Greenwood’s plan commission approved a controversial amendment to the city’s new comprehensive plan, allowing the plan to go into effect after a year-and-a-half process. Daily Journal File Photo
A controversial amendment to Greenwood’s new comprehensive plan has been approved by a city commission, allowing the updated plan to go into effect.
The city’s Advisory Plan Commission voted 5-4 Monday night to approve a city council amendment that removes a controversial extension of Stop 18 Road through Freedom Park from the plan, along with language about street connectivity. Commission members Josh King, John Shell, Mark St. John and Charrie Stambaugh voted against approving the amendment.
Extending Stop 18 Road through the park had been a major point of contention among nearby residents, who were overwhelmingly opposed to the plan. Throughout several public meetings, residents had voiced their opposition and asked for it to be removed, with the city council doing so earlier this month at their Oct. 8 meeting.
The language about street connectivity, which city officials said would promote the need to have connected streets, including connecting stub streets, was removed from the plan during that same meeting. City council member David Hopper asked for this language to be removed because he believed it gave the city’s planning department more power.
Because the city council amended the plan, it was sent back to the plan commission to vote on the amendment. The nine-member commission had three options: approve the amendment and send a report to the council on the approval, reject the amendment and send a report to the council on the rejection, or do nothing, which would let the amendment go into effect within 60 days by default.
If the commission had rejected the amendment, the city council would have had to do a confirmatory vote to approve the amendment. This is because the council has the final say on the matter, said Shawna Koons, city attorney.
Plan commission members expressed concern about the amendment during Monday’s meeting, along with asking questions about what exactly it did.
The Stop 18 extension was “master-planned” to wind through the park, said Gabe Nelson, planning director.
“There would be parking lots built off it to allow for greater access to different parts of the park with it,” Nelson said. ” We actually have some infrastructure in the park right now that is there to support the road.”
It was also in the parks department’s master plan, Nelson said. The department owns the land and has its own board, so they don’t necessarily need authority from the city council to build a road there, he said.
“Comprehensive plans should be something that is looking at other city plans in the city and kind of compiling them, showing them, demonstrating them to the public,” Nelson said.
Commission President John Shell asked whether Apryl Drive would become the main thoroughfare for traffic in the area in light of the extension being removed from the plan. Nelson said he couldn’t really say.
“If you limit connections, it will require people to use the limited connections that are in the network, he said.
Dave Lekse, a city council member appointed to the plan commission, informed the commission of the large number of public comments opposed to the extension at the city council. It has been debated for a year-and-a-half, and people had safety concerns, he said.
Lekse also expressed apprehension about sending the amendment back to the city council if the plan commission rejected it.
“I have serious misgivings about sending this back to council again, given the fact that it’s been debated for so long; there was so much public input at the council meeting,” Lekse said.
Commission Vice President Josh King said his issue with the amendment had to do with the paragraph the city council removed regarding general connectivity. Some council members are “starting to step in” on connectivity issues, leading to the commission having to grant waivers for stub streets, he said.
King’s comments refer to the Walker Farms development. Council members voted to remove three street connections after outcry from residents and over the objection of city planners.
“That’s my issue with their statement, is they don’t seem to support connectivity in all situations,” King said. “And that’s the best practice, where sub streets, they should connect.
We’ve seen issues. The one neighborhood in question had a house fire and we had to close a major artery because fire equipment couldn’t fit in that neighborhood or approach it from all sides. So if that neighborhood had connectivity, we probably would have not had a house burn to the ground,” he added.
However, commission members could only take up the amendment as a whole — not specific sections.
“It’s in total — all or nothing,” Koons said.
Commission member Brian Walker, appearing via Zoom, asked whether approving the amendment would set it in stone. Nelson said that while he doesn’t agree with the amendments, there are opportunities to change it in the future as the city develops. The plan is meant to be a “living, breathing document,” he said.
The amendment is also not giving the council authority to do connectivity, Koons said in a response to a question from commission member Michael Probst. The authority, per city code, is with the plan commission and if the city council wants to change this, they have to amend the city’s Unified Development Ordinance, she said.
King reiterated his issue with the removal of the paragraph, saying “a majority of the council tried to insert themselves into this process.” He later said the statement itself was “concerning.” Fellow commission member Charrie Stambaugh agreed.
The paragraph doesn’t actually take or give anyone power, it’s just a summary of the fact that in the current UDO, the city promotes connectivity and that connectivity is a good idea, Koons said.
Even without the updated plan and current standards, council members are already trying to make connectivity decisions, so Nelson didn’t believe removing the language would change anything, he said.
Stambaugh, however, expressed concern about the ramifications for developers coming into the city.
“I feel like without the language there, whenever a company or business or anybody who wants to come in and do something, it’s not there to remind them that connectivity is something we want. It sets a precedent for, ‘Oh, we don’t need that’ or ‘We don’t care,’” Stambaugh said.
