We don’t have much distress about new accessory dwelling units that might be built in our neighborhoods – as long as a majority of residents support this idea, the city pro-actively enforces its Land Use Development Code and the number and density of ADUs is limited to a reasonable number. But, we do have concern about the magnitude and density of ADUs that the city is allowing in established neighborhoods in our community.
One of the goals of the city of Durango comprehensive plan is to “protect the character of existing neighborhoods.” Recent changes to zoning in EN-1 (Old Durango) and EN-2 (Second and Third avenues) allow 400 to 500 properties potentially to have an ADU, and the city appears poised to add another 150 or more properties in EN-3 (East Animas City). We could eventually have 600 or more ADUs in these three neighborhoods in our community of 17,000 residents. This is substantially more than the 230 ADUs currently in Boulder (pop. 99,000) or the 400 ADUs in Portland, Oregon (pop. 549,000), for example.
What about the impact of this development – not only on the social fabric of the neighborhood, but also on the infrastructure? A letter dated Sept. 2, 2013, and signed by 20 supporters of Citizens for Healthy Established Neighborhoods requested that the city of Durango and the Department of Community Development provide for public review a fair and reasonable discussion of the pros and cons of accessory dwelling units as well as provide an impartial written documentation of the anticipated impacts of this proposal including the following issues:
The proposed number and density of ADUs is very high compared to other communities.
Quality of life: How does this help achieve the goal of protecting existing established neighborhoods? What about loss of privacy, increased noise and traffic and environmental impacts – for example, more light at night means less dark sky in town.
Infrastructure: 500 ADUs equals 700 more cars to park and 1,000 more people taking showers and flushing toilets. What is the impact on infrastructure and utilities, roads and parking, and storm drainage?
We are still waiting for answers to our concerns. This situation is similar to the U.S. Forest Service deciding to expand a ski area without studying the impacts to the land and wildlife. Hardly a week goes by without an article in The Durango Herald about the aging water and sanitary sewer systems here in Durango. What about the electrical and natural gas distribution systems, too? Shaw Solar was told by La Plata Electric last fall that our solar system would be the last one in the neighborhood until improvements are made to the existing overhead electrical lines.
Another issue is the grandfathering in of illegal ADUs. In documentation for the Sept. 24, 2013, joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting, it was stated: “Planning staff fully agrees that minimum life safety standards must be met in all ADUs, whether already in existence or in all new construction of ADUs.” Sounds like we’re making progress here; maybe there are people who care about the health, safety and welfare of residents living in unsafe, illegal conversions and their neighbors. However, at an Oct. 7, 2014, City Council study session, this was changed for any ADUs built or converted before 1989 to no requirements at all, not even a basic life-safety inspection.
It is disingenuous for the city to infer there were not zoning regulations or building codes in Durango before 1989 and then use this as a reason not to do code enforcement. Fire codes in Durango were adopted in Durango before the turn of the 20th century. The first zoning ordinance was enacted in 1941. Building codes were adopted, and state electrical inspections have been required since the 1960s. City of Durango building permit records go back to 1979.
In all fairness – including consideration of neighbors of older ADUs – we believe that, as a minimum, the city should require these units be certified to be in compliance with Durango Municipal Code Chapter 6, Article 9 – Unsafe Buildings. This ordinance states in part: “A building or structure which is structurally unsafe or not provided with adequate egress, or which constitutes a fire hazard or is otherwise dangerous to human life. ... A building or structure, used or intended to be used for dwelling purposes, which because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, decay, damage, faulty construction, inadequate wiring or sanitation facilities, or otherwise is determined by the building official and the city manager to be unfit for human habitation, or is determined by the fire marshal to constitute a fire hazard.”
This ordinance has been on the books for 15 years. We as a community should be concerned when someone lives in an unsafe structure or if this unsafe structure catches fire and burns down their neighbor’s house, too.
David McHenry is a spokesperson for Citizens for Healthy Established Neighborhoods. Reach him at dmchenry@bresnan.net. This was also signed by 19 others.
