Lubbock planners propose broad UDC amendments; signs on Raider Park Garage draw public opposition

City planning staff on Tuesday presented a package of proposed amendments to Lubbock’s Unified Development Code (UDC), touching on annexation procedures, residential setbacks and coverage, definitions for cottages and manufactured-home parks, parking and mixed-use rules, and sign regulations — including a contested change that would allow larger wall signs on tall parking garages.

Kristen Seager, planning staff, told the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission that the package is intended primarily as clarifications and restorations of provisions removed or altered when the UDC was adopted. “This would not circumvent the zone change process. This would simply allow the two applications to run concurrently,” Seager said, explaining a staff recommendation that owners petitioning for annexation be allowed to submit a zone-change application at the same time as their annexation petition.

The amendments include a wide range of technical and policy changes: restoring an allowance for one-story wing extensions to have a reduced rear setback when abutting a paved alley; raising townhome maximum building coverage in the medium-density residential district from 45% to 70%; removing a rarely used “manufactured home subdivision” land use and adding a minimum 10-acre size for manufactured-home parks; clarifying parking-ratio rules for multi-tenant developments; and multiple sign-code updates and cleanup of obsolete MU4/MU6 references.

Why it matters: the UDC governs setbacks, densities, signage, and where particular uses may locate. Changes to those rules influence what kinds of housing and commercial development are feasible, and where industrial or potentially polluting uses can operate. Several public commenters urged the commission and council to weigh neighborhood health, safety and compatibility as the city moves forward.

Public comment focused heavily on the proposed sign change listed as Item 31. That amendment would exempt automobile structured parking (parking garages) at least 50 feet tall from a current limit that caps wall signs at 20% of a building facade; the amendment would instead allow wall signs up to 35% of each facade for qualifying parking structures. Opponents said the change would permit billboard-scale advertising on large garages and could create safety and aesthetic problems.

Zora Cortes, executive director of the North and East Lubbock Coalition and a Guadalupe neighborhood resident, urged caution on provisions she said would make it easier for polluting and industrial uses to operate near homes: “Why are you making it easier for these companies to do who do not follow the rules to operate in our neighborhoods?” Cortes said, noting ongoing contested-case actions and regulatory complaints against local batch plants.

Several neighborhood residents and speakers urged removing or narrowing Item 31. Steven Falk said the large graphic panels on the Raider Park garage operate like billboards and raised safety concerns for drivers approaching a curve on Marshall Freeway. “They’re billboards. And billboards, I don’t believe, are allowed in this zoning district,” Falk said. Mary Crites and other residents argued that a 50-foot threshold is low and that the increase from 20% to 35% could allow large advertising areas on multiple facades of a single structure.

Representatives of the garage owner and its counsel, including attorney Zach Bridal, asked the city to adopt the amendment as a narrowly tailored policy recognizing the special needs of structured parking. Bridal noted the building’s use and height and said the change would reduce the need for repeated, inconsistent variance requests. He added the amendment would explicitly prohibit LED/digital signage.

Other public input highlighted additional topics in the package. Developers and property owners sought the restoration or clarification of provisions they said affect buildable area and economic feasibility in industrial zones. Gordon Wilkerson of Wilkerson Properties and others asked for relief on industrial setbacks, buffer-yard rules and mandatory loading-zone requirements, saying the new UDC can shrink buildable footprints and raise costs for typical industrial projects. Wilkerson proposed limiting some sign relief and changing the threshold for mandatory loading zones (suggesting loading zones be required only for developments of 50,000 square feet or more).

Developers and small-property owners also addressed residential definitions. Ronnie Wallace of Beatonbo Homes (representing Eatonville/Beatenbo Homes) asked that the cottage definition drop a 1,300-square-foot maximum building area and instead require that a cottage be located on a lot under 5,000 square feet; Seager said staff supports clarifying the distinction so cottages are defined by lot size rather than an ambiguous building-area cap. Seager noted that existing regulations (not the definition) already set a maximum lot coverage of about 65% for cottages.

On concrete batch plants, residents asked why standards that appear tailored to temporary batch plants were present within the permanent-batch-plant requirements. Seager explained staff’s intent to remove language that ties permanent plants to temporary-project durations; batch plants remain a specific use requiring council approval. Zora Cortes and other residents pressed the council to address proximity of heavy-industrial uses to neighborhoods, downzoning of vacant city-owned industrial parcels in Guadalupe, and to shorten amortization periods for nonconforming polluting facilities.

The public hearing closed after an extended discussion. Seager said the amendments will return to the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on Thursday, June 5, at 6:00 p.m.; if PNZ makes a recommendation they will come to City Council on Tuesday, June 24 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioners and council members asked staff to confirm related temporary-batch-plant time limits remain clearly written and to double-check sign and building-code interfaces (ventilation, obstructive signs) raised by commenters.

What wasn’t decided: the presentation and public hearing did not include final action; the council did not adopt changes at the meeting. Several speakers asked staff and council to retain or restore protections for neighborhoods (downzoning vacant city-owned lots, stricter limits on polluting uses) and to retain variance oversight for unusual requests. Staff signaled it will refine language and return with the formal ordinance and any recommended refinements.

Next steps: Planning staff will present the package to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5; council consideration is scheduled for June 24 if PNZ forwards a recommendation.