Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hotel Sup Remand topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council remands dual‑brand Hilton SUP to Planning & Zoning after extended‑stay concerns
Summary
After hearing a new presentation from the developer and Hilton representatives, the Prosper Town Council voted 4–2 to remand a request for a Specific Use Permit for a dual‑branded Hilton Garden Inn/Homewood Suites (including an extended‑stay component) back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for further review.
The Prosper Town Council on April 28 remanded a developer request for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a proposed dual‑branded Hilton Garden Inn and Homewood Suites back to the Planning & Zoning Commission by a 4–2 vote.
Town staff described the proposal as a 194‑room, dual‑flag hotel on roughly 5.9 acres on the east side of Maynard Parkway and noted that, under the town’s Unified Development Code, extended‑stay uses require an SUP. Planning & Zoning had previously recommended denial of the extended‑stay portion of the project, and staff said it had recommended approval of the SUP because the code conditions were met. Planning staff told council that the commission ‘‘did not believe that the extended stay portion of the hotel was something that should be recommended’’ and that the commission’s recommendation on that element was unanimous.
Developer representative Wes Hobble and Whitney Knight of Hilton’s Homewood Suites made a new presentation to council emphasizing the market case for the dual brand and brand standards. Knight described the Homewood prototype and operations, saying, ‘‘We define extended stay as a stay of five or more nights’’ and that the brand’s business mix ‘‘is about 60% business travelers’’ and includes large insurance‑placement stays and medical stays. The developer argued Prosper has no Hilton property and that a Hilton presence would capture guests now traveling to nearby cities.
Several council members said their concern was not the Hilton brand but the town’s long‑term hotel mix and the Planning & Zoning Commission’s prior 6–0 recommendation against the extended‑stay portion. Council members pressed staff and the applicants on inspection practices (staff said Hilton’s inspections are typically unannounced with about 48 hours’ notice) and renovation cycles (Hilton said renovations are expected roughly on a seven‑year cycle under licensing agreements). Council member Craig Andres moved to remand the item to Planning & Zoning ‘‘for their review of the same or similar information that we received tonight.’’ The motion carried 4–2.
The council’s remand sends the application back to the planning commission for reconsideration with the full presentation; the commission will have the opportunity to review the new materials and render a recommendation before the council takes further action.
