DHR Tallahassee.
Bland, Myles et al. 2004 An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Watson Road Parcel, St. Johns County, Florida. Bland and Associates, Incorporated (BAI) Report of Investigations No. 124. Manuscript on file, DHR Tallahassee.
Bland, Myles et al. 2004 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of Twin Lakes Parcel, St. Johns County, Florida. Bland and Associates, Incorporated (BAI) Report of Investigations No. 135. Manuscript on file, DHR Tallahassee.
Bland, Myles et al. 2004 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of the Treaty Park Parcel, St. Johns County, Florida. Bland and Associates, Incorporated (BAI) Report of Investigations No. 185. Manuscript on file, DHR Tallahassee.
Bland, Myles et al. 2004 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of the Dynan Group Parcel, St. Johns County, Florida. Bland and Associates, Incorporated (BAI) Report of Investigations No. 190. Manuscript on file, DHR Tallahassee.
Borremans, Nina Thanz, and Craig D. Shaak 1986 A Preliminary Report on Investigations of Sponge Spicules in Florida “Chalky” Pottery. Ceramic Notes 3:125-132. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida State Museum, Gainesville.
Brinton, Daniel G. 1859 Notes on the Floridian Peninsula, its Literary History, Indian Tribes and Antiquities. Philadelphia. 1872 Artificial Shell Deposits of the United States. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1866. Washington, D.C.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 33 Brooks, H. Kelley 1981 Physiographic Divisions: State of Florida. Map and Text. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Bullen, Ripley P. 1951 Fort Tonyn and the Campaign of 1778. Florida Historical Quarterly 29: 253- 260. 1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida. In Fiber Tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern Columbia: Its Origins, Context, and Significance, edited by Ripley P. Bullen and James Stoltman. Florida Anthropological Society Publications, Number 6. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books.
Bullen, Ripley P., and John W. Griffin 1952 An Archaeological Survey of Amelia Island, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 5:37-64. 1993 The Archaic Period and Flotation Revolution. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret Scarry, pp. 27-38. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Chen, Ellen, and George F. Gerber 1990 Climate. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald Myers and John Ewel, pp. 11-35. The University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.
Claassen, Cheryl P. 1986 Shellfishing Seasons in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States. In American Antiquity 51:21-37.
Clausen , C., D. Cohen, C. Emiliani, J. A. Holman and J. J. Stipp 1980 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 20: 609-614.
Coe, Joffre L. 1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54(5), Philadelphia.
Cordell, Ann S., and Steven H. Koski 2003 Analysis of a Spiculate Clay from Lake Monroe, Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56:113-125.
Crook, Morgan R. 1984 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at the Crooked River Site (9 CAM 118). Report on file, Georgia Site Files, Athens. 1986 Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Coastal Zone. Georgia A Archaeological Research Design Papers 1. University of Georgia, Athens.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 34 Daniel, Randolph, and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.,
Davis, T. Frederick. 1930a United States Troops in Spanish East Florida, 1812-1813. Florida Historical Quarterly. 9 (July):1-23. 1930b United States Troops in Spanish East Florida, 1812-1813, Part 2. Florida Historical Quarterly. 9 (October):96-116. 1931a United States Troops in Spanish East Florida, 1812-1813, Part 3. Florida Historical Quarterly. 9 (January):135-155. 1931b United States Troops in Spanish East Florida, 1812-1813, Part 4. Florida Historical Quarterly. 9 (April):259-289. 1964 History of Jacksonville, Florida & Vicinity, 1513 to 1924. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Deagan, Kathleen A. 1978 Cultures in Transition: Fusion and Assimilation Among the Eastern Timucua. In Tacachale, Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia During the Historic Period, ed. by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 89-119. The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and Caribbean, 1500-1800, Vol. 1, Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt 1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records of Late-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V.M. Bryant and R.G. Holloway, pp. 1-37. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.
