Skip to content
Amarillo LedgerAmarillo Ledger
Ask AI

Opens the assistant with a question about this page. Answers come from the AI, not this site.

ChatGPTClaudePerplexity

Storyline · 14 events · Jan 10, 2017 – Jun 27, 2023

North Heights Rezoning Initiative: Ordinances 7926 and 7939 (2017-2021)

Quick answers

What is the latest on North Heights rezoning?
Jun 27, 2023: Council recognizes the North Heights Advisory Association as the neighborhood's association, 4-0. The council adopted Resolution No. 06-27-23-4, recognizing the North Heights Advisory Association as the Recognized Neighborhood Association for the North Heights neighborhood, 4-0. Read the event
How far back does this record of North Heights rezoning go?
To Jan 10, 2017: Council adds the North Heights Neighborhood Plan to the Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance No. 7641), 5-0. The storyline has 14 dated events in all. Read the event

In October 2021 the Amarillo City Council postponed "until a later date" two ordinances rezoning the North Heights neighborhood plan area (Ordinances 7926 and 7939), after property owners filed a written protest requiring a three-fourths council vote; neither ordinance appears again in the council minutes reviewed through August 2026. In January 2017 the council had added the North Heights Neighborhood Plan to the Comprehensive Plan, 5-0; among its strategies was to "amend inconsistent and incompatible zoning districts." A rezoning of the plan area, worked out with a subcommittee of the North Heights Advisory Association, reached the Planning and Zoning Commission in March 2021 at 814.06 acres and was then split in two. The commission recommended Part 1 with changes, 5-2, and recommended against Part 2, 3-4; the City appealed. On August 24, 2021 the council approved Part 1 (Ordinance No. 7926) on first reading, 3-2, in an "Alternate Recommendation" version. Property owners then filed the protest, which staff said exceeded 20%. On October 12, 2021 the council voted 3-2 to postpone both ordinances, and a motion to reconsider failed 2-3.

A storyline groups dated events in order. It is a chronology, not an argument; it does not say why anything happened. All storylines

Where the story starts depends on the framing

  1. · Origin

    Council adds the North Heights Neighborhood Plan to the Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance No. 7641), 5-0

    The council passed Ordinance No. 7641, adding the North Heights Neighborhood Plan to the Amarillo Comprehensive Plan as a component, 5-0 on first reading on January 3, 2017 and 5-0 on second and final reading on January 10, 2017. The plan lists zoning strategies including "Amend inconsistent and incompatible zoning districts."[1][2][3]

    Elisha DemersonRandy BurkettMark NairBob Cowell Jr.

    • ✓ Verified

      Ordinance No. 7641 added the North Heights Neighborhood Plan to the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Amarillo as a component. The council passed it 5-0 on first reading, after a public hearing, on January 3, 2017, and 5-0 on second and final reading on January 10, 2017. The plan document describes itself as "An Amendment to the Amarillo Comprehensive Plan" and is marked "Adopted January 10, 2017." [1][2][3]

      Votes for
      5
      Votes against
      0
    • ✓ Verified

      The plan says industrial zoning (I-1) "is widely present in the northwestern, southwestern, and southeastern corners of the neighborhood" and that Amarillo Boulevard and US 287/Fillmore Street have large areas of Light Commercial zoning. Its strategies include analyzing land use patterns to "address incompatible zoning issues," using "zoning tools (Rezoning, Overlays, Mixed Use)" to support a mix of housing, and "Amend inconsistent and incompatible zoning districts." [3]

  2. · Precursor

    North Heights Advisory Association subcommittee prepares a rezoning proposal

    NewsChannel 10 reported that a subcommittee of the North Heights Advisory Association had spent several months on a proposal to rezone the neighborhood, that the neighborhood plan had identified zoning as an issue, and that the committee planned to bring it to the City Council in early 2021 after informational meetings and public hearings.[4]

    • ✓ Verified

      In October 2020 NewsChannel 10 reported that a North Heights Advisory Association subcommittee had spent several months working on rezoning the neighborhood to encourage residential and business growth, and that the committee planned to present it to the City Council at the start of 2021. A committee volunteer told the station the effort was "driven from desires of community members." [4]

