Neighbors press council to delay Spring Creek Crossing plat after repeated flooding, city tables item

Residents of the South Fork and nearby neighborhoods urged the council to halt action on the Spring Creek Crossing conditional final plat after months of construction‑period sediment and stormwater problems that they say damaged yards, blocked driveways and caused persistent ponding.

Several speakers described property damage and ongoing muddy flows. William Koch (speaker 10) said the gate closure at Indian Springs and rising traffic patterns raised emergency‑response concerns; other commenters described muddy water covering pavers, sediment in lawns and repeated flooding that continues after recent rains. “We have copious amounts of muddy water flow into our backyard, cover our walkway pavers, our seating areas, and our flower beds,” one resident said, describing a persistent inch‑thick layer of mud on hardscapes.

City staff and the project engineer acknowledged the complaints and outlined both short‑term erosion controls and longer‑term engineering. Megan Pascoe of Tanner Consulting (speaker 18), the engineer of record, said the team installed additional silt fence, rock check dams and modified grading plans, and that the developer has been meeting with neighbors and staff to mitigate conditions. Staff (Kenny Schwab, speaker 6) explained that brown, sediment‑laden runoff during construction is primarily the contractor/property owner’s responsibility under state OKR permits and city code enforcement, but that the city had brought a drainage advisory committee solution forward that would capture and pipe problematic runoff in the green belt — a step staff has recommended but placed on hold because of pending litigation.

After hours of testimony and a staff briefing, council members expressed frustration at ongoing problems and at the absence of the builder in the chamber. The council moved to table the conditional final plat and related signal work until the developer/builder can appear and until staff are satisfied that interim construction impacts are being addressed. The motion to table was made by a council member during deliberations and was seconded; the council then held a roll call and directed staff to coordinate an on‑site meeting with the developer and affected residents.