Dickinson, Martin F. and Lucy B. Wayne 1987 Archaeological Survey and Testing Phase I Development Areas Fairfield Fort George, Fort George Island, Duval County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee. 1985 Archaeological Testing of The San Juan del Puerto Mission Site (8Du53), Fort George Island, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee. 1999 Island in the Marsh: An Archaeological Investigation of 8NA59 and 8NA709, The Crane I Island Sites, Nassau County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
Division of Historical Resources 1990 The Historic Preservation Compliance Review Program of the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. Division of Historical Resources, Department of State, Florida.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 35 Dunbar, James S. 1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age PaleoIndian Sites in Florida. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, ed. by R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmier, pp. 185-213. Center for the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Dunbar, James and Ben I. Waller 1983 A Distribution Analysis of the Clovis/Suwannee Paleo-Indian Sites of Florida. A Geographic Approach. The Florida Anthropologist 36:18-30.
Dunbar, James, S.T. Webb, and Michael K. Faught 1988 Page/Ladson (8JE591): An Underwater Paleo-Indian Site in Northwestern Florida. Florida Anthropologist 41(4):442-452.
Ehrenhard, John E. 1976 Cumberland Island National Seashore: Assessment of Archeological and Historical Resources. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1981 Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia: Archeological Mitigation of NPS 9CAM5 and 9CAM6. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
Ellis, Gary D. and John J. Ellis 1992 Cultural Resources Survey of Three Proposed Disposal Sites in Duval County Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
Faught, Michael, and Brinnen Carter 1998 Early Human Occupation and Environmental Change in Northwestern Florida. Quaternary International 49/50:167-176.
Fiedel, Stuart J. 1998 The Peopling of the New World: Present Evidence, New Theories, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(1):39-103.
Florida Archeological Services, Inc. (FAS) 1994 Phase II Archeological Investigations at Sites 8DU5541, 8DU5542, and 8DU5543 at the Queens Harbour Yacht and Country Club, Duval County, Florida. Report on file, DHR.
Florida Department of Environmental protection [FL DEP / Randolph 1849] 1849 General Land Office[ GLOS] Map. Township 8 South, Range 30 East. Electronic documents, www. labins.org.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 36 Gannon, Michael 1965 The Cross in the Sand. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1993 Florida: A Short History. Gainesville: University Press of Florida 1996 The New History of Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida
Goggin, John M. 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology. Yale University Publications in Anthropology #47.
Goodyear, Albert C. 1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Crypycrystalline Raw Materials Among the Paleoindian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series Number 156. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia. 1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 47:382-395.
Griffin, John W. and Robert H. Steinbach 1991 Archaeological Survey of Old Town Fernandina, Florida. A Study of the Archaeological Resources in Old Town and Recommendations for Their Preservation. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
Hann, John H. 1996 A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Hemmings, E. Thomas and Kathleen A. Deagan 1973 Excavations on Amelia Island in Northeast Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum #18. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Hendryx, Gregory S., and Greg C. Smith 2001 Archaeological Data Recovery and Mitigation at 8NA910 (The Honey Dripper Site), Nassau County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
Hendryx, Gregory S., Greg C. Smith, and Sidney Johnston 2000 An Intensive Archaeological and Historical Assessment and Site Evaluation at 8NA703, Martin’s Island, Nassau County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
Hendryx, Gregory S., Greg C. Smith, and Keith H. Ashley 2001 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the River Place at Summer Beach and Site Testing at 8NA910, Nassau County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 37 Heron, Mary K. 1986 A Formal and Functional Analysis of St. Johns Series Pottery from Two Sites in St. Augustine, Florida. In Ceramic Notes 3, edited by Prudence M. Rice, pp. 31- 45. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida State Museum, Gainesville.
Horvath, Elizabeth A. 2000 Archaeological Investigations at the Colorado Site (8HE241) – A Lithic Workshop in Hernando County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3):82-97.
