20011328 Ver 1_Information Letter_20081210

Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc,
December 1. 2008
Brian Wrenn
NC DENR-DWQ
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
401 Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Re: Vill',l at Lake Norman (Au"ustalec) 1-77 Widening and Roadway
Improvements
Cornelius. Mecklenburg Count, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wrenn:
Attached are some additional items we hope %? III help to answer some of the
questions raised in our meeting on October 30, 2008. 'The items included are:
• Meeting notes from our meetings with FHWA
• Traffic model figures
• A conservation easement for a past Mecklenburg Count project to show the
level of protection that would be given to McDowell Creek if the restoration
moves forward
• A G1S map ith the proposed McDowell Creek easement. Minimum
easement N\ idth is 160'.
If the restoration project falls through, McDowell Creek is mill protected by a 100'
SWIM Buffer enforced by Mecklenburg Count,,' and the To\\ n of Cornelius and
NI'DF:S Phase II requirements.
If you need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us.
Vcry truly yours.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc.
Tommy Cousins. PWS
En\iri?nmental Scientist
Suite 300
4651 Charlotte Park Dave
arlol Norte Carolina
26217
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

PPP" M Fj Kimley-Horn
11111111h, M and Associates, Inc.
Meetin, llfiimtec
Meeting Date: October 3. 2007
Village at Lake Norman FH" 'NCD0T Mcetine
October' - 2007, Paae I
Prepared By: Jonathan Guy, October 6. 21007
Attendees: Jim Dunlop (NCDO'T- Congestion Management)
John Sullivan (FHWA -NC Director)
Clarence Coleman (FHWA - NC Division)
Barry Moose (NCDOT- Division 10)
Art McMillan (NCDOT - Pre Construction)
Debbie Barbour (NCDOT - Pre Construction)
Jonathan Guy. Steve Blakley. Teresa Gresham,
(hinlev-Horn & Associates. Inc.)
Subject: Village at Lake Norman: FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
hI IA Rel': 01)i 150000
The following, is a summary of the agenda, key points. and action items
discussed during, the meeting.
AGENDA
¦ Introductions
¦ Overview of Project/project background
¦ Review Concepts and discussion
pppl Kimley-Horn
\ ?, and Associates, Inc.
Village at Lake NOrnlan Fl-I" Aj'NC'DOT Meeting
October 3. 2007, Page 2
Overview of' Project status to Date!Project Background
Steve Blakley provided the group a summary of the project to date.
Steve informed the group that a traffic impact analysis had been
prepared and submitted to the NCDOT Division Io office, To%An of
Cornelius. Town of Iiuntersyille, and Mecklenbur, County for review.
Barry Moose. NCDOT Division 10 Engineer, confirmed the
submission and review of the TIA.
¦ Steve Blakley informed the group that the Town of Cornelius Planning
Board would begin hearing-, the project in November.
¦ Steve Blakley provided the group with an overview of the study area
and the coordination with communities and NCDOT personnel. Steve
indicated that the proposed Exit 25 improvements were being
considered in the four (4) concepts but that they would not be a part of
the formal interchange access submittal.
¦ Steve Blakley informed the group that the schedule for Exit 27 is to
have a May 2009 approval of the interchan?,e with construction
start ing in 2010.
¦ Steve Blakley informed the group that the developer is proposing to
\\ iden the interstate from Exit 23 to Exit 28. He is requesting that the
NCDOT reimburse the funding for the project when it is realized in the
TIP. Debbie Barbour indicated that NCDOT would not be supporting
any additional assistance beyond the reimbursement for improving I-
77.
NC 73 Improvements
The traffic study currently considers the intersection of NC 73 and US
21 bcin- built out to accommodate dual lefts, dual through lanes, and a
dedicated right turn lane on all approaches as a part of the TIP project
R-2632A. Due to the cost of these improvements NCDOT and the
Town of iluntersyille is considering implementing a quadrant left
configuration at the intersection.
The quadrant left concept NN ill eliminate westbound left-turns at US 21
and NC 7; and displace them to the intersection of NC 73 and Holly
Point Drive.
¦ NCDOT has completed their rcyiew of the evaluation of Quadrant Left
concept recommended by the "I-o\%n of Huntersville. Based on the
results of the analysis the concept looks favorable for installation. A
final recommendation will follow shortly.
PPP- M Fj Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
Vi llage at Lakc Norman I-IIWA,NCDO[ Meet in=
t ktoher 2007. Pace
It was recommended by NCDOT Con<_estion Manaoement that the
TIA and future analysis retain the current assumption of multi-lane
idening over the quadrant let! concept until such time that it is been
inade a final recommendation.
Concept Designs
• Four initial Concept designs were developed for the creation of Exit
27. Concept A considers the construction of a Sing lc Point Urban
Interchange (SPUI) at the current Westmoreland grade separation.
Concepts B-D create a collector distributor system of ramps between
Exit 25 and the proposed Exit 27.
¦ Jonathan Guy indicated that the Town of Cornelius expressed
reservations about Concepts B-D at a meeting in July 2007 when the
concepts were reviewed with members of the Mown of Cornelius.
'Town of Ilutersville, MUMPO, and NCODT.
¦ Art McMillan indicated that the design speed for the collector
distributor roads would need to be 70 mph. The
acceleration/deceleration distances between the one/two-way ramps
would need to be verified.
¦ Art McMillan informed the 2roup that the new NCDOT standard is
1.000 feet of control of access (CA) measured out from each ramp
terminal. Within the CA area no driveways \\ ill be permitted unless
special permission is granted.
¦ Steve Blakley asked about the potential Right-In/Right-Out (RIRO)
access on Westmoreland Road and its potential to remain ?-,ivcn its 900
feet ramp separation. Art McMillan indicated that the Interchange
Justification Report (IJR) and design plans would address this issue
and a final decision would be -,ivcn then.
¦ Art McMillan noted that the U-haul on the south side of Westmoreland
Road would be required to take access internally to the proposed
development given its close proximity to the interchange. The parcel
