getting off easily. Hopefully this last one has potential to be presented. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the city council and the county board of commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those of you who do wish to speak, please state your name and address clearly when you come to the podium. Please speak clearly and into the microphone. Each side, those speaking in favor of an item and those speaking in opposition into an item will have 10 minutes each to present their side and that time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. May we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Alturk? Here. Commissioner Johnson? Present. Commissioner Gouche? Present. Commissioner Brown? Present. Commissioner Satterfield? Present. Commissioner Harris? Present. Chair Busby? Present. Commissioner Hyman? Vice Chair Hyman has requested an excuse absence. Commissioner Miller? Here. Commissioner Kinshin? Present. Commissioner Hornbuckle? Present. Commissioner Van? Commissioner Van is also requesting an excuse absence. Commissioner Gibbs? Present. Commissioner Freeman? Great, thank you. Yes? Mr. Chair, I move that Commissioners Hyman and Van be excused. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? The motion passes. We will move to approval of the minutes and the consistency statements from the September 12, 2017 meeting. Yes, Commissioner Bryan? Do you want the corrections prior to a motion? Please. Any corrections would be welcome. On page two of the minutes, case Z1700008, I think the motion was to recommend the approval of the case with the additional pro offer that was made concerning a setback from the six houses next to the property. With regard to the consistency statement, my take on the matter is that this statement in the minutes is wrong, that the request is not consistent with the plan. And the reason I say that is that even though we had approved and recommended approval of the plan amendment, counsel hadn't voted on it yet. And until counsel votes on it, it's not been approved. And therefore, the zoning case is not consistent. Staff, Mr. Bryan, you're actually correct. We can make that change. I think that was an oversight. We'll take care of it. Thank you. And then on the next case down the Anger Avenue residential, I think we should probably know that if we continue, our usual custom is that Commissioner Freeman voted no. And if I may, while we're on the things on the written comments for Bryan, the very first sentence or the second sentence in my comment is a plan amendment request is pending. The is pending got left out. Thank you. Any other additions or revisions to the minutes or the consistency statement? And I had one other from my comments under the Ellis Road Townhouses. So this is the very first set of comments. My last sentence says six exiting neighborhood residential properties that should be six existing. But if hearing nothing else, I will consider a motion. Mr. Chairman. The approval is corrected. Second. Great. Moved by Commissioner Bryan, seconded by Commissioner Miller. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Adjustments to the agenda. Ms. Smith. Good evening. On Grace Smith Planning Department, I do not know of any reason to adjust the agenda. And staff would affirm that all legal notice requirements have been carried out in accordance with local and state law. And those affidavits are in our office to prove such. And we will make the changes to the minutes and the written comments and we'll resend those out to you guys via email if that's all right. That's great. Thank you. I move the approval of the agenda as presented. Second. Moved by Commissioner Bryan, seconded by Commissioner Harris. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? Great. The motion passes. We will move on to our sole public hearing of the evening. This is a zoning map change Z1700011. This is the 5275 North Roxboro Street. And we'll start with the staff report. Thank you. Good evening, Jamie Sonjak. With the Planning Department, I will be presenting case number Z1700011, 5275 North Roxboro Street. The applicant is Tim Cybers with Horvath Associates. The property is located within the city's jurisdiction. The zoning request is from CN to CG with a development plan. The site is 1.131 acres. And the proposed use is 10,000 square foot building. Our use is permitted within the CG zoning district. This is the aerial map. The site is located within the suburban development tier. It is highlighted in hatched red. And within the Neuse River Basin. The site is adjacent to commercial center, including a food line grocery store as well as McDonald's, fast food restaurant, and other commercial uses along Roxboro Street. Sorry if you can't see this map very clearly, but this is the existing conditions map that is within the development plan. Again, the site is 1.131 acres. It is located on the west side of North Roxboro Street. And it is located within the EB overlay district. The property contains a vacant Burger King building, surface parking lot, and an existing driveway off to North Roxboro Street. This is the future land use map. And it shows that the property is located within the commercial future land use designation, which is consistent with the rezoning request. These are the context maps that show the existing zoning designation and the proposed. The applicant has submitted an application to change the zoning from CN to CG, which is shown on the right in purple hatched. The request has been reviewed by staff and found to be consistent with the requirements of the unified development ordinance. In terms of the requested district, again, the applicant has committed on development plan to no greater than 10,000 square foot building for all uses permitted within the commercial general zoning district. They have also committed to a maximum and previous coverage that is allowed in the EB overlay zone of 70% and shown the tree coverage area of 10%. This is the proposed conditions or the development plan, which again commits to the size of the building, the building, and parking envelopes, the tree coverage areas, the project boundary buffers, and the multiple access points. In terms of commitments, there are two transportation related commitments. One is related to a right of way dedication for the widening of North Roxboro to accommodate a funded TIP project. And the second deals with a bus pullout and a bus shelter on the west side of North Roxboro adjacent to the site. The other commitments deal with design commitments relative to the style of the building, roof materials, and any architectural features. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of being consistent with the commercial form. It is contiguous with other commercial development and compatible with other surrounding uses. There is adequate water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure to support the development. There are proffers relative to roadway improvements that deal with prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancies in accordance with DC DOT and the city of Durham. And the proposal is consistent with policy 8.14D. The staff determines that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances. And I just wanted to point out two typos, both on page two, one referred to Roxboro Road and not Roxboro Street. And the second concrete was spelled wrong. So I'll make those corrections in the staff report. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have at this time. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Ms. Sanyak. We will now move to the public hearing. And we'll open the public hearing. We have one individual signed up speaking for. And that's the only person signed up so far. If anyone else would like to sign up, please let me know. Mr. Tim Sivers. Good evening, Tim Sivers, 16 consultant place, Durham, North Carolina, Horvath Associates. First of all, I'd like to congratulate Chair Bosby on your switching seats, if you will. I do want to start off tonight with letting you know that the developer or property owner is here sitting next to me tonight. So if you have any questions for him, he's available. It can be available as well. As Jamie went over a few items, the site is one parcel. It is over 1.1 acres located just south of the Latter Road and 15501 intersection. It is the vacant Burger King site. It is surrounded by the commercial land uses. And the site along the right way does have a currently funded NCDOT projects for improvements at the Latter Road and 15501 intersection. For a reference, you did hear a case last month, which is right about 300 feet south of this property. We did mail a letter out to the neighborhood property owners and neighborhood organizations. About two weeks ago, I sent a letter out. I know the city sends letters out, but I wanted to make sure the neighbors and the neighborhood organizations had my contact information. I did get a few calls back and a few emails back. The majority of the questions were, what's it going to be? What are your intentions? But there was no outright opposing of the development of the rezoning. And to be honest, most were actually excited to see this Burger King being redeveloped. The request in front of you tonight is for commercial neighborhood zone to be changed to commercial general zone. There are no changes to the future land use map. The development plan is committing to right-of-way dedication for the NCDOT funded project, 10,000 square foot maximum building area, landscape buffers, and tree coverage areas as 70% maximum pervious area, which is actually a reduction from what it is today, as well as building design commitments. I'm available for any questions if you guys have any. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Seivers. Would anyone else like to speak? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and move to commissioners. I'll start to my right if any commissioners would like to speak. Can we have the record reflect that Commissioner Freeman has stepped in? Yes, welcome. Commissioner Alturk, Commissioner Johnson. Great, Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. I have two questions, one for staff and one for the applicant. First is about the general notes here. It says under general note number three, the applicant agrees to construct said improvements prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. And it includes things like pavement markings, roadway improvements, bike lanes. But we typically, I guess, see those on a development plan. Maybe I'm missing something. So I'm wondering about that. And that's related to another thing that I have for staff, which is, how is this plan consistent with the comprehensive bicycle transportation plan that you're on in table one? Again, I don't see anything on the development plan that would show that, would indicate that. So that's the question for staff. Should I ask? And for the applicant, I typically base my decisions on the zoning designation and not necessarily what's going to be on the site. But it is, when you go out there, you see a car wash, an abandoned one, right across the street from this one. So I guess I'm curious if you've looked into other possibilities, aside from building a car wash right across from one that is no longer operating. Thank you. Let's start with the staff, Mr. Judge. Yes, Bill Judge, transportation. The bi-referencing roadway improvements general note that you cited on the cover sheet, that is a standard note that we ask all applicants to provide whenever they are potentially making roadway improvements. In this case, the roadway improvements would be the transit improvements for the bus stop, bus shelter in the text commitment number one. So it's a rather comprehensive note covering every potential roadway improvement. So that's why there's references to pavement markings, bicycle lanes, and that such. And in this particular case, those features probably would not apply. As it relates to the comprehensive bicycle plan, this corridor is obviously designated for roadway improvements and for bicycle improvements. There is a funded NCDOT-TIP project at the intersection of Roxborough-Latta-Infinity. And as part of that project, the city's been working with NCDOT to basically provide a shared path along the west side of the road from the intersection at Roxborough-Latta-Infinity south to the Eno Park. So those improvements would likely be done by NCDOT as part of that TIP project. OK. But we don't know when that project is going to get underway or? Well, they're finishing. They had a public meeting last week on the project to gain feedback. So they're going through the environmental process. And I don't have the exact date in front of me. But they're looking to proceed to design right away and construction in the next two to three years. Mr. Savers? Tim Savers. Yes, thank you for your question. The site right across the street. And let me clarify. We are rezoning to a CG. The intended use is for a car wash. The owner here, he runs the Autorific, which is on Hillsborough now. And there's multiple sites throughout Durham. So that is our intended use to clarify. And thank you for your question. The site across the street actually is operational. It actually looks vacant. I promise you ours will not look vacant when it is operational. The, I believe, those bays on that side are actually the older style of the get out and power wash your own vehicle. I think there's maybe one of the drive-throughs. This style is the new tunnel drive-through, like the standard Autorific style. OK. Thank you. Yes, sir. All done? Yep. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chairman. Quick question again for Mr. Cyvers. Did I say that right? Cyvers, yes. So the application states that no more than 70% of the parcel will be impervious. Could you inform me of the current site conditions? What percentage of the area is impervious? It's about 72%. And so do you have a target of impervious? The nature of the site for your plan developed redesign or redevelopment? 71.85, to be precise, sir, is the existing. So we are reducing it about 2%. We're working on layouts now. And having calculated the impervious coverage, I don't know what it'll be, but we'll commit to the reduction. And one follow-up question, additional question. Could you share the thought process in deciding to go with the car? I'm just curious as to what was the genesis of the nature of going with car wash versus other potential uses for the redevelopment of that? This owner and developer is a car wash developer. As simple as that. Commissioner Satterfield. Thank you. Just as a matter of interest, probably more than anything. And whether the staff can field this or the developer, just as a matter of interest, again, what is the process for managing the wastewater coming from the car wash? Does it just go through the city's sewer system? The owner will be able to answer that a little more clearer than I will. And sir, if you don't mind stating your name and address, please. Sure. My name is Dale Reynolds. I live at 105 Abbotsville Court in Durham. I am the owner of Autorific Car Washes. I'm also a manufacturer of car wash systems also. So we're very much involved in water conservation. I'm past president of the North Carolina Professional Car Wash Association. And we actually got a law passed back in 2009 on water conservation for car washes. So all of our facilities are certified at water conserving facilities here in Durham and at our other facilities as well. So great question that you asked there. So we will not only be recycling some process water, but we'll be also reclaiming the dirty water, filtering it, reusing it, and all as well. So our water will be tremendously less than, say, a home car washer. We'll be using about 20% of the water that the average person uses to wash their car at home. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I intend to vote for this rezoning. In my view, it is consistent with our comprehensive plan that's consistent with the future land use map, which shows this general area is commercial. It is a commercial node at the corner of Lada and Roxburgh Roads. And this property is nestled comfortably within the commercial node. My favorite because it is the redevelopment of property in the node instead of an expansion of the node, which is what we normally see. You have heard me from this seat in other cases.  To me, this is ideal. I note that the developer has limited the building on the property to 10,000 square feet, which is relatively low intensity for CG. And I'm assuming he is asking for CG because car washes probably aren't allowed in CN. It's not that he wants to build as big as CG allows. It's because there is a use that's available in one category that's not available in the other. But having said that, I note that there is no requirement that the property be used for car wash. And I rather like the idea that although I hope the car wash is successful, if it is not, the zoning that he's asked will continue to govern the property in what I believe is an appropriate step down in intensity from the shopping center, which is directly in the quadrant there at Lanna and Roxboro as we move south so that the node appropriately gets less intense at its edges. I note also that the 10,000 square feet that they have limited themselves to is probably not terribly inconsistent with the deposed Burger King building that is there now. And so it doesn't represent that big a change, even if it does represent a change in use. I also note that the 10,000 square feet is proportionately not too far off the 20,000 square feet that we recently approved on a piece of property just a little bit further south, which had issues that in my opinion, in dealing with environmental sensitivity and its proximity to the park that are not present here. So I like it for that reason too. I also note that the traffic impact over the existing designation is relatively small and that this proposal isn't really going to impact a nearby residential neighborhood, certainly not anymore than the former fast food restaurant did. So for all of those reasons, I'm going to vote in favor. Great, thank you, Commissioner Miller. And I do want to point out, I know this was no accident, you used the phrase deposed Burger King. And I thank you for that. Commissioner Horne Buckle. Yes, sir. I want to go on record. I am in support of this project. I did have one question for you is concerning, do you still have the access on the backside that comes in down into the food line shopping center? What I remember from Burger King, you could get back, there was a little strip of a way of some access to get onto the bottom and backside of the shopping center there. Yeah, on the map on our proposed development plan map, see the connection actually to the south? That does actually wrap around the back of the food line. So there is interconnection back to the food line. I was hoping that it was still going to be that way. And my next question is going to be for staff with the transportation. I did not attend the meeting last week on the public hearing for the, but I had numerous people calling and asking me that I know anything about it. And it looks like it's going to be a cluster right there with what they want to do. The way they want to shift everything, you go north and making a turn lane at Oak Forest Drive and making a turn lane at Omega