Hulbert, Archer Butler. 1915 The Crown Collection of Photographs of American Maps. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Co.
Johnson, Robert E. 1988 An Archeological and Historical Survey of the Crane Island Development Project, Nassau County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee. 1991 An Archaeological Examination of the Fort Clinch Sanitary Outfall Facility, Nassau County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee. 1998 Phase II Archeological Investigations of Sites 8DU5544 and 8DU5545, Queen’s Harbour Yacht and Country Club, Duval County, Florida. Report on file, Division of Historic Resources, Tallahassee.
Johnson, Robert E. and Dana Ste. Claire 1988 An Archeological and Historical Survey of the Greenfield Plantation Tract, Duval County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
Johnson, Robert E., Myles C. P. Bland, B. Alan Basinet, and Robert Richter 1997 An Archeological Investigation of the Ocean Reach Site (8NA782), Nassau County, Florida. Florida Archeological Services, Jacksonville, Florida.
Jones, William 1967 A Report on the Site of San Juan del Puerto, A Spanish Mission, Fort George Island, Duval County, Florida. Ms. on file, Haydon Burns Library, Jacksonville.
Kendrick, Baynard. 1967 Florida's Perpetual Forests. Unpublished Manuscript, Leesburg, FL.
Kirkland, S. Dwight, and Robert E. Johnson 2000 Archeological Data Recovery at Greenfield Site No. 5, 8DU5541, Duval County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 38 Larson, Lewis H., Jr. 1958 Cultural Relationships Between the Northern St. Johns Area and the Georgia Coast. The Florida Anthropologist 11:11-22.
Lawson, Sarah (translator) 1992 A Foothold in Florida. The Eyewitness Account of Four Voyages Made by the French to that Region and Their Attempt at Colonization, 1562-1568, Based on a New Translation of Laudonniere's L'Histoire Notable de la Florida. Antique Atlas Publications, East Grinstead, West Sussex, England.
LeBaron, J. Francis 1884 Prehistoric Remains in Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report, 1882: 771-790.
Lee, Chung Ho, Irvy R. Quitmyer, Christopher T. Espenshade, and Robert E. Johnson 1984 Estuarine Adaptations During the Late Prehistoric Period: Archaeology of Two Shell Midden Sites on the St. Johns River. The University of West Florida, Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, Report of Investigations, Number 5.
Lyon, Eugene 1976 The Enterprise of Florida. The University of Florida Presses, Gainesville. 1982 Forts Caroline and San Mateo, Vulnerable Outposts. Report Submitted to Fort Caroline National Memorial (PX532090219), Jacksonville, Florida.
McEwan, Bonnie G. (editor) 1993 The Spanish Missions of La Florida, edited by University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
McMurray, Carl D., Jr., and Kathleen Deagan 1972 Survey of test Excavations of Amelia Island Historic Site. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
McMurray, Judith A. 1973 The Definition of the Ceramic Complex at San Juan del Puerto. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Meltzer, David J. 1995 Clocking the First Americans. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:21-45.
Meltzer, D.J., D.K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A.W. Barker, D.F. Dincauze, C.V. Haynes, F. Mena, L. Nunez, and D.J. Stanford 1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southeastern Chile. American Antiquity 62(4):659-663.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 39 Milanich, Jerald T. 1971 The Deptford Phase: An Archaeological Reconstruction. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1971 Surface Information from the Presumed Site of San Pedro de Mocama Mission. Conference On Historic Site Archaeology Papers. 5:114-121. 1972 Tacatacuru and the San Pedro de Mocama Mission. Florida Historical Quarterly 41:283-291. 1973 The Southeastern Deptford Culture: A Preliminary Definition. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives History and Records Management Bulletin 3:51-63. 1980 Coastal Georgia Deptford Culture: Growth of A Concept. In Excursions in Southeastern Geology: The Archaeology-Geology of the Georgia Coast, edited by J.D. Howard, C.B. DePratter, and R.W. Frey, pp 170-178. Guidebook 20. Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1996 The Timucua. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Ma. 1999 Laboring in the Fields of the Lord: Spanish Missions and Southeastern Indians. Smithsonian Institute Press.
