President Smith opened a public hearing Dec. 11 on a request to approve a major change to the Timber Ridge planned unit development, a roughly 52.36‑acre site. Neighbors said the proposed increase in density and smaller lots would harm their neighborhood character, reduce property values and remove mature tree buffers.

Several residents who live on Ridge Road told council the Timber Ridge concept had always promised larger lots and significant wooded setbacks. "We're not against development," said Matthew Bennett, who identified himself as a Timber Ridge resident and local business owner, "but at what cost?" He and others asked council to preserve lot sizes and keep the neighborhood’s established open character.

Other speakers raised traffic, safety and noise concerns. Cody McCormick, a community health nurse who lives at 2405 Ridge Road, said he measured noise near the proposed house sites at "65 to 80 decibels," and argued that locating homes adjacent to US‑68 would create quality‑of‑life problems. Multiple speakers cited restrictive covenants recorded with the original development and said those covenants were intended to preserve larger lots and minimum home sizes.

Ryan Henning, land entitlement manager for Arbor Homes (the developer), told council the plan calls for about 88 homes at roughly 2.58 homes per acre, and that the company had adjusted the layout to add a 25‑ to 70‑foot buffer intended to preserve mature vegetation. He said sidewalks, trail connections and traffic and speed studies would be completed before final development plans and described product price points and minimum square‑footage standards for homes in the proposed community.

Council members asked legal and planning staff about their decision authority. Law Director Danette Logbrook told council the statutory review requires the council to base its decision on the material in the packet and testimony presented at the hearing. She added that the city does not have authority to enforce private covenants; enforcement of those covenants is a private matter among property owners and, if warranted, can be pursued in court.

After public comment and discussion of review criteria, Councilwoman Cerise moved to table the PUD major change and direct staff to schedule work sessions and provide additional information. The motion carried by roll call (one 'no' vote), so no final action was taken; council directed staff to convene smaller group meetings with development staff and return further information at the council's next meeting.