Services Division 1 County Staff 1.1 Recommend adding a paragraph advising the EOR/developer that all streets within and contiguous to a proposed development must be coordinated with other existing or planned roadways. For additional information refer to LDC 6.02.01 A- 16. County to add language to 1.1 County will revise Section 1.4 and 1.7.2. 2 County Staff 1.4 & 1.7.2 Sections to be updated to reflect new review procedures. 3 1.5 & 2.1 Please note that FDOT s Plans Preparation Manual and Design Standards are currently under review and are likely to include recommendations from the new Complete Streets Handbook. County acknowledges comment; because these updates are still in draft form we will look to address at a later date.
Services Division 4 5 1.6 1.7.2 Staff suggests incorporating a context-based classification for functional classification, per FDOT s Complete Streets Handbook. Staff strongly recommends that the rationale and compelling reasons for sidewalk design exceptions be further defined/clarified and encourages consideration of the approval decision extending beyond the County Engineer. The effect of numerous sidewalk waivers has resulted in gaps in the sidewalk network and expensive subsequent retrofits, particularly in areas that infill over time. Because the Complete Streets Handbook is just coming into fruition and is still in Draft form, it may be wise to wait to implement certain aspects as a rule. Section 1.6 identifies the Florida Green Book as guidelines for establishing the functional classification. Recommend waiting until this 2013 addition is updated, which is being done now to see if any of these changes are adopted here. All Design exceptions are reviewed by PWD staff in great detail and a recommendation is provided to the County Engineer to consider. To exclude a sidewalk it must be approved by the Land Use Hearing Officer. If other agencies need to be consulted they are contacted for their input prior to sending to the County Engineer and recommendations to the hearing Officer. New language will be added to Section 2.9. 6 1.8.3 & 2.7.1 The County is encouraged to consider design speeds based on context classification (Complete Streets Handbook) and revising the TTM to incorporate FDOT s forthcoming guidance for establishing speed in Speed Zoning of Highways, Roads, and Streets in Florida (Speed Zone) (Topic Number 750010-002). The Green Book is currently being updated and these things are being considered. Because the Complete Streets Handbook is just coming into fruition it may be wise to wait for a while to implement certain aspects. 7 2.1 The County is encouraged to add the FDOT Complete Streets Handbook as a reference guide. County to add FDOT s Complete Streets Handbook to 2.1. (See next comment) County to include new language in 2.1, remove all other text references that state except for the requirements of CQC) within all chapters and add Hillsborough County Public Works Specifications for Construction. 8 County Staff 2.1 & 8.0 Several locations in the TTM (especially on 8.0) include a statement about the requirements to meet the FDOT specs except for the requirement of CQC. This has been causing confusion at the field regarding the QC tests required.
Services Division 9 County Staff 2.2 Recommend adding a sentence or paragraph informing/directing the EOR that no exceptions within the right of way, such us median islands, shall be plotted as right of way or easement control by any other entity different to the County. County to add statement to 2.2. County to provide specific details (TD-16 7 of 7) on root zone sidewalk protection options and placement of shade/street trees. 10 2.2.1 Staff suggests widening the minimum right of way widths to allow for tree planting areas between the curb and sidewalk. If an increase in width is not possible, staff recommends providing root zone protection in the sidewalk/curb and utilizing other best practices for maintaining healthy trees.
Services Division County to revise Table 2-1 and all Typical Section Titles to match table. 11 County Staff 2.2.1.1 Table 2-1 The title within the table for TS-7 does not match the title on the typical section itself. Also, other section names may change if other suggested revisions are made. Ensure all typical section names in the table match the names on the section. Also, ensure that any other changes made to the typical sections or new sections added are reflected in the table. County to reference new Section 13 in 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2. 12 County Staff 2.2.2 This paragraph is not very clear. Is the first sentence the road(s) shall comply with the required level of the classification. Is this referring to the proposed road connecting to the existing road or to the existing road? If it is referring to the existing road, is this paragraph directing the developer to update the existing road based on the added ADT? If so please make this paragraph clear and concise to what is being requested. 13 2.7.1.3 The County may want to consider language be added requiring a design speed analysis be reviewed if a roadway is identified as a High Crash Roadway. This section of the Manual is referring strictly to new roadways that would not be identified as a High Crash Roadway. This could be considered in Section 12 or our new Section 13, Review of Substandard Roadways.
Services Division County agrees and will update 2.9.3. 14 County Staff 2.9.3 Issues with sidewalk being damaged from large lawn equipment and utility trucks driving on it has been observed since the County reduced the required sidewalk thickness from six inches to four inches. Recommend requiring six-inch sidewalk again for all sidewalk on collectors and arterials.
