Greenwood commission narrows developerroad-improvement commitment for Holmes Road; motion passes 7-2

The Greenwood Commission on Monday approved a change to a developer commitment connected to Ordinance 21-14 that removes the applicantobligation to improve Holmes Road southward to an S-curve in county-owned right-of-way and limits required work to the road frontage of the rezoned 32.93-acre parcel.

The vote, 7-2, approved a motion to revise Commitment 1(b) to read that "Holmes Road shall be improved from the north property line of parcel number 41-02-26-034-018-030 to the south property line of said parcel, inclusive of the pedestrian facilities as presented," and to authorize the commission president to execute and deliver a memorandum describing the commitment modification to the common council.

Why it matters: Commissioners and the applicant debated whether the city should require the developer to fix a roughly 300-foot gap of road that lies outside the rezoned parcel in adjacent Johnson County right-of-way. Several commissioners and speakers raised public-safety concerns about sight lines over a rise on Holmes Road and said motorists and future residents could face hazardous conditions if that gap remains unimproved. The commissiondecision narrows the developer's responsibility to the parcel itself and leaves county-owned segments to Johnson County.

Discussion: Commissioners questioned whether Greenwood or Johnson County could force a broader fix, including through eminent domain, and whether county officials had appetite to pursue acquisition or improvements for a short, disconnected stretch of road. Commissioner Nelson said the commission had previously discussed the matter with county staff but that the county planner did not indicate a willingness to use eminent domain. An applicant representative told commissioners the developer had submitted detailed plans from its engineer to both the county and the city and had received no substantive feedback.

The applicant/ developer argued the city had rezoned the parcel and that requiring the developer to fix a county-controlled 300-foot segment would unfairly "hold hostage" the project. The applicant/ developer said, "We've done what you asked us to do. Unfortunately, what you've asked us to do cannot be done because we don't have the power to take that ground." That speaker proposed limiting the improvement obligation to the propertylines adjacent to the parcel.

Several commissioners urged continued engagement with Johnson County to seek a joint solution and discussed alternatives such as signage, speed limits, or a county-led acquisition. Commissioner Stanbaugh, who offered the motion to approve the modification, explained the amendment was intended to require only the frontage work that the developer controls and to authorize the commission president to communicate the change to the common council.

Decision and next steps: The commission voted 7-2 to approve the modification as moved by Commissioner Stanbaugh and seconded by Commissioner Lexi. The motion directs the commission president to deliver a memorandum to the common council regarding the change; it does not obligate Greenwood or Johnson County to take further action on the adjacent county right-of-way. Several commissioners asked staff to continue conversations with Johnson County and to provide the commission with any county responses.

Background and limits: The change applies to commitment language made in connection with the zoning of the 32.93-acre parcel under Ordinance 21-14. Commissioners and the applicant emphasized the current concept plan for the parcel is not final and that unit counts mentioned during the discussion are conceptual: speakers said variously "about 186 units," "126 townhomes and 86 duplex," and "82 townhomes and 104 duplex," but the commission noted no number of units is approved by this commitment change. The commission recorded the vote as "motion carries 7-2."