Walkway rule starts its way to JPs’ vote

In plan, it’s must for developments

The Pulaski County Quorum Court will hear an ordinance two more times over two months deciding whether developers must provide pedestrian walkways at most new developments in unincorporated areas of the county.

Justices of the peace heard the ordinance sponsored by Justice of the Peace Tyler Denton at the Agenda Committee meeting on April 13. The measure would require all developments, with some exceptions, to provide a place for pedestrians to walk other than the street such as a sidewalk, trail or designated pedestrian area in the road.

Under current county regulations, sidewalks — or other pedestrian walkways — must be included if developments are within 1,320 feet of a school.

The Quorum Court, at a meeting on April 27, voted to amend the ordinance, removing the emergency clause and having the ordinance read over several months.

Denton said the ordinance will prepare Pulaski County for expected growth and provide areas on streets where pedestrians would be able to walk. Others have raised concerns about the added costs and hurdles it would add to developers and landowners.

“The thing I think about this [ordinance] that makes a lot of sense is it’s very forward thinking,” Denton said. “This is going to apply mostly to these longer-term, more-complicated developments in Pulaski County.”

According to Denton, many county developments had to be revisited to add certain amenities like sidewalks to properties after the fact.

“We’ve all seen these developments where you have to come in after the fact and either widen the shoulders

so that you can have a bike path or better pedestrian access,” Denton said. “We’ve all seen how complicated that can be once a development has been established…We think connectivity is a smart thing to focus on.”

The Pulaski County Planning Board passed the ordinance to the Pulaski County Quorum Court with a 3-3 vote, passing by a chairman vote.

The Pulaski County Agenda Committee narrowly passed the ordinance with an 8-7 vote, a tally, which would not pass under an emergency clause in the full Quorum Court.

Justice of the Peace Phil Stowers, after his amendment to remove the emergency clause failed in the Agenda Committee, passed the amendment in the full Quorum Court meeting, with a 12-3 vote successfully delaying the final vote on the ordinance.

Denton said he was advised to vote in favor of the amendment as it would not affect upcoming projects.

“I listened to the staff and what they recommended,” Denton said. “I didn’t see any reason for it to not have the emergency clause on there. I think it became the will of the body to take it off, and after consultation with the staff, the staff didn’t suffer any longterm consequences to the [ordinance] itself.”

The ordinance allows for any development to provide some kind of allocated area for pedestrian traffic. Van McClendon, director of the Pulaski County Planning and Development Department, said three major options would be considered.

“You could actually have a sidewalk, which will probably be the exception rather than the rule,” he said. “One is you can widen or can designate 4 feet of the shoulder as a pedestrian-bicycle walkway, or you could do what we would consider a trail. And that trail could be compacted gravel or it could be asphalt.”

McClendon said this would not apply to certain types of land exchanges.

“If someone were to subdivide land in unincorporated Pulaski County and it was 10 acres or larger, it would not apply because the definition of a subdivision is smaller than 10 acres,” McClendon said. “Minor subdivisions would not be affected and that is three lots or smaller. A lot, plat and family exclusions, all of those would be excepted from this ordinance.”

During the Agenda Committee meeting, Justice of the Peace Aaron Robinson spoke out against the legislation, citing implementation and maintenance costs and the ordinance targeting private developers only splitting up the land for family or close friends.

Friday, Robinson said the intent of the ordinance may affect privately-owned land that is not being developed by a corporation.

“I think the intent is they’re wanting to affect a subdivision that’s going in that has 25, maybe 20, houses something like that, but with the way that it’s written, what the county considers a major subdivision is four lots or more,” Robinson said. “So, my constituents’ problem is that if I’ve got property that is being cut up for family or friends or something to that effect, and I’m cutting it in to 9 acre tracts, then you end up having to put [in] sidewalks instead of just hiring a surveyor to cut it up to deed it to friends or family.”

Robinson, both in the agenda meeting and when speaking to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, acknowledged the intentional exception given to friends and family, but said there are many hoops to jump through and the planning board does not like to accept those requests.

“The family exclusion, there’s a whole document you have to fill out,” Robinson said. “You have to prove this; you have to prove that. And it doesn’t always work out. It’s just another hurdle you have to jump through the Pulaski County Planning Department.”

Robinson said his experience with planning boards has not been very productive. Typically, cities have much more stringent sidewalk requirements than unincorporated areas.

“I have asked for several variances through different cities and counties through the years, and every time I’ve approached a planning commission with a variance, they don’t like to give a variance because that sets a precedent of: ‘If we did it for you, then we’ll do it for this other person,’” Robinson said.

Additionally, Robinson said the cost would raise for developers, home buyers and the county when the walking areas and the sidewalks may not lead anywhere consequential.

Pulaski County Judge Barry Hyde, who does not regularly speak at Agenda Committee meetings, argued in favor of the ordinance, stating the walking areas would add value and prepare the county for growth.

“I think, if you look at our county today from what it was just 20 years ago, it’s becoming much more urban,” Hyde said. “I think it’s important that the Quorum Court has the discussion of whether or not they want large developments in the future to make provisions for pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well as automobile traffic.”

According to Hyde, the decision is up to the Quorum Court.

“I can’t issue an order that specifies this,” Hyde said. “Even our planning department makes recommendations, but even they can’t say it can or can’t be done, so it’s a discussion that belongs with the Quorum Court and that’s what we’ve done.”

The ordinance was placed on first reading for the April 27 meeting and will have the second and third reading in May and June.