on the north side of Westmoreland Road would also be required to
havc alternative access.
¦ Jim Dunlop indicated that the weave distances/operations, queue
lengths. and ramp spacing needs to be verified.
¦ Jim Dunlop also recommended looking at an offset diamond
(compressed diamond) given the proximity of wetlands on the western
ed_e of the 1-77 corridor (McDowell Creel).
¦ Jim Dunlop indicated that the SPUI should not be the only interchange
confisuration considered at Westmoreland Road. Jim recommended
PP' M rj Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Village at Lake Norman 1:1 IN'A; NCL)()l Meeting
October 3. 2007, ]'age 4
looking at a compressed diamond or a typical diamond configuration
in addition to the SPUI concept. The SPUi has ad\antages when
traffic volumes are relatively balanced on all approaches.
¦ John Sullivan indicated that Concepts B-D impacted the operations of
the mainline to a lesser degree as compared to Concept A. This is due
to the fact that the weaving and merging for Exits 2> and 27 are
occurrint-r on the collector distributor facilities.
¦ Jim Dunlop indicated that the previous 1-77 evaluation considered 12
lanes on 1-77 over the causeway: 8 lanes for the mainline operations
and 4 HOV lanes. Jlrn indicated that the HOV lanes were also
separated from the 1-77 mainline lanes.
Exit 27 lnterchan,?,)e Evaluation (UR)
¦ John Sullivan indicated that the I,IR for Exit 27 will need to be
approved by the Federal Highway Administrator in Washington, DC.
John could not approve this application at the local level since the
proposal is in a population area greater than 200,000 persons.
¦ John Sullivan informed the Troup that the process for an 1JR begins
with NCDOT and then FHWA is considered.
¦ John Sullivan asked if the development was dependent on the
interchange. Steve Blakley indicated that it NN as. John indicated that
the iJR must show that the existing, street infrastructure cannot handle
the proposed traffic volumes and cannot be improved to do so.
¦ John also indicated that the IJR must document the existing street
network. He recommended a structure of evaluating Exit 10, Exit 28,
Exit 25 and Exit 2 in addition to the proposed interchange. Adjacent
intersections to the ramp terminals may also need to be evaluated.
¦ John Sullivan indicated that the IJR is a two step process. The first
step is evaluating the operations impacts of the proposed interchange
on the existing street netNAork and interstate. The second step is the
Environmental Assessment. John indicated that the FH WA approval
will not come until the EA has been reviewed and approved.
¦ John Sullivan recommended that we begin the operational analysis
now to determine kyhat is needed for improvements and if they can be
implemented prior to beginning the EA.
End of Meeting- Minutes
Mew minutes were prepared by hindev-Horn and Associates. Inc. W nh the intent to capture the rnmn buds of discussion -th
supporting facts and results from the subject meeting. and to proceed and relN thereon. should your recollection of the events
and discussion or this meeting differ, please forty-ard your recisions and or additions to Jonathan Guy so that he may amend
and-or modiR. this summan to he more accurate Thank rou
EM" Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Village at Lake Norman: FHWA/NCDO'1' Meeting
January 7, 2008, Page I
DRAFT
Prepared By: Jonathan Guy, January 9, 2008
Attendees: Jim Dunlop (NCDOT- Congestion Management)
Mohammad Islam (NCDOT-Congestion Management)
Louis Mitchell (NCDOT-Charlotte District)
Scott Cole (NCDOT - Division 10)
Clarence Coleman (FHWA-NC Division)
Ron Lucas (FHWA -NC Division)
Joe Geigle (FHWA - NC Division)
Josh Rector (Bromont Developments, LLC)
Charles MacLean (CCM3 Architects, LTD)
Jonathan Guy, Steve Blakley, Teresa Gresham, Craig
Gresham (Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.)
Subject: Village at Lake Norman: FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
KHA Ref: 018350000
The following is a summary of the agenda, key points, and action items
discussed during the meeting.
Kimley-Horn Village at Lake Norman: FHWAMCDOT Meeting
G' and Associates, Inc. January 7, 2008, Page 4
DRAFT
111 Jim Dunlop indicated that the SPUI should not be the only interchange
configuration considered at Westmoreland Road. Jim recommended
looking at a compressed diamond or a typical diamond configuration
in addition to the SPUI concept. The SPUI has advantages when
traffic volumes are relatively balanced on all approaches.
Clarence Coleman asked Joe Geigle and Ron Lucas if FHWA would
be concerned with the proposed grade separation (Bailey Road
Extenion) over I-77. Joe and Ron indicated that FHWA is mainly
concerned with mainline operations and when queues impact mainline
operations they would not be concerned with the grade separation. An
encroachment permit would need to be obtained though.
Exit 28 Interchange Evaluation (IMR)
Jim Dunlop indicated that a study of Exit 28 is currently in progress
and that the study was scheduled for release in March of 2008. Jim
recommended that the data NCDOT had collected for Exit 28 be
used/shared in the IJR for Exit 27. The schedule for the Exit 28 study
is behind the schedule for this project.
Steve Blakley informed the group that the schedule for Exit 27 is to
have a May 2009 approval of the interchange with construction
starting in 2010.
• Steve Blakley asked if there is a benefit in the evaluation and
improvement of Exit 28 to include Exit 27 in the analysis. Jim Dunlop
indicated that since the interchange is not approved it would not be
considered at this time. However, in the IJR for Exit 27 it should be
mentioned and evaluated for the benefit of possibly reducing the
required improvements at Exit 28..
• Jim Dunlop indicated that the previous I-77 evaluation considered 12
lanes on 1-77 over the causeway: 8 lanes for the mainline operations
and 4 HOV lanes. Jim indicated that the HOV lanes were also
separated from the 1-77 mainline lanes.
Methodolo¢v
Teresa Gresham informed the group that at the October 2007 meeting
with NCDOT and FHWA it was determined that a preliminary
evaluation of Exits 23, 25, 28, 30 and the proposed Exit 27 be
performed. Teresa asked if a limited study of five interchanges is still
needed. Clarence indicated that in lieu of report, keep Joe and Ron in
the loop and updated on the results or analysis.

