Pryor Creek commission denies commercial rezoning, approves residential lots and plats for A & R Investments

Pryor Creek — The Pryor Creek Planning and Zoning Commission on an item related to land owned by A & R Investments voted to deny a request to rezone the western portion of the property from agricultural to CAR (commercial) and approved rezoning of the eastern portion from agricultural to RS‑70 for a seven‑lot residential development. The commission also recommended the applicant's preliminary and final plats to the City Council.

The western parcel, described in public hearing as about 16.96 acres, was the subject of objections from nearby property owners who said they want to know what specific commercial uses would be allowed before the land is rezoned. Steve Ryan, identifying himself as a representative of A & R Investments, said the company bought the property earlier this year and "would like to section that off as commercial zoning so we can... sell it to some potential investors or develop it for future commercial use." The motion before the commission was to deny that rezoning request; the vote recorded: Dunham — Yes; Gibbs — Yes; Alvis Watts — Yes; Nance — No; Morrison — Yes. The motion to deny carried.

Speakers at the hearing raised flood and traffic concerns tied to unspecified future commercial development. Kathleen LaValley said her property has been "flooded over and over again for the last 30 years" and warned that runoff flows "straight to the creek." Josh Anderson, also representing A & R Investments, told commissioners the developers had no firm plan for the CAR portion and that they had "entertained a couple of different options" and "the possibility of having some sort of convenience store" but could not state how much pavement would be required. Resident Brent Sharpenak said he opposed the commercial rezoning because of potential noise, traffic and light pollution and the effect on property values. Jim Ratcliffe cited concerns about sewer access and said a lack of nearby sewer lines could complicate certain uses such as RV parks.

Commission members discussed timing and scope of rezoning. One commissioner noted that approving open commercial zoning now would mean future residents of any planned residential lots on the adjoining parcel could have no say about later commercial uses. Commissioners also noted the city's permitting process requires developers to present stormwater detention and other site plans at the building/permit stage; a city staff member present said stormwater detention would be addressed during the development permitting process.

On the eastern parcel, described to the commission as about 31.58 acres, A & R Investments asked to rezone to RS‑70 (residential) and to approve a preliminary plat and final plat that would create seven residential lots, roughly 4.5 acres each. Steve Ryan described the plan as "single family residential" lots for buyers who want larger lots and said the developers had engaged Green Country Surveying to prepare the plat. John Couch of Green Country Surveying described the preliminary plat and covenants prepared for the subdivision. No members of the public spoke against the residential rezoning or the plat during the allotted public comment periods.

The commission voted to recommend the rezoning of the eastern parcel from agricultural to RS‑70 (recorded votes show all present commissioners voting yes) and to recommend the preliminary and final plats for council approval (both recommendations recorded as unanimous among the commissioners present). Commissioners noted the property’s designation in the commission’s 2016 comprehensive plan remained agricultural and discussed the need to revisit future land‑use guidance and zoning categories citywide.

Under the commission's standard process, its votes are recommendations; final action on the rezoning and plats rests with the Pryor Creek City Council. Commissioners said the denial of the CAR rezoning will be forwarded to the council as the commission's recommendation and that applicants and neighbors may pursue appeal or further discussion with the mayor and city staff.

The record at the meeting shows that residents’ substantive concerns included stormwater and floodplain impacts, sewer availability, potential off‑site impacts (noise, light, traffic), and the broad range of uses allowed under the CAR district (which attendees noted can include a wide variety of commercial activities). Developers said they had no final tenant or site plan for the CAR‑zoned portion and that a convenience store had been discussed as one possible option. Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted that site‑level engineering and stormwater plans would be required if and when development permits are sought.