[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6228379,"mediaKeyId","3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2","parentId",3475394,"title","North and East Lubbock residents urge tighter limits on concrete batch plants in UDC rewrite","audioSeconds",1853,"startMs",358000,"endMs",2211000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2&start=358&end=2211","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2/thumbnail_358000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6228379/Lubbock/Lubbock-County/Texas/North-and-East-Lubbock-residents-urge-tighter-limits-on-concrete-batch-plants-in-UDC-rewrite","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6228379-ac53f42559851d49a07782709a381e83/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131338&Signature=AjUgLI0oGLx5y4FhOnrb14NJVFzpRoC8vfew~t26IOJEtTh8DV8TpmYmYdobSb0XCp35oeHHbE29Lgu~Iuf41e011cAQNgR3n63IZBDov34C9vb1avQlpnzgpxWQY-IYLTPKKdcRKiAvlUysP9TFrfGOHguHrywiKMENwbxXn5sFtt0rpBUFF~9V9tS9FiqifYiHeneyGC~f9rqTF4LlcdjfZ-j60T166cr8AfmI3IlOFJ-~8IUA9WZf40EsBw19Z0LO7wW1vjArjtkRfADl5vHZ~zcxLQCK-v05s0BDlnEVbanuH1y74XTnDnf-mdnhITjCCkGB0BuFQBANgr~huw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Lubbock TX","date","2025-05-23T23:43:51.45Z","article","City planning staff proposed removing two temporary-plant requirements from the section of the Unified Development Code that regulates permanent concrete batch plants, arguing those two standards are tailored to temporary facilities used for on-site construction projects and do not belong in a permanent-use rubric.

At a joint Planning and Zoning Commission/City Council public hearing, residents of North and East Lubbock urged the council to use the UDC revision to tighten restrictions rather than relax them, saying nearby batch plants have emitted dust and particulate matter that harm neighborhood air quality.

\"Particles being released by these batch plants has a direct effect on the health and welfare of our residents,\" said Zora Cortez, executive director of the North and East Lubbock Coalition, who said her home sits less than 500 yards from three concrete batch plants. \"Why are you making it easier for these companies to do who do not follow the rules to operate in our neighborhoods?\" Cortez said she and her group have or plan contested-case and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality complaints against facilities they believe are violating permit conditions.

Planning staff described the technical change as a clarification: permanent batch plants remain a specific use that requires City Council approval, while requirements that reference duration tied to a single construction project are appropriate to temporary plants and will be removed from the permanent-plant subsection. \"They basically reference a temporary use,\" planning staff said, adding the two standards will be removed from the permanent-batch-plant section.

Residents asked why city-owned or vacant industrial parcels in their neighborhoods have not been rezoned away from heavy industrial uses and urged the city to consider downzoning, amortization schedules, and mediation with the community. Cortez said prior committee work on amortization and downzoning did not address city-owned vacant lots, which she said should be rezoned before they are developed.

Council members asked staff to confirm that temporary plants remain time-limited and that the permanent-plant subsection will still require specific-use approval. Planning staff told the council the temporary-plant limits remain in the code and that permanent plants will continue to require specific-use approval by council.

No formal action was taken; staff will return the full package to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a June recommendation and to council on the June 24 meeting date.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special City Council Meeting May 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City planning staff proposed removing temporary-plant requirements from the permanent concrete batch-plant subsection of the Unified Development Code while residents urged tighter restrictions and enforcement after ongoing dust complaints.","taxTitle","Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas","taxId",2806,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6228382,"Lubbock debates larger parking-garage wall signs after repeated ZBA denials and safety complaints",2119,741000,2860000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2&start=741&end=2860","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2/thumbnail_741000.jpg","/articles/6228382/Lubbock/Lubbock-County/Texas/Lubbock-debates-larger-parking-garage-wall-signs-after-repeated-ZBA-denials-and-safety-complaints","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6228382-3c90e5c0691483c165fd7956eec60fa6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131338&Signature=R~FUtOG6yntg14Efx408k7Adamu2tHbGxRcuyaXlL2-aysZbMmVwvnXYG0lI1JOR0itbBicQ5eBHjAOMP45DzhvwPzAcOFC13TLNzHO~tEuYFH2toV-aguNSAKMt5ZTLjuczseTPiwUNxApmFNIRzWi1VJhSq8ZG14JSlUwUwbgYjbzPhXGCLZPVRDUcymd6sqRcmeqd-w7pLg0mWxTTBSTQVwipiSAKzCqj-n0FtOb8qdtsY~PMw4QpR3~s2uPTpHfMq~9lJhwoG7MHyfKYWmLPgKr0OJmfWb7OEPAnFNkgvKLLDokgPoB70A3DXV6vhydiUSAX2GqIG~5l3bUK4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff presented a proposed amendment to the Unified Development Code that would allow wall signs on properties whose primary use is structured automobile parking and that are at least 50 feet tall to cover up to 35% of each building facade.

