7.3 Site Planning ConsiderationsThe site analysis and subsequent site planning initially determine the primary fit of the development to its environment. The basic location and organization of the spatial relationships of a project are determined during the site planning. 7.3.1 FORCE PROTECTION
Force protection and other security requirements must be integrated into the total project design. Issues like standoff distance and orientation need to be considered and planned for during the site selection and site analysis process. Not only should the new facilities’ force protection needs be considered at this stage, but the impact of the new development on adjacent existing facilities force protection situation needs to be studied. Situations where force protection and other security issues promote the tacking on of out-of-context elements must be avoided. The IDG is concerned with security design elements on building sites, exteriors, and on adjacent sites. When these issues require protection of a facility and/or its assets, design of protective elements should seek to visually enhance and complement the design of the facility. Site elements such as fences, courtyards, screen walls, swales, berms, planters, and retaining walls can be used effectively for facility protection. These same design elements should also be designed to match the main facility, producing architectural compatibility through consistent use and application of forms, materials, and colors. 7.3.2 ACCESSIBILITYBuildings or facilities used exclusively by able-bodied personnel need not be accessible to the disabled. Nevertheless, when feasible and appropriate, accessibility measures should be incorporated into the design, since the facility use may change over time (military exclusion is provided by UFAS 4.1.4 (2)). All other structures and facilities must meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS), with the most stringent standards applied in the event of conflicting guidelines. (See AR 420-70, Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.8.) This includes the avoidance of site barriers through the use of curb cuts, ramps, handrails, and grade-level entrances to avoid site barriers. Provide designated handicapped parking spaces in all major parking lots and drop-off zones for persons with mobility impairments. Modify existing structures for handicapped accessibility whenever possible, especially community facilities that are most likely to be used by families, veterans, and visitors. 7.3.3 ENVIRONMENTCompliance with The National Environmental Policy Act: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal Agencies to evaluate impacts created from any federal action/proposal. Design will not proceed beyond concept without NEPA documentation as required by AR-415-15, Army Military Construction Program Development and Executions and AR 200-2, Environmental Effects for Army Actions. Environmental issues to consider in the preparation of a site plan include any action or proposal that has an environmental impact. The location of facilities on land that results in minimal disturbance to the existing topography, vegetation, and drainage patterns greatly reduces the negative impact on the environment. Any possible environmental impacts to cultural, historical, and archaeological features must be determined and preserved and/or protected where applicable. It is the Proponent’s responsibility to ensure that all NEPA documentation is started before site selection, as this assists in the 1391 process. NEPA documentation must be completed prior to any ground disturbance. If environmental impacts are imminent, then an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared according to the National Environmental Policy Act Fort Carson had numerous Solid Waste Management Units and associated monitoring wells. These sites should be avoided if at all possible. The location of these sites can be obtained from the Master Planning Maps. 7.3.3.1 Environmental Impact StatementNEPA requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for major projects that may significantly affect the environment. The EPA reviews and responds to filed impact statements. Information pertaining to Environmental Impact Statements and their submission can be found at the following EPA websites. Procedures for mitigating environmental concerns should be included in the early stages of project development (or link to this information in Appendix B). To the maximum extent possible, avoid siting development or individual buildings in environmentally sensitive areas. Project Siting Coordination with Master Planning and the DECAM must be performed to ensure the project is not sited in an endangered species habitat wetlands, or a Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU). 7.3.3.2 WaterwaysFederal law requires that, prior to the undertaking of activities which affect the nation's waterways, described as "navigable waters of the United States" and "waters of the United States" to include wetlands, a permit must be acquired. Information regarding statutory, administrative, and judicial matters, including general regulatory policy, definitions of "waters of the United States" and "navigable waters," and processing of permits can be obtained at this Corps of Engineers website. Proponent/Contractor shall not impact threatened and endangered species, their habitats, or wetlands without approval from the designated authority. The Contractor shall design, use and promote construction practices that minimize adverse effects on the natural habitat. The Contractor shall not enter, disturb, destroy, or allow discharge of contaminants into any wetlands and shall minimize and/or avoid wetland and stream impacts. The Contractor is responsible for following all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. The Contractor is responsible for all costs associated with mitigation of damage to wetlands, including but not limited to restoration, replacement, or creation, resulting from Contractor's actions. 7.3.3.3 Stream CrossingsStream crossings shall allow "natural" flow conditions to facilitate aquatic movements when moving materials or equipment and shall not violate water pollution control standards of the Federal, State, and local governments or impede state-designated flows. 7.3.4 STAKE HOLDER COLLABORATIONGaining stakeholder support for future development increases the likelihood of project success for the long term. Obtaining input from those most impacted from development decisions on Fort Carson makes them part of the solution, rather than critical of the project. Look for opportunities to share plans and solicit input from a wide audience of stakeholders throughout the project process. Their perspectives are important to ensure that mixed-use, compact, walkable, and transit-rich communities are developed on Fort Carson as this type of development represents a departure from what is conventional and familiar. Sustainable Master Plan Goal: 7.3.5 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSISCurrently the Army requires that all MCA projects be constructed to the LEED™ (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System® Silver standard. In addition, Fort Carson attempts to meet the Silver LEED™ standard on every significant facility construction and renovation project. In doing so, Fort Carson is able to conserve future resources and redirect funding towards high priority requirements. Life cycle cost analysis instead of focusing on the ‘first’ cost is a key principle to constructing sustainable facilities. Focusing on a life cycle approach will ensure that best value is built into facilities that are less expensive to operate and maintain over the life of the facility. Site design decisions such as orientation, location of utilities, and the location of site elements can affect the life cycle cost of a project. Therefore, life cycle cost analysis needs to begin in the site design, site selection process.
|
||||
Site Planning Design Standards |
;)