    • ✓ Verified

      City of Amarillo agenda transmittal memos: City agenda memos in 2021 described the rezoning as a neighborhood plan project "prioritized for implementation by the North Heights Advisory Association (NHAA)" and said staff's recommendation "was developed in consultation with a sub-committee from NHAA." The October 2021 memo for Part 2 added that it was "being processed as a city-initiated case; however, it would not have been brought forward at this time if it had not been prioritized by the neighborhood." [5][6]

  3. · Precursor

    Planning and Zoning Commission tables the 814.06-acre North Heights rezoning (Z-21-01)

    Case Z-21-01 proposed rezoning 814.06 acres in seven parts across the North Heights Neighborhood Plan Area, with the North Heights Neighborhood Association listed as applicant. Staff recommended approval and said 2,600 notices had been mailed. After public comment for and against, the commission voted unanimously to table the case.[7]

    • ✓ Verified

      Case Z-21-01 proposed rezoning 814.06 acres in Sections 168, 169, 188, 189 and 224, Block 2, AB&M Survey, Potter County, in seven parts, including 444.89 acres to Residential District 2, 113.37 acres to Moderate Density, 76.42 acres to General Retail and 67.14 acres to Neighborhood Service. The minutes list the North Heights Neighborhood Association as applicant and say 2,600 notices were mailed the week of February 15. The commission tabled it unanimously. [7]

      Acres
      814.06

  4. · Precursor

    Original rezoning case withdrawn; initiative to return in two parts

    At the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff said case Z-21-01 was being withdrawn and that the first of two parts (the north half) was expected at the commission's June 14 meeting. On June 8 the City Council's agenda included an update on the North Heights Rezoning Initiative.[8][9]

    • ✓ Verified

      On May 17, 2021 staff told the Planning and Zoning Commission that no action was needed on Z-21-01 because "it is being withdrawn" and that the first of two parts (north half) was expected on June 14. Staff said three of the four sections in the original application would be combined into one. [8]

  5. · Precursor

    Planning and Zoning Commission tables Part 1, 4-3, and schedules a work session

    Staff, now listing the City of Amarillo as applicant, recommended approval of Part 1 of the North Heights Rezoning Initiative. Speakers' concerns recorded in the minutes included property values, legal non-conforming status and the City rezoning without owners' consent. The commission voted 4-3 to table the item and asked for a work session, held June 21, at which staff said Part 1 would change 1,440 properties.[10][11]

    • ✓ Verified

      On June 14, 2021 staff recommended approval of Part 1 as presented and said 1,220 property owner notices had been sent inviting owners to workshops. Staff listed the main public concerns as "devaluing property values, legal non-conforming status, and questioning how the City of Amarillo is legally able to rezone without consent from the public." A motion to table passed 4-3. [10]

      Votes for
      4
      Votes against
      3
    • ✓ Verified

      At a June 21, 2021 work session, staff said Part 1 would change 1,440 properties: 21 non-residential properties, 768 residential properties (single-family homes, duplexes and apartments) and 472 vacant properties. A staff planner said about 39 properties would become non-conforming. A City attorney said lengthening the 12-month period for non-conforming uses only in North Heights would likely be a legal issue because zoning standards need to be the same across the City. [11]

  6. · Starting point

    Planning and Zoning Commission recommends Part 1 with four changes, 5-2

    For case Z-21-05, a 650.15-acre rezoning of the north portion of the plan area, the commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval with changes: removing the area south and west of the railroad tracks and north of Amarillo Boulevard, removing one large privately owned tract north of 15th Avenue and west of N. Rusk, keeping Light Commercial zoning along Amarillo Boulevard, and letting "down zoned" property keep its current allowed uses for the life of the property.[12][5]

    • ✓ Verified

      City of Amarillo agenda transmittal memos: The City listed three goals for the initiative: align North Heights zoning with practices used in the rest of Amarillo, including the Neighborhood Unit Concept; implement the neighborhood plan's land use recommendations "to address incompatible zoning districts"; and encourage reinvestment and redevelopment "consistent with the neighborhood's original character." [5][6]

