Planning commission approves Common Council changes to Greenwood development rules

The Greenwood Advisory Planning Commission voted 7-0 May 28 to accept changes the Common Council proposed to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance, after staff reviewed the edits and commissioners discussed fence, data‑center and masonry standards.

The action matters because the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) sets zoning and building design requirements that affect future housing, commercial development and infrastructure in Greenwood. The commission’s recommendation will be sent back to the Common Council; staff said that once the commission’s report is issued and certified, the council’s changes are considered adopted under the city’s procedure.

Planning staff outlined the process and the substance of the edits. “So, procedural, wise, your recommendation was sent to the council, and then they proposed changes to it,” Mr. Nelson, a planning staff member, told the commission. He said the commission may either accept the council’s edits or submit a certified written statement explaining objections for the council’s later consideration.

The specific edits the commission accepted included: a provision intended to prevent privacy fence gates from swinging out into sidewalks; a change to the special‑exception language for data centers that specifies water recycling as the required strategy rather than offering multiple low‑impact options; correction of a typographical error in the ordinance text; and a clarification to single‑family residential building design standards for “pack 1” houses that requires the two sidewalls to include masonry when both the front and rear facades are required to meet a 50% masonry standard. Staff said there were no proposed amendments to the building standards for pack 2 and pack 3 housing types.

Commission discussion touched on fence types and where different fence materials and heights are allowed. Staff noted residential zones generally limit privacy fences to 6 feet and restrict certain materials (for example, uncoated chain link is reserved for industrial zoning), while industrial zones permit taller and different types of fencing.

Ms. Sandbaugh moved to approve the recommended changes; Mr. Price seconded. The motion carried, 7-0.

Mr. Nelson said he will issue the commission’s report to the Common Council to complete the process. “With this, you can, agree with the changes that they've made, and I will issue a report to our common council. Once that report is issued, it is considered to be adopted,” he said.

The commission’s recommendation completes the local review step; the Common Council will have the final legislative authority to adopt or revise the UDO changes.