White House planners present draft Unified Development Ordinance; council and public press for more discretion on density and stronger stormwater rules

City of White House planners and consultants presented a first draft of a Unified Development Ordinance on an agenda item titled “land use regulations update,” laying out consolidated zoning, subdivision, design and parking standards and seeking feedback from the Board of Mayor and Aldermen and the public.

The draft, presented by Anna Willis, a land planner working on the project, and Michael Reynolds of the project team, would combine the existing zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and design standards into a single code. "This is our first draft including comments and feedback from staff," Willis said, adding the engineering sections remain under staff review.

The ordinance aims to streamline the city’s use table and standards so residents and developers can more easily find permitted uses and cross-reference section citations. Willis said the final deliverable is expected to include an interactive online version in which clicking a use would link directly to its standards. The presentation also highlighted proposed changes to zoning-district consolidation, cluster subdivision options with density incentives, updated parking and loading tables, landscape buffers, and a proposed gas-station overlay for major corridors.

Why it matters: the UDO would set the city’s rules for what kinds of housing, commercial uses and subdivisions are allowed, how open space and stormwater are counted, and which design materials and buffering are preferred. Several aldermen and members of the public warned changes could reduce local discretion and increase allowable density without added safeguards.

Key elements presented - Consolidation: The draft merges zoning, subdivision and design rules into a single document to reduce cross-referencing. Staff said definitions and administrative procedures (the administration chapter) are the last component to be finalized. - Use table and standards: The use table shows newly proposed permitted or special-exception uses (highlighted in the draft materials). Willis and the team said the aim is to retain existing uses while making the table easier to navigate. - Cluster subdivisions and PUDs: The draft describes options for cluster subdivision with density incentives and retains a planned unit development (PUD) path. Staff noted cluster projects would typically require a minimum parcel size (presenters said five acres in the draft) and would include requirements for active and passive open space. - Parking and street design: The draft includes updated parking ratios and graphics; several board members and residents said current proposals may not provide enough guest or family parking, especially for townhomes, and raised concerns about narrow subdivision streets and emergency access. - Open space and stormwater: The draft proposes open-space minimums (presenters discussed an example 10% open-space requirement for larger sites) but allows up to 50% of required open space to be stormwater detention if necessary; planners said the design and usability of open space will be refined so natural areas are preserved and open space is functional rather than just detention basins. - Buffers and tree-save: The draft tightens landscaping and buffer tables; presenters said they will coordinate with a landscape architect to refine screening between industrial, commercial and residential uses and to add native-plant recommendations and tree-save requirements. - Gas-station overlay: Staff said they are drafting an overlay to limit large fuel centers on major corridors (31W was cited). Presenters said they reviewed models from other cities, including Memphis and jurisdictions in the Northeast, to inform restrictions on pump counts, layout and siting.

Concerns and board feedback Several elected members urged retaining zoning discretion and a range of residential district types rather than consolidating smaller-lot districts into broader categories. One alderman said that combining R-20 and R-15 could result in developers favoring smaller lots and noted the board and planning commission should retain case-by-case discretion over special exceptions and PUD approvals. Planners responded that PUD review offers an opportunity for more design control and that the document is intended to provide options the city can choose to approve or deny.

Board and resident questions focused on whether the consolidated districts would be "grandfathering" existing lots, minimum lot sizes for cluster developments, permitted building materials (design standards note preferred materials but staff said state law limits some local material restrictions), and specific parking ratios (including guest parking formulas and bicycle parking requirements).

Process and next steps Staff said engineering sections are under review; once that review is complete, the team will deliver the next draft to the board. The planned sequence discussed in the meeting: finalize engineering comments, deliver the revised ordinance sections for public review, take matters to the planning commission for hearings (presenters discussed an April–May schedule), and seek board approvals leading into a June adoption window tied to the city’s budget cycle. Presenters said they will provide the board more complete packet materials in advance to allow study sessions and public review.

Ending Planners asked for board and public comments to refine the draft. Anna Willis and the project team said they will incorporate engineering feedback and return with updated chapters; city staff requested adequate review time so the board and planning commission can consider the consolidated ordinance as a whole before final readings.