McCauley Meadows Subdivision

6/8/2023 I concur with the previously submitted letters opposing this subdivision.

My name is Leslie Dallapiazza, I live at 2925 Humble Road, directly across from the proposed subdivision. I have attended meetings in person and remotely on the various iterations of the Tai Tam proposed development since its inception and the first comment I would like to make is that the reason the developers and frankly more importantly their engineering firm pushing their development have been unsuccessful in winning approval is because their proposals were untenable on a whole variety of fronts including the impacts to water, limitations of ground water in the area, impacts from the addition of sewage from the development and gross detriments to McCauley Butte, forever affecting the historical context, wildlife, migrating birds, trees and other flora of the Butte. Last but not least the impact to the viewshed of the neighborhood.
Had a reasonable plan been submitted the approval would have been won and the owners of Tai Tam would be in the midst of building their development. They have another two other subdivisions in Target Range on which they are currently building so clearly, presenting an acceptable plan results in successful approval. Fault for the delay is limited to the owners themselves and their engineering firm - why not sue them instead? The idea that they have been negatively affected financially is again fully their and their engineering firm's fault. Actually, the lots have likely doubled in price over the 4 -5 years that this has been in play. In addition, they were also affected by building costs, pandemic. I can't speak to the science of the water and sewage issues but I am in agreement that the additional lot on the butte makes me unable to support this newest proposal. I would like to see the owners eliminate lot 13 and receive the tax benefit of putting the rest of the butte into conservation. They told me they planned to build their own home on the old Rangitsch site and it seems to me that protecting the butte is in their best interests as well.

After reading and absorbing all information presented I have one concern which deals with the wildlife regulation portion of the development. What entity will be responsible for enforcing these rules? Is there an HOA with a board that will oversee any possible non- compliance?

As a Target Range property owner, I strongly object to this subdivision especially considering the proposed development on McCauley Butte. This area in no way should be subjected to pavement, concrete, driveways, roadways and any tree removal for that purpose. The Target Range Neighborhood Plan was established to protect and preserve critical open space, natural areas and view sheds. One only has to look to the south hills of Missoula to see what any kind of development in this area could look like in the future. Wildlife habitat will be greatly affected by this intrusion which could have much larger scale implications. I strongly urge this be rejected for all of the reasons that it was rightfully rejected before.

Kim McGuire

I urge you to reject this "settlement" on the grounds that the current design still develops home sites on the steep slopes of McCauley Butte which will negatively effect the adjacent CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROTECTED properties.
Ironically, the building site on LOT 13 will negatively effect not only the Target Range neighborhood at large, but will greatly effect the rest of the McCauley Meadows development, because the wildlife that grazes and travels on the north side of the Butte will simply leave once that new house, driveway, and all that comes with it (lights, dogs, cars, etc.) is built.
The sloped areas of a protected geological landmark are not appropriate for home sites. The developers refused to hear this when their development was unanimously denied in many previous public hearings, but instead chose to sue the county. I don't think that the commissioners should give their blessing to this settlement because the developers have given nothing up from their original ill conceived design.
I realize that tax dollars are finite, and that no one wants to fight it out in court, but the commissioners should want no part of this settlement. If the county loses in court, then let the developers stand alone next to their unforgivable mistake.

McCauley Meadows Subdivision has been rejected 3 times by the the planning committee of Missoula County. One of the objections is building on McCauley Butte. When the last Rangitsch subdivision was approved the County Commissioners recommended that there be no building above the last house on Ringo Dr. Tai Tam now wish to build above this level. The Butte is an iconic feature of Target Range and the City of Missoula. The East side and the top are a conservation easement. The west side has been protected until now. The Planning Board's decisions have been supported by the local population. The viewshed will be marred by houses roads outbuildings and fences. The wildlife will be negatively affected. It appears that Tai Tam Corp. are now using the court to bully us into accepting their plan. Tai Tam will degrade the Butte and disappear. There are significant concerns about water and waste. Target Rangers are proud of their area and wish to have suitable developments. Tai Tam appear to wish only to extract as much money as they can without concern for the neighborhood.
Paul & Cyd Ferguson 2713 Glen.Dr.Missoula MT 59804