    • ✓ Verified

      On July 19, 2021 the commission voted 5-2 to recommend case Z-21-05 (650.15 acres) as submitted by staff with four changes: (1) remove the area south and west of the railroad tracks and north of Amarillo Boulevard; (2) remove the land north of 15th Avenue and west of N. Rusk; (3) keep land along Amarillo Boulevard zoned Light Commercial instead of changing it to General Retail; and (4) allow any property "down zoned" by the initiative to be used for any use it is currently zoned for "for the life of the property," defined by a 24-month lapse in water, sewer and electrical service. [12][5]

      Votes for
      5
      Votes against
      2
      Acres
      650.15

  7. · Related development

    Council holds a public hearing on Part 1 and tables it, 3-2

    The council held a public hearing on the first reading of an ordinance rezoning 432.90 acres in the north half of the North Heights Neighborhood Plan Area, the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommended version. Thirteen people spoke. Councilmember Howard Smith moved to table the item until the next regular meeting, seconded by Councilmember Cole Stanley; it passed 3-2, with Mayor Ginger Nelson and Councilmembers Stanley and Smith voting yes and Mayor Pro Tem Freda Powell and Councilmember Eddy Sauer voting no.[13][5]

    Ginger NelsonCole StanleyHoward SmithFreda PowellEddy Sauer

    • ✓ Verified

      On August 10, 2021, after a public hearing at which 13 people spoke, Councilmember Howard Smith moved to table the first reading of the 432.90-acre Part 1 ordinance until the next regular meeting, seconded by Councilmember Cole Stanley. The motion carried 3-2: Mayor Ginger Nelson and Councilmembers Stanley and Smith voted yes; Mayor Pro Tem Freda Powell and Councilmember Eddy Sauer voted no. [13]

      Votes for
      3
      Votes against
      2
    • ✓ Verified

      The City's October 12, 2021 memo says that on August 10 "The item was tabled and the Council requested alternatives to the northwest area of the proposal." The August 10 minutes do not record a reason for the motion to table. [6][13]

  8. · Related development

    Planning and Zoning Commission tables Part 2 until the council acts on Part 1

    Case Z-21-12 proposed rezoning 168.88 acres in the south portion of the plan area, Part 2 of the initiative. Staff recommended approval. The commission voted unanimously to table it, with the chairman saying it was best to wait for the council's decision on Part 1.[14]

    • ✓ Verified

      Part 2 (case Z-21-12) covered 168.88 acres in Section 169 of the south portion of the plan area: 56.38 acres to Heavy Commercial, 15.11 acres to Light Commercial, 17.58 acres to General Retail, 30.63 acres to Moderate Density and 49.18 acres to Neighborhood Service. Staff said current land use in the area was 39% non-residential, 37% residential and 24% vacant. [14][6]

      Acres
      168.88

  9. · Peak

    Council approves Part 1 (Ordinance No. 7926) on first reading, as amended to the "Alternate Recommendation," 3-2

    Mayor Pro Tem Freda Powell moved to amend and approve the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation "with the modifications shown on the exhibit labeled 'Alternate Recommendation' and excluding the language related to down zoning and allowable uses," seconded by Councilmember Eddy Sauer. It passed 3-2, with Mayor Ginger Nelson, Powell and Sauer voting yes and Councilmembers Howard Smith and Cole Stanley voting no. The records give different total acreages for the approved version.[15][6]

    Ginger NelsonFreda PowellEddy SauerHoward SmithCole Stanley

    • ✓ Verified

      On August 24, 2021 the council voted 3-2 to "amend and approve Planning and Zoning's recommendation with the modifications shown on the exhibit labeled 'Alternate Recommendation' and excluding the language related to down zoning and allowable uses." Mayor Pro Tem Freda Powell moved and Councilmember Eddy Sauer seconded. Mayor Ginger Nelson, Powell and Sauer voted yes; Councilmembers Howard Smith and Cole Stanley voted no. The minutes record no stated reasons for the votes. [15]

      Votes for
      3
      Votes against
      2
    • ⚠ Sources differ

      Records give different total acreages for Part 1 as the council handled it, and different Moderate Density acreage for the "Alternate Recommendation."

