At the Sept. 13 Planning Commission workshop, Arkansas Municipal League planning consultant Jim von Tungeln offered observations from “years of experience,” and reflections on his comments continued throughout the regular meeting. The AML is an official representative of Arkansas cities and towns before state and federal governments, and a clearinghouse for information and answers.
Von Tungeln said that Planning, like other city entities, is charged with “maintaining the health, safety, welfare and morals of the community.” He said that as a local representative of the citizens, Planning must deal locally with the effects of ever-changing state laws, and sometimes statutes are unfair for smaller cities like Eureka Springs because they are drafted for, and more applicable to, larger cities.
The tiny house movement around the country is also a challenge for planning commissions. Although the impetus is to create affordable housing, there is the accompanying dark side of slum landlords using the laws basically to rent out storage buildings. Another recent development has been private homeowners becoming contractors to the state by renting houses to prisoners with only ankle bracelets as controls.
So, von Tungeln said, cities must develop a plan to protect themselves while remaining consistent with state laws such as fire codes. “You have one of the toughest jobs in the state,” he told commissioners. In addition, Eureka Springs has a multi-layered set of concerns being a tourist destination with far more people on its streets on weekends than during the week, and it was built on a non-traditional terrain.
He said his term for cities like Eureka Springs is “charmicide.” People come here for the charm but then convert older homes into Bed & Breakfasts, and even a renovated older home is still an older home. “So what do you [as a city] really want to do?” he asked. Planning, he contended, must choose whether it wants to maintain single family homes in neighborhoods or not.
“You must decide. Identify the real problem and solutions will follow,” von Tungeln said.
Regarding Eureka Springs’ 200-foot rule between Conditional Use Permits, he said that constant distances always create problems. He encouraged instead for cities to employ threshold conditions as the bottom line criteria for granting CUPs, then add other conditions when applicable.
Von Tungeln also warned of involving the input from nearby residents in any decisions because neighbors might have hidden motivations. The “Not in my backyard” reaction is a common problem everywhere. Although the opinion of neighbors can provide important input, he remarked an attorney once was asked at a trial if the opinion of neighbors has a bearing on a planning decision, and the response was, “Neighbors’ opinions matter only if they are rational and reasonable.”
The solution to most planning decisions, he said, is to develop clear criteria for making decisions. “Your Planning Commission is not a set of parents. Just because you say it doesn’t mean it will stand up in court,” von Tungeln advised. “Make sure your decisions are defensible.”
He added that state laws, such as the fire code, would supersede local laws, so commissioners should be familiar with them and use them in guiding decisions.
Commissioner Melissa Greene asked about the local ordinance of requiring a manager or owner to live onsite. She said sometimes a renter or neighbor acts as manager but does not assume any of the responsibilities of a manager. Von Tungeln replied the city attorney could draft a set of requirements for that situation, but there would be the problem of enforcement. Entering the discussion was the difficulty of defining what constitutes breakfast at a B&B, and the apparent inconsistency of who gets a CUP and who does not.
“Consistency is the reason for having clear criteria,” Von Tungeln answered. “What is the basis for your decisions?”
When it was time for public comments, property owner Patti Corcelli, who rents rooms to supplement her income, said it appeared to her Planning was beginning to micromanage the situation. She saw no need for commissioners to completely overhaul the city’s B&B laws.
Barbara Gavron, a B&B owner since 1984, said she was ready for the B&B back and forth to end. “Let’s finalize things and never bring it up again,” she commented, and Pam Ensminger declared, “My customers should tell me about my breakfasts, not Planning. You should not be telling me how to run my B&B.”
Commissioners agreed to come to the Sept. 27 meeting with suggestions for criteria they would include in recommendations to city council for updating the city’s ordinances regarding B&Bs. Commissioner Tom Buford pointed out City Code already has a long list of criteria to consider. Chair Pat Lujan commented they would “tighten up things” and send their work to city council.
Von Tungeln complimented commissioners for “actually doing planning.” He said he usually sees commissions making zoning decisions, but this meeting had been about the “tough job” of city planning.
“Two people with no ulterior motives can see things completely differently, and you have to deal with it,” he said.
Next meeting will be Tuesday, Sept. 27, at 6 p.m. There will be a workshop at 5 p.m. preceding the regular meeting.