Milanich, Jerald T., and Rebecca Saunders 1996 The Spanish Castillo and Franciscan Doctrine of Santa Catalina, at Santa Maria, Amelia Island, Florida (8NA41). Miscellaneous Project Report Series #20. Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida:Gainesville.
Miller, James A. 1997 Hydrogeology of Florida. In The Geology of Florida, edited by Anthony Randazzo and Douglas Jones, pp. 69-89. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Mitchell, A. 1875 Antiquities of Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report 1874: 390-393.
Moore, Clarence B. 1894 Certain Sand Mounds of the St. Johns River, Florida. Part II. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:129-246. 1895 Certain Sand Mounds of Duval County, Florida. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences Journal 10:449-502. 1896 Mounds of Duval and Clay Counties, Florida: Mound Investigation on the East Coast of Florida. Privately Printed, Philadelphia.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 40 Moore, Clarence B. 1894 Certain Sand Mounds of the St. Johns River, Florida, Parts I and II. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Second Series 10:129-246. 1895 Certain Sand Mounds of Duval County, Florida. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Second Series 10:449-502. 1896 Certain Florida Coast Mounds North of the St. Johns River. In Additional Mounds of Duval and Clay Counties, Florida, pp. 22-30. Privately Printed.
Otto, Johns S. and R.L. Lewis, Jr. 1974 A Formal and Functional Analysis of San Marcos Pottery from SA16-23 St. Augustine, Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives History and Records Management Bulletin 4:14-24.
Reitz, Elizabeth J. 1988 Evidence for Coastal Adaptations in Georgia and South Carolina. Archaeology of Eastern North America 16:137-158.
Russo, Michael 1992 Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Marys Region of Northeast Florida and Southeast Georgia. The Florida Anthropologist 45:107-126.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery From the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56:5-14.
Sastre, Cecile-Marie. 1995 Picolata on the St. Johns: A Preliminary Study. El Escribano. 32 (1995):25-64.
Saunders, Rebecca A. 1989 Savannah and St. Johns Phase Relationships near the St. Marys River: A Frontier Perspective. Paper presented, 1989 Meeting of the Society for Georgia Archaeology.
1990 Ideal and Innovation: Spanish Mission Architecture in the Southeast. Columbian Consequences, Volume 2, edited by David H. Thomas, pp. 527-542. Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC. 1992 Stability and Change in Guale Indian Pottery, AD 1350 to 1702. Dissertation on file, Department of Anthropology. University of Florida. Tallahassee. 2000 Stability and Change in Guale Indian Pottery; AD 1300-1702. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sears, William H. 1957 Excavations on Lower St. Johns River, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum 2, Gainesville.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 41 Schuldenrein, Joseph 1996 Geoarchaeology and the Mid-Holocene Landscape History of the Greater Southeast. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, pp. 3-27. Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson (eds). University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to DeSoto (10,500 B.P - 500 B.P.). Advances in World Archaeology 5:1-92.
Smith, Greg C. 1998 Archaeological Monitoring in Old Town (8NA238), Fernandina Beach, Nassau County, Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
Smith, Hale G. 1948 Two Historical Archaeological Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 4:313-319. 1964 Fort San Carlos, Fernandina Beach, Florida. Florida State University Notes in Anthropology 10.
Smith, Hale G., and Ripley P. Bullen 1971 Forts San Carlos. Florida State University Notes in Anthropology, 14.
Smith, Julia. 1973 Slavery and Plantation Growth in Antebellum Florida, 1821-1860. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Smith Robin L., Chad O. Braley, Nina T. Borremans, and Elizabeth J. Reitz 1981 Coastal Adaptations in Southeast Georgia: Ten Archaeological Sites at Kings Bay. Final Report on Secondary Testing at Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia. University of Florida, Department of Anthropology, Gainesville.