The proposal drew strong public opposition at a joint meeting of the Lubbock City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission on the grounds that the change would reverse prior Zoning Board of Adjustment decisions and expand large, billboard-like advertising on tall parking structures across the city.

The change under discussion would replace the current 20% wall-sign limit with a 35% limit for qualifying parking garages. Supporters of the amendment said it recognizes the distinct characteristics of structured parking; opponents said it would allow off-site advertising and create safety hazards.

\"I think a lot more people would have been here tonight except that they have a conflicting school board meeting. So we're here asking you all not to change the votes and the voices that have come before you,\" Jane Henry, a resident, told the council during public comment. Steven Falk, another resident, described a safety concern on the curve near the parking structure: \"If you take a second and a half to just notice the sign?\" Falk said, arguing that looking away even briefly on a curve at highway speeds could be dangerous.

Mary Scribe, who said she lives near the site, argued that the large signs on Raider Park garage have been used for off-site advertising: \"These signs are going to be used for off-site advertising,\" she said, noting that tenants shown on the existing signs do not sell products at the garage site.

Representatives for the garage owner pushed back. Zach Bridal, attorney for the Raider Park garage owner, said the amendment is \"narrowly tailored\" and intended to address the unique needs of structured parking facilities. Bridal added the owners prefer a code change to repeated variance applications and argued supporters have not shown a safety problem tied directly to the signs: he cited statewide studies concluding no statistically significant link between outdoor signage and increased traffic accidents.

Former Zoning Board of Adjustment chair Joe McKay and other speakers urged the council to respect the existing variance process. McKay said the ZBA applies legal tests for hardship and that prior ZBA decisions denying or limiting signage should not be set aside by a code change.

Staff and members of the public also raised technical building-code concerns. Steven Falk said the sign material and extent of coverage might affect natural ventilation in the parking structure; staff said building-safety reviewers would have evaluated materials when permits were issued. Planning staff noted the proposed amendment would prohibit LED/digital signage, but that the code change would allow substantially larger sign area on qualifying garages.

No formal vote was taken. Planning staff said the full packet of proposed UDC amendments will return to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5 for a recommendation and to city council on June 24, where council will consider the proposed changes.

Supporters and opponents asked the council to weigh the consistency of past ZBA rulings, the structure-specific needs of large parking garages, and public-safety and visual-precedent concerns before acting.","City planning staff presented a proposed amendment to the Unified Development Code that would allow wall signs on properties whose primary use is structured automobile parking and that are at least 50 feet tall to cover up to 35% of each building facade.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6228370,"Industrial developers ask council to ease setbacks and loading requirements after UDC shrank buildable footprints",2388,2290000,4678000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2&start=2290&end=4678","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2/thumbnail_2290000.jpg","/articles/6228370/Lubbock/Lubbock-County/Texas/Industrial-developers-ask-council-to-ease-setbacks-and-loading-requirements-after-UDC-shrank-buildable-footprints","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6228370-8090168d45be2885d7492e889aa08f1e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131338&Signature=Ambs9sA3pnzCDVhY5VakNY5GoBZ71t-NQf0ehFqDvzIi4Be9T~nJgdAGQejcxAmH0Vv83c8WO2iYXutgU0TGiafuinmKAUGuohFQG1PDL7yGsjVNq3tTnq70QOwdiytJfAqa7U5e6HCuuV6kgNcBYbgQAzeB4DVRCkmEeFzBAbQo7A1ioDe6MYoyjXjCgP92cmlBeP3rIvcRUsrAAwhmsLRS~eo3tUoMHY09BhVk-0TQyBjLzb5kkCo60nLvCLiDk9D9T2CEShCue6CE~sjqnJymx73vmqHfown3KTnO44Hysc1bEDn3P1-OslD5P6c7xTWBJ0B-m331wKm3ZIKTWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Developers and property owners with land in West Lubbock told the joint Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that several new Unified Development Code requirements have substantially reduced their buildable footprints and complicated industrial development.

