Wrestling over Twin Buttes
Debate swirls over balancing development, open space

A windmill is set against the backdrop of the Twin Buttes as seen from Highway 160, west of town. The 1,000 acres of private property have come under increased scrutiny lately as both a source of future development and open space. The area is included in “Urbanization Area” in the city’s comp plan but alos noted for its preservation qualities in the city’s Parks, Open Space and Trails Master plan../Photo by David Halterman

by Missy Votel

Until recently, the undeveloped expanse of land west of town known as the Twin Buttes was not only out of sight to many Durangoans, but out of mind. However, with increasing pressures on developable land close to town coupled with a desire to preserve what is left of the town’s open space, the 1,000-acre tract of private property has come into focus. Although most of the land is technically in La Plata County, it is included in the City of Durango’s future “Urbanization Area” in the newly revised Comprehensive Plan, approved by City Council on Tuesday night. The same parcel, however, is also outlined in the city’s 2001 Parks, Open Space and Master Plan as possessing four out of five of the most desirable open space qualities.

Despite a year of sometimes contentious debate over designating the area as “rural density,” an agreement was reached late last year to change designation on the flatter, more buildable terrain to low-density. These “bubbles,” although surrounded by rural land, could be home to as many as 1,200 new units.

The change has bothered some local open space advocates, who say the rugged area, in addition to being largely unsuitable to building, should be better left in a mostly natural state.

Scott Graham, chairman of the city’s Open Space Advisory Board and lifetime Durango resident, said the Twin Buttes area is a “treasure” that deserves careful consideration. “I would go up there as a kid all the time,” he said. “It’s as beautiful in there as some of our more renowned national parks. It’s worth looking at what we can do to preserve it.”

However, those involved in city planning say the issue is not so cut and dry.

“The city just can’t go in and paint someone’s land as open space,” said Durango Planning Director Greg Hoch. “The debate is not whether these landowners have the right to develop, but how they will develop.”

Hoch said ignoring the rights of private property owners is a mistake that could have costly consequences, as in the case of Durango’s neighbor to the north,

Telluride. There, the Telluride Town Council has been embroiled in a battle over 570 acres of undeveloped, privately owned land at the entrance to the town, called the “Valley Floor.” The town condemned the land in the public interest and is now in the process of trying to ante up $50 million to buy it.

Regardless, Hoch is not ruling out the possibility of an outright purchase of the Twin Buttes land, but said with limited funds, it could be a stretch. “It is a possibility if the city steps in and makes a decision to buy it,” he said. “But we’d be paying out the wazoo.”

Durango Parks, Open Space and Trail Manager Kevin Hall said it is hard to put a price on the Twin Buttes land since it hasn’t been appraised. However, some open space advocates argue that designating the area as high density will only drive that price up.

Other than an outright purchase, Hall said the more likely scenario would be an open space collaboration among Twin Buttes landowners, the city, Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) and the La Plata Open Space Conservancy. “Acquiring the land certainly is one of those things that could be an outcome,” he said. “But there’s also the possibility of using conservation easements or the (Division of Wildlife) playing a major role.”

The Twin Buttes area is home to wintering elk and deer as well as black bears. It also serves as a vital wildlife corridor between the Perins Peak State Wildlife Area and the one in Bodo.

Perhaps the biggest sticking point with Twin Buttes seems to be over the issue of density on the upper two parcels, or “benches,” one of which is owned by Gabrielle Dugan and the other by Steven Rasdell, of San Juan Industries. Development on these upper parcels, which include the Twin Buttes themselves, would not only be difficult but would create access problems and be visible from town and major roadways. According to Hall, keeping such areas open was one of the top criteria used in identifying potential open space opportunities in the POST plan. “Any type of viewshed areas are really important as preservation criteria,” he said.

As far as the lower benches go, Hoch said development is likely. However, he noted that the increase in density from one unit per 3 acres to bubbles with as many as 5 units per acre comes with an asterisk. That asterisk denotes the need for several conditions to be met before landowners can proceed with development. These include clustered development, preservation of wildlife corridors, ridgeline protection and open space dedication.

Hoch said the owner of the lower-lying parcel, the Paul family, is already in the process of drawing up plans for a proposed residential development on its 400 acres known as the McIntyre Ranch. Although nothing formal has been submitted, he said he anticipates the development plan coming in with “all the things the city asked for,” as well as an affordable housing component. Hall said it was his understanding that the development also would have a public component. “It would include public lands, trails and public access.”

Despite this, there are signs that the city could be readying to make a move to buy in the Twin Buttes area. Last month, City Council, on the recommendation of the Open Space Advisory Board, withdrew from an impending purchase of the 82-acre Hidden Valley Estates, west of Durango adjacent to the Durango Mountain Park, in order to free up the $1.3 million in open space funds. Although the advisory board specifically mentioned Twin Buttes in its recommendation, the council made no mention of it in its decision.

“Now we know we have an extra $1.3 million in our pocket,” said Durango Mayor Sidney Zink. “The move didn’t mean anything specific, it just meant we are no longer pursuing Hidden Valley.”

However, Hall said the move was made to “preserve” the city’s options. “There are a lot of GOCO opportunities coming up,” he said. “The sense was that Hidden Valley preservation at this time could be detrimental to Twin Buttes.”

Graham said partial development is a compromise he can live with, and that preservation and development are not mutually exclusive. “I’m comfortable with the notion that there are areas on the lower benches for growth,” he said. “But now is the time to look at what we want from the land as a community because that’s when we have a say is during the annexation process.”

He also implored the city to slow down with the process so there can be more public input. “We as a community should slow down and look at the preservation possibilities as we move forward.”

However, both Graham and Hall noted that it will be hard to make any headway on the issue without one vital party coming to the table. “The first thing you need to have is willing landowners,” Graham said.

Hall said such a scenario is preferred for the best possible outcome. “If we have opportunities to speak with the property owners, we’d certainly like to come together and talk about something that will work for everyone,” he said. •