Lubbock planning staff presents draft zoning map analysis; council asks for district-by-district outreach

City of Lubbock planning staff presented a draft zoning map analysis at a Sept. 23 work session and asked for City Council direction on whether to move recommended zone changes through the formal rezoning process.

Kristen Sager, director of planning, told the council the analysis flows from the city’s comprehensive plan adopted in December 2018 and the recent Unified Development Code (UDC) update. “Today is a work session. There is no action being taken. We are just looking for discussion, feedback and direction,” Sager said.

The analysis, prepared with consultant SafeBuilt, reviewed more than 105,000 parcels within city limits and identified roughly 1,250 parcels with recommended zoning changes to align zoning with existing land use or future land use designations. Sager said the work is intended to reduce nonconforming situations and implement the UDC and future land use map; examples cited include industrial zoning over parcels developed for commercial or residential uses in Canyon West and portions of the medical district that remain zoned high-density residential from a former code.

Sager described a six-stage consultant process — data gathering, analysis, study of results, focused area review, findings and recommendations — and noted SafeBuilt created an interactive GIS website tied to the analysis. She said staff estimates the standard rezoning notice would require roughly 4,200 letters to adjacent property owners within 400 feet and presented a draft schedule that would move district by district starting with January Planning and Zoning Commission filings.

Councilmembers welcomed the district-level approach but pressed staff on outreach and timing. Councilmember Glasheen said breaking the work up by district “is logical” and would spread the workload. Mayor Proteo and the mayor pro tem said district-by-district outreach would make the process more personal and urged staff to engage neighborhood associations and use social and digital media to keep the public informed.

Councilmember Collins asked whether the review would change zoning for vacant land and whether a rezoning could raise a parcel’s allowed intensity (for example from single-family to high-density). Sager said staff focused on three main categories: existing buildings with mismatched zoning, properties annexed and zoned SF‑2 that developed nonresidential uses, and vacant land potentially zoned industrial that better reflects residential uses. She said a vacant parcel could be recommended for a less-restrictive district in the analysis, but any formal rezoning would follow the standard public-notice process, which gives adjacent owners written notice and an opportunity to comment.

Several councilmembers recommended improving the mailed notice by adding a QR code or direct link to the interactive map so recipients can easily see proposed changes around them. Councilmember Kachen suggested working closely with council representatives from each district to help digest maps and identify where additional town halls might be needed.

Sager said public outreach to date included an online survey open six weeks, a town hall held Aug. 21 and a Planning and Zoning Commission work session on Sept. 4. She asked council whether staff should proceed with district-by-district rezoning cases or consider other formats; councilmembers generally supported the district approach while stressing careful, clear outreach.

Staff indicated it will return with a proposed schedule, sample notices that include web links and QR codes, and district maps showing every property included in each proposed packet before formal filings with Planning and Zoning and the council.

The work session concluded with no action taken; staff sought direction only and will proceed according to council guidance on timing and outreach.