Creighton Subdivision in Target Range

I would like to ask the Board to please review prior public comment as the concerns raised before still remain even though much time has passed. The combination of the "blind curve" at Clements/3rd street and the ever increasing traffic in this area (due to population growth, large construction vehicles and even traffic diverting from Reserve St. through this area to Blue Mtn Road to Hwy 93 and vice versa) creates a huge safety issue if the Creighton Ave connection is to Clements instead of Walker Drive. The proposed Creighton Ave. would also have to cross the frequently used walking path that runs along the west side of Clements which is an additional safety issue due to the curve. Our connection from Baywood Court (which is directly east of the proposed subdivision) to Clements is often a challenge to exit safely due to lack of "line of sight" to the curve and we are further to the south.
Thank you- Kim McGuire

We object to the current Creighton Subdivision plans. As noted by other commenters here, the idea of placing the outlet of Creighton Avenue to Clements Road only 250 feet from a blind corner is bad. As residents on the corner of Third Street and Clements, we can attest to the dangers of attempting to exit from our driveway to either Third Street or Clements. The speed limit on bothThird Street and Clements is 35MPH. At that speed someone exiting from the proposed Creighton Avenue onto Clements will have 5 seconds or less to clear the intersection before a car coming from Third Street (blind corner) would be in the intersection of Clements and Creighton Avenue.

The increased traffic on Clements and Third Street caused by the subdivision will also likely result in increased accidents in bad weather at the blind corner. We've had to replace our fence along Third Street five times because drivers slide around the corner in bad weather.

Thank you,
Theodora McKee
4022 S. 3rd St., W

Regarding the propsoed Creighton subdivision.
1) Will the proposed "common area" along the river bank remain "natural) Use of herbicides on a lawn there woyuld have adverse affects on acquatic insects in the river that serve as an important food chain for all fish and animal species their.
2) Will public have access to this common area and access to the river through this?
3) Agree that access is best off of Walker Street not to Clements
4) River channel changes are dynamic. Adjacent channel now has more flow than in past. 3rd street river dike poorly maintained if at all.

Bruce Bollen

1) will public have access to common area to access the Clark Fork
2) will common area be left natural with no herbicide use that will affect river insect life/nymph population.
3) appears that the common area is along the river. hard to read map when enlarged.

I would like to renew my concerns with this proposed subdivision which I did share in July of last year. My biggest concern is the connection to Clements road. The amount of traffic in this area has increased dramatically in recent years and sometimes at unsafe speeds. The new street would also have to cross the pedestrian path the runs parallel along Clements. These issues in combination with the blind curve at 3rd street is a recipe for disaster. I feel the safest option would be to use the Walker to 7th street connection as it offers a greater line of sight at Clements as well as an existing crosswalk for pedestrians. As a homeowner directly east of this area on Baywood Court, I can speak to the difficulty in seeing on-coming traffic from 3rd street and our access street to Clements is further south of the proposed Creighton Ave.

I would also like to make note of the proximity of the community septic and water systems in the new subdivision with the Baywood Court systems directly across the road.

It is also important to note that in high river years that result in flooding in the area, we do tend to have problems on our street with ground water in crawl spaces that often will require pump removal. It is unfortunate that the latest geotechnical evaluation wasn't actually performed during the greatest spring runoff time period.

Lastly, it is unfortunate that the wildlife and abundant bird population will most likely be affected by the reduction in open space.

Thank you- Kim McGuire

I would like to state I am against the Creighton Sub-division as it has been presented several times.

There are many natural habitats that will be disrupted and destroyed by adding 9 houses on such a small parcel of 7.52 acres.

In the Creighton Sub-division proposal, it was stated that the radio towers killed several different types of animals, birds and reptiles each year. What does the added resident, human traffic, domestic animal, vehicles, light pollution, noise pollution, bring to the parcel of land that is claimed to have these fatalities because of radio towers? Different causes, same results.

The River study that was done, county blessings, then it was questioned and then it was challenged, with a result of the Creighton Sub-division group being allowed to do another study, to prove the counties non-bias group wrong. Keeping that in mind, presidenc would be to have a third study (at who's cost) to prove the facts of one of the first two. Other questions.. were the studies done at the same time of year? weather the same? from the same locations? same snow fall, same rain fall? And if Creighton's report is so different, why is that?