Services Division This protection is for the sidewalk. County is proposing a new paragraph 2.9.6 under this section to address shade trees, sidewalk protection options and will reference the new details in this section. County will also add note to TS- 3, TS-4, TS-5, and TS-6. 15 2.9 The County may want to consider adding a new Section 2.9.6 that speaks to protection of street trees along/adjacent to sidewalks. The length of the required protection is recommended to be five feet on either side of the centerline (longitudinally) of the required tree. This type of protection could be provided in the Typical Sections drawings. Tree protection areas may also reduce the need for ongoing sidewalk maintenance, as well as the associated cost. 16 2.10 Another method to alleviate traffic would be to promote the development of a local road network. Staff recommends dead end streets and cul-se-sacs be discouraged for subdivisions and planned developments where opportunity for connection to adjacent properties exists. County to add new 1.8.5 Complete Streets subsection. Dead end streets and cul-de-sacs are discouraged in subdivisions and planned developments where opportunity for connection to adjacent properties exists.
Services Division County to add a paragraph to address that the developer should consider connectivity of pedestrians between developments and provide sidewalks and trails through buffer walls at appropriate locations. 17 2.11 With respect to buffer walls, staff suggests allowing the opportunity for consideration of openings for a non-motorized trail or sidewalk to create connections between residential areas and schools, parks and light commercial areas. County acknowledges and will update 2.12.1. 18 2.12.1 Please delete the reference to the MPO Comprehensive Bicycle Plan and replace with the more recent Pedestrian & Bicycle High Crash Areas Strategic Plan for Unincorporated Hillsborough County Roads (2012) and/or the forthcoming Vision Zero Action Plan (2017), which is currently being reviewed by County staff. 19 20 21 2.12 3.1 5.0 22 County Staff 5.1.4 23 5.1.6 Many of the referenced documents for minimum standards have been updated. For example, various American Association of State Highway and Officials (AASHTO) guides have added details on selecting the best facility, allowing for narrowing motor vehicle lanes to create bicycle lanes, and guidance for road diets. Narrower travel lanes may be appropriate in some cases to enhance safety and reduce traffic speeds. The County may also want to consider lowering design speeds for all road classifications in urban settings, per the Speed Zone guidance outlined above. Adding a section on mid-block crossings, including desired spacing in urban and suburban areas, would help increase safety and improve pedestrian access. Recommend clarifying this paragraph as follows: Driveways that have or are anticipated to have a significant amount of daily traffic (greater than 400 vehicles per day) shall be designed as commercial driveways with radial returns and no drop curbs. Staff recommends including crosswalk markings for each leg of the intersection and bicycle detection loops. Acknowledged and will review for any needed updates. This section identifies minimum lanes widths that are consistent with the Green Book for collectors and nonresidential/commercial roads. Subdivision streets design/speeds are set per County ordinance as allowed by State Statue at 25MPH. This would have to go to the BOCC for approval. No changes are recommended. In Section 2 Design Elements, the County references FDOT s Traffic Engineering Manual, which provides guidance in this area. County does not recommend any modifications at this time. County to update 5.14. Crosswalk markings are being done for all legs at signalized intersections. Each intersection is reviewed to determine what markings are really needed. Installation of bike loops have not been implemented and is not standard practice at this time. Recommend looking at this for future implementation.
Services Division Recommend revising 3.2.4 and 5.1.7. 24 5.1.7 The County may want to consider a minimum width of 6-8 feet for pedestrian refuges in roadways with medians, especially in urban and suburban areas. This is per the Institute of Engineers (ITE) s Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. County to update 5.2.1. 25 Website Submittal 5.2.1 Suggest clarification that 25 radius is only required where a local road intersects a collector road, not at intersections of local roads. 26 5.3 To minimize pedestrian crossing distance and reduce speeds in urban settings, the County may want to consider smaller radii as noted in the Florida Department of (FDOT) s Complete Streets Handbook and design manuals. Because Complete Streets is still considered new concepts and FDOT and others are working through details, County recommends waiting for the next update to incorporate major changes to geometrics and curb returns. Projects will be considered individually if new concepts are being proposed that don t meet today s criteria. County to update 5.3. 27 County Staff 5.3 Recommend adding statement not allowing curb inlets to be placed within handicap drop curb locations or on curb returns. 28 Website Submittal 5.5 Suggest clarification that this criterion applies to collector road intersections and not to local subdivision streets. Or County needs internal discussion between PW and NatRes. No changes. The Engineer of Record is to ensure landscaping does not conflict with sight distance. 29 County Staff 5.6 Traffic analysis needed to support reduced queue? Yes, an analysis is needed to support using the minimum ques lengths. No queue lengths are allowed less than the minimum without a design exception. No changes recommended.