KimleyHorn Village at Lake Norman' FHWAMCDOT Meeting
and Associates, Inc. January 7, 2008, Page 5
DRAFT
Clarence recommended having meetings after interim milestones had
been achieved throughout the process.
- All stakeholders will be invited to upcoming meetings, and
can choose to attend based on the agenda for each meeting.
Those recommended for attendance at the meetings
include:
• Joe Geigle
• Ron Lucas
• Jim Dunlop
• Mohammed Islam
• Louis Mitchell
• Jonathan Guy indicated that Kimley-Horn had prepared a summary of
existing SPUI interchanges within the Charlotte area similar to the one
proposed at Exit 27.
• Jim Dunlop indicated that one example that could be used from the
Raleigh area is the South Point Mall Exit in Durham. The South Point
Mall interchange is similar to this project because of its geometry, but
has different traffic volumes than I-77. Jim indicated that the SPUI
interchange was not warranted based on traffic volumes but was a
requirement of approval by the Durham City Council.
• Jim Dunlop indicated that ITRE will be starting research for Pedestrian
Best Practices at a SPUI on January 9, 2008.
- This research is a 6 month process with NC State doing the
research (ITRE) - Bob Foyle will be heading the study.
• Jim indicated that the study focuses on pedestrians since bicycles at a
SPUI are typically treated like vehicles, so there is more concern about
pedestrians.
• Craig Gresham indicated that the modeling performed to date used the
2030 model since the 2035 model is not available for public
consumption since it is still under development. It will be adopted in
conjunction with the May 2009 air conformity deadline.
• FH WA indicated that the 2030 Horizon Year is okay for the IJR
modeling.
Clarence Coleman indicated that the Transportation Planning Branch
(Jonathan Parker) will need to review volumes and projections (get
confirmation prior to making projections).
Kimley-Horn
. _ and Associates, Inc.
Village at Lake Norman: FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
January 7, 2008, Page 6
DRAFT
Analysis Results
• Jonathan Guy indicated that traffic analysis had been prepared for the
five study interchanges, 1-77 links, ramp terminals, and merge and
diverge areas for the 2007 and 2012 horizon years.
Jonathan indicated that additional peak hour turning movement counts
were collected at Exits 23 and 30 since they were not a part of the
study area for the TIA. In addition, peak hour volume counts were
conducted for 1-77 from the Westmoreland Road grade separation.
The collected volumes were then balanced throughout the network.
Jonathan indicated that the results of the existing conditions analysis
revealed the need for additional lane(s) north and southbound along I-
77 to obtain an acceptable level of service.
• The results of the 2012 analysis with the proposed development
warrants the need for an additional through lane northbound and
southbound on 1-77 between Exits 30 and 25 with 2 additional through
lanes southbound between Exit 25 and 23.
Craig Gresham indicated that modeling analysis is being performed for
24 different scenarios. The scenarios included both background
scenarios, build-out scenarios with and without the proposed
interchange, and build-out scenarios evaluating concepts A and B with
multiple laneage configurations on I-77.
Craig indicated that the VHT and VMT difference reported is for the
entire MUMPO model.
Craig stated that based on the results collected thus far, the region
should maintain air quality conformity. This is validated by the
reduction in the VHT.
Craig also pointed out that Concept B had an increase in VMT above
Concept A.
Craig indicated that the Westmoreland interchange may pull traffic
from Exits 25 and 28, which will provide additional benefits such as
capacity longevity for these already overburdened interchanges.
Study Intersections
Jonathan Guy asked how mitigation would be determined for the ramp
terminals and ramp length/weave areas. For example, Exit 30 (Griffith
Street) has unsignalized ramps which currently fail. Jim Dunlop
indicated that Congestion Management has evaluated a multi-lane
roundabout for the southbound ramp. Recommendations should be
made for improving the operations. These recommendations may or
Kimley-Horn
I , and Associates, Inc.
Village at Lake Norman: FHWAMCDOT Meeting
January 7, 2008, Page 7
DRAFT
not be required for mitigation depending on their impact to the
mainline operations.
Steve Blakely asked if Exits 30 and 23 needed to be included in the
IJR. Mr. Coleman indicated that the policy indicates that at a
minimum the next adjacent interchange on either side needs to be
considered and that FHWA reserves the right to require additional
interchanges depending on the corridor and location the proposal
considers. Clarence indicated that given the corridor it would be good
to keep two interchanges (Exit 30 - Exit 23).
The following study area intersections will be considered in the
Interchange Justification Report (IJR) for Exit 27.
• Exit 30
- Only interchange ramps
• Exit 28
- W. Catawba Avenue @ Torrence Chapel Road
- W. Catawba Avenue @ I-77 SB Ramps
- W. Catawba Avenue @ I-77 NB Ramps
- W. Catawba Avenue @ US 21
Exit 25
- Sam Furr Road @ Northcross Drive
- Sam Furr Road @ I-77 SB Ramps
- Sam Furr Road @ I-77 NB Ramps
- Sam Furr Road @ US 21
• Exit 23
- Gilead Road @ 1-77 SB Ramps
- Gilead Road @ I-77 NB Ramps
- Gilead Road @ US 21
• Proposed Exit 27
- Westmoreland Road @ NB/SB Ramps
- Westmoreland Road @ US 21
US 21 @ Site Driveways
Kimley-Horn
C and Associates, Inc.
Construction/Schedule
Village at Lake Norman' FliWA/NCDOT Meeting
January 7, 2008, Page 8
DRAFT
Prior to the environmental analysis is the planning process, where the
project is added to the LRTP, and also the conformity analysis.
• Clarence Coleman stated that the interchange cannot be approved until
interchange has been added to LRTP and that the Town will need to be
a sponsor for this project to get it added to the LRTP.
• Steve Blakley indicated that the proposed Exit 27 has been on LRTP in
past version of the MUMPO LRTP. It did rank last due to perceived
benefit since it was to be publicly funded. For this and other reasons it
was removed from the LRTP between 1995 and 1999.
Steve Blakley indicated that since this is to be privately funded it does
not need a high ranking but with the low ranking it still needs to be
placed in a horizon year that allows it to be built by 2012 for
SAFETEA-LU compliance. Steve stated that we will be coordinating
with Bob Cook (MUMPO) on how to accomplish this.
• Clarence Coleman stated that this issue had been encountered with
Turnpike projects. Clarence indicated that the under the project
ranking and listing an asterisk is placed next to the projects indicating
the unique funding of the project. He recommended speaking with
Loretta Baron (FHWA) on the proper method of inclusion in the
LRTP.
Environmental Analysis/Operational Analysis
Steve Blakely asked if we could begin collecting the existing data now
for the environmental assessment. Clarence Coleman indicated that
data collection for the project's environmental assessment (species,
wetlands, streams) should be okay, although there is a risk in
beginning the environmental assessment before the interchange is
determined to be viable.
• Clarence Coleman recommended that the environmental analysis and
the operational analysis be scheduled after the town's approval of the
project.
Clarence indicated that the operational analysis is based on eight
controlling criteria to determine if the proposed interchange is viable.
However, even with meeting the eight controlling criteria an
interchange approval is not granted or guaranteed. Clarence indicated
that the NEPA environmental analysis must be approved prior to
FHWA approving the interchange, although FHWA may give a
conditional approval of the interchange contingent on the NEPA
document.
Kimley-Horn Village at Lake Norman: FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
_and Associates, Inc. anus y 7, 2008, Page 9
DRAFT
• Teresa Hart will be contacted to determine the role of NCDOT in
approving NEPA document, since this is a privately funded
interchange.
• Clarence Coleman indicated that the operation of an interstate is a
practical reason to impact a stream with a proposed interchange
alternative. Clarence recommended that all options be evaluated.
• Clarence recommended contacting The Army Corp of Engineers and
the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to notify them of the project.
• Clarence indicated that ICE documentation is a part of IJR; Bob
Deaton should be contacted for the standard protocol.
Public Meetings
Steve Blakley asked Clarence Coleman what classifies as a "public
meeting" since there has been several meetings with the surrounding
neighborhoods to the project as well as the public hearings required for
the rezoning of the property. Clarence indicated that the Project
Development and Environmental Analysis (PDEA) branch of NCDOT
would need to be contacted to get an official ruling on public
meetings. However, he recommended that all public forums be
documented for inclusion in the environmental assessment.
Miscellaneous
Jim Dunlop indicated that Congestion Management needs an
electronic copy of the TIA and a PDF of the report. Jonathan Guy
indicated that he would be forwarding the requested information to
Congestion Management. Having said that, Louis Mitchell indicated
that neither the District nor the Division would be making a formal
request to have the traffic study reviewed.
Steve Blakley asked how we should address the metering impact
within the IJR report since the causeway is not being proposed to be
widened. Clarence Coleman indicated that this "effect" on 1-77 had
been addressed in the past. Clarence referenced a letter that Len Hill
and Debbie Brantley sent to John Sullivan stating that "1-77 will be
improved by 2030." Clarence recommended that we follow the same
approach in the Exit 27 IJR.
End of Meeting Minutes
These minutes were prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. with the intent to capture the main body ofdiscussion with
supporting facts and results from the subject meeting, and to proceed and rely thereon. Should your recollection ofthe events
and discussion ofthis meeting ditrcr, please forward your revisions and/or additions to Jonathan Guy by 1/30/08 so that he may
amend and/or modify this summary to be more accurate. Thank you.