Road. That looks like that would be harmful to this man's business here of just trying to, it's tough getting in and out through there. And that's the concern I have. But I'm in full support of the project. I appreciate that, sir. Yes, we have looked at that and taken that into account. Currently, the proposed design will allow access, southbound access to our site. It will not allow northbound access. There is a leftover type intersection as the term at the McDonald's. So if someone coming northbound could enter in at the McDonald's, come back around the food line back and up through that access to the south. Okay, well, I was going to say, I don't know, it just sounds like, and I've investigated many, many wrecks in my years with the Sheriff Department and that just sounds like, from what I've heard and seen of the design plan, that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen in that area. And I just, I think it would be, it's gonna hurt the businesses that are in that section right there. Well, I believe NCDOT is still taking comments on it. So please, I've provided a few comments myself. So please, yeah, reach out to them and there is an online version to provide comments as well. So I encourage you to provide the comments and whoever's reached out to you, have them go to the site and provide comments as well. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Hurnbuckle. Anything staff would like to add? No. We'll move to Commissioner Gibbs. I keep forgetting, I don't pull on this saying or you'll break it. And I'm in hot for enough as it is. This Roxborough Road, Ladder Road, that whole area being renovated, it is going to impact several businesses and it's going to cause residents some concerns until they get used to having to come up with some new routing. But that being said, that's just another thing. It's up to your business and all the other businesses to work it out. And from the information I received from the public, I'll call it the public viewing of this renovation, it really doesn't matter. It is the way it's going to be. So let's all resign ourselves to the fact that we're going to be, it's going to be a big change in that area. But that said, and I wanted to get that in somewhere, I do have a question, and I don't know if this would, is this car wash in any way slated to replace, displace or anything, either of the other two car washes across the street? No, sir, they are owned by different operators. Yeah. Yeah, this project meets all of the requirements of the land use, the zoning and all of that. But I am going to state my opinion, to me it's a disappointing use for a development when there are other things that would benefit North Durham more than another car wash. I'm sure it's going to be fun to go through and have a clean car and all of that, but it is a disappointment to me and I wish you the best of luck. I don't see any problems with it. I will support it because it does meet the rezoning requirements. And that's the end of my comments, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Commissioner Gibbs, any other commissioners? Commissioner Johnson. A couple of follow up questions, if I can remember.  So for the two other car washes that has been said to be in the area, do we know the, can you provide the zoning designation for those two parcels? Off the top of my head, I cannot. One across the street as you see. I can tell you if you look at the contacts map, it tells you what the zoning is and... Okay, I'm sorry. Our colleagues here are helping me out. It's GC. Across the street is GC, directly across the street and then south of Omega Road is also GC and the surrounding areas are CN. And so that's how I would just come curious just to the nature of, I think you raised a good point. I mean, I'm in support of the projects for the reasons that my peers on the panel here has noted. So I just want to clarify a point that Commissioner Miller raised. And he said that in approving the zoning designation from a CG to a CN to a CG, that in the event that this project doesn't work out, that we reduce the potential maximum impact and that it should be the reverse, correct? So what I was referring to, if I may, Mr. Chairman. You may, Commissioner Mellon. What I was referring to is that this development plan does not limit this use to a car wash. It would be this property in the future, this rezoning goes through, will be available to any of the uses under CG and also would be under the CG dimensional requirements which are considerably less restrictive than CN, except for the fact that they have limited the size of the building to 10,000 square feet. If this had just been a request for ordinary CG, I might have had a little problem with it because I like to see commercial nodes step down as you go away from the center so that there is a transition rather than from commercial to residential. In this instance, the residential property being the West Point on the Eno Park. And so I would have been a little worried about expanding the general commercial area at the expense of the commercial neighborhood. But because this development plan does have a limitation of 10,000 square feet, it will survive with this zoning even if the car wash doesn't survive. I'm untroubled by this request to go from CN to CG because it really what it does is it permits a widening of the range of uses but not a range, a widening of the potential development intensity on the property. That's why I'm in favor of it. Anything to add, staff? I don't know that I could say any better or different than Mr. Miller. There's no commitment on the development plan specific to the car wash. So it's really up to the applicant in terms of if this rezoning request gets approved, they have the option to build any of the uses that are permitted within the zone with the limitation on the building size and all of the other restrictions within the CG district standards. I really don't think there's anything else to add with respect to that. Great, thank you. Commissioner Johnson, any additional questions? So that was very, I was trying to clarify that I heard correctly. So thank you for that clarification. And I just make the reiterate the point that I ramble through initially. And I do see Commissioner Gibbs sentiments in regards to the proposed use of the site for another car wash in the sense that I don't know the thought process of the best and highest use assessment that was done in the sense that came down to it being a car