Public Meeting for the Nevin Rd. Extension and the
Sugar Creek Widening Projects
Thursday, May 1, 2003; 6:00PM
Meeting Minutes
Kruti Desai, Project Manager for the City of Charlotte Engineering & Property Management Department,
began the meeting held at Derita Alternative School. This was the first meeting for not only the widening
of Sugar Creek Road between Graham Street and Lynn Lee Circle but also the extension of Nevin Road
between Sugar Creek and Mallard Creek Roads.
Ms. Desai introduced key team members:
Tim Greene, Charlotte Engineering & Property Management
Leon Howe, Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Jim Beck, DRMP, Inc.
Lynn Purnell, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
Mary Hopper, Hopper Communications
Ms. Desai reviewed the meeting’s format and asked Mr. Howe to provide an overview of roadway projects
in the area.
Mr. Howe used a map showing proposed street improvements for the area to illustrate likely changes to
traffic volumes on Sugar Creek and Mallard Creek Roads. He noted that the study team would have to
consider projected traffic volumes for Sugar Creek and Nevin Roads during this initial planning phase.
Mr. Howe added that CDOT travel demand models forecast current daily volumes of about 30,000
vehicles a day (vpd) on selected segments of Sugar Creek Road decreasing to 15,000 vpd after Mallard
Creek Road Relocation is completed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and
other improvements in the area are finished.
Mr. Howe discussed proposed schedules for projects in the area:
•
Mallard Creek Re-location (also known as Graham Street Extension) - Right-of-way in 2004,
Construction starts in 2006 and ends in 2007.
•
Nevin Road - If approved with 2004 bonds, complete by November 2007.
•
Sugar Creek Road - depends on North Corridor commuter rail schedule, future bond referendums;
Planning scheduled to be complete winter 2004.
•
City Boulevard (I-85 to Neal Road) - State Project, under construction, possibly done by this fall.
•
City Boulevard (US-29/NC-49 Connector to NC-49) - City Project, start construction this fall, complete
fall 2005.
•
Cindy Lane (Nevin Road to Statesville Road) - on future bond referendum, complete three years after
bonds pass.
•
City Boulevard and Nevin Road Extensions - 2020 or later.
•
Old Potter’s Road (Sugar creek Road to Old Statesville Road) to be constructed by developers
Mr. Beck reviewed the Nevin Road Extension project.
Need for the Project
Important east-west link to Graham Street Extension
Meet future travel demands
Reduce traffic congestion on Sugar Creek Road
Improve safety for all modes of travel, including bicycles and pedestrians
Preserve or enhance the community
Project Limits
Extension of existing Nevin Road between Sugar Creek and Mallard Creek Roads
Project length is1,800 feet.
Existing right-of-way is 70 feet.
Existing Key Issues
Existing 70-foot right-of-way
Forest Pond subdivision entrance. The current entrance will have to be re-built to line up properly with
Nevin Road Extension’s intersection with Mallard Creek Road.
Design of Sugar Creek Road/Nevin Road intersection
Storm water
Utilities
Features under Consideration
One travel lane each direction
Landscaped median
Pedestrian accommodations
Bike accommodations
Intersection improvements at Sugar Creek and Mallard Creek roads
Improved utility plan
Schedule
Fall 2003 – second public meeting
Fall 2003 – planning report submitted
Fall/Winter 2003 – begin preliminary design phase
What Happens Next?
Continued Citizen Involvement and Public Input
Traffic Analysis
Natural Resources Investigation
Cultural Resources Investigation
Geotechnical Investigation
Location Survey
Develop and Evaluate Alternatives
Recommend Preferred Alternative
Planning Report Submitted
Frequently Asked Questions
Q - How will the project be funded?
A – Planning and preliminary design funded through approved 2002 Transportation Bond. Real estate
acquisition and construction not currently funded.
Mr. Purnell reviewed the Sugar Creek Road Widening project.
