76-22i
.hr?'??"`.rZirs?tr'.R.Irk7sHQT:?ry°R7`:?ry?'u?
»sLf? w;c,`?izLl}i ,.1 ?3•?i °tis`53
ij, a a .
'•??'-?t?'r+tr34afw'P.s''yt+'w
f.y s:;SG Y^g? +? qy, 'S f; k'. '4;.; ?law,.1
?}n'`WF?I;.,ff•'?,?'F,?,,. ? ..i°+i.?'_'.?i'kis:?='t?..yy?4,:_yY
i
f
'01'?r,;1_1111_
RESOLUTION
No. 76 - 22
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater is on record
as set out in Resolution No. 75-41, passed and adopted on March 17, 1975,
and Resolution No. 75-117, passed and adopted on September 4, 1975, as
opposed to the Pinellas Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater is on record
as opposed to any new North/South or East/West limited access facilities
per the specific deletion of such facility from the City's Comprehensive
Plan when same was adopted in May, 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater is concerned
that the Parkway as presently planned will sever the McMullen-Booth and
Del Oro area from the remainder of the City of Clearwater; and
WHEREAS, a large percentage of retired persons reside in the area
now proposed for the Parkway and that the installation of the Parkway in the
location now proposed would create a serious noise problem for those
abutting and in close proximity to the Parkway; and
.WHEREAS, the proposed new route for the Parkway will interfere
with the area formerly known as the town of Bayview which in 1850 was
a trading post area and which contains numerous historical buildings; and
WHEREAS, the proposed route will interfere with the famous Kapok
Tree; and
WHEREAS, location of the proposed route would have an impact on
the vegetation and drainage features at Alligator Creek; and
WHEREAS, location of the proposed route could have an impact on
the circulation in Tampa Bay where it will cross; and
WHEREAS, the area between Gulf to Bay Boulevard and the railroad
tracks will be greatly impacted by the installation of the Parkway with the
most obvious pressure being created near the proposed Drew Street
interchange; and
Reso:, #76=22
r 7:.
f4 ..
'j
2-19-76
Y
b.'w ..•v...a'?-f 'a; Yr!'t?^°r"h'F'?"? ? ; ?' Y.;r`.•rK•t?,? •Ki,.irf1,'a`8 ?aaakYr;#?•i?;! ??+er.•L•.ry?`?''?af?',`?R."'wh• :a a•k,: '?+afal iR ?+
tii?'. j5.'.'c? '. ?. •. '?,f' .. 0.3t?. ?.? 's'•y ?`? t+?• :..i.•'.?.g .: '?r?. _? .r.• ? .k
???> u?.s tiS'::j ''.,^nYr>'+' -I`•a.?•?,?' .,?•:Yi4 k}?s:.7;?5? :.i,?.'??;??^???'?!?r::?°`?5°?'q ,Yb.•.ir.?? 3' ? j.
'., ?' po'i':, •2r"??'sU ,;:??- '^^_ .s'"?" ??l! i?, ?. -ti14?;;. ',1?"?"y2?Y'?N
ar(' {:?? .?. i.._')h,.???.,:,a`? •.i. i-.:. ,,F: ?;l'z .,t'.f:'?; ..'°?7•q's ?-a?. A„?,.?.•. f?, S ;.•??5"ah. A
\ ?,.} r? j? 'r) "ELF alyr+E •'^; l,: sE??? . c ?1.. ,.fi :?... /KF.`•y.:i i.?+tr f a ?• ?Iyl?±* ° A: t '+ 4?a?k.7
!i.',E??.,; ¢?.? ?+?r#;' r- ;r.,f¢ a}?? ??` :'.G: •.; '?i1+1,1;.°k?. ,r rc.q .Y... n#` ,f, ??••?. ? h?, :?