wash. What will likely happen given the state of nature of the one across the street is that it probably won't be as viable as it is now. And my colleague thought it was the pump right now. So it just raises the question though, well, what will happen to those sites? And given that it's commercial general as it looks to be on the map here, it's a question of what are we gonna do with that site, et cetera, et cetera. But nevertheless, I'm in favor of the project for the simple fact that it does meet the Future Land Use Map and aligns with the zoning requirements and all that good stuff. So thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Freeman. Just a quick question. Is there a process in place where you would be able to reach out to those other car washes to at least figure out where they stood? I mean, in a similar sense to like a resident meeting, like is there a way to at least let the businesses know what's happening? Well, there is a requirement under the statute that we notify property owners within 600 feet regarding rezoning requests. A number of them are included within that area. So it is not our requirement to contact individual businesses, but if they fall within the specific distance requirement, then they would be noticed. Okay. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Freeman. And I also wanna add, thank you, that there is a posting on the property. So if you're outside of the notice requirement, you still can drive by and see if there's a zoning application. It's not gonna be specific in terms of the use, but... Thank you. I think they know. If there's no other questions or discussion by the commissioners, I will entertain a motion. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I move that we send case 17,00011, concerning the property at 5275 North Roxboro Road, forward to the Durham City Council with a favorable recommendation. I'll second saying. Thank you. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Hornbuckle. Any discussion? If none, all those in favor, let's please raise your right hand and please keep them up. Thank you. Any opposed? Motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Severs. Appreciate it. Next, we have new business. We have a presentation of the 2045 Metro Pollutant Transportation Plan Alternatives Analysis. Good evening. My name is Andy Henry. I work for the Durham Chapel Hill Carburel Metropolitan Planning Organization. That's a lot. DCHC MPO. And what I wanna accomplish tonight is make sure you know what the MPO does and why the Long Range Plan, the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan is important and I wanna get any feedback that you might have for us on that plan. What is the MPO responsible for the Long Range Transportation Planning in all of Durham County? About half of Orange County, including all the municipalities and a northeast corner of Chatham County. And it's a federal mandate. If you're gonna spend federal funding, you have to have an MPO that plans and approves the projects in that area. We have a policy board. It's mostly composed of elected officials. So for Durham County, Ellen Recows, a member, Wendy Jacobs is the alternate. Here at the city, Don Moffitt. And Steve Schuhl are members and then Mayor Bell is an alternate on our board. There's the map. That's our planning area. You can see all Durham County, part of Orange, northeast corner of Chatham. What this is is we have to include in the MPO all of the urbanized area after each census. So that's how we come up with that border more or less. And so the MPO in cooperation with NCDOT designates most of the funding, the transportation funding in the area. And also the MPO has some discretionary funding that we mostly use for bicycle pedestrian and transit projects. I just wanna talk a little bit. Okay, so I was back, I was here back in January, February and we get presentation of comprehensive transportation plan. That's that big circle there. And those are projects we have in the long range plan. And it just goes by need. If you have a need, you put them in the plan. The next circle is what I'm talking about tonight, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. And you can see that circle's a little smaller. And that's because it has to be fiscally constrained. We have to show that our future revenues are gonna cover our costs. Our cost and revenues have to match. So it's a little smaller. That hatched area there you might have heard there's a prioritization process that NCDOT has. Some people refer to it as spot. The legislation is called STI Strategic Transportation Investment. And that's the process you get into the final fall you see there, which is the 10 year transportation improvement program. And that's where projects are funded. And right now the MPO is getting ready to approve the 2018 to 2017 Transportation Improvement Program. Important thing to know is that for the highway projects, you can't get into the TIP unless you're in the MTP, the long range plan we're working on currently. Why is it important? Well, it lists all the highway, transportation, other projects that we feel we need to address our deficiencies through the year 2045. It uses future land use. So we make some assumptions about where population employment are gonna be located out through the year 2045. That goes into the travel demand model shows us where we think our deficiencies are gonna be. Fiscally constrained, I mentioned that a minute ago. It has to be physically constrained. And I mentioned that in order to get funding, it has to, in the TIP to get into TIP has to be in this long range plan. Not so much. We used to use it for planning before that might change since we now have a CTP that first time the MPOs had a CTP, the comprehensive plan that bigger ball you saw there. We now have a CTP and that can be used for like dedicated and reserving right away in the development review process. But up till when we had the CTP, the MPTP was used for that purpose. It's been a long process. We're probably on our second year. We did our goals and objectives. We did a land use forecast, socioeconomic data. Did a deficiency analysis where we went out and took the 2045 population employment and ran it in our model using today's transportation network to see where our deficiencies are gonna be. We're now on the alternatives analysis. Now I'll explain that a little bit more in a minute. And in the next several weeks, we'll release what's called the preferred option. That