At the Aug. 12 meeting of the Planning Commission, a project already approved came back to the table for modifications.
Owners Sara and Rodney Bechdoldt had received approval to build seven units for nightly rental at 58 N. Main St. Last week, contractor TJ McGuire spoke on behalf of the Bechdoldts’ request to reduce the number of units to four.
McGuire began by addressing the issue of access from Montgomery St. He agreed that the narrow street would pose challenges from the additional traffic. He noted, however, that the project would meet fire codes. He said the units may be built with sprinkler systems, which would further reduce the need for access for fire trucks.
Commissioners spent some time discussing Montgomery Street, which has only a 20-ft. easement. McGuire said the street cannot be widened, but it provides sufficient access. The commission approved the project, with the stipulation that the street satisfies the building inspector and the fire marshal.
During public comments, a neighbor objected to the additional traffic on Montgomery. She had concerns about possible blockages during construction and said the sewer system in that area has already had backup problems.
Tree cut denied
An application to remove 18 trees at 10 Charles Circle fell short of the votes needed for approval. Susan Leahy said removing the trees would create space to build a house on the property. She said she hoped to break ground on the project in the fall, or in spring at the latest.
Commissioner Scott Price objected to removing trees so far in advance of a project. Leahy insisted that only the tree-cut application stood in the way of construction, and she had already chosen a builder.
Other commissioners agreed on the need to link tree-cut approvals with actual construction. Commissioner David Buttecali noted that nothing currently prevents someone from clearing trees for construction without actually following through with a building. He suggested a workshop to refine the guidelines, with a procedure to monitor whether an applicant completes a project after a tree-cut.
Price suggested that Leahy should withdraw her application and resubmit it when she has a firmer date to begin construction. If the commission rejected her application, Leahy would have to wait 12 months to re-apply unless three-fourths of the commission allowed a new application within that time frame.
Price voted against the application, and commissioner Tom Buford abstained, as he typically does on tree-cut applications. That left only three votes in favor of the request, and four votes are required for passage. The commissioners noted that Leahy can appeal to city council.
In other business
- Lawrence and Rita Allen, attending by speakerphone, received approval to remove nine trees at 490 W. Van Buren. The trees are encroaching on the main building on the property, even causing foundation damage.
- Cindy Kiser received approval to remove a tree at 20 Armstrong St. Kiser said she was very attached to the maple tree, but it is damaging a wall and its foundation.
- Cassie Dishman, director of Planning and Community Development, said she will ask the mayor and the city attorney to review a draft ordinance about fencing before she brings it to the table. Public comment on a fencing ordinance was listed on the agenda, but no one spoke on the issue.
- Dishman said she is also working on a draft ordinance concerning metal buildings.
- Dishman is revising the commission’s application forms, and will add language that specifically allows commissioners to visit a site. Previously, commissioners would have to ask permission before visiting a site to investigate an application.
- Commissioner Ann Tandy-Sallee said she has been reviewing weekly rentals. She explained that tourist lodging has been prohibited in R-1 zones since 2001, but a few businesses received permits for weekly lodging. Tandy-Sallee said some properties operated as nightly rentals, and those properties will be reminded that they can only be rented once a week.
- Price expressed concern about the number of vacant buildings and storefronts in town. He said these properties look bad to tourists, and the city loses tax revenue. He said some cities create a registry to keep track of vacant buildings, and owners can be assessed for having a vacant property.

Wow! As I was reading this article and all of the applications in compliance and rules and regulations and procedures for cutting trees, removing trees doing them in time for construction or not, etc., etc. and I’m thinking as I read every one, this is just an insane amount of regulation and rules. And then I get to the very last comment about vacant buildings. Oh, it’s starting to look like a little Detroit? Maybe kinda like a democratic run city with a whole bunch of rules and regulations to make everybody feel good and happy?
Well finally people saying it ain’t worth the time to try and put a business in here. Do you ever think maybe that’s why you have all of the empty buildings?
Or do you think everybody’s waiting for Eureka Springs to come up with more planning and zoning and rules and regulations so that they can be assured of success in the new city?