Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Omaha council delays rezoning for 6636 North 30 First Avenue after neighbors raise safety and parking concerns
Summary
Neighbors objected to a proposed rezoning that would allow two duplexes on a single lot, citing lack of green space, parking and tornado-shelter concerns. The council voted 6–1 to lay the item over to April 29 to give the developer a chance to meet neighbors.
The Omaha City Council on Tuesday laid over a proposed rezoning for property at 6636 North 30 First Avenue after multiple neighbors urged the council to deny the request, citing safety, parking and neighborhood‑character concerns.
Neighbors said the owner’s plan to build two duplexes on the lot would pack multiple households into a small space, leave little green space and create parking stress. April Sloan, who lives on North 30 Second Street, told the council she opposed the rezoning and raised safety questions about the design: “They have a top and a bottom for these 2 duplexes, and during we have tornadoes, so…where would the upper level of family seek shelter if there’s no basement,” she said.
Scott Krejci, another resident, said the planning board’s approval did not settle neighbors’ broader concerns about parking, open space and whether the development fit the existing neighborhood character. “A house versus a home…A home is what we make it,” Krejci said, arguing the change would amount to a spot zoning and urging denial until the new city master plan is adopted.
City planning staff described the request as a change from R4 to R5 zoning, which staff characterized as a low‑density residential classification that permits duplexes rather than higher‑density apartments. “An R5 zoning classification…is considered a low density residential district. It’s not multifamily,” City Planner Dave Fanslow said.
Council members repeatedly criticized the developer for not appearing at the hearing and for not meeting with neighbors since planning board review. Council Member Johnson said the absence had undermined trust: “When we have a person coming into a community and proposing something to be done and they don’t consider the feelings or the sentiments of those individuals… it doesn’t build for anything to get better.”
Council members debated options including denial and layover. A motion to deny failed for lack of a second; a substitute motion to lay the item over until April 29 carried 6–1 (Begley voted no). Council members said they wanted the developer present and engaging with neighbors before taking a final vote.
The layover preserves the property’s current R4 zoning until the council takes the item up again. City planning staff told the council that if the rezoning is denied, the owner could construct uses permitted under the R4 district.
The item began as agenda item 14 and drew the most sustained public testimony of the meeting, with residents raising concerns about parking, green space and long‑term neighborhood character. The council scheduled the next hearing date and told planning staff to notify the applicant.