Solis de Meras, Gonzalo 1964 Pedro Menendez de Aviles, Adelantado, Governor and Captain General of Florida, Memorial. Translated by Jeannette Thurber Connor. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Stearns, R.E.C. 1869 Rambles in Florida. American Naturalist Vol. 3, Salem, Mass.
Thomas, Prentice M. and L. Janice Campbell 1993 Eglin Air Force Base Historic Preservation Plan: Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resources at Eglin, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties. Report Investigations No. 192, New World Research, Inc., Fort Walton Beach, Florida
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 42 Thunen, Robert L., and Keith H. Ashley 1995 Mortuary Behavior Along the Lower St. Johns: An Overview. The Florida Anthoropologist 48:3-12.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1988 St. Augustine Beach, Florida (1992 PR). 1937 Crescent Beach, Florida (1943 PR).
United States Department of Agriculture 1983 Soil Survey of St. Johns County, Florida. USDA-NRCS, GPO Washington. 1917 Soil Survey of St. Johns County, Florida. Washington, DC.
Watts, William A., and Barbara C. Hansen 1988 Environments of Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology, ed. by B. Purdy, pp. 307-323. Telford Press, Caldwell, N.J.
Webb, S.D., J.T. Milanich, R. Alexon, and J.S. Dunbar 1984 A Bison Antiquus Kill Site, Wacissa River, Jefferson County, Florida. American Antiquity 49:384-392.
Worth, John E. 1995 The Struggle for the Georgia Coast: An Eighteenth-Century Spanish Retrospective on Guale and Mocama. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers Number 75, New York. 1997 Integrating Ethnohistory and Archaeology among the Timucua: An Overview of Southeast Georgia and Northeast Florida. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Baton Rogue, Louisiana. 1998 Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida (2 Volumes).University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Wyman, Jefferies 1868 An Account of the Freshwater Shell Heaps of the St. Johns River, East Florida. American Naturalist 2:393-403, 449-463. 1987 Freshwater Shell Mounds of the St. Johns River, Florida. Peabody Academy of Science Memoir 1(4):1-94.
Yarnell, Richard A. 1993 The Importance of Native Crops During the Late Archaic and Woodland Periods. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret.
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 43 APPENDIX A: FMSF SURVEY LOGSHEET
Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological, Historic Preservation & Museum Services Consultants Charleston, SC Jacksonville, FL 44 Ent D (FMSF only)__/__/__ Survey Log Sheet Survey # (FMSF only)______Florida Site Master File Version 2.0 9/97
Consult Guide to the Survey Log Sheet for detailed instructions.
Identification and Bibliographic Information
Survey Project (Name and project phase) Cypress Estates Parcel / Phase 1 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey ( CRAS ) ______Report Title (exactly as on title page) An Intensive CRAS of the Cypress Estates Parcel, St. Johns County, FL Report Author(s) (as on title page— individual or corporate; last names first) Bland, Myles, RPA No. 10650 Publication Date (year)_2017_Total Number of Pages in Report (Count text, figures, tables, not site forms)_47__ Publication Information (If relevant, series and no. in series, publisher, and city. For article or chapter, cite page numbers. Use the style of American Antiquity: see Guide to the Survey Log Sheet.) Bland & Associates, Inc. ( BAI ). Report of Investigations No. 494. Report on file, DHR-FMSF, Tallahassee, Florida. Supervisor(s) of Fieldwork (whether or not the same as author[s]; last name first) Bland, Myles, RPA No. 10650 Affiliation of Fieldworkers (organization, city) Bland & Associates, Inc. ( BAI ) Key Words/Phrases (Don’t use the county, or common words like archaeology, structure, survey, architecture. Put the most important first. Limit each word or phrase to 25 characters.) The Cypress Estates parcel; parcel STRAP Nos.1834400000, 183450010 and 1834450020; 6521 and 611 US Highway 1 South, St. Augustine, Florida. Survey Sponsors (corporation, government unit, or person who is directly paying for fieldwork) Name ERW Properties, LLC. Address/Phone 1012 North A1A, Ponte Vedra, Florida 32802 Recorder of Log Sheet Bland, Myles, RPA No. 10650 Date Log Sheet Completed 03 / 2017 Is this survey or project a continuation of a previous project? X No Yes: Previous survey #(s) [FMSF only] _____
