This is a TEMPLATE walkthrough showing how to structure a comparable-site note — the bracketed fields are placeholders to fill from real sources, not a completed example.
Site: [NW/SW residential intersection, e.g., XX Ave & XX St] · Roadway type: local residential grid streets · Lanes: 2 (1/dir) · Posted: [25/30] mph · Context: dense residential grid, cut-through pressure. Problem being solved: speeding + angle-crash exposure at uncontrolled/2-way-stop grid intersections. Treatment: landscaped traffic circle — Miami-Dade has one of Florida’s largest such programs; circles are a signature device of their residential calming approach. Key design features: [circle diameter, splitter/approach treatment, YIELD signing/markings per MUTCD, landscaping & maintenance agreement — pull from county standard detail]. Before/after: [cite county evaluation if published; else “program-level effectiveness cited by county — request data”] — never fill this from memory. Photos/maps: [Google Earth pin + historical imagery pair]. Sources & classes: county program page (1) · standard detail (1) · council/committee item approving installs (1) · news coverage (7 — context only). Why comparable (to a Tampa-area local-street request): matches roadway type/context/problem; differs on [agency criteria — Hillsborough’s program scoring vs Miami-Dade petition thresholds] → address the delta explicitly in the memo. Lessons for us: grid networks suit circles (alternate routes exist); maintenance/landscaping ownership decided up front; EMS/solid-waste review is part of the approval path. Practice question: which single field in this note would a skeptical reviewer attack first, and how do you armor it? (Before/after — by sourcing or by explicitly not claiming it.) QA/QC reminder: placeholders purged and every bracket sourced before this note leaves the vault.
See also: Workflow - Comparable Sites Research · Workflow - Research and Source Vetting · Traffic Calming Toolbox