Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Inve,stigations into utilizing a multi-dam appr'oach showed that it would <br />take more than 115 small dams (20 feet high) "Hh an est:lmated cost of <br />$50,000 each to protect Manitou Springs from~'~hf! total amount of 100 year <br />rainfall. This alternative would not protect M,mitou Spl'ings frail the flow <br />from the upper Fountain Creek Watershed. <br /> <br />Information on structural alternatives inve,',t.igated l)y the Corps of <br />Engineer's is from the Status Report on the Upper' fountain Creek Watershed <br />Reconai:lsance Study and excerpts from the unpul)Jished final report on the <br />Reconai11sance Study. <br /> <br />C. Historic Preservation and t.he Flood.plain <br /> <br />The historic nature of Manitou Springs cont.J"ibutes a gr,eat deal to '~he <br />unique ()haracter of the area. The histor'ic distl'i.Ct, which encompasses <br />approximately three-fourths of the city, attracl:.e, tourists interested in <br />trad:l Uon and history and exhi bits charactel'i S,tICiS "hi ch gener'ate Mani tou <br />Springs' charming character and perpetuates a :,p:Lrit of cmllllunity. <br /> <br />l1anl.tou Springs' multiple resource distriGt :is composed of' three areas: <br />Crystal Valley Cemetery, the Keithley log cabin clistrict, and the main <br />distJ'icl;. The main district is composed of 1,()()1 buildings, 85% of which <br />contJ'ibute to its historic nature (Miller', 19I3r,), Of th'3se approximately <br />850 uontributing buildings, over 150 are located in the floodplain. (A map <br />of the Manitou Springs multiple resource area :ID avallable at the city <br />planning office in City Hall f'or public inspec:t:i,cll1.) <br /> <br />Generally, there are three pre-flood options for dealing ~,ith structures <br />which currently exist in the floodplain. The fIr'st of these, relocation, is <br />not l'ecommended when dealing with historic buildings. U"S. Department of <br />the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelin.=s for <br />Rehabil:ltating Historic Buildings states, nR.em(,ving or I'elocating historic <br />buildings or landscape features, thus destroying the historIc relationship <br />between buildings, landscape features, and open E,pace" is not reccmmended. <br />Addi tionaUy, the "relationship between historie building(s) and landscape <br />features -'- or the building site -- helps to ,jef'ine the l1istor'ic character <br />and :lhould be considered an integral part of DVel'all planning and <br />rehal)ilitation work" (U.S. Department of the Inl:."l'ior, 1983). <br /> <br />~:he second option is to leave the buildins: alone, relying on such <br />non-:ltructural measures as flood insurance. HOH"ver, thIs is only a short <br />term solution since flooding will occur sometim" :In the future" and its <br />occw'rence can resul t in damages that can jeopar'clIze an I~istor'ic property's <br />designation. If the damage is significant enougrl, the pJ"operty can lose its <br />designation as an historic structure. Theref:,re, it may be pr'eferable to <br />choose l;he third option. <br /> <br />The tl1ird option is structural floodproof :Lng, Here again" an histori 8 <br />structure's designation may be jeopardized if v:lsible changes made to resist <br />flooding are too significant. Therefore, any pr'oposed floodproofing design <br />needs to be coordinated with representati yes of t.he national and state <br />histori() registries to protect the property'~, h:i.~;toric d'3signation. <br /> <br />-27- <br />