just means draft plan. We'll have another two month period where the public and then people can get feedback to us. And then probably January 2018, we'll adopt the MTP. The alternatives basically what we do is we take, we have two different land use alternatives. We have one we call the community plan and that's based on the local comprehensive land use plans and any policies they have. And then we have another one called AIM High. That's based on the comprehensive plan. But what we did is there's now a study going on about the markets, different markets around the transit stations. And we used information from the draft of that study to increase some of the densities and some of the mixed uses around the transit station areas to create another land use scenario. We take those land use scenarios, we put them together with different transportation networks. One will have a lot of highway, not so much transit. Another one will have a lot of transit, not so much highway. Another one is kind of a mix of both. So we match those and then we run them and we look to see where the congestion is gonna be, what their performance measures, et cetera look like. I should mention when we come out with our draft plan, preferred option, we're not just gonna take one of these alternatives and propose it as our draft. We're gonna select projects from all the different alternatives. These are some of the guide totals for population employment. You see population here. You look at Durham, 2013, 286,000. We show it going to 475,000 by the year 2045, 66% increase in population. Employment is 192,000 and then we have going to 342,000. That's a 78% increase. So Durham's gonna grow fairly quickly according to our projections and also employment will continue to outpace the population here. It means we're attracting a lot of employees from the collar counties outside of the Triangle and Durham. What information is available? There's a lot of performance measures that are available on these different alternatives to tell you the average trip time, vehicle miles traveled per person. A lot of data like that. Travel ice crones, you see that map there. It looks like a contour map or weather map. That shows the travel time from the different centers in 10 minute increments. So if you're in downtown Durham, how far can you get in the afternoon peak in 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes? So you can see a lot of that data. It gives you an idea of what your market is. Travel time, we show travel time between the major centers and how that changes from today and what it would be in the future if we use one of the alternatives. And I'll show you the congestion maps. You've probably seen these before. Basically what this does is it looks at the volume. This is the congestion map for the no build scenario that I talked about when we take that 2045 population employment and put it with the current network. And whenever you see orange, that means that the volume, the traffic volume on that roadway segment is over the capacity of the roadway segment. When you see red, that means it's at 120% of the capacity. And the level of service that we use for capacity here is level of service C. So in transportation talk, it goes A, B, C, E, E, F. A is free flow. F is barely moving. And those levels of service, we use the level of service E on this model, which is pretty high, pretty congested. So you can see if we don't start improving some of those roadways, you're gonna see a lot of congestion in the major corridors. Some of the key conclusions we got are often the alternatives analysis, demographics, as I said, the triangle will grow fast, population employment, the employment will outpace the population increase, congestion. So when you look at today's congestion, let's say it's here, and then you do that no build scenario, and you just get a ton of congestion in your performance measures. But when you use your alternatives where you're improving some of the roadways, that congestion goes down. But it never returns back to those 2013 levels. I know that doesn't surprise anyone, but even when we're throwing a lot of roadway improvements in there, et cetera, according to our model, we never get back to where we were before. We found that the light rail and the other transportation investments, they increased the bicycling and pedestrian modes in those corridors. And we also found that when we used the higher density that aim high land use scenario that we had, it increased also bicycling and pedestrian use in the whole area and it improved the travel time. And that's because it's just more density around transit stations, more mixed use. Some of the projects being considered, this is a map of the kind of central Durham area. Widening or manage lanes for I-40, NC-147, we widen the NC-147 to Durham Freeway south of where the Eastern connector intersects with the Durham Freeway. Perhaps some type of modernization between Briggs Avenue and West Chapel Hill Street to make some safety improvements there, not add any additional lanes. US-15501, a freeway conversion between the old South Square area and where the bypass comes in there and I-40, a freeway conversion of US-70, NC-54, some widening and interchanges and then Duke Street going north, some type of median divided boulevard from I-85 up to the break with North Roxborough Road. So those are some of the projects being considered on the highway side. On the transit side, we're basically using the Durham County Transit Plan that was just adopted earlier this year. What that means is light rail transit, Durham Orange light rail transit system from the hospitals in Chapel Hill through Duke, through downtown and out to North Carolina Central University. Also commuter rail transit from West Durham through downtown over to Raleigh-Wade County and on the Selma, some expanded fixed route and express route services and funding also for transit vehicles, facilities, bus stops, parking ride lots, et cetera. That's all the information I have tonight. Take any questions or any comments that you might have. Great, thank you, Mr. Henry. I'll start to my left with questions from commissioners. Commissioner Freeman, Warren Buckle, Commissioner Bryan, Commissioner Freeman. Question about the socioeconomic data population and employment, do you have any data that splits up the people of color or white women that might be included in that population data? No, we just use income. So the model does use income because