RM 05-17-74 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. The RHA as COMMUNICATION (Cont'd) lisposition activity monitoring is based on HUD Handbook 1214.1, Land Marketing and Redevelopment as revised and ►dified by State Law and CD 7214.2, CD 7214.7 and CD 7214.6. Mr. ennon advised the items mentioned in the letter are being reviewed by our staff, Mr. Wayne Brownell and Mr. Bill Parrish, and the new guidebook will be used. A report will be forth - comi g to the Commissioners on an item -by -item basis. j. HUD letter Dated May 14, 1974: This letter, over the REAL ESTATE signature of Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Director, Operations Divi- APPRAISAL REPORT sion, advises the supplemental appraisal data and explanation MN #1, A -10 of adjustments submitted by Mr. Eckert satisfactorily completes his ppraisal report for the Model Neighborhood No. 1 appraisals, Proj ct Indiana A -10. On m tion by Mr. Chenney, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and unani- mously carried, the ten (10) above letters are to be recorded and laced on file. 5. JOLD BUSINESS a. Sculptural Base Information: The details for anchor- SCULPTURAL BASE ing the three 3 winning pieces are shown in the report sub- DETAILS, RIVER mitt d by the Sculpture Committee. The Department of Redevel- BEND PLAZA opme t provides the base foundations for the sculptural units. This is for Commission information and a copy of the report is attalched to the official minutes. b. Environmental Planning and Desk: Mr. Lennon advised the etter from Mr. Geoffrey L. Rausch, dated May 6, 1974, ex- plai s the position of the consultants regarding the location of D% John Mooney's sculpture, and that there has been a mis- unde standing as to a possible alternate location. Mr. Werley had )een asked to meet with Dr. Mooney on short notice to study a nev location so action could be taken the next day, Friday, May 3, 1974, by the Commissioners in the Commission meeting. Mr, 4erley had not had a chance to check with his superiors on the reasoning for the proposed location. Consequently, Mr. Werl y had made the recommendation the Mooney piece be located in front of the LaSalle Hotel, and the Commissioners in their meeting of May 3 adopted the recommendation the Mooney sculp- ture be placed there instead of the previous action taken for the ooney sculpture to be placed in front of Robertson's and enney's (Planter in Block 5), taken in Commission meet- ing f March 15, 1974, and discussed at great length. The consultants did not concur with the changed location to have the sculpture in front of the LaSalle Hotel due to lack of pedestrian traffic at that end of the mall and would only relate to passing automobiles. It would also create an uneven dist ibution of the sculptural pieces in having all three in the orris auditorium block, plus competing with three tall flagpoles adjacent to it. -6- "CONTINUOUS YOU" SCULPTURE LOCATION CHANGED TO BLOCK 59 RIVER BEND PLAZA