Residents tell commissioners to oppose rezoning of Motel 6 site (PA-2025-11600021)

Residents and other commentators told commissioners on April 9 that a proposed rezoning for a Motel 6 property, recorded as case PA-2025-11600021, is unsuitable for families and should be denied.

The callers and speakers said the site — identified in public remarks as the Motel 6 on San Pedro Avenue near State Highway 281 — sits next to heavy traffic, airport flight paths and industrial uses and lacks nearby schools, grocery stores or play areas for children. “No es un buen ambiente que es conducivo para niños … no hay un área de juegos,” one caller said. Several speakers said they opposed changing the zoning from commercial/industrial uses (referred to in comments as “C-3”) to mixed- or higher-density residential (referred to in comments as “M” or housing), and described persistent crime and noise in the area.

Armando Mora, a resident who provided a voicemail comment, said the area lacks safe walking routes to schools and that the surrounding industrial uses make the location inappropriate for long‑term family housing. Dale Skurtz, identified in a voicemail as a San Antonio resident, said the motel rooms are too small for families and are surrounded by businesses and highways. Dylan Foyer, who said he has owned property nearby for 25 years, told commissioners the change would erode neighborhood property values and voiced concern about crime.

In-person speakers repeated these points during the meeting. Jerry Peters, who said he has lived more than 35 years in the nearby Janet Village condominiums, told commissioners the hotel has been a long-standing problem and is “not safe for children” because of noise and traffic. Sean Méndez said he could hear commercial traffic and airport noise from his home and emphasized the lack of parks and grocery stores. Montgomery Howard described the parcel as currently commercial/industrial and said he did not find a higher‑density residential designation consistent with the city’s planning policies.

Meeting staff recorded the case number consistently as PA-2025-11600021 during public comment and stated the applicant had asked for a continuance to April 14. Commissioners indicated they would hear questions for the applicant; the transcript does not record a vote or final decision on the rezoning request during the April 9 session.

The meeting did include a separate procedural action: the commission approved a consent agenda earlier in the session by voice vote. The transcript records Commissioner Seagal moving the consent agenda and a unanimous roll call of commissioners recorded as supporting that motion.

No specific plan, developer name, or detailed staff recommendation for the rezoning appears in the transcript excerpt provided. Speakers repeatedly cited proximity to State Highway 281 and airport flight paths, a perceived lack of nearby schools and recreational space, and ongoing neighborhood crime as the basis for opposition. The applicant’s request for a short continuance to April 14 was recorded, and commissioners proceeded to ask questions of staff and the applicant after public comment.