income, well, actually ownership of a vehicle is the biggest determinant of whether or not someone's gonna take transit or some other mode. And as a proxy, we don't know the vehicle ownership very well, but we have a better idea of the average income in the area, so that's what we use. Is it possible, based on registration, to see, I mean, that type of information? No, we haven't used that. And then also in the demographics, I noticed you mentioned that was bike and pedestrian specifically addressed? Yes, it's part of the plan. We don't list the project specifically. We referenced the local plans. They've done so much planning locally. We don't really have anything to add to that. However, in this plan, like I said, it has to be physically constrained. So in this plan, we have $90 million every decade for bicycle pedestrian projects. So it's budgeted in there. We don't list out those projects specifically. $90 million a decade, so $10 million each year. Great, thank you, Commissioner Freeman. Commissioner Gibbs. Well, I have just bunches and bunches of questions, but I will not start that. But I do, I am curious about specifically 15501 and Northern Durham. Is it planned to include that in some manner to connect it to the major transit routes, whether it be light rail, buses, some kind of connectivity for mass transit in the MTP, the plan just stops up there. And I know you mentioned something about Northern Durham, but I, and I ask this at every meeting because it's something, it's, well, everybody knows traffic is everywhere, but Northern Durham County has some, I do not know where the traffic is coming from. It just gets more and more and more. Anyway, my question is it, are there plans to actually include some concrete plans to include the Northern Durham area? Yeah, I don't know if there is specifically because what we're adopting in this plan basically is the Durham County Transit Plan. And in that plan, they mentioned areas that they're gonna serve. Also, they have the additional transit service hours in that plan. So they don't reach out 20, 30 years and say exactly where a bus, extra transit route is going to go. They're just talking more about the level of service that they're going to do. So I don't think that we have anything specific. We do have to model something. And we usually, you know, when I say model, we have in 2045, we need to model what the transportation system is going to look like. And we almost always have a feeder service into the light rail stations and to a certain extent in the commuter rail stations from all over the town. So I'd imagine we do have something in there, but I can't say for sure. The other thing is I'm pretty sure we have some park and ride facilities as well on the Long Range plan up on Roxboro Road. Yeah, and the reason I mentioned this, in every meeting, whether it's specific to an overall plan or whatever, I just wanna keep that idea out in everybody's mind, whatever the study is about. But thank you for your answers. I appreciate it. Thank you, Commissioner Gibbs, Commissioner Hornbuckle. Yes, sir. I'm also Northern Durham County to Rougemont area, and we do have quite a bit of traffic. My question is, I know where a lot of traffic comes from. It comes from Person County. And I feel as though Person County should have been involved in on this and to me. Now, I'm sure there's gonna be people to disagree with me. I think Person County should have been involved in this more than Chatham County. And I don't understand, because there is a lot that comes, it affects the entire Northern part of Durham County, is traffic coming from Person County. And I think Person County should have been in on this. All right. So, you know, the MPO only includes Durham County. However, the Triangle Regional Model, the area that we model does go into Person County. It looks like if you saw Person County. Yes, sir. Well, like I said, I understand that, but you're looking, I look at this, and I see where it shows, you know, Chatham County. And I said, well, I can see where we'd have more effect in effect in all of Durham. People working downtown are all over Durham that are coming from Person County more than Chatham County. So that's why I really feel as though that Person County should have some representation in on that. That's a good point. Any other questions? Thank you, Commissioner Humbuckle. Commissioner Miller? I just wanted to comment very, if I understand this correctly, we are pretty far along in creating a transportation plan that's going to reach out a little bit more than 25 years and we're basing it on, at least in some measure, on future land use projections and a comprehensive plan we're about to change. And that worries me a little bit. That's all I wanted to say. I agree. Commissioner Bride? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is just a brief comment, but I spent some time today looking at information on the website that's referred to in the cover memo. And one thing in particular, I looked at several maps. Unfortunately, I could not find a key anywhere that told me what the color of the lines meant. So the maps didn't have that much meaning to me. And my suggestion is please make it easier to find the key if you won't be able to look at your maps and derive something from it. Yeah, you're right about that. We have some interactive maps online. You can open them up and zoom in and zoom out just like you can on a Google map and it'll show you the different projects, fixed guideway and it'll show you the highways. I know where to find. It's up in the right corner and a little icon but it's just not obvious. So it's a good comment. Thank you. Commissioner Alturk? Thank you, Chair. I had two questions and my first was exactly Commissioner Miller's question about the fact that we're part of what you're basing this on is the current comprehensive plan. So I was wondering if, I don't know, I guess it was the same concern that Commissioner Miller had.  