Council tables Spring Creek Crossing final plat after residents report mud, runoff and property damage

The council tabled consideration of the conditional final plat for Spring Creek Crossing after extended public testimony from adjacent homeowners who described sustained muddy runoff, sediment deposition and damage to yards and retaining walls.

Rocky Hinkle, Community Development Director, introduced the conditional final plat for a 36.99‑acre development proposed to contain 32 lots. Staff said the preliminary plat had been approved for rezoning and that technical reviews raised erosion‑control and stormwater questions. The applicant’s engineer, Megan Pasco of Tanner Consulting, told the council the developer and contractor had implemented additional silt fence, check dams, grading adjustments and sod on eastern slopes and said they have been meeting with staff and neighbors after rains to assess ongoing issues.

Multiple homeowners described recurring problems they say began during construction. Gary Benuzzi said muddy water has covered his pavers and grass and formed standing ponds on his property; Brett Farnsworth described an active bulldozer clearing trees in a 30‑foot strip near a retention area and said that activity occurred without prior notice to neighbors; Dustin Fletcher and other residents shared video and photographs showing muddy driveways, standing water and what they said were repeated instances of sediment crossing property lines. Several speakers said they had seen city or contractor crews, but that cleanup and remediation had not been completed to their satisfaction.

City staff and the developer’s engineer disputed some details but acknowledged the site’s construction activity had created both a sediment control (construction) issue and a separate stormwater/drainage planning issue. Staff said the contractor is responsible for cleaning sediment that leaves the site under state construction permit requirements (OKR‑4 and OKR‑10) and that the developer had committed to additional erosion‑control work and to sod slopes to help stabilize soils. Staff also summarized drainage modeling, noting the developer had adjusted the location of a detention pond during engineering to limit runoff into the neighbors’ yards; staff said the project’s final engineering meets the city’s post‑development flow criteria but that an interim (construction‑phase) condition is producing localized impacts.

Residents and staff discussed potential fixes. Staff and consulting engineers described a drainage advisory committee option that would study placing an inlet and a buried storm line through the greenbelt to capture and route the runoff away from affected yards — a solution staff said could be constructed using drainage‑project funds but which city staff cautioned may be held while a pending civil lawsuit is active.

After listening to residents and staff, the council voted to table action on the conditional final plat and to hold off on advancing a planned traffic signal associated with the development until the outstanding erosion and runoff issues have been addressed to the city’s satisfaction. Councilors also asked staff to insist the developer’s contractor coordinate with adjacent homeowners and to require the developer and builder to attend the next meeting to answer remaining questions.

The city manager and development staff scheduled an on‑site meeting with the developer and neighbors the following morning to inspect the areas of concern and to follow up on remediation commitments.