Need for the Project
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve safety
Provide pedestrian and bicycle amenities
Meet future traffic demands
Existing Key Issues
Minimize impacts to community
Portion of roadway is within right-of-way of Norfolk Southern “O” line.
Derita has a proposed commuter rail station in the North Corridor.
Large trees on Derita Avenue
Disconnected sidewalks
Lack of bicycle accommodations
Major BellSouth communication hub
Traffic changes after opening of Mallard Creek Road Re-location
No street connectivity in Hemphill Heights
Results of Historic Survey completed by Mattson, Alexander & Associates
No National Register properties
No designated Local Landmarks
Properties requiring more research
–2400 to 2700 blocks of Derita Avenue
–Puckett’s Farm Equipment Building
–Rockwell Rosenwald School
Features under Consideration for Sugar Creek Road
Sidewalks
Landscaping
Improved utility plan
Bicycle facilities
Additional travel lanes
Planning Schedule
Late 2003 – second public meeting
Early 2004 – planning report submitted
What Happens Next?
Continued Citizen Involvement and Public Input
Traffic Analysis
Natural Resources Investigation
Geotechnical Investigation
Develop and Evaluate Alternatives
Recommend Preferred Alternative
Planning Report Submitted
Frequently Asked Questions
Q - Will my property be affected?
A - Project impacts will be determined in preliminary design phase.
Q - How are property owners compensated?
A – Purchased at fair market value. Owner is compensated for all impacts to property.
Ms. Desai allowed attendees to ask questions of staff and consultants or to make general comments.
1. When will all this be built? Past 2008, like the Graham St extension?
Right-of-way acquisition begins in 2004. Construction starts in 2006 and ends in 2007.
2. “We are in a lockdown situation twice a day for 2-3 hours at a time. Please give us a bypass so people
can get around Derita by using Graham St. Sugar Creek improvements will not do it.”
3. “Get some police out here to help keep the intersections from jamming up. Give us relief NOW!” (The
ensuing applause suggests widespread agreement with this sentiment)
4. Don’t connect the streets in Hemphill Heights. (This neighborhood is a series of one-block streets that
run at right angles off Sugar Creek). We like it how it is.
5. Why are you only planning for half of what is needed on Sugar Creek Road? Why aren’t you designing
beyond Harris Blvd.?
Mr. Howe provides three reasons: 1) The projected cost dictates that the project should be divided, 2)
The time it will take to build suggests it is better to make it two projects, and 3) The stretch of Sugar Creek
in the study is the one that has the most immediate need. The need past Lynn Lee Circle will come later
according to CDOT’s analysis. Certainly, the City will widen the outer segment at a later time, but this
study allows CDOT to plan this half with an eye toward the other.
6. Theresa Elder speaks on behalf of Rockwell Park, a neighborhood she has lived in for 47 years.
“Those of us in Derita have been looking for help for a long time while the City has gone and built
everywhere else. We need roads and sidewalks and we need them now. While we are pleased that
Sugar Creek will finally be widened, with new projects like Zion Renaissance Center and the new church
that is planned, we need it widened NOW.”
7. Bernie Samonds stresses the need for planning beyond Lynn Lee, citing new subdivisions being built
on Christenbury and Hubbard. “If it takes 17-18 years to get it done, we will be in worse shape by then
than we are in now. We are having more starter homes permitted all the time. Sugar Creek needs to be
completed all the way up to Harris Blvd. and not stop at Lynn Lee. The City sees numbers, but we see the
congestion all day long. It never clears!”
8. A meeting attendee who lives at Lynn Lee and Sugar Creek describes work that was done in
December where the road was widened which now allows the school buses to speed around that corner.
He emphasized that, although he understands that we have had a lot of rain, his yard is still not cleaned
up from that work. He called his yard a “mud hole” and requested to have it cleaned up. He added that
what the city would pay him to take another 50 feet off the front of his lawn would not be enough since it
would put traffic in his front door. He closed by asking when the City would come back and fix that mess
the created in December.