G M" Kimley-Horn
1=1 and Associates, Inc.
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: February 20, 2008
Village at Lake Norman: FIDAWNCDOT Meeting
February 20, 2008, Page I
Prepared By: Jonathan Guy, February 22, 2008
Attendees: Jim Dunlop (NCDOT- Congestion Management)
Mohammad Islam (NCDOT - Congestion Management)
Ryan White - NCDOTPDEA
Ron Lucas (FHWA -NC Division)
Joe Geigle (FHWA - NC Division)
Josh Rector (Bromont Developments, LLC)
Charles MacLean (CCM3 Architects, LTD)
Jonathan Guy, Steve Blakley, Teresa Gresham, Craig
Gresham (Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.)
Subject: Village at Lake Norman: FH WA/NCDOT Meeting
KHA Ref: 018350000
The following is a summary of the agenda, key points, and action items
discussed during the meeting.
AGENDA
• Introductions
• Overview of Project/project background
• Summary of modeling results:
o Existing Conditions
0 2012 Analysis
0 2030 Analysis
• Schedule
Kimley-Horn
___and Associates, Inc.
Village at Lake Norman: FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
February 20, 2008, Page 2
Overview of Project Status to Date/Pro]ect Background
Steve Blakley informed the group that the Town of Cornelius Town
Board has conducted meetings where this project has been considered
in January and February. The next meeting is scheduled for March 3`a
Approval is expected in April. The Planning Board unanimously
approved the plan
• The traffic study has been completed and submitted to the Town of
Cornelius, Town of Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, and NCDOT.
The Town has contracted with PB America to review the traffic study
on their behalf. PB America has issued a letter to the Town stating
their approval of the study and the methodology used.
• Jim Dunlop asked if the Town of Huntersville had been consulted in
the approval process. To date the team has meet with two members of
the Town Council. They both felt this was a positive application and
that this area was ripe for this level of development.
Mr. Dunlop is not convinced that a SPUI is the best operational
solution for this interchange if the volumes are not balanced for all
approaches. He feels that we may be over-building the interchange.
Mr. Blakley stated that the land constraints and environmental impacts
require the use of a SPUI. Justification for a SPUI will come as a part
of the IJR and EA.
Teresa Gresham stated that at the last meeting we discussed that we
would be looking at a 2030 horizon year for the proposed Exit 27
Summary of Modeling results
¦ Craig Gresham informed the group that the model numbers presented
at the January 7th meeting had been refined based on the groups input -
- Hand out 1
Mr. Gresham stated that the next step will be to translate observed
volumes and model results and develop turn forecasts for 2030. Main
challenge is trying to develop new turn volumes for a new interchange.
[Handout 2]
¦ Jim Dunlop stated that in looking at the handouts we see more volume
coming from the north than from the south. Is this correct? Mr.
Gresham stated that this is correct and it does seem counter intuitive.
If you are coming form the north, this is the first real gateway in the
area, one possible solution.
Mr. Gresham stated that there were different runs evaluated. The runs
included additional lanes on I-77 (2 lanes between Exit 28 and 25)
C ®n Kimley-Horn Village at Lake Noonan FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
and Associates, Inc. February 20, 2008, Page 3
t• .....
since the model cannot distinguish between auxiliary lane. Therefore,
we assume that we there is an additional lane added. Run 11 considers
2 through lanes in each direction.
Steve Blakley stated that since a final determination of laneage had not
been made what we have been telling people is that an additional will
be dropped on the outside lane at Exit 28 (drop lane).
• The analysis was refined or smoothed through the use of 48 volume
counts to determine the AM and PM percentage of the daily volumes.
• Steve Blakley stated that there will be an additional draw to I-77.
Looking at the volumes do we see anything that could be handled in
the proposed section? No concerns were immediately raised by the
group.
• Jonathan Guy presented the group with an overview of the other SPUI
in the Charlotte. - Mr. Dunlop requested that a copy be sent to him for
use with a statewide pedestrian study at SPUL
• Teresa Gresham suggested that KHA will email synchro files to
NCDOT and FHWA and then set-up a follow-up meeting to discuss
the results of the analysis.
• Jim Dunlop asked FH WA if they would you want to see one report
looking at all of the interchanges or break them out? Langtree, US 21,
and Brawley School Road were all tied together. Mr. Geigle
suggested that they discuss this internally before a decision is made.
• Steve Blakley stated that exit 27 does draw volumes from Exits 25 and
28 and that these numbers are based on MUMPO's own model.
Craig Gresham stated that the Synchro analysis needs to be submitted
to the group 3RD week of March.
• Jim Dunlop stated that once the analysis has been submitted then
NCDOT will take 30 days to review the information. A follow up
meeting will be scheduled for the 3rd week of April (April 24th)
Jim Dunlop stated that the quadrant left analysis should be finished in
the next 2 weeks. Jim has not exactly looked at the analysis.
Mohammed is not reviewing the files. NCDOT Congestion
Management will send update to Huntersville in the next 2 weeks.
C Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Village at Lake Norman: FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
February 20, 2008, Page 4
Mr. Dunlop stated that they will look at the volumes collected for Exit
28 that were compiled for the IMR at that interchange and see how
they relate to the volumes prepared for VLN. Jim stated that they
likely did not consider a SPUI at Westmoreland.
Craig Gresham stated that the only model changes we considered was
Exit 27 interchange and 1-77 laneage from the MUMPO model.
SCHEDULE
