Fuller Brook Executive Summary - Town of Wellesley
Fuller Brook Executive Summary - Town of Wellesley
Fuller Brook Executive Summary - Town of Wellesley
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Fuller</strong> <strong>Brook</strong> Park Preservation Project<br />
<strong>Wellesley</strong>, Massachusetts<br />
Path<br />
Options explored for the <strong>Fuller</strong> <strong>Brook</strong> path include width,<br />
surface, alignment, and grade changes to meet universal<br />
access standards.<br />
Width<br />
The path width varies enormously along the length <strong>of</strong> the Park,<br />
from a 12” wide beaten footpath to areas that exceed 12’ in<br />
width. The 2009 Preservation Master Plan recommended a<br />
consistent 8’ wide path throughout the Park. Based on public<br />
input, several path widths 4’, 5’, 6’, 8’ and 10’ were explored<br />
generally related to the degree <strong>of</strong> access and use they afforded.<br />
Collapsed concrete liners in <strong>Fuller</strong> <strong>Brook</strong>, Segment 1.<br />
Sediment in Caroline <strong>Brook</strong>, Segment 4.<br />
Upland flooding<br />
Options considered to mitigate seasonal flooding in areas where<br />
the active floodplain extends into the portions <strong>of</strong> the Park where<br />
the path is located, include the development <strong>of</strong> vegetated<br />
detention areas such as wet meadows, bioswales, and rain<br />
gardens.<br />
Park Boundary<br />
<strong>Fuller</strong> <strong>Brook</strong> Park has an irregular boundary that is largely<br />
adjacent to residential properties. In many places, this ambiguity<br />
means that park users cannot tell where the edge <strong>of</strong> the Park is<br />
and private land begins, so that much <strong>of</strong> the Park is unusable.<br />
There are also a few instances where abutters have<br />
inadvertently landscaped or added fences within the park<br />
boundary. Options to address the ambiguity <strong>of</strong> the park<br />
boundary should be developed in concert with adjacent<br />
landowners and may vary depending on specific site conditions.<br />
Three alternatives for the delineation <strong>of</strong> the park boundary were<br />
considered: granite boundary markers, buffer planting, and splitrail<br />
fence.<br />
Surface<br />
Path surface also varies for each segment and <strong>of</strong>ten within each<br />
segment. Existing surfaces included dirt, gravel, bituminous<br />
concrete, wood chips and synthetic boardwalk. Alternative path<br />
surfaces considered and evaluated for <strong>Fuller</strong> <strong>Brook</strong> Park<br />
included wood chips, gravel/crushed stone, stonedust, stabilized<br />
s<strong>of</strong>t surface, bituminous concrete (standard, permeable, rolled<br />
stone), and boardwalk.<br />
Universal Access<br />
A few existing areas along the path exceed the recommended<br />
grade for universal access (5%), most <strong>of</strong> which relate to the<br />
slopes approaching street crossings. However, with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> the bituminous path in Segment 2, most <strong>of</strong> the path<br />
in the Park does not meet current universal design standards for<br />
slip-resistant surfaces. Since one <strong>of</strong> the design criteria for Phase<br />
2 is improving universal access, the alternatives considered a<br />
range <strong>of</strong> access from no change to full compliance with the<br />
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).<br />
Narrow section <strong>of</strong> dirt path in <strong>Fuller</strong> <strong>Brook</strong> Park, Segment 4. This is an<br />
example <strong>of</strong> a path that does not meet universal access standards due<br />
to width and surface material.<br />
8