The contact person is Louis Mitchell, NCDOT’s District Engineer, Newell Office 704-596-6900.
9. Another attendee noted that it is impossible to take a left turn traveling east on Sugar Creek at
Graham. Can we get that fixed?
10. Why would City plan to build just one travel lane in each direction on the Nevin Rd. extension. “Why
do you think that will be enough? Why are you making the same mistake as the state who doesn’t ever
build enough lanes?”
Nevin Road is planned for one travel lane in each direction. At this time it is not known the number of
lanes for Sugar Creek Road widening. The reasons Nevin Road is planned for one lane in each direction
include consistency in matching the number of lanes for Nevin Road beyond Sugar Creek Road and
Mallard Creek Road, the existing 70' right-of-way width, and the projected traffic volumes. Turn lanes at
each end of the project and at major intersections are also planned.
11. A Forest Pond resident says that a stretch of Nevin is the only segment wide enough to allow for onstreet parking and asks that the study look at what this will do. A later comment indicated that rules of the
neighborhood association disallow on-street parking yet folks do it anyway.
12. A concern is raised that only a right turn is allowed at Statesville. The suggestion is that all traffic
should be monitored to see if signals would be needed at intersections. “It is hard to get to any major
intersection from there.”
The City’s plan for that section of Nevin would be to have turn lanes with landscaped medians on
Statesville Road between major intersections. CDOT will be evaluating the need for traffic signals
(Statesville and Nevin, proposed Cindy Lane and Statesville, Sugar Creek and Nevin, Mallard Creek and
Nevin).
13. An attendee who lives on Nevin asks how the extension will relieve traffic off Sugar Creek. People will
not have to travel down Mallard Creek to go east to west. Bernie Samonds explains that the extension
could be a major link between two mass transit stops.
14. Bernie Samonds says he was asked to find out the status of a Potters Road connection to NC-115.
The reply was that it is on the thoroughfare plan but not projected as being needed until after 2025. When
built, it is planned as a minor thoroughfare, which means it is designed to carry local traffic. If the area
gets a lot more development it could get accelerated.
15. What speed limit is planned for the Nevin Rd extension? It is now posted at 25 mph as it moves
through Forest Pond neighborhood.
According to the Urban Street Design Guidelines, the extension will be classified as an avenue that will
have a speed limit range between 25 and 35 mph. In all likelihood, it will be designed for 25 mph, but that
has not been determined. There are no plans to make it a high-speed road.
16. A meeting attendee who identifies himself as having lived in a lot of other places, including Atlanta,
said this area is the worst bottleneck that he has ever experienced. He suggests re-locating the rail
crossings and creating a pair of one-way streets using Sugar Creek Road and Derita Avenue.
17. Bernie Samonds asks if we can’t get some pavement on the roads, can we at least have someone fill
the potholes?
While the City can spend money to improve state roads, NCDOT must perform roadway maintenance.
NCDOT Contact is Louis Mitchell, District Engineer, Newell Office 704-596-6900.
18. Where will the rail station be built?
The exact location of the rail station has not been determined. The preliminary studies have only
identified potential stations. Curvature, parking and access will be determining factors. Additional public
input will be solicited as well.
19. An attendee who lives on the segment of Sugar Creek beyond Lynn Lee voices opposition to
widening Sugar Creek north of Lynn Lee because of the 40-50 families who will be negatively impacted.
She calls for speed control on that stretch which is currently posted at 35 mph, but traffic most often runs
at 60 mph. Speed control will help them get out of their street.
20. A Hemphill Heights/Howard Street resident notes the morning traffic jams on Sugar Creek. She says
that particular attention needs to be paid to the terrible congestion at 7:30 a.m. with school traffic and
asks when traffic counts are taken.
Debbie Self of CDOT responds that traffic counts are taken at peak times including 7:30 a.m.