?.s '??•??St!,-r..°,i ..? .'1°.f,. ;:L .?'? = "c•.! :•{<t< 3. r• ?a, w..?ML{y ?5.,i' ..., trim vs- aa?° I:yi,?'`1 i? ?.
i ,17 = i L s • :4.• 'r may; ? l .;. ". !"" •' •Z^?S #+ 7t
.sS :.rZ.?„1 "r.'.`K: !;! ;;,?. :!1? `r?` :•!'I; f•'t. a.? z.;fi ? Sfr„'S'•". 1' ? ,?t7.'*'7?tt .Y •?''V.'?ie.
YA'c 'k?r 5 C ? °.io. 1 ?rp'? .^ ??,._.. £ Cho dc.?,, ??.a' w.';?s '?...??. ??+?: e .x F.•.+
fk':-: :?•'? is ??'Yxt •.?'?"=°?i %.`"?y;•° :ttE. -???Y,11?.' 4 '?;?:: m;..{y?,.r•:,, ??'iFf°: fy.? ?4?:.'?'?j 1 t ,{? 3?'
i ? a r :>?'+?.?; ?t..ai.'.` ?, F?¢r a r•,i 9.t.?"4?.$?:.? =5e?T•'.
rc. .;.cht_'+:. ???',. .i .•:1,?,. .:i:'Y:•.. .`l ;° _.. .,. -C:"%?'._. s?•...._.._.v5.':'s:,-y:{°::r.:::i,wv?...;.r'..ir•: s:: ?:_.?rt V..w _..a.?rt..>:#ti-7_a -?e.?
,?•,? mss: .-.f... - ,.t,• s'?:
t?•'.? 4; .?'°: : A?"r"""'r?•ski:::,•,-:f''a?,'.?t,:?.{..°;y:t?.i,, ?rt e?,x
`1Y?•,??,1{r>??'os'S?`';C.?,'1?f4'•+...s•' ?s??.??i?•`°a?'s???'..,`+?t''s2?fi??,?N?.??:`{"•.7?
f N .••ti. ,.. -5',' :,.r;.. '',;.?..'.',;.'?'4'i...t .c • r ;' i5 ?s= x{•.
WHEREAS, such pros sures will causa the City to have to rethink its
land us a plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission questions the financial feasibility of
the Parkway as now proposed in.,that an independent study of the financial
feasibility needs to be performed; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater is of the
opinion that U.S. 19 should be upgraded to a six lane facility with parallel
service roads rather than construct a new, parallel and expensive route
which will greatly disrupt neighborhoods and life styles;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
IN SESSION REGULARLY AND DULY ASSEMBLED, AS
FOLLOWS :
1. That the Pinellas County Transportation Authority be again
informed of the Cityls concern for and opposition to the Pinellas Parkway
in the present proposed alignment and any other alignment through the
City of Clearwater.
2. That the Pinellas County Transportation Authority record same
in the minutes of its meeting, and, where proper, respond to the express
concerns and opinions of the City of Clearwater in reference to neighbor-
hood disruption, severing the City while producing limited local traffic
relief, and upgrading U.S. 19 to a six lane facility with parallel service roads,
3. That certified copies of this Resolution be forwarded forthwith to
the following; The Pinellas County Transporation Authority, the Pinellas
County Commission, the St. Petersburg City Council, the cities of Largo,
Safety Harbor, Dunedin, Pinellas Park, Tarpon Springs and all municipalities
in the County of Pinellas, to the Tampa Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority,
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Pinellas Planning Council, St. Peters-
burg Urban Area Transportation Study and to the Pinellas County Legislative
D elegation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED AS AMENDED this 19th day of February,A. D. 1976.
Mayor-Comb fissioner
Attest: ,
Deputy, City. Clerk
Rase. 076-22
?L+yY??lfe?fp?.??` ,j:{Y?f°; FA.p ??•?1':. ?."Y"?,YTT,. Jl':?' ?',?"?' , , i . .
F'?nrlt s??.j+iwr?lr?t.M k1 ,', \l q:?j?s. f'' .+'A ?%?t"• '
W]kra+l??i'i?L?•..r:yY.?._^J:FCY"i•i`3'r.... ..... - ,. ...
-2-
2-19•-76
rr,
=A.