Steve Blakely stated that we are wanting to tie this process to the
LRTP schedule which calls for a May 2009 approval from FHWA.
We must also consider that an IJR and EA must be completed in this
timeframe. We also would like to start design in early 2010. With that
in mind are there issues in achieving that goal that we need to
consider.
Jim Dunlop stated that anything prepared before and official approval
is at your own risk. Congestion Management will try and get
approvals and feedback as quickly as possible.
• Steve Blakely stated that we will be looking for level of comfort from
group at 24'" meeting in April.
• Steve Blakely asked how long with the EA take? Mr. White with
PDEA stated that they should be able to review this on a quick
timeframe.
Mr. Blakely asked if we could start the EA process now? Data
collection, etc.
• Ryan White indicated that we could begin the overall data collection
now.
Teresa Gresham stated that writing the EA the project takes normally a
year. We have a new format and more flexibility in the development.
1 will develop a master schedule which will help.
Steve Blakely stated that the Town Board will ask the question, "Can
we get this accomplished in the timeframe laid out?". Yes we had
another meeting, early summer completion 2008; Winter 2009 EA
complete.
• Teresa Gresham asked with the 2009-2015 TIP will be finalized? Jim
Dunlop stated that he was not sure, but the DRAFT has been released.
C=n Kimley-Horn
__._ and Associates, Inc.
Village at Lake Norman' FH WA/NCDOT Meeting
Febmaq 20, 2008, Page 5
Teresa Gresham will follow up with NCDOT to see when this will
occur.
Jim Dunlop is very interested in Exit 28 and volumes. Will look at
volumes this afternoon. If a real difference then we can send the
volumes to them.
Jim Dunlop stated that we need to get NCDOT modeling to bless the
model numbers. Should expect Exit 28 volumes to be higher since the
Exit 27 was not considered. We need to coordinate with Jonathan
Parker. Ryan will coordinate with Jonathan this week.
Ryan White will send the final meeting list to Teresa today
(2.20.2008). (PDEA, Roadway, modeling, etc.)
End of Meeting Minutes
Kimley-Horn
C I and Associates, Inc.
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: April 24, 2008
Prepared By: Jonathan Guy,
Village at Lake Norman: FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
April 24, 2008, Page I
Attendees: Jim Dunlop (NCDOT- Congestion Management)
Mohammad Islam (NCDOT - Congestion Management)
Joe Geigle (FHWA - NC Division)
Josh Rector (Bromont Developments, LLC)
Charles MacLean (CCM3 Architects, LTD)
Tim Stephens, Whiting-Turner
Bryon Willoughby, P.E.
Jonathan Guy, Steve Blakley, Lance Estep, Craig Gresham
(Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.)
Subject: Village at Lake Norman: FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
KHA Ref: 018350000
The following is a summary of the agenda, key points, and action items
discussed during the meeting.
AGENDA
• Introductions
Overview of Project/project background
Summary of modeling results
Interchange Analysis
0 Schedule
Kimley-Horn Village at Lake Norman' FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
C. and Associates, Inc. April 24, 2008, Page 2
PROJECT OVERVIEW
• Steve Blakley gave an update on the rezoning of the property and
indicated that the property was rezoned last night after nine council
meetings.
• Steve indicated that the Town, through the approval of the
rezoning, was in support of the project and will be assisting in the
LRTP ranking of the project.
• Jonathan Guy stated that now with the rezoning, KHA will be
submitting the TIA to Congestion Management for review and
comment.
• Jim Dunlop indicated that they looked forward to the review of the
project and appreciated the upfront communication with the project
thus far.
MODEL OVERVIEW
• Craig Gresham indicated that KHA has gone through and revised
the VLN model projections to match those prepared for the EXIT
28 analysis being prepared by NCDOT.
• Jim Dunlop indicated that they are more comfortable now that the
volumes are consistent. Jim also indicated that the final approval
will come from Transportation Planning Branch and not
Congestion Management.
• Craig indicated that the projections have been re-run and new
Catawba Avenue volumes have been developed.
• Craig indicated that KHA was preparing a model protocol report to
be submitted to NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch (Debbie
Hutchings).
INTERCHANGE ANALYSIS
Jonathan Guy indicated that based on the revised traffic
projections, new turning movement volumes were developed. The
turning movement volumes were based on the existing peak hour
and 24-hour counts conducted for the ramps.
• Jonathan summarized the results of the analysis and indicated that
this was an initial evaluation of the five (5) study interchanges and
that the weave, main line, ramp terminal analysis would be
submitted later.
C Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Village at Lake Norman: FHWA/NCDOT Meeting
April 24, 2008, Page 3
• Joe Geigle indicated that some of the analysis did not match what
was provided in the report.
• Steve asked the group if they saw any red flags that may terminate
the project prior to moving forward.
• Joe indicated that the only issue he noted, and this would not likely
terminate the project, was that he did not see the benefit in the
interchange as he originally had envisioned.
• Steve Blakely stated that we are wanting to tie this process to the
LRTP schedule which calls for a May 2009 approval from FHWA.
We must also consider that an.IJR and EA must be completed in
this timeframe. We also would like to start design in early 2010.
• Those present did not foresee anything that would prohibit this
goal.
• Joe indicated that he appreciated the upfront coordination with this
project and that this would help in the review of the IJR. Joe also
stated that from this point forward all communication should come
from NCDOT.
• The group acknowledged Joe's request.
• A follow-up meeting was not scheduled.
End of Meeting Minutes