Why is there not having to be a new purposely presented each time the subdivision is postponed/changed for reasons put forward by the commissioners or commissioners board?

Clements has not changed since this started, if anything it is busy with increased traffic because of the addition to housing across from Community Hospital, many Target Range Community members have chosen to bypass that area when possible, the alternative route, Clements.

Walker is a low maintenance road way, at this time does not meet, in my opinion, any access that will accommodate another approximately 16 plus vehicles, making approximately 2 trips per day across it.

I do feel that there are options that could be a win win for all, the purposed sud-division may not be one of them.

Thank you

Rita Cook-Jaques

Once again I would stress the access road should be to the lesser used road rather than onto Clements so close to the corner.
I also don't understand that after the zoning rules were rewritten to make it clear to developers whats required there are so many variances applied for.

Hello, we have lived in Target Range 27 years and have enjoyed having access to the Clark Fork River for recreating and waterfowl hunting all that time. We discovered about the time there was a neighborhood meeting in 2022 to discuss the proposed Creighton subdivision that a Quiet Title had been filed and granted to Mr. Creighton and consented to by "Garden City Broadcasting" that allowed the previous 2 separate lots there to combine into one, with one Tax ID. Number. With this, the right of way that used to appear as public ownership for Walker St. right-of-way was taken away. We don't understand how land that was designated as public was then given to Mr. Creighton. We want to operate within the law, but would like to be able to trust the owner of the property is also operating legally and morally with regards to this proposed subdivision at the end of our street, Walker St.and how it will affect and impact the people out here.

Hello,
We are residents of Walker Dr. We are not against a few homes being built on the acreage there. Certainly with the river channel migration and bank erosion there should be no structures built close to the river edge, so that reduces the number of homes that can be built. Also, how feasible is a community sewer that close to the river with all the flooding and higher water table. Walker Rd. access to the homes would require some road maintenence on Walker due to it's pretty pronounced sunken grade.

Hello,

I disagree with the subdivision. These are all single family homes thereby adding to urban and suburban sprawl. This is something that is urged against in the community plan for Missoula County.

Second, this is located in a flood zone. Surely building new housing in a flood zone is ill advised, especially considering that climate change will increase flooding events in the next 50 years.

Please think this over and don't let the idea of new revenue via taxes blind you to your own vision for Missoula.

Sincerely,

Mark Korwald

As a neighbor to the east of the proposed Creighton Subdivision, we have several concerns, the two most important of which are the impact to wildlife and public safety.

With its proximity to the river and nearby Kelly Island, this area is heavily used by local wildlife and bird species- the number of which is much more than noted on initial documentation. (We have observed 39 different species of birds just from our back yard.) I do not doubt that the radio towers cause a risk to birds in flight, but I would imagine there is just as big if not bigger risk to the wildlife by removing/changing their natural habitat. While I am pleased to see the size change in the riparian barrier from 20’ to 40’, it is my understanding from initial documents that a 50’ barrier was initially recommended by FVAS.

The current proposal for a newly developed vehicular connection to Clements Avenue is extremely concerning. With the continued growth of the Target Range area, the traffic flow on Clements to and from 3rd Street is practically non-stop on weekdays and continues to be quite heavy during evening hours. The slower vehicles entering Clements from Creighton Avenue will cause a hazard due to the “blind curve” at 3rd and Clements. As residents of the River’s Edge Homeowners Assn., we no longer repair our common area fence that runs along Clements due to the number of vehicle collisions along this street connection. Our neighbors both to the north and south on Baywood Ct. have had vehicle collisions to their home fences several times as well. The Baywood Ct. connecting driveway to Clements is further south (our street is noted as S. 6th St. W on current document although it is more of a private drive onto a cul-de-sac with no county street name signage) and it is still difficult for us to anticipate the traffic (and speed of traffic) approaching Clements from the curve at 3rd. There is also a heavily used walking trail along the west side of Clements which the Creighton Avenue connection will have to cross when turning onto Clements. This will definitely raise the risk to public safety with the combination of heavy pedestrian and biker use, increasing traffic due to continued Target Range residential growth and obstructed views due to the curve.

Thank you very much.

Kim and Tom McGuire
638 Baywood Ct.