Can you say more about that? I mean, is that based on future projections of revenue or is it just what is slotted now for transportation or because this is a 27 year plan. So I'm just curious about the process then. So to talk about the comprehensive plans, I mean, that's what the federal requirements are. You have to use currently adopted plans and policies. So we stick with that. Your other question. What was it? I'm sorry. So it's, you know, the plan is fiscally, or the, oh yes, right. And what is that based on? What are the models? So North Carolina DOT has a revenue plan, a long range plan that they have. And we use their long range plan and we just make assumptions about looking at their model, their future revenue and looking at their future revenue. We make some assumptions about how much of that would come to this area. For the, right now, because they have the STI, the strategic transportation investment, you know, next couple of decades, we're gonna assume that STI, we're gonna use the STI requirements. And those are pretty specific about how much comes to the division level, how much comes to the regional level and how much is available at the state level. So we use their plan and their model. Great, thank you. Any other questions or comments from the commissioners? Seeing none, Mr. Henry, thank you. Any closing comments you'd like to make? No, thank you for your time and thank you for your comments. Yeah, we appreciate your work. Thanks for coming. Yeah. Before we adjourn, just wanna check in with staff, any updates for us? And we appreciate a sneak peek at next month's agenda.  If you have any questions, feel free to email us and we'll get back with you regarding your questions. And I did want to introduce someone, new staff member, well, fairly new, new to you because you haven't met her yet. Terry, would you come up? Terry Elliott is Ms. Cole's replacement while she's not at the meetings every month with you. She is doing all the work in the background. So if you need anything, you can reach out to Ms. Elliott and she'll be glad to help you or myself or anyone else here. Oh, and Evan, Evan doesn't actually work for me, but yeah, Evan's new too. Evan Tenenbaum is actually in Scott Whiteman's work group and so he is a new planner on staff and he will be seeing him at these meetings as well. Great, every meeting is this smooth and quick, so welcome aboard. Commissioner Miller had a question. I do, Grace, can you update us? You're starting a new Citizens Planning Academy. Can you, so can somebody tell us about that and how it's going? Well, you got to graduate it like 20 something first. So actually that is actually, that particular initiative is being staffed by Mr. Whiteman's work group as well. I'm as young, probably can give you a quick blip on it, but it's getting ready to kick off, I believe. Can you tell us how many people and what the sessions and how you may have changed it from based upon the experience on the first administration? Well, if Scott Whiteman were here or Matt Filter were here, they could tell you how they've changed it. I don't know the details, but I do know that they have redone some portions of the curriculum to make it more interactive and less lecture-based for the first three or four sessions. The fourth session will still be a culminate in a mock planning commission with a certificate graduation ceremony. So that piece remains unchanged. All the stuff that precedes it is going to be a little more interactive than previously. Although the content, the material that's covered will be roughly the same. And I think it begins, don't quote me, but next week perhaps is the first, yeah, is the first session. And for four Thursdays following the net. Correct. So I think we do have a couple of folks from boards and commissions that got in. I don't remember everybody, but we had, I want to say a hundred or so applicants and we were able to take 22. I've had a number of people come to me and express their disappointment. I think this is a great thing. And I hope that we make it better and better through experience and we can reach more and more people. Well, what we're gonna, our goal is to try and implement it and have it happen once a quarter, which will be more than twice as often as it's been happening. It's anytime you start something new, you kind of have to get it under your belt and refine it a little bit. So I think once we get through this next session and under the revised format, work out any kinks, we'll be ready to kind of roll with a quarterly planning academy. Thank you. That's great. If there's nothing else, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. Have a good night. Thank you very much. Great first meeting.


I am Dr. Steven Pomerance, welcome to MRIOnline's review of PIRAD's 2.1 Changes and Designations for Assessment of Prostate MR. Let's start with a review of the changes we're going to be describing and breaking down. First, image data acquisition, technical specifications, now the T2 weighted image, it's recommended to perform the T2 in either a straight, axial, orthogonal plane, and at least one additional plane, and we'll drill into that a little further what we mean by one additional plane. Diffusion weighted imaging, clarification of B values, four purposes of diffusion weighted imaging acquisition, and for ADC map calculation. Third, DCE or Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI, where you have to put an IV in the patient and inject, temporal resolution should be no greater than 15 seconds. In our personal practice, it's about 7 to 8 seconds per image, per location. So less than 15 seconds per dynamic is advised. 3D T1 GRE is preferred. Clarifications in Interpretation Criteria, further description of assessment of lesions in the CZ and anterior fibromuscular stroma is one of the biggest and most important changes, for you'll see in our experience, the overwhelming majority of lesions in the TZ have been overcalled. Revision and criteria for T2 weighted imaging scores for score one and score two in the TZ area, which further contributes to our analysis of TZ lesions. Clarification and determination of overall assessment of what we're going to call aggressive, intermediate, or non-aggressive in the TZ area. Revision and criteria for diffusion weighted imaging scores of two and three. Clarification of the distinction between positive and negative enhancement on DCE MRI, clarification and measurement of the prostate volume, and revision of the sector map. And finally, a discussion of bi-parametric MRI. What is bi-parametric MRI? Well, in order to understand that, you've got to know what multi-parametric MRI is. Multi-parametric MRI revolves around T2, diffusion weighted imaging, spectroscopy, and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. In bi-parametric MRI, you're relying on two important criteria. The T2 weighted imaging and the diffusion weighted characteristics of the lesion has evidenced on the diffusion weighted series and the ADC map.