Council rejects SUP for dual‑brand residence hotel at FM 549 after weekslong debate

Council members voted Nov. 3 to reject an ordinance that would have granted a specific use permit (SUP) for a dual‑brand hotel proposed along FM 549, denying an amended plan development district ordinance that would have allowed a combined limited‑service and residence hotel with a restaurant.

The case, identified in staff materials as Z2025‑057, would have authorized a 56,816‑square‑foot, four‑story building with 96 guest rooms (a proposed mix of 60 limited‑service rooms and 36 extended‑stay rooms) and roughly 3,100 square feet of restaurant space. The applicant presented a dual‑brand model (Hawthorne by Wyndham and La Quinta) and offered several operational conditions, including a limitation tied to the STR chain‑scale (the applicant proposed the SUP be conditioned to brands ranked 1–5 on STR's chain scale).

Why it mattered: council members said the substantive question was long‑term quality and the city’s reputation for lodging. Several council members pressed the applicant to guarantee reinvestment and to tighten the chain‑scale threshold so the SUP would preclude lower‑tier brands later converting the site. Supporters argued the dual‑brand product reduces market dilution, raises average daily rate and broadens appeal to business travelers and extended‑stay guests; the applicant said the proposed brand and a 15‑year franchise agreement would limit near‑term conversion risk.

What was said and asked: staff (Ryan) reviewed the procedural history: a prior residence‑hotel SUP had been approved previously but no site plan was submitted; the current application was remanded to Planning & Zoning for revisions and returned with a 4–3 PNZ recommendation for approval. Applicant Cash Patel and Wyndham representative Jeff Tucker showed prototype elevations and explained the dual‑brand operating model, brand positioning and market data they said supported higher rates and stable occupancy. Council members repeatedly questioned the STR chain‑scale metric, how the numeric categories map to concrete brands, and whether the SUP should require a narrower (higher‑quality) range. Several members said a broad 1–5 range could permit lower‑quality conversions in later years.

The vote and outcome: following public comments and council debate, the council called the ordinance and voted to deny the SUP. The final vote on the ordinance failed 5–2; Councilmembers Thomas and Lewis supported the ordinance; the remaining five council members opposed it.

Implementation and next steps: the denial ends the current SUP application as presented; the site remains subject to existing zoning and any previously approved entitlements. Staff and the applicant may revise the proposal and return to PNZ and council. No binding change to the applicant’s right to pursue other by‑right development was recorded on the council floor.