Durango City Council voted on Wednesday to eliminate minimum lot size requirements for detached accessory dwelling units within city limits, bringing half a year’s worth of debate among council members and residents to a close.
City Council narrowly approved an amendment to the city’s land use and development code to eliminate minimum lot size restrictions on detached ADUs by a 3-2 vote. Mayor Gilda Yazzie and Councilor Kip Koso voted against the amendment.
Councilor Shirley Gonzales appeared to be on the fence about the matter, weighing private property rights against the concerns of residents worried about ADUs harming the character of their neighborhoods, overwhelming water and sewer infrastructure, and congesting traffic and parking.
She ultimately voted alongside councilors Jessika Loyer and Dave Woodruff to approve the amendment.
Koso asked why the amendment did not account for a recommendation by the Community Development Commission to reduce – as opposed to eliminate – minimum lot size restrictions in established neighborhoods 1 and 3.
Yazzie backed Koso and said more discussion is necessary before removing any ADU restrictions.
Loyer said the CDC’s recommendation was not bold enough, and that the CDC intended for City Council to make the tough decision of whether to modify or remove ADU restrictions – a contentious issue among residents.
“This ordinance does not remove design standards. This ordinance does not eliminate parking requirements. It does not eliminate lot coverage limits and it does not eliminate owner occupancy,” she said. “It removes minimum lot restrictions in neighborhoods where ADUs are already allowed, bringing equity across zones and (allowing) modest increment infill.”
Residents Chris Paulson and Mary Finley urged City Council not to approve the amendment in public comments on Wednesday.
Paulson said the city shouldn’t be making ADUs more accessible without enforcing the ADUs already in place, referencing a Community Development report that shows about 70 units are either not properly registered with the city or do not meet requirements of the voluntary registration program.
“Why are we going forward and opening the door for more ADUs when there’s all these questions about whether or not these things are following the rules as is?” she said. “As far as enforcement: if you go over time (in) parking, there’s fines. But I haven’t heard anything about fines or any sort of enforcement mechanism so that if you break the rules you’re penalized in any sort.”
Community Development Director Jayme Lopko said at a previous meeting the city is working out a strategy to better enforce ADUs and bring its inventory up to date.
Finley likewise, said the city is rushing to eliminate minimum lot size requirements before it has enforcement guardrails and solutions to an overburdened infrastructure system – a factor some residents are worried could result from increased neighborhood density.
Resident and former city councilor Dick White spoke in favor of the amendment and giving homeowners the opportunity to build detached ADUs for the sake of increasing the city’s supply of affordable housing.
He said he voted for allowing ADUs when he was on City Council in 2014 and the city’s ADU program was first implemented. He hears the same arguments against ADUs now that he heard then.
“We have data now that explicitly tells us what has happened in the 12 years since the land use code was passed and we started allowing ADUs,” he said.
Referencing data provided in previous public Community Development presentations, he said 160 ADU units were built in the past 12 years – 160 units out of potentially 1,100 properties eligible for building ADUs.
“At this rate, expanding the opportunity to more owners would lead to seven new ADUs per year. This will have minimum impacts on established neighborhoods and provide a small but still welcome increment to Durango’s stock of affordable housing,” he said.
He said City Council should approve the amendment, turn its attention to other important matters and allow staff to sort out details of ADU enforcement.
Loyer and Woodruff rigorously defended the city’s process – a subject of critique from some objectors who said there hasn’t been enough community engagement – leading up to the vote on Wednesday.
Woodruff said discussions began in August, were tabled in the fall until more data was available, and resumed after the new year.
“We’ve discussed the item. We’ve taken public comment multiple times. We’ve had a citizen advisory commission look at the proposal. We’ve held a study session on other aspects of the ADU program, and on and on over the past six months,” he said. “We’ve given this topic broad considerations throughout multiple methods of engagement. At many steps along the way we may not have agreed, but the votes have been cast for both sides.”
He said he supports eliminating minimum lot size restrictions because it suits Durango’s long-term vision and “the benefits far outweigh the perceived disruption.”
He conceded ADUs are not the end all be all to affordable housing – but they are a tool at the city’s disposal.
Loyer said she campaigned for City Council five years ago on the mission to make Durango affordable to young adults who want to make Durango their home
“Opposition to this ordinance is framed as ‘not opposition to housing.’ But if we (oppose) incremental housing tools – tools used across Colorado and the West to respond to this same crisis – then we cannot honestly say that we support affordable housing,” she said. “You cannot support affordable housing in theory and oppose it in practice.”
She said she supports eliminating minimum lot size restrictions for teachers, young families, future residents and opportunities for families to take care of their aging family members – “for the kind of multigenerational Durango I believe in.”
cburney@durangoherald.com
