Lincoln council approves memory‑care permit at 929 South Cotner after parking and use limits

Lincoln’s City Council approved a contested special permit on April 20 to allow a residential memory‑care home at 929 South Cotner Boulevard, concluding a lengthy neighborhood hearing that raised safety and parking concerns.

The council approved special permit 260008 as amended, limiting the authorized use to assisted living and memory care and increasing on‑site parking to eight stalls. The final roll call recorded five votes in favor and one opposed; Councilman Duden voted no.

The applicants, identifying themselves as Kindred Oaks LLC, proposed converting the midcentury house into a small Legato Living memory‑care home with an approximate 800‑square‑foot addition to add two bedrooms, bringing the house to six bedrooms and an operational capacity the applicants said would typically be 10 residents (the permit sought authority for up to 12). Counsel D. Kalcowski summarized the site changes and said the owners would “preserve the homelike character” of the façade while adding accessible sidewalks and additional parking.

Co‑owner Travis Klein described the care model and staffing pattern, saying the home would operate on staggered 12‑hour shifts and maintain a staff‑to‑resident ratio ranging “from 4:1 to 3:1” at peak times to ensure residents’ safety and continuity of care. Klein said deliveries would be modest and that hospice or visiting clinicians generally come one to two times per week.

Opposition centered on traffic, pedestrian safety and scale. Piedmont neighborhood residents presented site comparisons showing other small memory‑care homes located on low‑traffic cul‑de‑sacs with more generous on‑street or on‑site parking; they argued the Cotner location was different because Cotner is a minor arterial and a reported 2021 count for one Cotner segment was roughly 5,000 average daily trips. Neighbor Julie Perez told the council her analysis found the proposed site to be an “outlier location” compared with other local facilities and urged denial of the permit. "This site lacks the physical capacity and surrounding conditions necessary to support similar operations without creating spillover effects and safety concerns," she said.

City staff explained the permit review standards and the city’s minimums. Planning director David Kerry told the council that city code calculations typically allow approximately eight residents for a lot this size and that the applicant had requested 50% additional capacity (to reach 12). Kerry also explained the parking standard is tied to resident counts and the highest staff shift; staff confirmed the original application met the minimum five‑space requirement and the applicant had proposed six stalls. Kerry told council that the applicant’s proposed amendment to restrict the special permit to “assisted living and/or memory care” could be made a condition that would remain with the property if sold.

Council members and staff also discussed pedestrian conditions near the site. LTU Director Elliott said the crosswalk near Valley Road is not part of the city’s designated Safe Routes to School network and that many older sidewalks in the neighborhood were built with “park curbs,” resulting in narrow sidewalk widths in places. Elliott cautioned that removing on‑street parking can increase vehicle speeds, a factor council considered in weighing neighborhood safety tradeoffs.

Following public testimony and staff briefings, Councilman Beckus (introducing amendments on the floor) successfully moved language to limit the permit to assisted living/memory care and a separate amendment increased the required on‑site parking from six to eight stalls. The council then approved the amended permit, 5–1. Councilman Duden said he opposed the approval because he believed the Cotner location was unsafe for a facility that will receive visitors and staff shifts amid higher volumes of traffic.

The decision: special permit 260008 is approved, limited to assisted living and memory care, with an on‑site parking requirement raised to eight spaces. The permit, and any specific conditions attached, will be enforceable through the city’s zoning and enforcement process; staff noted violations could trigger site inspections and enforcement action under city code.

What’s next: the permit is approved as the council specified; the property owner must obtain building permits for the described alteration and implement the agreed parking changes and other conditions set in the permit. The hearing record includes testimony and exhibits from neighbors that document their safety concerns and traffic observations, which council and staff noted for possible future street‑level traffic or sidewalk safety reviews.