2005 Model Volumes
eFT
h
0 A pVE
GA
?h?Rcy
- 15800
y
12
60
0

JETTONROPD 2
°`PO
O
1000
0
0
0
C14 N

? >

j0?
o Z Py
?
OHO
Epp 4800
OR NO RO ° 'FA
NS
M
YdESj g300 F
NG
2 °° ?P??y? `C
w

>
O
P
a
a o° Tk
1p00
Co AYES RD
4400
U (A
i

< o
r
m °
°
0
o? ?y 30500
o
° SAM FURR ROAD
9°°
?ry
r
?O??P 4OP 2 500 16100
c
GO?
h
OsS` '
o
`a
OP o
Source: MRM072 12/21/2007

2030 Model Volumes
eFT
y
8?0 yG'Pcy,?o CP?a?oOP AvE ?7080
JS V10% RO
O
25500
th ?? N >9G
a° 2
=o `? 0? P5?P1o O? 16000
N y ? ?
O RO NL
E? pN 26000
YdES.1M0
1920 , ,tp ??`
3 000 ago mP???? o ?o
w 0 66 moo
N?
Q
Q oo ?? pA1
? o
0
Q `? o ES RD
V Z 5000
n
X50
m cn
00 < to
m r o
°o o0 0
M
O ?
shoo sQ 40000 ?? SAM FURR ROAD
y Dp Sp 35800
27400
Go4o 'Pry0,
4
Op?? w
ource: MRM072 1212112007
ed lines are roads built after 2005

