Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.

Planning & Zoning rejects proposed 85-room hotel near Cemetery Road; commission recommends council deny SUP

3802137 · June 10, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a public hearing with dozens of residents opposing a four-story, 85-room hotel proposed north of Large Avenue, the Manvel Planning & Zoning Commission voted 0-7 to not recommend approval of the specific-use permit; the item moves next to City Council.

The Manvel Planning & Zoning Commission on Monday rejected a request for a specific-use permit (SUP) for an 85-room, four-story hotel proposed on a 2.55-acre portion of a 6.3-acre tract north of Large Avenue, approximately 300 feet west of Cemetery Road adjacent to State Highway 6.

The item drew a lengthy public hearing and discussion about traffic, drainage, lighting, public safety and the fit of a four-story hotel next to a residential area. After discussion, a motion to approve the SUP with conditions failed on a 0-7 vote, meaning the commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council opposing the SUP.

Staff described the site as part of a larger 10.6-acre property split by Large Avenue (6.3 acres north, 4.3 acres south) within the Light Commercial District and the State Highway 6 overlay. The presented plan showed a four-story, 85-room hotel (NAICS 721 — accommodations) with accessory uses including a bar, meeting room, fitness center and restaurant. Staff noted required infrastructure work — including extending Large Avenue with sidewalks, constructing a detention pond to serve the hotel and adjacent tract, and connecting to city water and sewer — and recommended approval with multiple conditions listed in the staff report.

Residents who live near the site spoke in large numbers during the public hearing, raising safety and quality-of-life concerns. Brandy Russell, a resident at 7220 Cemetery Road who said she shares a fence line with the property, said the location was inappropriate: “A hotel is not compatible with the surrounding areas. It makes no sense to put a 4 story hotel at the entrance of a residential neighborhood on a street with no sidewalks and less than half a mile from an elementary school.”

Other speakers amplified traffic, drainage and property-value concerns. David Simmons, 7222 Mississippi Road, said he worried about light pollution and cited an existing local hotel’s crime history when questioning the proposed use. Jan Weed, 6703 Crestridge, and multiple other speakers warned that grading and construction could worsen local flooding and that their roads and shoulders cannot handle increased traffic.

Applicant representative Nirmal Gandhi of Gandhi Design Architecture said the applicant would address commenters’ concerns and take the public input into account. Gandhi told the commission the franchise approach would be a Courtyard by Marriott franchise and estimated roughly 20 staff positions at the hotel; he also said the developer planned on additional future development of adjoining acreage but that this SUP was limited to the tract currently before the commission.

Staff and commissioners discussed technical conditions recommended in the staff report: construction of Large Avenue to the west across an existing drainage ditch, a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer along the property line abutting residential uses with 3.5-inch-caliper evergreen trees planted roughly every 25 feet, a minimum 6-foot masonry fence along residential boundaries, fully shielded lighting under 25 feet, submission of a photometric survey, and compliance with Section 77-5-50(g) (predetermined conditions) of the zoning ordinance related to hotel operations (interior hallways, 24-hour on-site management, guest registration, etc.). Trip-generation figures provided by staff (based on ITE rates) estimated about 640 daily vehicle trips (roughly 8 trips per room per day), with about 39 morning and 50 afternoon peak-hour trips.

The commission’s vote to not recommend the SUP (motion to approve failed 0-7) does not itself approve or deny the application; it sends the commission’s recommendation to the City Council, which is scheduled to consider the item at its next meeting. Staff had recommended approval with conditions in its written report; the commission declined to concur after hearing extensive testimony from nearby residents.

Votes at a glance: - Specific-Use Permit (approx. 2.509-acre portion of a 6.3-acre tract) for a four-story, 85-room hotel (NAICS 721): Motion to approve with conditions — FAILED, vote tally recorded in the meeting as 0 yes, 7 no. The commission will forward a recommendation against the SUP to City Council. - Consent agenda: approval of meeting minutes — APPROVED, motion carried unanimously (7-0). - Regular agenda items a & b (30-day extension requests for Meridian Detention Reserve U Phase 2 preliminary plat and Meridian Section 28C preliminary plat): staff recommended approval; commission moved to approve (vote tally not specified in the transcript record). - Agenda item d (authorize chair to sign letter of support for TxDOT Transportation Alternatives grant application): APPROVED, motion carried unanimously (7-0). - Agenda item e (direct staff to provide applicants written statements of conditions for conditional approvals and reasons for disapproval, per Texas Local Government Code Sec. 212.0091): APPROVED, motion carried unanimously (7-0).

Next steps: The SUP application will be considered by Manvel City Council at its next meeting; council can approve, modify or deny the SUP independent of the commission’s recommendation. The staff report and the SUP application include detailed conditions that, if the council approves, would be applied to the development and recorded on any plat and building permits.

Commissioners and many residents said the site was better suited to lower-intensity commercial uses on the Highway 6 frontage rather than a four-story hotel backing to single-family properties. Commissioners asked staff to ensure future submittals include detailed drainage and traffic design, building elevations that mitigate overlooking into adjacent yards, and a plan for Large Avenue extension and sidewalks.

Commissioners and members of the public also flagged emergency-service considerations for a four-story building; staff noted mutual-aid arrangements exist with neighboring jurisdictions but also acknowledged local fire-service capacity and ladder/truck availability as a concern for the community to address in later planning stages.