Durham council reviews sweeping UDO rewrite as members spar over affordability and density
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
City planning staff presented a full draft of a new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that would remap much of the Urban Growth Boundary and introduce new districts and development options; councilmembers praised readability and sustainability measures but sharply debated how and when to tie additional height or density to deeper affordable housing requirements.
Durham — City planning staff on Tuesday presented a full draft of a proposed Unified Development Ordinance intended to put the 2023 comprehensive plan into practice, proposing new zoning districts and three development pathways designed to increase housing variety while protecting natural resources.
The presentation, led by Bo Dobrinski of Planning & Development and consultant Code Studio, laid out four modules already released in public engagement: zoning districts and uses, development standards, subdivision/infrastructure and environmental standards, and a forthcoming administrative section. Staff said they expect a special Planning Commission meeting Feb. 24, a joint public hearing April 22 and adoption before the end of the fiscal year.
"The UDO is the way we deliver on the promises of the comprehensive plan," Dobrinski said, noting the document aims to be shorter, more graphic and easier for the public and staff to use. The draft replaces development tiers with place‑type‑aligned districts and introduces mixed‑use RX/CX districts, four residential districts (RA, RB, RC, RD) and new civic and conservation districts.
The draft also offers three by‑right development options for the most common residential district (RD): a base suburban model, a compact small‑lot option and an "affordable option" that grants higher density in exchange for deed‑restricted units. Under staff proposals, developers who choose the affordable option would provide either 8% of units at 80% of area median income (AMI) or 4% at 30% AMI to qualify for increased density.
"Our goal was to create usable incentives that the market will actually take," Planning staff said, pointing to past density bonuses with low uptake. Staff said the 8%/4% thresholds were selected after reviewing regional practice and historic proffers; Minneapolis and Austin were cited as reference points for calibration.
Councilmembers engaged in a lengthy debate. Some members urged reserving height and density bonuses for projects that deliver deep and reliable affordability, arguing that density given without strong affordability requirements risks producing market‑rate housing only.
"We should not give density away for free on a large scale," Council Member Baker said, urging stronger guarantees tied to bonuses. "If we want polycentric, transit‑oriented neighborhoods, we must ensure that additional height yields genuine affordable units."
Other members emphasized supply and design as levers to reduce cost. "We want to incentivize the best use of land and make it as easy as possible to provide a range of housing types," the mayor Pro Tem said, noting small‑lot and compact options can expand for‑rent product that is less expensive than traditional single‑family construction.
Staff also presented transportation and environment changes that would be embedded in the UDO: required complete‑streets for new private streets using NACTO standards, new street types tailored to private development, higher tree‑coverage requirements for parcels over four acres (22% versus 7% below 4 acres), expanded riparian protections, and a sustainable development matrix that offers points for green stormwater, native landscaping, public plazas and other measures.
Planning staff said they will provide follow‑up materials requested by council, including an updated displacement analysis overlaying the proposed rezoning map and a memo on how the proposed bonuses have performed in peer cities.
If adopted, city staff noted, the UDO would proactively remap properties to align zoning with the place‑type map; however, rezoning processes, public hearings and the council’s legislative authority would remain intact. Staff cautioned that recent state law limits some down‑zoning of nonresidential properties and that nonconforming rights will persist in many cases.
Next steps: Planning Department staff asked councilmembers to submit specific feedback and requested additional small‑group briefings. The Planning Commission will hold the first formal public hearing Feb. 24.