A view of the old Boker Lumber and Hardware yard at 960 E. College Drive. The Durango City Council will meet Tuesday night to decide whether or not these land should be rezoned to allow developers to exceed current density and height requirements./Photo by Steve Eginoire

‘Bokering’ a deal

City Council to consider rezoning for Boker Lumber site
by Tracy Chamberlin

It comes down to this one meeting. After hours and hours of testimony, letters from the neighbors, plans from the developers, two recommendations from city staff, and two votes from the City Planning Commission, the fate of the former Boker Lumber property is in the hands of Durango City Council.

“It’s the biggest moment of this whole process,” said Karen Phelan, a property owner in the surrounding neighborhood, “because if the City Council approves it, it’s a done deal.”

A public hearing is scheduled for the council’s regular meeting next Tues., April 17, at 6:30 p.m., when members are tasked with deciding whether or not the lands located at 960 E. College Drive should be rezoned.

The developers of the property, Collegiate Partners LLC, requested to rezone it to a designation that would allow for 40 residential units per acre and a building height of 45 feet. Their request was denied by the city’s Planning Commission during a February meeting, and they appealed to the council to reconsider that denial.

All the parties involved, including the City, neighbors and developers, agree that residential housing would be the right use of the property.
But Phelan, who lives on E. 9th Avenue, said she wants “something that will compliment our neighborhood, not overwhelm it.”

Both Phelan and Emil Wanatka, a managing partner with Collegiate, said the project could have a positive impact on the local economy.
However, at this point, not everyone agrees on the path toward it.

The developers first considered buying the land at 960 E. College in 2010. Wanatka said they spoke to Durango’s Public Works and Planning departments before the property was even purchased to find out what the city’s vision was.

Currently, the property is zoned HC or Heavy Commercial, which is the designation it held as the former Boker property. The Land Use and Development Code, the guide for future development in Durango, lists the property as Mixed-Use, which allows for residential development.

With both parties interested in seeing the property used for residential purposes, it was purchased, and the developers came forth with an 86-unit plan that included 80 apartments and six townhomes.

“We thought we were responding to what they wanted to see,” Wanatka said.

That design, along with a subsequent, smaller 80-unit proposal, met with opposition from the neighbors and was dropped for a three-story, 66-unit design with underground parking, which was presented to the Planning Commission in December 2011. During that presentation, developers requested to rezone the property to PD, or Planned Development.

Neighbors raised concerns that a structure of that size could easily overwhelm the surrounding area and create safety hazards at the busy intersection of College Drive and 9th Avenue.

The commission denied the rezoning request by a 3-2 vote, and the developers wasted little time seeking an appeal. But, they ended up pulling the request. Wanatka said they did not want to appeal issues that involved safety, adding he felt it could further alienate the developers. “We did that, I think, in the spirit of cooperation,” he said.

In February, the developers returned to the commission with another proposal: a request for a different type of rezoning. It would still require the same type of public involvement and oversight as a Planned Development.

Several neighbors wrote letters to Craig Roser, principle planner for the city, and attended the public hearing before the Planning Commission in February to oppose the latest rezoning request. Their concerns range from safe access at the intersection and the fate of the City’s planned connection to trails in Horse Gulch to overflow parking and the lack of future oversight that would accompany the rezone.
Phelan said this issue has united the neighborhood in an unexpected way, and they have been consistent with their concerns.

Specifically, the developers asked for a split zoning designation. They requested the already-developed flat area on the western side of the property be deemed RM-24, or Residential/Multi-family, and the steep hillside at the back of the property RS-R, or Residential/Single-family Rural.

The RS-R designation on the hillside is not suggested in the Future Land Use Map, which lists that area as R, or Rural. The designation requested by the developers allows for a higher population density than the city wanted to see in the future.

During testimony for the recent request for a straight rezone, the developers suggested gifting that area of the property to the city. Wanatka said he’s uncertain how that donation would work, however there is no plan to develop the eastern hillside.

The RM-24 zoning designation for the front side of the property would allow for 40 units per acre of land and a maximum building height of 45 feet.

Phelan and the adjacent neighborhood to the west of those lands are zoned at eight residential units per acre with a maximum height of 26-28 feet. With a new designation, owners of the property today and in the future would not have the same boundaries as the its neighbors.

“I don’t want to walk out my door and be overwhelmed by it,” Phelan said.

The most recent addition to the property’s surrounding neighborhood is a three-story structure with two residential levels above a ground-level parking and commercial space.

However, the plan was only intended to illustrate the property’s potential to accommodate the zoning requirements. An approval of the rezone would not guarantee that particular plan would be built.

If the property is designated RM-24, there would be no requirement for a public review process. The city’s input would be limited to setbacks, building height, parking, landscaping and lighting standards.

Neighbors are concerned that without such requirements, developers would be free to build larger, denser structures or even sell the property to someone who would.

Wanatka said he hoped that those concerned would consider his track record and relationship with the community. “We’re hoping that there’s some level of trust,” he added.

Roser and city staff recommended denial of the rezone based on three reasons: the city wanted to keep the hillside portion of the property designated as Rural, they did not feel the rezone would comply with the Future Land Use Development Code, and the fact that the lack of future input and oversight could lead to a design that was incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood.

They did suggest a Planned Development process for the property, giving the city, the neighbors and the developers a say. “We just want to see it done in the right way,” Roser said.

No matter what the council decides, Wanatka said the developers are planning to regroup.

“We’re going to have to go back to a complete redesign at this point,” Wanatka said, “regardless of what happens.”

In this week's issue...

January 25, 2024
Bagging it

State plastic bag ban is in full effect, but enforcement varies

January 26, 2024
Paper chase

The Sneer is back – and no we’re not talking about Billy Idol’s comeback tour.

January 11, 2024
High and dry

New state climate report projects continued warming, declining streamflows