To Whom It May Concern:

Our names are Tom and Amy Frandsen and we live at 4425 Sundown Rd in Missoula adjacent to the proposed McCauley Meadows Subdivision. The purpose of this letter is to offer our concerns of the proposed subdivision and ask that you reject the advancement of this subdivision until these are rectified. The following are a list of our concerns:

1. There is not enough water for this subdivision. In the new settlement, we do not see a statement regarding the previous limitations of the irrigation. In the previously submitted Water and Sanitation Report, there is a Summary of Domestic Water Demands, and it struck me as odd that the new wells may need to produce 9.99 acre-feet/year, which is just below the 10 acre-feet/year threshold for a beneficial use permit. This is odd because it barely meets the threshold for not taking too much water. However, in the irrigation improvement plans, the problem is obvious. The problem is there is not enough water and PCI’s mitigation is to put a limit on the amount of irrigated lawn and garden area. It states, “Lots 1-5, 10, 11, 13, and 14 will use wells for irrigation with a lawn and garden area limited to 15,000 square feet (SF) for Lots 1-5 and 6000 SF for Lots 10, 11, 13, and 14; Lots 6-9 and 12 will use the ditch for irrigation…” The trouble is these are supposedly 1 acre lots, and 1 acre is 43,560 square feet. That means that only a fraction of each lot will be landscaped and irrigated. Either that, or the homes will simply take more water than supposed to be used. The math simply does not add up. This may negatively affect adjacent home water supplies and their existing wells. It is not clear on the newly proposed Exhibit A, how this compares to the previously reported Domestic Water Demands.

2. The calculation of the ground water movement has changed throughout this application. In 2019, PCI proposed pumping all the development sewage to tanks and large drainfields in the northeast lots of the subdivision. It was stated the ground water flow was to the west and would conveniently stay right within the bounds of the proposed subdivision. It should be now noted that the hydraulic gradient on page 99 of the previous Water and Sanitation Report shows it was going to the northwest. This is extremely notable because our well is in our backyard and can easily be contaminated by miscalculations by the developers. This would render our house potentially unlivable. There has still been one triangulation calculation at one time of the year and this is simply not enough to make us comfortable with the sewage produced in the proposed subdivision. We have been in our home since 2019 and in each Spring there is standing water in the field behind our home where the proposed Lot 2 would be located. We simply do not think enough research has been done throughout the year to determine where ground water is going and the characteristics of the soil that lend it to drainage or flooding of neighboring lots on Sundown Road.

3. McCauley Butte has profound cultural significance that can not be returned if developed. McCauley Butte is a historic area and landmark in the area with countless references to its significance in Missoula County planning documents. The Salish and Pend d’Orielle commonly came to the Target Range area long ago. Once this landmark is developed on the side of the butte, there is no turning back. We understand developing where the prior home on the Butte was prior to it's demolition in 2022. However, we ask that the proposed Lot 13 be removed from the plans. McCauley Butte is home to many species of wildlife. There are whitetail deer, fox, wild turkeys, red tailed hawks, eagles, and birds that live in proposed subdivision. There is a large conservation easement adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Although every landowner has a right to attempt to do what they want with their land, that does not mean they can. Tai Tam LLC has proposed building on McCauley Butte itself, which is out of line with the current conservation strategy and way of life in the Target Range area. Additionally, the eye sore of multiple houses up on the butte itself is imposing to the rest of community. Please do not add more man-made structures and lights to this Missoula landmark and remove one of the only sections of established trees on the north side of the butte.

In conclusion, there are multiple concerns with the proposed subdivision that negatively affect the existing property owners, cultural significance and conservation of McCauley Butte, and the wildlife. The subdivision should not be allowed or accepted with any additional proposed building on McCauley Butte itself. Lots should not be created unless the entire property can be completely irrigated within the confines of the permitted 10 acre-feet/year of water supply, and there must be further research into the ground water direction and standing water that occurs in the flat during the spring.

Sincerely,

Amy and Tom Frandsen