Gordon Wilkerson of Wilkerson Properties said the UDC \"takes away our ability to develop 24% of what we could have developed previously,\" and asked the council to restore pre-UDC side and rear setbacks for light-industrial (LI) and industrial-park (IP) districts. \"The most punitive for us is the rear setback,\" Wilkerson said, describing a current 100-foot rear setback that, combined with required masonry fences and alleys, leaves little room to build.

Wilkerson also urged the council to change a new mandatory loading-zone requirement. He said the current rule requires loading zones for relatively small buildings and proposed making loading zones mandatory only for buildings of 50,000 square feet or more. \"A loading zone should not be mandatory until the development reaches 50,000 feet,\" he said, noting many users can operate with dock-high loading without separate loading yards.

Staff and developers discussed other industrial details: buffer-yard requirements, alley setbacks and compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Planning staff said infill-compatibility regulations exist for properties with development on at least two adjacent sides and that certain heavy-commercial or warehousing uses may be permitted in some commercial districts with lesser setbacks than industrial districts.

No formal vote was taken. Developers asked for further review and offered to meet with staff to refine proposed text before the June 5 Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and the June 24 council consideration.","Wilkerson Properties and other industrial developers asked the council to roll back aspects of the new Unified Development Code, saying larger rear setbacks and mandatory loading zones shrank the buildable area on existing industrial parcels in West Lubbock.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6228375,"Developer and staff seek to remove 1,300-square-foot cap from Lubbock's 'cottage' definition",307,1329000,1636000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2&start=1329&end=1636","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2/thumbnail_1329000.jpg","/articles/6228375/Lubbock/Lubbock-County/Texas/Developer-and-staff-seek-to-remove-1300-square-foot-cap-from-Lubbocks-cottage-definition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6228375-7ee3625d4d2aabcbe9366bd7c02cfa0e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131338&Signature=W1qTxMAliToaPTFG8LpM05XEYaziZVZoBWaruGZ-cXAr6Y0VNHPE6QI964TAA9aEkHAtN5J4vvwfPQtGITJit5R9hYS2vBN8xlRMxCvf5T~~4AUOdzXojLfNn0BCXZv8HlYJEnjW3oL6YKgmIqLsoIvtxqWkcvfC4bstwvede61GHQn70wz~7IdLZDNZU5MTiF-~YSBhAT7JCIhfCArytGF0W-UjY4yRp5DFKp92514X3LdX8W24a0y4m-rYkSlVI0b3NU74KfGxXiz~A-EL2gvaKiRtD3KLk2KDiFPXZLpjKVnimSG8vDj2ViHN8XSTOkeC9DIqeHcdVTr3sktlPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A developer and planning staff asked the joint Planning and Zoning Commission/City Council to amend the Unified Development Code definition of \"single-family cottage\" by removing a 1,300-square-foot maximum home-area cap and instead requiring cottages to be located on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet.

Ronnie Wallace, representing Beatenbo Homes, told the commission his company had encountered conflicting interpretations between staff and developers when garages were included in square-footage calculations. \"We respectfully submit a formal request to amend section 39 dot 10 dot 0 0 2 of the zoning ordinance regarding the single family cottage definition... we propose removal of the stated 1,300 square foot, maximum home area,\" Wallace said.