Services Division County to update TD-7. 30 County Staff 5.8 & TD-7 Section 5.8 states that the profile shall meet Index 515, however, TD-7 states that this only applies to driveways on collector roads and above. Better guidance in the TTM is suggested. 31 County Staff 5.8 This statement conflicts with Standard Index 515. Not all driveways are concrete. In rural areas most driveways are asphalt and in urban areas great majority of driveways are concrete. However most commercial driveways are constructed with radii and can be built with asphalt or concrete. This may be a better way to address this subject. County to add the word concrete to 5.8.3.1 and update TD-7. See comment above.
Services Division County to revise 6.1.3.1 and add drawings TD-13 (2 of 4), TD-13 (3 of 4) and TD-13 (4of 4). Illuminated Street Lighting Bracket arm Detail sheets: The illuminated street name sign bracket arm assembly detail used by FDOT District 7 in the past was analyzed to support illuminated street name signs up to 18 square feet with 130 mph wind loading. The D7 Preferences Index is no longer available; however, the details are provided as needed. Recommend the county to add the details as part of the TTM under TD-13. Details provided with this comment. Recommend verbiage to be changed as follows For fabrications and structural details refer to the Typical Detail TD-13 for Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs. 32 County Staff 6.1.3.1
Services Division County to update 8.1. 33 County Staff 8.1.3 Recommend including a pavement design similar to Chapter 12 for offsite option 3 that provides a design without engineering due diligence.
Services Division 34 Website Submittal 8.3 C 35 County Staff 9.3 36 9.7.3 Remove SOIL CEMENT BASE SHALL BE USED FOR ON- SITE LOCAL ROADS. Would like the County to consider the review of in place soil cement that has been installed over the last 3-5 years and determine and consider the use of plant produced soil cement to be allowed on all types of roadways. On February 20, 2017, a LDC Hearing denied construction of a timber bridge as part of a subdivision construction permit. Recommend adding a note to 9.3 indicating that no vehicle timber bridges are allowed. When walkways are to be used by both pedestrians and bicyclists, staff recommends enhancing the width to 10 feet, consistent with minimum trail width. The County currently allows soil cement on onsite local roads/subdivision streets per Section 8.3. The County does not recommend allowing soil cement for other roadways due to issues with reflective cracking of the soil cement that is transferred up through the asphalt. No changes recommended. County to add Section 9.3.5. Although larger walkways are preferred, cost can be considerable. Additional analysis is required to determine when it would be required to be 10 feet. County to change 10.4.8 to 10.4.9 and add new Sidewalk Protection from Street Trees language as 10.4.8. 37 County Staff 10.4 Recommend adding a requirement to protect trees. Also suggest adding typical section drawings.
Services Division County to update Section 12 title, Section 12.6 title and add language for 12.6.7 Cross Section Elements. 38 County Staff 12.0 Recommend changing Section 12 s name to Off-Site and On- Site Collectors. Also recommend adding guidance on how to plot roadway cross sections. Request all underground existing utilities must be plotted on all cross section. County to add statement to 12.1.2. 39 County Staff 12.1.2 Recommend adding sentence directing developers to reference the LDC 6.04.02 to comply with the Access Management requirements. County to add language to 12.5. 40 County Staff 2.5 Recommend adding the following paragraph. A typical section must be provided for each proposed road. Additional typical sections must also be provided for each section of a road for which design elements vary significantly to warrant the need of additional typical sections.