      Reported value 1[5][15]

      Total acres
      432.9

      The August 10 agenda and the August 24 minutes' item heading describe "an Ordinance rezoning 432.90 acres," the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommended version (294.88 acres R-2, 22.82 MF-1, 7.05 GR, 78.98 MD, 29.17 NS).

      Reported value 2[15]

      Total acres
      602.85
      Moderate density acres
      103.99

      The August 24 motion says the amended version "totals 602.85 acres" and lists 69.04 acres GR, 10.59 O-1, 103.99 MD, 346.13 R-2, 22.82 MF-1 and 30.28 NS. Those six figures add to 582.85 acres.

      Reported value 3[6]

      Total acres
      602.85
      Moderate density acres
      123.99

      The October 12 agenda, memo and draft Ordinance No. 7926 give 602.85 acres with 123.99 acres of Moderate Density and the other five figures unchanged; those figures add to 602.85. The map exhibit is titled "Alternate Recommendation (602.85 acres)."

      Reported value 4[12][16]

      Total acres
      650.15

      Staff's version of Part 1 as recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission (case Z-21-05), before the commission's changes.

    • ✓ Verified

      The October 12, 2021 memo says the council's August 24 vote amended the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. In the version presented for second reading, 346.13 acres were to change to Residential District 2, including "part of the large vacant tract in the northwest corner," and the northwest corner also received General Retail and 10.59 acres of Office District 1, which the memo says provide "options for non-residential zoning in the northwest corner of the plan area that are more consistent with the Neighborhood Unit Concept." [6]

  10. · Related development

    Planning and Zoning Commission votes down Part 2, 3-4; the City appeals

    A motion to approve case Z-21-12 as presented failed 3-4, and no other motion was made. At a September 20 follow-up, commissioners gave their reasons, and staff said the item would go to the City Council on October 12. The City's October 12 memo says the zoning ordinance lets a denied case reach the council only on appeal by the applicant and that "The City appealed the P&Z decision."[17][18][6]

    • ✓ Verified

      On September 8, 2021 a motion to approve Z-21-12 as presented failed 3-4, with Vice Chairman Pedro Limas and Commissioners Dick Ford, Fred Griffin and Royce Gooch voting against it. No other motion was made. Staff had said it found a way to waive the specific use permit fee for down-zoned properties that qualified for one. [17]

      Votes for
      3
      Votes against
      4
    • ✓ Verified

      Planning and Zoning Commission members: At the September 20, 2021 follow-up, commissioners who voted no said the City should have owners' permission to rezone their property, that the project was too large, that it would create too many non-conforming uses and affect marketability and values, and that the area was commercial rather than residential. The chairman said he voted yes because it reduced the number of non-conforming properties and because of the fee waiver. The vice chairman said the council had not considered the commission's changes to Part 1; another commissioner said the council had adopted some of them. [18]

    • ✓ Verified

      The City's October 12, 2021 memo for Part 2 says that under the zoning ordinance a case recommended for denial can reach the council "only ... on appeal by the applicant," that "The City appealed the P&Z decision," and that the Planning and Zoning Commission "recommends denial." [6]

  11. · Resolution

    Council postpones Ordinances 7926 and 7939 "until a later date," 3-2

    Item 3C was the second reading of Ordinance No. 7926 (Part 1, north portion) and item 3D the public hearing and first reading of Ordinance No. 7939 (Part 2, south portion, 168.88 acres). The agenda memo said a written protest of the August 24 vote exceeded 20% and that the zoning ordinance therefore required a three-fourths vote of the council. Mayor Pro Tem Freda Powell moved to postpone both items until a later date, seconded by Mayor Ginger Nelson; it passed 3-2, with Nelson, Powell and Councilmember Cole Stanley voting yes and Councilmembers Eddy Sauer and Howard Smith voting no.[19][6]

