There were 40 concerned residents in attendance. The last portion of the meeting was a presentation by the developer. He offered an alternative plan which converts the clubhouse into for sale condos but places high density apartments and townhouses over the remaining space south of the clubhouse and across Mountain Creek Road. This vision can’t be done without an approved PUD. We believe the vast majority of FOMC remain firmly opposed to such a development. The next meeting is scheduled for August 8. Please reserve this date on your calendar. In this meeting our committee will present FOMC response to Pratt’s presentation. We will have an alternate venue for the upcoming meeting in a more resident friendly location vs. the City Council Chambers. If you know of a location, let me know. Minutes: Minutes of July 25 Meeting in the City Council Chambers Chip Henderson Facilitated Friends of Mountain Creek and Pratt Quarry Development Discussions The second meeting of the Chip Henderson selected panel representing the interests of the 1300 Friends of Mountain Creek Petition signers who reject this development plan was held with Pratt and city development department representatives. Formal minutes for the first meeting were not distributed by Mr. Henderson’s office. The issues raised by the panel in the first meeting on July 11 were presented by Chip to start the meeting in abbreviated bullet points. Bill Phillips, Pratt’s ecology consultant responded to several of the environmental bullet concerns at a “30 thousand foot level”. He stated his credentials and took credit for the ecological and conservation aspects of the Volkswagen plant development. He stated that the streams and ponds would be restored to a better than as-left condition by the golf course. He stated that ponds would be filled and that this would be the most environmentally sound approach since the ponds are silt laden (1-2 feet deep) which concentrates pesticides and fertilizer used over time. He described methods of storm water control including detention, retention and infiltration and then described design events for impaired and non-impaired streams. He didn’t elaborate on what was required. The recommended approach for undercut stream banks will be to recontour banks and restore with grasses and native trees (remove privet) and stone placed as necessary to prevent erosion. Pratt stated that the streams are an amenity of the property. His goal is to “improve” the streams and protect them as required by TDEC.  The panel asked about a flood analysis for the area north of Mountain Creek as a result of reduced pervious surface. Steve Hunt discussed actual experience with level changes after accumulation. It was stated that this was not expected to be a problem and an answer was not provided.  The panel asked if the area would be clear cut as is the Pratt’s practice elsewhere. Pratt’s engineer stated that the land is already level enough and that it would not be necessary. Trees are removed within twenty feet of structures and to clear fifty foot wide roadways and for utility easements. Again Pratt stated that trees are considered to add value for customers and are preserved. The point of contact for the pre-construction phase, Ben Mies, was identified in the first meeting. His role was discussed again. The city traffic engineer, Mark Hinzer spoke about traffic concerns. He stated that studies would be conducted as a condition for permitting if deemed necessary by his office when the scope of the development (additional vehicles) was defined. He made the argument that road widening is not always the best approach to improving safety (e.g.; wider roads support faster traffic presenting additional vehicle and pedestrian safety risk). It was stated that if studies are required it would be at the developer’s expense. 2 The hazardous Mountain Creek Road intersections at Reads Lake and at Morrison Springs Road were discussed.  The panel asked how many accidents had occurred at these intersections and at what threshold would attention be given to these conditions.  The panel asked for the basis of timing and location of the count wire identified on MCR earlier in June. None was provided. Chip stated that it should have been done when school was in session and near the Morrison Springs intersection.  The panel asked whether the “complete picture” is being evaluated. There are separate developments in progress all along Mountain Creek. The response was that there is not a study ongoing for the other developments but that when the permits for this development are applied for, the other ongoing developments will be considered in aggregate with the Quarry permit. The blind spot at Reads Lake southbound at MCR was discussed. It was recommended that anyone could initiate a 311 complaint and the appropriate service would be notified of the issue. This would “get it on someone’s desk”. At this point Pratt took control of the meeting and discussed his “concerns”. He described the zoning history of the clubhouse since 1971. He stated that of the 300 properties zoned C2 in the so called “house-keeping measure” in 2002, that none have been since “down zoned”.  The panel asked if any of the 299 others surrounded by R-1 have been converted to apartments. No answer was provided.  The panel then asked Mr. Bridger whether the city had determined if there was ever any notice to residents of the 2002 zoning change. John said that it was unlikely and that there are no records. Two panel members, Rick Thompson and Jim Folkner, each stated that they were living in their current homes adjacent and close to the Quarry in 2002 and that they were not informed. In addition, the property owner did not request the change. Pratt then provided a slide show illustrating what Pratt Development has been capable of doing elsewhere. It also included a proposal of high density development of the property if he were to receive a PUD; which all FOMC remain opposed to. A copy of the Power Point presentation (76Mb) slide show was provided for distribution. Since: 1. few users have Microsoft Office, 2. it is too large to email as-is, 3. I have so far been unsuccessful in condensing it into a smaller Adobe file and for other reasons, this file will not be distributed. The panel stated that the agenda for the next meeting should be an opportunity for the panel to present their response to the developer’s presentation. It was agreed that there was inadequate time prior to the August 13 RPA Meeting for this process to complete and so it was agreed that the City Council Resolution for C-2 Zoning Condition would be deferred for another thirty days. The meeting was adjourned by Chip at approximately 7PM.. 3