Services Division 41 County Staff 12.6.5 42 County Staff 12.7 43 County Staff 12.9 44 County Staff 12.10 A more complete list of what is required to be included in a complete set of roadway plans is FDOT PPM Vol. II Chapter 2, Table 2.1. Recommend adding Chapter to 12.65. Also recommend adding a statement about coordinates being tied to the BL of Survey and/or CL of Construction to the State Plane Coordinates. Recommend adding the following section: 12.7.4 Proposed right of way lines must clearly be shown and labeled on the proposed design plans and updated throughout the design phase. The TTM does not really address pavement design for a new collector roadway. Section 8.1.1, directs design for new collector roadway to Section 12. Section 12.9 indicates 3 options that could be used; however, options 2 & 3 apply to widening only. Option 1 is a design based off of traffic counts, but a new roadway does not have traffic counts. This should be more clearly defined. 12.10.2.1 Recommend replacing a minimum of one inch milling and resurfacing is required from the paragraph with a minimum of 1 for design speeds 35 MPH or less, and a minimum of 1.5 for design speeds over 35 MPH, milling and resurfacing is required. 12.10.2.2 Recommend replacing a minimum of one inch milling and resurfacing is required from the paragraph with a minimum of 1 for design speeds 35 MPH or less, and a minimum of 1.5 for design speeds over 35 MPH, milling and resurfacing is required. 12.10.2.3 Recommend replacing a minimum of one inch milling and resurfacing is required from the paragraph with a minimum of 1 for design speeds 35 MPH or less, and a minimum of 1.5 for design speeds over 35 MPH, milling and resurfacing is required. 12.10.2.5 Recommend replacing a minimum of one inch milling and resurfacing is required from the paragraph with a minimum of 1 for design speeds 35 MPH or less, and a minimum of 1.5 for design speeds over 35 MPH, milling and resurfacing is required. County to update 12.6.5 and add new language under 12.6.6. County to update 12.7.4 County to revise Option 1 statement in 12.9.1.1. County states cores may be required in 12.10.1 to determine the condition for recommendations. County to add new language to 12.10.2.7.
Services Division County to revise 12.13.1.1 and 12.13.1.2. 45 County Staff 12.13.1 Recommend replacing the following paragraph: 12.13.1.1 All existing pavement markings shall be removed by means of milling and resurfacing a minimum of 1 of asphalt. No water blasting will be allowed. Remove paragraph 12.13.1.2. County to add page to Appendix E with instructions. 46 County Staff Appendix E Recommend adding on Appendix E, instructions for presenting the Soil and Materials Final Report Package for projects asbuilt/close out packages.
Services Division There is a contradiction between the TTM and UAG regarding the percent of compaction and the proctor tests. 47 County Staff Appendix E 48 Website Submittal TS-3 There is also contradiction on the compaction requirements defined on the UAG language and the requirements on the Appendix L (Density Testing Schedule) Also recommend revising the TTM Appendix E - Testing Schedule, to reflect the NS concrete (sidewalk, curb & Gutter, traffic separator and dich pavement) acceptance as per FDOT 347. The width of sod should be reduced from 2' 8" to 1' or 2'. The strip of sod is temporary and is removed when the builder grades the right of way and sods the lot. Also please provide clarification regarding restoration of right of way and if sod is the only option or if seed and mulch or hydro seeding is acceptable. County to update testing schedule and all references to ensure consistency. County to revise 4.2.1. County to also update TS-2, TS-3, TS-4, TS-5, TS-6, TS-7, TS-8, TS-9, TND-2, TND-3, TND-4, TND-5, TND-6, and TND-7. See comment 15. 49 County Staff TS-3 Suggest adding a flat area behind sidewalk. County to update Drawing TS-3 and TS-9. See comment 15.
Services Division County to update TS-7, TS-8, TND-4, TND-5, TND-6, TND-7. 50 TS 7 & TS-8 The typical sections for 2L local rural road and 2LD rural collector indicate a five-foot shoulder as a bike lane; staff suggests clarifying that this means a striped and marked bike lane. 51 County Staff TS-8 The AADT specification (in the middle of the page just below the road base) specifies 5,000 to Less Than 10,000 AADT. What happens above 10,000 AADT? There is no typical which addresses this for rural sections (unlike for urban sections). Suggest creating a 4-lane rural typical. Although it will be rarely used, it will be helpful in determining right-of-way preservation requirements for those roadways shown as a future 4-lane roadway on the Hillsborough County Corridor Preservation Plan (for example, certain roads in the Plant City area). There has not been a need in the past and we don t believe a new four-lane rural typical will be proposed by a developer. No changes recommended.
