2003-09-15 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fashioned curb. Other individuals expressed support for the curb and believe it provides a benefit to persons with disabilities. Bob Winters, 7242 Colgate, asserted that no real argument was presented to convince anyone to remove the curb. Rather than removing the curb, the issue is retaining the curb. If there is no code issue, no design-guideline issue, and the curb has been in place for seventy years, and if it has not presented a major safety issue and it has two points of accessibility, with no insurance issue, he wants the Council to preserve the architectural and historical character of the pool. Ray Reckamp, 7100 Kingsbury Boulevard, agreed with Mr. Winters' comments, but pointed out also that the curb exists to perform a necessary function of preventing rain and debris from entering the pool, over an above its aesthetic function. He is not convinced that a "flat deck" could achieve the same level of protection for the pool, with the gradient requirements, that would not impinge on the grassy areas which are part of the areas requiring protection. Richard Dockett, 6844 Crest Drive, came to support maintaining the curb, according to the statements in Proposition K. He acknowledged the pool's historical significance, and the safety role of the curb in preventing small children from falling into the pool, as well as its role in keeping out debris and heavy rainfall. By doing so he voices the understanding of the issue by the citizens in the Third Ward. Elsie Glickert, 6712 Etzel, a member of the Proposition K Committee questioned the "transfer wall", asking for clarification. Mayor Adams define it as a wall used by disabled people to enable movement in a wheel chair, from one location to another, and advised that it is not a replacement for the curb. Then she pointed out that concerned citizens who worked on the Proposition K sales tax issue, had been assured by this Council one year ago, on September 23, 2002, that the pool would be preserved. She read a paragraph from the Resolution which stated the Council's support of Proposition K and spelled out the items to be undertaken. She emphasized item number seven, relating to the maintenance of the historic character of the building and of the pool "including the footprint in architecture." She asserted that the curb is part of the architecture of the pool, and rather than causing safety problems, it averted them by stopping small children from careening into the pool and is, therefore, an important safety feature. People who live in University City want the curb because it is a safety factor, a sanitation factor, and a social factor. She said a violation of public trust will ensue if the curb is not included, as guaranteed by the Resolution, and she hopes the Council will retain it. Mary Hart, 6901 Cornell, said she was here as spokesperson for citizens with limited mobility and other physical disabilities. She thanked Mr. Moton for asking for their input on the issue of the curb. She reported there was a range of responses, but most felt as long as there is access into the pool, there is no strong opposition to retaining the curb. The features they consider especially important are: the zero-depth water ramp way, the chairlift, the transfer wall as an additional means of access to compensate for retaining the curb that would be desirable to include. She summarized the views of the Page 9