21. Paul Eich says the Graham Street connector that was called “new” was actually promised 28 years
ago. He notes that when they said, “The road would be complete in ‘85, the community erroneously
thought the state meant 1985. If that road is not built, the Forest Pond subdivision will become a big U
turn.” Is Graham finally funded?
Yes, it is on the TIP and listed as funded for right of way acquisition in 2004, construction in 2006 and
completion in 2007. Mr. Howe notes that the City has long supported that project and tried, with no
success, to get it moved up.
22. Mr. Eich stresses the need for sidewalks along Sugar Creek. “Residents are very frustrated when
they wait and wait and see the City building sidewalks so people can walk to the big golf tournament at
Quail Hollow, but can’t get Hemphill Heights sidewalks to the Food Lion.”
23. An attendee calls attention to the fact that the railroad crossing at the I-85 access road and Graham is
very rough and speculated that crossing had not been upgraded since 1920.
24. Another attendee comments that traffic flow is 300 percent worse since the traffic signal at Rumple
has been added and that he often had to sit through three or four light cycles. He asked that the signal
timing be examined at that light as well as the one at Sugar Creek and Mallard Creek Roads. Later in the
meeting a meeting attendee who lives off Rumple says that he and the 600 residents on Rumple would
be very upset if that turning light were ever removed.
Mr. Howe explains that the addition of signals so close together invariably creates a dilemma. He
suggests that maybe the solution is not traffic signals, but more lanes that can hold higher capacity. The
good news is that the City is out here talking and planning.
25. Bernie Samonds voices the opinion that the signal at Rumple was a temporary fix. He also thanks the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD)and state troopers for their enforcement.
26. An attendee speaks to the need for a signal at Neal Road and Mineral Springs Road.
27. A meeting attendee articulates a sentiment that appears to be broadly shared, that taxes are up for
the Derita area, yet infrastructure does not appear to be coming commensurate with the taxes being paid.
The speaker also requests that some planning be done for the area.
28. An attendee inquires how much frontage will be required to widen Sugar Creek and is told that part of
the purpose of this study is to plan what will be needed.
29. An attendee was concerned about people driving at 50-60 mph on Sugar Creek between Hunter
Acres and Nevin Road. It is indicated that people drive too fast on Sugar Creek, making it difficult for
pedestrians to cross Sugar Creek Road.
30. CMPD Officer Tom Ferguson invites City staff to ride with him in the area and asked if CDOT could do
anything now that would help this difficult situation. “The area needs some immediate fixes.” He adds
speed enforcement is difficult because you cannot get to the speeders. Mr. Howe says CDOT will look at
the situation but NCDOT’s help will be needed as well. He notes the Officer Ferguson’s suggestion of the
addition of bollards and signage and agrees to discuss the tradeoffs that would come with any solution.
31. An attendee comments that perhaps we need the folks who planned University City Boulevard
because it was done very quickly and nicely.
32. Do we have any idea what Sugar Creek this will look like? Will it be a four lane with a median?
The purpose of these studies is to ask for public input before deciding on things like road widths, median,
numbers of lanes, etc. Mr. Howe of CDOT says that the current traffic volume on Sugar Creek is 30,000
cars and that will go down to 15,000 when the Mallard Creek Relocation (Sugar Creek Road Extension) is
built. Attendees urge staff and consultants to look very carefully at the assumptions that are being made
with a particular eye at the land uses that are coming on line. Mr. Howe expresses concern not just about
land uses, but also about the possible impact on the trees, properties and the rail line. “We have a
challenging job ahead of us. We count on you to help us with this because you know it so much better
than we do. We intend to be sensitive to your neighborhood; that’s our job. ”
33. A meeting attendee calls for a moratorium on all permits and rezoning saying that nothing should be
allowed until the roads are built.
34. An attendee is concerned that no one had mentioned the impact of traffic going to the proposed North
Lake Mall on Reames Rd. when it opens.
