The potential for more condominiums to be built in single-family neighborhoods has some residents concerned that housing density in older neighborhoods could radically change.

The residents are worried, in part, because the code does not specifically prohibit condos from being built on lots where there are currently single houses.

“We’re hoping the City Council will hopefully intervene and help us work through some of these issues,” said Barbara Garlick, a resident of West Second Avenue.

City staff members say they are aware of the condo loophole that has some residents worried, and they are working on an amendment to the Land Use and Development Code.

Condos in single-family zones were prohibited under the previous code, and it was just an oversight that a prohibition was not included in the current code, said Nicol Killian, planning manager.

The city lost the consultant who was working on the code, and that has led to the need for this amendment and others.

“We have some oversights. ... We need to go back and make some changes,” Killian said.

But it was not the city’s intent to open single-family neighborhoods to condominiums, she said.

Any condo proposed at this time would likely not make it through the planning process before the code is revised to prohibit it, Killian said.

Garlick discovered the problem while she was asking questions about what development was possible on the lot next to her house. She said a city planner originally told her that only a smaller secondary home could be built next door. These homes, termed accessory-dwelling units, are strictly regulated by the city.

But later, she said the city told her that a condo could be built next door because the lot is within an area that is allowed to have multifamily housing, according to city code.

The city never took action to re-zone the Garlicks’ neighborhood, and the Garlicks would have received a legal letter if that happened, Killian said.

Now, Garlick is concerned because a developer is proposing to build a new house next to an existing Victorian on the same lot. The lot would not be subdivided, but the two homes could be sold separately as condos. The two homes could be classified as condos because the two owners could form a homeowner’s association and take joint responsibility for outside maintenance of both buildings, Killian said.

The existence of small pockets of multifamily housing within old neighborhoods is concerning to the Citizens for Healthy Established Neighborhoods, said Dave McHenry, a spokesman for the nonprofit that represents residents from all Durango neighborhoods.

His group lobbied City Council to regulate ADUs, but the pockets of multifamily zoning within some of the older neighborhoods in town never came up when the code was being revised.

“All this talk about detached duplexes ... it was never mentioned to anybody,” he said.

McHenry would like to examine zoning with an aim to prevent two-single family homes from being classified as condos and allowing them to be built on lots smaller than 7,500 square feet.

“We think that the multifamily pockets within the established neighborhoods need to have a thorough public discussion,” he said.

McHenry, Garlick and other advocates brought their concerns Tuesday night to the Durango City Council, and a few asked for a moratorium on new condo projects in older neighborhoods.

City Manager Ron LeBlanc asked councilors for time to more fully understand the problem.

mshinn@durangoherald.com

This story has been updated to correct who is involved in Citizens for Healthy Established Neighborhoods. It has also been updated to correct the group’s position on housing density. The group is not against all greater housing density in general, but it has concerns about detached duplexes.