2.16    Landscape Design Guidelines Element

Data and Analysis

         2005-2015 Campus Master Plan Update

As noted in the 1995 analysis, documentation of data relating to an inventory of existing landscape treatments, character, location and quality was not available and has not been completed to date.  In addition, the 1995 analysis states that a landscape master plan was created in 1992 and is referenced in the goals, objectives and policies section of the 1995 master plan document. This data was not available and will be an important resource to understand how the character of the campus has changed or reflected this plan.  Therefore, the following analysis is based on summary campus tour observations, photo documentation and guidelines established in the goals, objectives and policies.

a)                  Assessment of Coordination of Landscape Features and the Degree to which they Contribute or Distract from the Visual Quality of the Campus.

1.      Refer to the 1995 Analysis.

      Since 1995, the University has maintained the image of campus community built within a natural environment.  The natural environment, composed of sand pine scrub, pine flat woods, forested and non-forested wetlands, are the unique vegetative communities that create that sense of place for the University.  The existing development has successfully maintained the diverse tree canopy at the core of the campus.  Through further analysis of past aerial photographs, a pattern for new development along and beyond Gemini Boulevard has pushed the environment to the edges.  In order to maintain this unique identity of a campus built within its own natural environment, the landscape communities that have been replaced need to be restored.  They need to be designed and integrated within, and connected to, the campus core.  The University has many unique environmental assets and opportunities to incorporate into its landscaped environment. 

3.    Current landscape treatments, hardscape installations, signage, and site furnishings have been designed to reflect, as closely as possible, the standards established by the University for landscape and hardscape treatments.  As mentioned in the urban design element, campus quads, greens and plazas will also bring organization, sense of way finding and destination to the campus. Landscape spaces need to be identified and recognized as equal importance to architecture projects.  It is these landscape spaces, which will blend and unify all current and future architecture facilities.  Standardization and blending of all the elements mentioned is critical to the overall image of the campus.  A continued emphasis on a strong landscape spaces and a coordinated landscape palette will  re-enforce a sense of unification and way finding to the University.  Integration and understanding of urban design elements such as gateways, landmarks, campus corners, campus edge conditions, roadway character, and pedestrian treatments will further enhance and unify a sense of arrival, destination and place. 

b)                 Assessment of Existing Treatment with Regards to their Impacts on Campus Safety

1.      Refer to the 1995 Analysis.

2.      Vehicular Circulation Routes

Current building projects along Gemini Boulevard have enabled opportunities to plant young live oaks and southern magnolias.   A standardized streetscape is not necessary to the overall theme of the University.  The continued practice of using the diverse UCF vegetative communities and its diverse tree canopy and integration of Pines, Oaks, Palms and Cypress that will complement the theme and provide a unique driving experience through a series of Central Florida’s natural environments.

3.      Parking Facilities

The implementation of gradual berming adjacent to Gemini Boulevard has been successful.  Traditional landscape screening techniques of edging parking with shrubs does not complement the overall landscape theme.  Although the graceful and natural berming screens downplay the overall size and scale of pavement, it allows enough visibility for location and access.  Depending on future land use designations for surface parking lots, long term faculty and student interior parking lots can integrate tree canopy through the use of designated tree islands in accordance with the landscape standards.  Coordination of tree islands around future facilities and in parking areas, as found in the Wayne Densch Parking lots, will establish canopy for the future.

4.      Pedestrian Circulation Routes

The main 16’ concentric ring walks are signed and provide tree canopy.  Campus maps have been strategically placed along the 16’ concentric rings walks to enable way finding and destination of the walk. The walk can further be enhanced and recognized through techniques from simple hardscape scoring treatments to implementation with brick.  The ring walks contribute to the university’s overall sense of way finding.  Within the concept of the urban design plan, the walks would serve as the essential link or main street to the green malls. 

New 8’ or 10’ walks have been a response to pedestrian created dirt paths adding to the series of numerous walks, which degrade the natural image of the campus.  Pedestrian circulation volumes and patterns for the entire campus need to respond to the constantly changing physical environment of the campus, thus changing the need for and location of walks.  Consideration for pedestrian behavior of students must guide design and location of walks.

5.      Bicycle Facilities

Currently, the number of bicycle facilities needs to be increased to be consistent with the amount of users on campus.  The number of bicyclists will increase as the University detaches itself from the image of a “commuter campus” and creates stronger connections to the future development of housing along the edges of campus and within UCF.  Locations of current and future facilities need to be coordinated with proposed designated bicycle routes.  Aesthetically, bicycle parking lots need to be organized and located at strategic places around campus rather than along the entrances or facades of buildings.

