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

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.