2030 Model Volumes
1-77 Interchange with Westmorelan d
(red dotted lines)
eFT
y
?
yGQ
CA PV
13N pVE
1g' 0p
?
cyy
3
25
O
JETjotA ROAD s°O
0
25400
M by N
C4 ,9L
?•

O? h O ?-
Qtf bOp °° OHO "
?
°
(RD EXS
2 'o A? p5
? j N?
^ gpJ??15?pp
o S
0 9
192
E?pNORO o° 28000 NL
O
VvE51 M p00 °•
22
a ??
`?? F
?
3 0
2? oo PO
o O
>
0

m ?
0
Q w ° j ES RD
v z 4500

1*1 to
D n

m -4
M
< i

w
0o m o a
J
A o°
39400 SAM FURR ROAD
??p?S Lot,
?L 6300 27300
CD
yO
SSO
,P o
o
ource: MRM072 1212112007
ad lines are roads built after 2005

2030 Model Volumes
1-77 Interchange with Westmorelan d and includes Villag a LKN
(red dotted lines)
eFr
y
8?
yOR
CATAWBA AvE
78600
0
Cy
,Q? 25200
I
JERON ROAD O
O
25600

M yy G
N
FO N

O? c,
?? 9L
a0 00 F
F
U
Z
b
o? N O Q
?`?DO
?P
o t
d
oo OHO
?-1D
?
2
? AZ 1,P5
,? N?
. ppp
6At1'E
1
0 y
Rp 275000 rPG
31000
ESSM O
5500 ?' .

Qa
A

F
5 00
0o
OP r
Ow
uJ
> p o
o
°o
¢ N
M r°o MCP ?i1
35pp
o
o -4
ES RD
v
U) Z 4700
n
800
M
<
m
0o
m w
o° w
70
v 0°