Mapping
Counties (List each one in which field survey was done - do not abbreviate; use supplement sheet if necessary)______St. Johns County ______USGS1:24,000 Map(s):Map Name/Date of Latest Revision(use supplement sheet if necessary): St. Augustine Beach (1992), FL
Description of Survey Area
Dates for Fieldwork: Start 03 / 2017 End 03 / 2017 Total Area Surveyed (fill in one) __ hectares 19.00 acres Number of Distinct Tracts or Areas Surveyed ___1____ If Corridor (fill in one for each): Width _____ meters _____ feet Length ______kilometers ______miles
HR6E06610-97 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phone 850-487-2299,Suncom 277-2299, FAX 850-921-0372, Email [email protected], Web http://www.dos.state.fl.us/dhr/msf/ 03/20/17 10:34 PM Page 2 Survey Log Sheet of the Florida Master Site File
Research and Field Methods Types of Survey (check all that apply): X archaeological architectural historical/archival underwater other: ___ Preliminary Methods (Check as many as apply to the project as a whole. If needed write others at bottom). Florida Archives (Gray Building) library research- local public X local Parcel or tax records X windshield Florida Photo Archives (Gray Building) library-special collection – nonlocal newspaper files X aerial photography X FMSF site Parcel search X Public Lands Survey (maps at DEP) X literature search X FMSF survey search local informant(s) Sanborn Insurance maps X other (describe) historic aerial photos, USGS topo, USDA maps ( 1917-2013 ); property appraiser records; FL DEP maps ( 1800’s )
Archaeological Methods (Describe the proportion of properties at which method was used by writing in the corresponding letter. Blanks are interpreted as “None.”) F(-ew: 0-20%), S(-ome: 20-50%); M(-ost: 50-90%); or A(-ll, Nearly all: 90-100%). If needed write others at bottom. Check here if NO archaeological methods were used. _ A surface collection, controlled ___ other screen shovel test (size: ____) ___ block excavation (at least 2x2 M) ___ surface collection, uncontrolled ___ water screen (finest size: ____) ___ soil resistivity _A_ shovel test-1/4”screen ___ posthole tests ___ magnetometer ___ shovel test-1/8” screen ___ auger (size:____) ___ side scan sonar ___shoveltest1/16”screen ___coring ___unknown ___ shovel test-unscreened _ _ test excavation (at least 1x2 M) _ _ other (describe): ______
Historical/Architectural Methods (Describe the proportion of properties at which method was used by writing in the corresponding letter. Blanks are interpreted as “None.”) F(-ew: 0-20%), S(-ome: 20-50%); M(-ost: 50-90%); or A(-ll, Nearly all: 90-100%). If needed write others at bottom. Check here if NO historical/architectural methods were used. ___buildingpermits ___demolitionpermits _ _neighborinterview ___subdivisionmaps ___ commercial permits _A_ exposed ground inspected _ _ occupant interview ___ tax records ___interiordocumentation _ _ local Parcel records ___ occupation permits ___ unknown ___ other (describe): ______
Scope/Intensity/Procedures CRAS of 19 acre parcel along the west side of US Highway 1 South / parcel consists of wooded lots with palmetto, pine, and flat-woods / 20 total shovel tests installed / tract soils are entirely poorly to very poorly drained / surface inspection also conducted / no positive tests, structures, or previously recorded cultural resources / no further work recommended Survey Results (cultural resources recorded) Site Significance Evaluated? Yes X No If Yes, circle NR-eligible/significant site numbers below. Site Counts: Previously Recorded Sites 0 Newly Recorded Sites 0 ______Previously Recorded Site #’s (List site #’s without “8.” Attach supplementary pages if necessary) ______None ______Newly Recorded Site #’s (Are you sure all are originals and not updates? Identify methods used to check for updates, ie, researched the FMSF records. List site #’s without “8.” Attach supplementary pages if necessary.) None______Site Form Used: SmartForm X FMSF Paper Form Approved Custom Form: Attach copies of written approval from FMSF Supervisor.