    Ginger NelsonFreda PowellCole StanleyEddy SauerHoward Smith

    • ✓ Verified

      The City's memo for the October 12, 2021 second reading says "a written protest to Council's August 24 vote has been submitted," that a protest is valid with signatures of owners of 20% or more of the land to be rezoned or of land within the 200-foot notice area, that the protest "currently exceeds 20%," and that the zoning ordinance "requires a favorable vote of three-fourths of the Council members present and voting due to a valid protest being received." [6]

    • ✓ Verified

      On October 12, 2021 Mayor Pro Tem Freda Powell moved to postpone item 3C (Ordinance No. 7926, second reading, Part 1) and item 3D (Ordinance No. 7939, Part 2) "until a later date," seconded by Mayor Ginger Nelson. It carried 3-2: Nelson, Powell and Councilmember Cole Stanley voted yes; Councilmembers Eddy Sauer and Howard Smith voted no. [19]

      Votes for
      3
      Votes against
      2
    • ✓ Verified

      The October 12, 2021 agenda lists Ordinance No. 7939 as "a public hearing and the first reading" of the 168.88-acre Part 2 rezoning, while Ordinance No. 7926 was on second reading. Ordinance No. 7939 had not been read before. [6]

    • ✓ Verified

      Before the vote, during public address, one speaker supported item 3D and three spoke against it; others addressed items 3C and 3D without the minutes recording a position. [19]

  12. · Resolution

    Motion to reconsider the postponement fails, 2-3

    After the mayor reopened public address and six more people spoke on item 3C, five against and one in favor, Councilmember Howard Smith moved to reconsider the motion to postpone items 3C and 3D, seconded by Councilmember Cole Stanley. It failed 2-3, with Smith and Stanley voting yes and Mayor Ginger Nelson, Mayor Pro Tem Freda Powell and Councilmember Eddy Sauer voting no.[19]

    Howard SmithCole StanleyGinger NelsonFreda PowellEddy Sauer

    • ✓ Verified

      After further public address, in which five speakers opposed item 3C and one supported it, Councilmember Howard Smith moved to reconsider the motion to postpone items 3C and 3D, seconded by Councilmember Cole Stanley. It failed 2-3: Smith and Stanley voted yes; Mayor Ginger Nelson, Mayor Pro Tem Freda Powell and Councilmember Eddy Sauer voted no. [19]

      Votes for
      2
      Votes against
      3
    • ✓ Verified

      The October 12, 2021 minutes do not record a reason for the postponement or for any member's vote, and do not record the final protest percentage that the agenda memo said staff would provide at the meeting. [19][6]

  13. · Context

    ABC 7 reports the rezoning was "tabled in 2021"

    In a January 2022 story on revitalizing North Heights, KVII ABC 7 reported that the rezoning resolution was "tabled in 2021" after the Planning Commission rejected the plan in its earlier form over concerns about its effect on business owners, and quoted a longtime resident who said a rezoning plan was still in the works.[20]

    • ✓ Verified

      KVII ABC 7 reported on January 19, 2022 that the rezoning resolution was "tabled in 2021" and that the Amarillo Planning Commission had rejected the plan in its earlier form over concerns about its effect on business owners. A longtime resident quoted in the story said a rezoning plan was in the works that could "give the district a facelift." [20]

    • Unverified

      Ordinances 7926 and 7939 do not appear again in the City Council minutes after October 12, 2021, in the minutes this site reviewed through August 2026, and no later report of either being adopted, withdrawn or brought back was found. Ordinance No. 7938, heard on October 12, 2021, was adopted on October 26, 2021. [19][21][20]

  14. · Context

    Council recognizes the North Heights Advisory Association as the neighborhood's association, 4-0

    The council adopted Resolution No. 06-27-23-4, recognizing the North Heights Advisory Association as the Recognized Neighborhood Association for the North Heights neighborhood, 4-0. The item was not a rezoning.[22]

    Cole StanleyDon TippsTom Scherlen

    • ✓ Verified

      On June 27, 2023 the council adopted Resolution No. 06-27-23-4, recognizing the North Heights Advisory Association as the Recognized Neighborhood Association for the North Heights neighborhood, on a motion by Councilmember Don Tipps seconded by Councilmember Tom Scherlen, 4-0. [22]

      Votes for
      4
      Votes against
      0