2003-08-23 Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1895 August 23, 2003 are trip hazards. Mr. Ollendorff mentioned the issue of accessibility, citing street construction as an example. In response to the assertion that curbing prevents flood water from entering the pool, he affirmed that it is the higher ground close to the river that does that. Curbs do, however, prevent rain water from entering the pool. New pool design focuses upon sloping the deck away from the pool. In these plans the pool edge of the deck will be nearly the height of the current curb, resulting in no greater hazards to the pool users than currently exist. The new plans do meet the flood plan requirements, and they are currently under review for safety by St. Louis County. It is anticipated that fencing will meet the requirements for safety and code. Mr. Ollendorff recommends no changes be made to plans at this juncture, while acknowledging that citizens' suggestions, although well thought out, do not meet current pool standards. He advised the cost estimated by engineers to be $15,000, which sounded Iow. Estimates for street curbs are $50,000, which seems a more accurate figure. The amount is irrelevant, though, because curbs should not be built. Mr. Wagner takes the opposing point of view, believing curbs should be retained in the plans. He discounts the argument that standards prohibit curbs. This issue before the City Council is restoration of an historic pool, not construction of a new one. Proposition K seeks to restore the pool, and the new pool is meant to have the same footprint and architectural feel as the existing one; the curb is a prominent architectural feature of the pool. He questions EDM's report regarding flood control and their assertion that it is not needed. The slanted deck with sloping sidewalk, he believes, will provide a safety hazard, especially for the disabled and the aged, as well as being inconvenient for those walking around the pool. Constructing a slope will also diminish the existing lawn. Cost figures presented are unsatisfactory. EDM's report quotes a figure of $5,000, and then refuses to execute the proposed design because of presumed liability for their company. Ms. Welsch expressed disappointment that facts relating to standards for new pools and to ADA requirements were not received for consideration prior to this meeting. If under ADA, the curb can be retained, it should be retained. She agrees with Mr. Wagner about EDM's memorandum and the confusion over costs, and their reluctance to undertake building the design. Now there is need to consult ADA, get the facts, and then make a decision. Mayor Adams assumes EDM followed the current standards and laws in executing their design. St. Louis County outlaws obstruction, but may not define it well. Ms. Welsch accepted Mayor Adam's assumption, but objected to EDM's insufficiency in not citing ADA requirements in the memo, noting that if the law was on their side, they should quote it. She believes the law will be on their side, that accessibility trumps history in building construction. Page 2