Nicky Boyette – At a workshop June 28, the Planning Commission undertook the tedious task of combing through sections of City Code regarding lodgings to correct contradictions, remedy omissions and massage nuances to bring definitions up to date. An easier task might have been navigating a blackberry thicket in a t-shirt and shorts.
Commissioner Melissa Greene right away took on the problematic “same or similar” phrase by suggesting they delete it and instead require any application for a Conditional Use Permit for a property within 200 ft. of any other CUP or legally non-conforming (grandfathered) property to ask for a variance. She also proposed they look again at what is allowed in the R-1 zone.
“We’ve become a vacation home,” she stated. She said properties have become too expensive for folks who want to live here for their jobs.
Commissioner James Morris commented population density should be a factor in determining whether a CUP should be approved. He said he might be okay with two Bed & Breakfasts with only one unit each being closer than 200 ft. but not if they had three or four units each. He wondered if the 200-foot rule had not been adopted from some bigger city with straight streets. He contended Eureka Springs Code should be more reflective of its unique geography and three-dimensional landscape.
Commissioner Susan Harman said she preferred an easily identifiable radius instead of a density calculation, but commented, “Whatever it is, it needs to be an easy read.”
Commissioner Pat Lujan, who as vice-chairman chaired the meeting, pointed out there is plenty of commercial property in town that can be developed. He said their intention should be to protect residential neighborhoods as they work through Code corrections. “We want our own people working in our businesses, and places for families who send their kids to our schools.” He maintained the six-month moratorium on licenses for B&Bs imposed by city council allows Planning plenty of time for a careful review of City Code.
Food in the fridge
Greene pointed out when existing Code was written, meals in B&Bs were important, but apparently times have changed. Some B&Bs leave food in a refrigerator for guests to prepare themselves.
Morris noted Code says meals “may be provided.” Lujan demurred with the concept. He said meals should be served and Harmon agreed. “Otherwise, you’re a Bed & Muffin,” she commented.
Harman owns a B&B, and said she would save $1,500 every month if she did not have to serve a breakfast. She said the different interpretations of what Code requires “is same or similar all over again.”
Consensus was to amend Code for B&Bs to say, “lodging and breakfast is served.”
Commissioners also worked over whether the B&B owner should be allowed to have a manager on site because apparently some owners have tiptoed around the definition by having a nearby neighbor act as manager. Harman suggested there be a percentage of the year the owner is actually present, but she, as a B&B owner, was aware there are situations in which the owner might need to be away.
Greene restated her belief a B&B should be a home-based business, so the owner should claim the address as a primary domicile.
Morris said there would need to be enforcement, and Lujan answered Planning must do its part first.
There were nuances and shadings of definitions as well as important tangential rabbit holes to explore, but Lujan kept the conversation moving within the parameters of progress. “We’ll take items one at a time or else we won’t accomplish anything. We have six months,” he said. He proposed they prepare and rework drafts until satisfactory, but stay focused and give the task due diligence.