6.      Public Transportation Facilities

With the addition of proposed intermodal stations, transit stops have been integrated and organized into the overall circulation system.  Signs and graphics still need to be enhanced.  Further investigation of the facilities, furnishings and circulation routes is needed to complete this part of the analysis.

7.      Emergency Access Facilities

As noted in the 1995 plan, emergency access appears to be adequate.  Current and future facilities need to be analyzed and documented on an individual basis as improvements are made to specific buildings and facilities.

8.      Planted Areas

Landscape malls, plazas and parks need to be identified, designed, and installed to serve as the framework for accommodating pedestrians patterns, security, way finding and connectivity between existing buildings and future building projects.  The creation of additional planted areas within the campus core will unify individual building architecture.  Further investigation of soil types and vegetative communities will dictate the landscape palette for additional planted areas.

9.   Site Furnishings

Compliance with the University’s standards for benches, light poles, or signs will continue to enhance the overall quality and way finding of the campus. 

10.  Lighting Location and Type

Visual observations conclude that fixtures throughout campus are consistent. An organized lighting system with uniform colors and fixtures creates a feeling of improve safety and enhance the experience of night-time visitors.

11.  Trash Collection Facilities

The use of compactors has eliminated most trash dumpsters from the core of the campus.  In areas where the teaching process requires specialized trash collection, trash containers are usually placed within a screen enclosure.

12.  Maintenance Facilities

Loading docks along Pegasus are generally exposed to pedestrian and vehicular circulation.  Hardscape screening of these areas needs to be reviewed as a method to attractively conceal the activities in the loading dock area. The loading needs of individual facilities should be considered.

13.  Campus Edge

The campus edges serve as the primary visual image of the campus. The campus corners such as the intersection of Alafaya and McCullough create a visual impression. Entrances also create an image.

Improving campus edges, corners and entrances will have several benefits, including creating a sense of arrival and making a strong first impression on visitors.

The term buffer always refers to the idea of screening the unwanted. Alafaya and the surrounding developments need to have a sense of connection.  Although the intent of the buffer is to have an environmental buffer with minimal maintenance, maintenance is needed.  Historically, in nature burning controls invasive understory and exotic species.  The location, the activities (e.g., Frisbee football), and other factors of the buffer do not allow this natural process to occur and thus produces the current “clutter” image.  By creating a maintenance program for this area, by organizing the pattern of the pine trees, and by incorporating berming techniques, the University can create a visual connection of University architecture from outside the University and still screen the unwanted automobile traffic on Alafaya Trail. Design concepts for the edges, corners and entrances should be explored in subsequent efforts to address the visual image of the University.     

c)         Assessment of the Ease or Difficulty of maintaining Existing Landscape

            Features

Overall the maintenance is moderately difficult.  The soil is very low in organic content and does not retain moisture well. The pH of the native soil is at 7.8 to 8.0 in most areas of campus. The ideal pH range for most non-native species is 5.5 – 6.5. and most native species prefer 6.5 – 7.5.  Additives mixed into the soil to lower pH has limited success  because the water used from the irrigation well water as a pH of 8.0 and the leaching of various chemical from building masonry, sidewalks, roadways and parking lots prevents a long lasting remedy.

Herbicides and insecticides have proven to be less effective due to the soil and water pH.   This is addressed during spray applications by utilizing a pH buffer that is mixed with the insecticides and herbicides. 

Compaction of soil and general wear and tear of the turf grass areas for campus also creates problems with maintenance.   Cart, and vehicular traffic stress the turf grasses in most of the campus core.  The result of this compaction is stress and wear on turf prohibits it growth; thus allowing weeds to germinate and eventually the turf dies and is replaced by weeds.   Regular manual aerating is required to allow for growth and in some instances installing new turf is required.   We are currently investigating spray adjutants that will reduce the compaction and help the turf sustain periods of high usage and drought.

The APPA (The American of Higher Education Facilities Officers) standards are currently being used by members of Grounds to  benchmark maintenance activities and schedules of landscape .  Upon completion of the project we will have establish existing environmental issues, training requirements, determine grounds staffing levels, and appropriate levels of maintenance.  

d)        Assessment of the Physical Condition of Existing Landscape

In general, the overall physical condition of the campus appears to be in adequate condition.

e)         Assessment of Accessibility of the Campus to disabled Persons 

New building projects require approval from the University ADA personnel and are quite thorough.  A campus-wide assessment of accessibility could be conducted as a subsequent activity or individual buildings and facilities could be evaluated and improved as necessary on an individual basis as renovations occur.