Planning commission backs Keeper’s Voyager Heights PUD amendment, tightens trail language

City planning staff recommended the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and recommend approval of Keepers’ PUD development‑stage plan and preliminary plat amendments for the Voyager Heights apartment project, a revised 176‑unit proposal reduced from an earlier 190‑unit submission.

James (city staff) told commissioners that the project’s Environmental Assessment Worksheet had been found sufficient and an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. Staff identified that a portion of the site lies in the city’s drinking‑water supply management area (DISMA) and in a high‑vulnerability zone for surface‑water contamination; as a result, stormwater infiltration basins were moved outside the DISMA and one retention basin was relocated along Business 371 to comply with protection requirements.

The fire marshal reviewed revised site plans and reported no access concerns, and staff said the architectural features meet zoning requirements. A tree‑removal plan and a landscaping/buffer drawing will be required at final submittal. Keepers’ representatives said about 20 acres of plantation pine would be harvested; hardwoods adjacent to existing homes would be retained.

Commissioners questioned lighting and photometrics. One commissioner asked whether luminaries would be visible at the property line at a height of five feet, citing city code; the applicant said most lighting would be wall‑mounted and downward‑directed and that some 20‑foot pole mounts were proposed. Staff said the final PUD step will require a revised lighting plan and that cut‑sheets will be reviewed to ensure compliance with the city code requirement that lighting sources not be visible at five feet beyond the property line.

A nearby property owner, Tom Thompson of 323 Woodland Hills Lane, asked the commission to require a continuous vegetated buffer along the west side of the development to protect the adjacent single‑family neighborhood. Staff said buffer decisions could be refined before final approval and recommended the developer work with staff on possible vegetated‑buffer language in a development agreement.

Commissioners also debated trail language. The applicant proposed a sidewalk on Voyager Drive; staff noted the city could “shall consider” (the amended language) a future trail connecting the development to Buffalo Hills Park, but Greenwood Street has wetland constraints that could affect route feasibility. Jesse (walkable plan lead) said the city’s walkable plan (adopted about 2014) is due for an update and that future trail routing and feasibility would require further study.

A commissioner moved to approve the findings of fact with a single wording change from “should consider” to “shall consider” regarding trail evaluation. The motion carried. Staff said the item will go to the City Council for final action on Jan. 5 at 7:30 p.m.

Next steps: the developer will submit the tree‑removal plan and final landscaping and lighting details for staff review as part of the final PUD submittal; the council will consider the PUD/plat amendments on the January 5 agenda.

Quotes used in this article are drawn from the public hearing and staff presentation and are attributed to speakers identified in the meeting transcript.