Neighbors urge board to defer 3‑lot plan on White Road, citing neighborhood character

Peter Tucker, a White Road resident, told the City of Little Rock Board of Directors on Feb. 17 that his neighbors have petitioned to block a proposed subdivision they say would change the character of their small, dead‑end street. "We would respectfully ask you to consider giving the applicant a clear directive to change the plan such that there is no more than 1 single family residential lot," Tucker said, providing a neighborhood map and signatures.

Tucker said the applicant seeks to divide roughly 0.6 acres into three residential parcels (each described by neighbors as about 0.2 acres) and argued those lots are substantially smaller than existing lots on White Road and would force homes to face the street on their narrow ends. He warned the proposal would likely require clear‑cutting mature trees and increase congestion at the neighborhood’s single entrance, calling the change "a dramatic shift in the development density within our neighborhood." He cited City code (Chapter 36, Article 7) and asked the board to defer review or, if necessary, deny the application.

Representing the applicant, Brian Dale of Joe White & Associates said the project was revised after a planning commission deferral and subsequent meetings with staff and neighbors. Dale said the plan directs all access to Kanis Road rather than White Road and includes required street improvements there. "We have met with them. We have conceded several things and worked with staff closely to get to where we are today," Dale told the board, and he noted the project received a 10–0 vote from the planning commission.

Developer Riley Hayes clarified that the applicant’s submittal preliminarily shows three lots but that final platting and sales could result in a single lot depending on buyer interest. "If he gets an offer to buy it all as 1 lot, he'll sell it as 1 lot," Hayes said, and the applicant said staff could reduce the number of lots at the staff level but not increase them.

Board members questioned whether the city could impose a reduction at the meeting. Mayor Scott and other members noted the planned development request is before the board "up or down" as submitted and that voluntary amendments from the applicant are the standard way to change the proposal during the meeting. Director Miller asked for comparables and was told the proposed lots exceed minimum R‑2 standards (one of the smallest proposed lots was described in staff/developer remarks as about 8,400 square feet).

After public comment and discussion, the board proceeded to a voice vote on the group items that included this planned development; the mayor announced the motion carried. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally for the board vote on this specific parcel.

The board did not adopt a change limiting the project to a single‑family lot at the meeting; the applicant said the project remains eligible to be platted as one lot depending on market interest.

The next procedural steps for this application were not specified in the transcript beyond the board’s vocal approval of the group items that included the proposal.