Greenwood development guide under review

When Greenwood created its comprehensive plan in 2007, it was intended to serve as a guide for city planners and officials making decisions about development through 2027.

Leaders wanted the city to look a certain way, with various types of housing taking up the bulk of the city. Industrial here, parks there and some commercial scattered throughout. The plan was very specific in most areas of the city, but not as much east of Interstate 65.

Instead of a specific plan for properties east of the interstate, all the land was marked for mixed-use development, which opened the door to proposals for industrial development. But that was never the intention, and now that it’s happened, the city council and plan commission need to decide what to do for future development, Planning Director Bill Peeples said during a recent meeting.

No one expected that Greenwood would grow as fast as it has, or that home buyers would look to the now 12-year-old comprehensive plan when deciding where to build or live. But residents have used that document as a pledge from the city about what kind of development would and would not occur around their homes or land.

For example, residents cited the comprehensive plan when asking the city to reject a proposal to build several large speculative warehouses on a portion of Kelsay Farms that is up for sale, east of I-65 and south of Worthsville Road.

In the last couple of years, some city boards — the Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning Commission and Greenwood City Council — have deviated from the plan on several occasions, such as with FedEx and Amazon.

What is mixed use?

For Greenwood, mixed use calls for specific development in the text that accompanies the maps in the comprehensive plan, Peeples said.

When the plan was created, the two areas intended for mixed-use development were along State Road 135 on the south side of the city, which specifically called for more commercial development, and east of I-65, which called for various types of residential, from multi-family homes, to single-family homes, to estate-level homes closer to the county line.

But developers don’t realize that, Peeples said.

"I keep on getting people saying, ‘Well, mixed use allows commercial, doesn’t it?’ Yes, it can, but it’s part of a mixed-use development that you’re proposing, so don’t just give me 20 acres of a hotel in the middle of nowhere and say someone is going to develop residential around it," he said.

Historically, the city council has not approved rezoning land for multi-family residential use.

Right now, there are more than 450 acres of land — 200 to 250 acres of which are undeveloped — slated for those types of developments in the comprehensive plan, but most of that land would require rezoning.

Currently, that available land is zoned for agriculture, suburban fringe or single-family residential, so it would have to be rezoned for the city to move forward with the original comprehensive plan, Peeples said.

The intent was that the areas directly east of the interstate contain those types of developments to serve as a buffer between commercial or industrial and single-family homes.

"Now, when someone comes in and says, I’ve got multi-family and this plan calls for multi-family, I basically say don’t waste your time requesting a rezone for that type of thing," Peeples said. "For the most part, I’ve said ain’t no way that’s happening."

In recent years, at least three proposals for apartments, condos and townhouses were sent to the city council with favorable recommendations from the planning commission, but the council said no.

"I’m not saying this as a criticism to the council. I’m just stating this as a fact. A petitioner coming to the city who is wanting to build a residential multi-family development has to meet a pretty high bar. Honestly, it’s a legislative decision. So from a council’s perspective, they can do whatever they want. But from a planning perspective, I’ve got a comprehensive plan that tells me that’s where multi-family should be going," Peeples said.

"Since I know that the council is highly unlikely to support a multi-family rezoning, I’m left to try to figure out what to do in these areas to provide the transition that the comprehensive plan calls for."

City council member David Hopper said the council voted no on those proposals for a variety of reasons, but that doesn’t mean the council is entirely against residential complexes.

Other council members agreed they voted no to one proposed multi-family development because Clark-Pleasant Schools asked that they not approve it, and to another because it was ugly and ridiculously priced, among other safety concerns.

Where does the city go from here?

The city boards need to reach a consensus, and they need to decide now what they want to do east of I-65, and where they want to allow certain types of development at the Worthsville Road interchange, Peeples said.

Currently, the city has more proposals for industrial developments east of I-65 that would go against the comprehensive plan if approved.

The city recently shot down a plan to build several large speculative buildings east of I-65 and south of Worthsville Road after dozens of area residents complained and begged the city to draw the line at Worthsville Road, and not allow any industrial land use south of there.

Had that been approved, it would have made it even more difficult for planners to move forward with the current comprehensive plan, Peeples said.

They also need to decide whether they want to find a way to salvage the current comprehensive plan, amend it or create a new one.

Something different

When the Worthsville Road interchange was built in 2015, the city decided it did not want it to mirror the Main Street or Whiteland Road exits. They wanted it to have a more residential feel and act as a new gateway into Greenwood.

"I feel for the people out there, because they’ve looked at the comprehensive plan, they’ve invested out there, and then to put a warehouse in their backyard…" planning commission member Trent Pohlar said.

"Where do you draw the line? Is there an imaginary line at Worthsville (Road)? Where do you stop it? And we do have the ability to stop it," he said.

But the city may have already set a precedent, Peeples said.

"Speaking as a planner, had we stayed within Graham Road, Allen Road and Collins Road for industrial, we could have probably salvaged the plan as it’s currently laid out. But when we went east of Collins Road, it became much more difficult to stick to this plan."

In 2016, the city approved a FedEx facility, which backed out.

Pitney Bowes, then Newgistics, bought that land while it was still zoned for industrial. That facility opened last summer.

And last year, the city approved a massive Amazon facility in the same area, which was never intended to be industrial.

"We’ve already encroached into that single-family area with high intensity," Peeples said. "So the question then becomes is the plan worthwhile anymore?"