DO NOT USE ...... SITE FILE USE ONLY...... DO NOT USE BAR Related BHP Related 872 1A32 State Historic Preservation Grant CARL UW Compliance Review: CRAT #______ATTACH PLOT OF SURVEY AREA ON PHOTOCOPIES OF USGS 1:24,000 MAP(S)
HR6E06610-97 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phone 850-487-2299,Suncom 277-2299, FAX 850-921-0372, Email [email protected], Web http://www.dos.state.fl.us/dhr/msf/ 03/20/17 10:34 PM ATTACHMENT 6 CORRESPONDENCE Patrick Doty
From: Paolo Soria Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Patrick Doty Subject: Cypress Estates (PUD 2016-23) Attachments: 01_04 Exhibit_C_MDP_Map.pdf
Dear Mr. Mackey
Thank you for your call today (5/8/2017) and your concerns about potential development behind your residence at 117 Moses Creek Blvd in Moses Creek estates, and specifically about the drainage and staging up of the wetland directly behind your residence. Please see the attached site plan for the proposed development. The area directly behind your residence remains a wetland owned by the Moses Creek Estates HOA and is not part of the development. Further into the project, the area behind your residence is proposed as wetland preservation, a tot lot park, and a storm water pond.
If you are not planning on attending, you may watch the PZA hearing on Thursday, May 18, 1:30 P.M. either on the Government TV broadcast or streamed through the County Website here: http://www.sjcfl.us/GTV/watchgtv.aspx
I hope you have a pleasant day.
Paolo S. Soria Assistant County Attorney [email protected] Direct – (904) 209‐0809; Office – (904) 209‐0805
PLEASE NOTE: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners and employees regarding public business are public records available to the public and media through a request. Your e-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure. This communication may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Information related to development is informal only and may not be relied upon or constitute a guarantee. Please request official confirmation through proper applications. Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.
1 Patrick Doty
From: Adam Howington Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 4:11 PM To: Kyle McLeod Cc: Patrick Doty Subject: FW: Cypress Estates - PUD 2016000023 Attachments: Schematic Showing Our Residence - Pond.pdf; Palmetto Woods 1.JPG; Palmetto Woods 2.JPG
From: Lori McCarron [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 3:59 PM To: FAXPLANDEPT Subject: Cypress Estates - PUD 2016000023
Good Afternoon,
We reside at 242 Parkwood Circle, St. Augustine, FL 32086.
Our property abuts the above referenced project. A major concern we have with this project is how the water management 'ponds' will be designed and maintained.
The back 'pond' is directly behind our property (see attached schematic) and we want to ensure that it retains water and is aerated in order to eliminate any issues such as mosquito breeding or odors.
See attached photo of a pond in Palmetto Woods community that was not properly built and now struggles to retain water.
We do hope to attend the meeting. I see that this project is agenda item 8. Would you have any idea as to what time the board will be hearing this item? Are we able to attend the meeting to just hear this item, or do we have to sit through the entire meetings?
Thank you listening to our concerns.
1 -- Lori and Ken McCarron 242 Parkwood Circle, St. Augustine, Fl 32086 (954) 881-3368
"A baseball game is twice as much fun if you're seeing it on the company's time."
~William C. Feather
2