Planning staff said the cap had been added in a recent round of amendments to distinguish cottages from other detached single-family homes. Staff recommended using lot-size criteria rather than a home-area cap to distinguish cottages from other single-family product types: \"We think it would be more appropriate to say cottages must be on a lot that is less than 5,000 square feet,\" staff said, noting the UDC already contains related density and lot-coverage rules (including a 65% maximum lot coverage for cottages).

Council members asked whether limiting living area (for example, \"1,300 square feet of living space\") would better reflect developer concerns about garages increasing total conditioned area; staff cautioned that living area definitions could complicate multi-story designs and said setbacks and coverage limits would continue to control density.

No formal action was taken at the hearing; staff will include the amendment in the June review process.","Developers asked the council to amend the Unified Development Code so that the single-family \"cottage\" designation is defined by lot size (under 5,000 sq ft) rather than a 1,300 sq ft maximum for the dwelling; staff said the change would clarify implementation and avoid garage-area counting confusion.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6228366,"Staff proposes allowing annexation and zone-change applications to run concurrently to speed development review",3821,75000,3896000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2&start=75&end=3896","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3475394-5fbce90ff81b680db74ee9b430bcc5d2/thumbnail_75000.jpg","/articles/6228366/Lubbock/Lubbock-County/Texas/Staff-proposes-allowing-annexation-and-zone-change-applications-to-run-concurrently-to-speed-development-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6228366-dad09bd3f2963643e02c5197d0359646/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131338&Signature=hlCqhEB8-xpR7tLYc~AZXa3hlxV2exl3XlE6IL3sd0g--MHxexb2eCu5cgWFOCxmEoQqe4eVTEj0TYLjVqik4iR~YaBWRmuJxxFHKmlnMKffJA0i6H3-ujuxhk5lQDnuYwWAfdr8zq2L3dYoZU7tNRpAHy0HTj~lcn-VTytYu7~QXBByj7qSWBLyerp8G9rNCRnViV0ZuoQyZI1ETgxPS4aAW9ziUVD0Id1knt2CyL~UpziOjApd025n6Z9ucL4KI9X-7dc2hfurFH6Jx4FIfkIrIuB0uNOLnPkw4eqSHFQT~6LzPH5NbLRI8L3eDew4jqIDv9WXOGTrcP24QE0RcA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff proposed an amendment to the Unified Development Code that would permit owners petitioning to annex property to submit a zone-change application concurrently with the annexation petition rather than waiting until annexation is complete.

Proponents argued allowing the two processes to run concurrently reduces timeline risk, clarifies expectations about future zoning at the time of annexation, and can help economic-development negotiations where a private user requires city services and a zoning designation before committing to a project.

\"The request is simply to allow annexations and zone changes to run concurrently,\" planning presenter Kristen Sager said. Economic development and land-use attorneys and developers at the hearing supported the change. \"I think it makes sense for the normal course to say okay here's my annexation, here's my proposed pre-plat, and here's my zone cases that go along with that so that we can have a conversation all at once,\" said Mault McClendon, who described himself as a local practitioner and supporter of periodic UDC review.

Staff said the change would not alter the substantive review standards for zoning; it would only allow the two procedural processes to proceed in parallel and let the council and commission consider zoning while annexation is pending. The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider the amendment at its June 5 meeting and forward a recommendation to council; council is scheduled to consider the full UDC package June 24.","Planning staff recommended the UDC be amended to allow applicants petitioning to annex property to file a zone-change application concurrently, a procedural change proponents said would reduce delay and help with economic-development deals; developers and economic development counsel supported the idea at the hearing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

North and East Lubbock residents urge tighter limits on concrete batch plants in UDC rewrite

Lubbock debates larger parking-garage wall signs after repeated ZBA denials and safety complaints

Industrial developers ask council to ease setbacks and loading requirements after UDC shrank buildable footprints

Developer and staff seek to remove 1,300-square-foot cap from Lubbock's 'cottage' definition

Staff proposes allowing annexation and zone-change applications to run concurrently to speed development review