39500
0
SAM FURR ROAD
4 o
O
??D 'pr 6 00
27300
yc?
0co
p`- O ? a
dsO
,P
O???O o
ource: MRM072 12/21/2007
ad lines are roads built after 2005
6
MECKLENBURG COUNTY-NC
2003 NOV 14 09:00 AM
BK:15433 PG:9B6-996 FEE:$35. 00
INSTRUMENT # 2003271531
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 2003271531
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA PERMANENT CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
PERMANANT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
by and between
MECKLENBURG COUNTY ("Grantor")
and the
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ("Grantee")
November 11, 2003
Drawn by and mail to:
Mr. Marvin A. Bethune
Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune, L.L.P.
831 East Morehead Street, Ste.860
Charlotte, NC 28202
Register of Deeds Box 24
Permanent Conservation Easement
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. Grading, filling, excavating, dredging,
mining, drilling or the removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals, or other
materials on or from the Protected Property by the Grantor shall be limited to the extent
necessary for the protection and well-being and safety of the general public, including
property and the proper function of the Protected Property.
L. Vegetative Cutting. Cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any vegetation
on the Protected Property by the Grantor shall be limited to the extent necessary for the
protection, well-being and safety of Grantor, and Grantor's property, and for the protection,
well-being and safety of the general public, including property and the proper functioning of
the Protected Property.
M. Utilities. Through, over, under and across the Protected Properties, the following
conditions shall apply:
1. All existing utility easements and facilities are exempt from the requirements
described below.
2. Pipeline and utility line construction will be minimized to the greatest extent
reasonably practicable.
3. All disturbed facilities; features and vegetation will be restored to their original
condition to the greatest extent reasonably practicable. Due to the environmental
sensitivity of the Protected Property, disturbed and removed vegetation in access areas,
staging areas, constructed areas, excluding the permanent utility easement, will be
replaced with herbaceous species such that the Protected Property achieves a rapid
recovery from the disturbance. The permanent utility easement will be revegetated
with suitable grass vegetation.
4. Corridor and clearing width for both crossings and parallel construction will be limited
to the minimum necessary to construct the needed facilities, subject to line size,
equipment size and work zone. The temporary construction easements will be
revegetated with native herbaceous species at the completion of construction.
5. Utility construction will minimize the disturbance of structures used for grade control,
habitat. and bank stabilization. If disturbance occurs in order to provide service, the
structure will be restored to its original condition to the greatest extent reasonably
practicable.
6. Permanent utility easement corridors will be minimized to the greatest extent
reasonably practicable and are limited to fifteen (15) to thirty (30) feet in width
depending upon pipeline size and depth.
7. Vegetative clearing and general construction disturbance will be minimized to the
greatest extent reasonably practicable.
8. Crossings will be perpendicular to the greatest extent reasonably practicable.
9. Crossings will be accomplished by drilling, boring and jacking methods to the greatest
extent reasonably practicable. When crossings must be constructed using open trench
excavation, temporary discharge of excavated or fill material will be minimized in both
quantity and duration to the greatest extent reasonably practicable.
10. Erosion control devices shall be utilized to contain all disturbed materials and will
conform to State requirements. Crossing of the waterway, wetland or other water
feature will be accomplished in a timely manner such that environmental and flooding
impact is minimized to the greatest extent reasonably practicable.
11. Depth of underground construction shall be to a sufficient depth to avoid future
exposure due to scouring to the greatest extent reasonably practicable.
WRP Four Mile Creek Stream Restoration
Page 3 of 6
• Permanent Conservation Easement
12. Utilities constructed parallel to stream corridors will be a minimum of twenty (20) feet
from the top of streambank unless explicit exception is granted. The area between the
utility and the top of streambank shall remain undisturbed except at crossings.
The Grantee, and authorized representatives of the Grantee, shall have the right to enter
the Protected Property at all reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore, manage,
maintain, enhance, and monitor the wetland and riparian resources of the Protected Property.
These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation except within
permanent utility easements, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to
grade, fill, and prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of
natural and manmade materials as needed to direct in-stream, above ground, and subterraneous
water flow. All grading and filling operations and use of heavy equipment in and across the
permanent utility easements will require prior approval of the utility in order to ensure no damage
is done to the utility facilities. In addition, the Grantee, and authorized representatives of the
Grantee, shall have the right to enter the Protected Property at all reasonable times for the
purpose of inspecting said property to determine if the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is consistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor shall not vary from the above restrictions without first obtaining written
approval from the Grantee.
IV. MAINTENANCE AND OTHE PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES
A. The County, at the sole discretion of County, may refrain from any and all maintenance if,
in the belief of the County, a project initiated under this Agreement is progressing through
a natural evolutionary succession that may or may not include vegetation, subterranean
water, surface water and wildlife diversity.
B. County allowable actions may include, but are not limited to, blockage removal, debris
removal, removal of excess vegetation, clearing of undesirable vegetation and nuisance
species, replacement of dead or damaged vegetation, installation of flood control measures,
installation or removal of any or all facilities should their function threaten the health and
well being of the general public, m o continue to
provide flood management, an installation of greenway trails and boardwalks r public
benefit and education.
C. In the event of a natural disaster or civil strife, State during the warranty period and
County after the warranty period may elect to not restore a project initiated under this
Agreement to a functional condition. .
V. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A- In the event that Grantee determines that Grantor has violated or is threatening to violate
any of these terms, conditions, or restrictions, the Grantee may institute a suit to enjoin
such violation and if necessary, to require the restoration of the Protected Property to its
prior condition at the Grantor's expense.
WRP Four Mile Creek Stream Restoration
Page 4 of 6
Permanent Conservation Easement
B. No failure on the part of Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision hereof shall
discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or provision hereof
or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a subsequent breach or
default.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This Conservation Easement shall be construed to promote the purposes of North Carolina
General Statute §143-214.8 et sea., the Wetlands Restoration Program.
B. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Permanent Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations,
understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is
found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of the Permanent Conservation
Easement, and the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than
those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown below or to other address(es) as either party establishes in
writing upon notification to the other:
GRANTOR
Mecklenburg County
600 East 4th Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
GRANTEE
State of North Carolina
State Property Office
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-8003
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address of any party to whom the
Protected Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said
transfer is made. Grantor further agrees to make any subsequent lease, deed, or other
legal instrument by which any interest in the Protected Property is conveyed subject to the
Conservation Easement herein created.
VII. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all rights accruing from ownership of the Protected Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in those uses of the Protected Property
that are not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not inconsistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Grantor expressly
reserves to Grantor, and Grantor's heirs, successors, assigns, invitees and licensees, the right of
access to the Protected Property, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the Protected Property.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for
the aforesaid purposes.
WRP Four Mile Creek Stream Restoration
Page 5 of 6
" Permanent Conservation Easement
AND Grantor covenants that they are seized of said Protected Property in fee and have the
right to convey the permanent easement herein granted; and that it will warrant and defend title
to the same against the claims of all persons whomsoever, except for holders of prior
encumbrances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, or if corporate,
has caused this instrument to be signed in its corporate name by its duly authorized officers and
its seal to be hereunto affixed by authority of its Board of County Commissioners, the day and year
first above written.
Clerk of the Board
CAROLINA, MECKLENBURG COUNTY
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that
Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged
the execution of the foregoing instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of 2003.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board
NORTH CAROLINA, MECKLENBURG COUNTY
(SEAL)
I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that
, Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged
the execution of the foregoing instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of 2003.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
WRP Four Mile Creek Stream Restoration
Page 6 of 6
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG
This 1('U, day of --/tfPJ-T9( ZXA) , 20 Q 3 , personally came
before me QkNe(--L, lej" k5, , a notary public of said County and State, Janice S.
Paige, who by me duly sworn says that she knows the common seal of said County of
Mecklenburg, and is acquainted with Harry L. Jones, Sr. who is the County Manager of said
County; and that she, the said Janice S. Paige, is the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of
said County, and that she the said Clerk as aforesaid, affixed said seal to said instrument, and
that she the said Janice S. Paige signed her name in attestation of the execution of said
instrument.
my hand and seal.
7fpua CoU? i
My Commission Expires:
ota Public
y. , .
JUDITH A. GIBSON
REGISTER OF DEEDS, MECKLENBURG
COUNTY & COURTS OFFICE BUILDING
720 EAST FOURTH STREET
CHARLOTTE, NC 28202
11ffI11fYYflffflfHfffflffYYtlffkllflH411if tYYYHkYf1111fflftt4t .............*.HYftk f Y Yl HtttYYYl Ykkf 1f 1f 11Hftt114H!
Filed For Registration: 11/14/2003 09:00 AM
Book: RE 16433 Page: 988-996
Document No.: 2003271531
ESMT 9 PGS $35.00
Recorder: LYVANH PHETSARATH
f1ff141ffffNflHlf YYftfffff if lllf4Yl Yf Yf fYf Hff1111ff1YYfffYf H111f1f1flff HtfffHlfffYHf Hffff111l1f Yff Yfffflf ffff4Y4
State of North Carolina, County of Mecklenburg
The foregoing certificate of JANET R WEAKS Not (j is rEifie tAbec e ct. This 14TH of November 2003
JUDITH A. GIBSON, REGISTER OF DEEDS By:?
Deputy/Assistant Register of Deeds
.HH1M.lHlfHH.fN.H H..lHf:H1111111ff11f1f f!f Hf.H.1H11.H1..111f4f 11111f.Hff.f f HH1f lffiiHafHHIH1HYHf
2003271531