35. A meeting attendee describes a drainage problem. He called the City only to be told to contact the
state.
The NCDOT contact person would be Louis Mitchell, District Engineer, Newell Office 704-596-6900.
36. A suggestion is made for consideration of a third lane on Sugar Creek Road that would be reversible
depending on whether it was morning or night traffic.
CDOT’s Mr. Howe says that reversible lanes have caused numerous accidents where used (i.e., 7th
Street in Elizabeth and Tyvola Road near the Coliseum) and will be considered only as a last resort.
37. Several meeting attendees are confused on why the City is paying to build a State road.
Mr. Howe explains that the City builds state roads when NCDOT indicates that it will be many years
before they can improve the road. He further explains that while State law permits the City to do capital
projects on State roads, it prohibits City maintenance. NCDOT also must approve the plans prepared by
the City for State roads.
Ms. Desai introduces Charlotte City Council member James Mitchell. She adjourns the meeting by
encouraging attendees to go to the aerial photos at the tables set up for both projects in order to make
specific questions or comments. Attached are comments made at the project tables.
Comments Offered at the Sugar Creek Road Widening and Nevin Road Extension
Project Tables
“We were promised the Graham St. extension YEARS ago. The completion of that would be the biggest
single help to alleviate our congestion. We need this PDQ!”
“Graham Street extension project may not help now since so much traffic comes down Sugar Creek from
Harris Blvd and beyond from Huntersville. You need to study traffic coming from Harris onto Sugar Creek
Rd.”
A community leader from the Harris Blvd area says, “When you are considering turn lane length, a rule of
thumb may be to double the length. All new roads built in this area have either have turn lanes that are
short or there are not enough of them.”
“Please add the third lane from IBM Drive to Mallard Creek Rd. on W.T. Harris Blvd and add a longer left
turn lane from W.T. Harris or preferably double left turn lanes. This would decrease the congestion from
W.T. Harris. (She sketched this out on her comment sheet.)
A Hemphill Heights resident has six very specific requests:
1. Streets remain disconnected in Hemphill Heights.
2. Traffic relief through Hemphill Heights
3. Sidewalks and streetlights via Sugar Creek Rd. through Rockwell and Hemphill Heights.
4. Address left turn off Graham onto Sugar Creek Road
5. Bollards in place to direct traffic
6. A more noticeable warning of Right Turn Only onto Rumple Road
“I think your time line for constructing new roads and widening roads is too long. Four to five years is
unacceptable! There is extensive building of new housing going on in this area. By the time you complete
these planned roads, they will be too crowded.”
Status of present project at Rockwell Park and Sugar Creek which has, according to T. Elder (596-1681)
and I. McCauley (596-3018), been left incomplete because of NCDOT projects. Sam Barber, with City
E&PM, (704-336-4721) is the contact for this project.
Sidewalks and streetlights are needed on both sides of Sugar Creek from the Food Lion all the way up to
Christenbury.
Left turn signal needed at intersection of Sugar Creek and Mineral Springs Road.
Make a greenway of the IBM rail spur (Rails to Trails?) to line Sugar Creek with the Forest Pond
subdivision. It is already being used informally and land is suspected of being on the market.
Change the name from Nevin Rd. as it goes through Forest Pond. Resident suggesting this has hurt
them because of crime on other sections of Nevin and has caused property devaluation.
Forest Pond will hold a homeowners meeting soon and would like to have project representatives attend.
A representative of the House of Prayer expressed concern about widening at their church located on the
east side of Sugar Creek Road near Potters Road.
Many attendees had questions about NCDOT’s project, Mallard Creek Road Relocation.
Officer Ferguson discussed problems with the dual left turn lane from Graham Street onto Sugar Creek
caused by traffic merging from the right lane just south of the Sugar Creek/Rumple intersection. He also
mentioned problems at the driveway from Mallard Creek Road to the Food Lion grocery store.