|
portion s~itable for a~ni~c f~e~=, also a park on the water front, ~or which a revenue could
<br />be obtained.
<br /> "~th. The ~aptmbility for l~sompe %reamment for cemetery ~thlstic field ~d park.
<br /> Th~ P~rksr tract lies better from ~ topogrmphical point then the irmiste~ tr~ct~
<br />c~n be i~orov~d ~t l~ss cost.
<br /> "E~. It is no% so e~saly re~che= due to th~ ~mct that ~ or~=ge, w~1%.~v~ to be consider-
<br />ed and ~intained ~cross Bain C~eek, which is ~ br~nch tri~=tmry to the ~s~ern Brmnch~ mnd th~
<br />question ~s %o th~ City's rights ~o constract m bridge ~cross this ~vi~ble brach, ~ ~he
<br />proper cost of ~int~ining s~id bridge.
<br />
<br /> "3rd. A portion of this property Waich would not b~ used for sometime for cemetery pur-
<br />poses c~n ,b~ lsas~ for mgri~ltur~l ~nd t~cki~ purposes, ~nd m revenue s~ficisnt
<br />p~rt of the interest on the investment c~ld be rs~lized.
<br /> ,~th. This property is th~ best of ~I of the ~ins pieces of property offered ~o~ l~nd-
<br /> scape treatment ~nd.sU~ivisions ~s ~ c~metery, it being ~lready tiled, ~nd is well
<br /> "The Bemton tract is ~ very desirable piece of property, lyi~ ~t the end of High street,
<br /> ~nd c~n be =emched by ~qumlly ~s good ~ppro~ches ms the A~ist~ tract.
<br /> "2~. The g~ou~ is ~gh, w~il dr .n~d ~nd c~ be m~de ~sily ~cc~ssib!~ to the c~r tr~cks
<br /> by constructi~ m bridge over ~ branch~ which is tributary to the ~ste~n Brmnoh not ~vi~ble.
<br /> "3rd. The Beston tract would b~ mor~ or less in iin~ of W~stern development end would
<br /> block our ~in thoroug~mre to the w~stw~rd.
<br /> "The ~y~r~ is not so easily ~ccessible ~s the three t~cts ~bove mentioned, ~at I u~er-
<br /> st~ that the~e is m move on foot to i~rove th~ county ro~, le~in$ ~ose~%o or ~r~otly
<br /> t~ough th~ Ray,rd tract,
<br /> "2~. The topography of this tract is such =s ~o require more e~sndi%u=~ to improve in
<br /> orde~ to const~ct ~in thoroughfares or driveways.
<br /> "3rd. The ~sin~ge of this property is not as s~tisfsctory ss th~ thr~e pisces of pro-
<br /> perty ~bov~ mentioned.
<br />
<br /> "~th. I do not thi~ mhe lots would s~ll ms welt in the ~y~rd tract ~s the other three
<br /> tracts above mentioned.
<br /> "From the i~mm~ion a~ observations m~de of ~l the nine pieces of l~nd for cemetery
<br /> purposes, I reco=~en~ the ArmiSt~e~ tract, b~cmuss of its location ~nd ~sy mcoessibility. The
<br /> Southern portion of this tract of lend would b~ devoted to m~facturi~ p~poses w~h ~ thor-
<br /> o~'~ ~s~sin~ off High street. The portion of isnd to bs devoted for csmetery use ~uld be
<br /> mt least from 2 1/2 %o three (3) blocks north of Hi~ street, =nd woula not =nterfere
<br /> w~stern dsv~lopments. ~ne treatment of th~ cemetery ~ ~m~r would b~ of ~ ~ !~scmpe
<br /> feature ms not to be objectionable to the s~rou~i~ property, or ~j~oent property as ~he
<br /> cemeteries now located ~thin our corporate limits. The p~rk feature ~hould be co,sots= up
<br /> ~ on line of m Riverside boulev~, ms weli ms m boulevard thr~gh mhd ~rou~ the cemetery
<br /> portion. The property is of such leith mhd shape ~s to really l~nd itself to ~ p~=k feature,
<br /> ~nd would be of ~ch ~st~nce from the cemetery portion ~s to not be objecmio~ble to the ceme-
<br /> tery feature. Car llne ~xtension c~ be easily made from Port Norfolk, by w~y of Seventh
<br /> street ext e~.
<br /> "In conclusion however, I deem that the question of purchmsi~ propsrty.~or.m perm~en~
<br /> -~, ~ ~* ~u~h'vit~ i~owtmnoe to the City ~of Port~==th, that I ~rs~sc~f~l~Y reco=en=
<br /> fir~l motion on this Guestion~b~ postpon~ untml more consmmer~tmon o~ be given, but ~s mt
<br /> now appears mhd ms ~bove stated the Armiste~ tract seems to h~ve advantages ms m whole, but
<br /> the P~rker tract lies better ms ~ unit, ~t im ~t ms emsily mooessible on mccount of hmving
<br /> to construct m bridge ~nd to hmve to m~intmin m drmw in s~id bridge.
<br /> "Respectfully ~bmmt t ~a,
<br />
<br /> "W. B. ~tss, City
<br />
<br /> Some dis~ssion followed the pTesentmtion of the reports ~ Er. Herb~t, in especial,
<br /> presented the ~vmn~ages of th~ several trac~s before the Council.
<br /> ~ereupon, ~r. Clmud moved thmt the trmct offered by Mr. Bilisoly be selected, the
<br /> price of s~ $52,500., to be referred to th~ Fi~no~ Depmrtm~nt.
<br /> The motion w~s ~opted.
<br /> The following ordi~nce ordered ~o lie on the t~ble by this body October 16th, wms t~en
<br /> up, re~, ~ adopted:
<br /> AN ORDINANCE TO ~ND A~ RE~,PDAIN SECTION 301 OF TP~ CI~ ORDINAN~B
<br /> AG A~}~ED IN P~LATION TO ~E .O~C~ FORCE.
<br />
<br /> And by the followir~ vote:
<br /> Ayes--Bunting, Claud, Hs~uvey, Herbert, Culpepper,
<br />
<br /> The following com~m~nications and recommenda%ions ~ere read from The City
<br /> 1st. Recommer~ling that the petitio}% of A. C. Richardson for help for hie sick father
<br />not grant
<br /> On motion, the recommendation was adopted.
<br />
<br />2nd. With reference to the petition of F. T.
<br />
<br />be
<br />
<br />Briggs to lease or b.%y a p~rt of the lot
<br />
<br />
<br />
|