Services Division 52 County Staff TS-9 53 County Staff TS-10 54 55 Website Submittal TND-5 TD-1 (2 of 2) If this typical section is only for subdivisions with less than or equal to 10 lots (presumably residential), then why is there a non-residential roadway lane width provided? In the middle of the page just below the road base, recommend modifing as follows RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 10 LOTS. Delete nonresidential land and right-of-way width references. The title of this typical section is too similar to the title of TS-7, which confuses both applicants and staff. Consider renaming the typical section so it more closely mirrors its counterpart TS- 10. Sidewalks are not shown within the typical section. Consider adding a 6 paved shoulder (to accommodate sidewalk requirement), otherwise place note indicating how required sidewalks are to be provided. Regarding a typical section for 4LD urban collector, the County may want to consider 7-foot buffered bike lanes given the 45 mile per hour maximum design speed. The handicapped signage has also changed slightly. Index 17355, sht 2, FTP-22-06 is different than what is currently shown, and I could not find a parking sign pole that matched the current detail. Commercial site could use this typical. County to update TS-9 title LOW VOLUME PUBLIC ROADS (MINOR SUBDIVISIONS WITH 10 LOTS OR LESS) County to add note to TS-10. 6. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SIDEWALKS ARE TO BE PLACED WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN AN EASEMENT APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. County to update TND-4, TND-5, TND-6 and TND-7. County to replace current handicapped signage with updated FDOT STD 17355 and make a note to allow for FDOT approved aluminum round tube post. 56 County Staff TD-3 Recommend including a better definition of Temporary. County to add note to TD-3 referencing Section 2.10 of.
Services Division County to add note to TD-9 requiring all existing sidewalk to be connected. County will also remove MAX column within the table. Recommend adding additional sidewalk to residential road and connecting it to existing road. 57 County Staff TD-9 Consider removing maximum requirements for length A they are not needed and conflicts with the maximum driveway length specification for residential developments within Section 6.04.04.A.3. of the Hillsborough County Land Development Code. 58 County Staff TD-9 Regarding the minimum length table, we have received this question from several developers/consultants: does the minimum amount change depending on whether the development is single or multi-family?. In addition, FDOT representatives have expressed concern that this detail does not provide sufficient minimums from developments on state roadways and suggest a clarification as to that issue as well. County to update TD-9. See graphic above.
Services Division 59 County Staff TD-9 60 County Staff TD-9 61 County Staff TD-9 62 County Staff TD-9 Regarding the minimum length table, the dimension A lengths specified are being halved by some or all plan reviewers if a development provides two entry lanes (i.e. an entry lane for guests and a separate lane for residents). If this is something we wish to formalize, and it makes sense in terms of real world operation, then it should be something we note. In addition, if the developer provides two gated entrances each with two lanes, are these minimum amounts permitted to be ¼ of the original amount? May want to cross-reference that regardless of the minimum A distances allowed per the table, the minimum throat depth standards within Section 6.04.03.G. also apply and may be controlling if greater than the table minimums. Same comment regarding minimums on state roadways also applies (see above comment). Regarding note 1 under For Public Residential Development, this does not make sense. If a guardhouse is physically within a public ROW then the degree to which it is overhanging would be 100%. We do not permit privately owned islands in the middle of a public ROW. Consider clarifying that guardhouses within a public ROW shall be ornamental only, unmanned, and require a ROW use permit and maintenance agreement to construct within the public ROW. Regarding note 3 under For Public Residential Development. If the County is going to allow installation of ornamental gates in the public right-of-way, the County should specify that a ROW use and maintenance agreement is required. This is the same issue as for guardhouses, so suggest merging the two into a single note. Regarding note 4 under For Public Residential Development. As written, this is redundant (see note 3). Consider replacing with language provided at right that provides additional clarification as to which measurements apply. County to update TD-9. See graphic above. County to update TD-9. See graphic above. County to update TD-9. See graphic above. County to update TD-9. See graphic above. 63 County Staff TD-12 The County will be stopping the placement of the logo on street signs once the existing inventory is depleted. County to revise TD-12, 1 of 2 and remove TD-12, 2 of 2.
Services Division County to update TD-15 (2 of 2) and all TD-16 drawings. Please review the existing details in the TTM against the current FDOT details to confirm that the existing details are still acceptable. FDOT has new Tree protection standard, Index 542, that is not as detailed as currently shown in TTM. 64 Website Submittal TD-16
Services Division
Services Division 65 County Staff TD-18 Recommend not allowing inlet s to be placed in curb return. County to add Inlet not to be placed in curb return. to note 3 on TD-18. 66 The County may also want to consider integrating references to the new Mobility Fee process into the TTM, where appropriate. This would help clarify the process for the development community. The intent for this manual is to provide design guidance for subdivision and site development projects. No changes are recommended. 67 County Staff 13.0 (New) Hillsborough County has existing roads that are considered substandard with respect to current design criteria for new roadways. New developments impact these roads. At this time these impacts require the roadways be improved to insure safe user operations. Recommend developing a procedure for analyzing substandard roads to insure safe user operations given different constraints and providing guidance on what will be required of developers. County to add new Chapter 13 to address substandard roadways.