Low-rent project has neighbors crying foul

Friday, Jan. 12, 2007 | 6:57 a.m.

A proposed six-story, 300-unit apartment building in a downtown neighborhood has become the latest battleground in Las Vegas' debate over affordable housing.

Mirroring arguments often heard under such circumstances, nearby residents complain that the project's large dimension and the individual units' small size - just over 300 square feet - are incompatible with a neighborhood of mostly single-family homes and small-scale apartments.

The developer, however, dismisses much of the opposition to the project at Ninth Street and Bridger Avenue as typical not-in-my-back-yard complaints. The development, he argues, would meet a need for smaller, affordable units.

The debate has brought to the surface many of the challenges that the city faces in trying to revitalize downtown - notably, the juggling act involved in trying to attract new projects without alienating existing residents or pricing low-income people out of the area.

Developer Steve Biagiotti of SDA Inc. contends the apartments, while small, are ideal for seniors or moderate-income people who work downtown. The apartments would rent for $500 to $600 a month, utilities included.

Residents, though, argue that a 66-foot building would tower over surrounding homes. They also fear that cramming hundreds of people into a half-block area will decrease their property values and open the door for similar projects.

The number of variances required to allow the project to proceed, they add, demonstrates why it should not be approved.

"I'm not against developing downtown, but that building just doesn't fit here," said Joe Woods, whose property would be directly behind the new building.

Woods said one variance requested by the developer would allow the building to come within eight feet of his property, a fraction of the 198-foot setback required under existing residential adjacency standards for a structure of its size.

Other variances requested would reduce the number of parking spaces required from 425 to 125, shrink the setback for trash enclosures from 50 feet to 10 feet, and would allow the building's height to extend 11 feet above the current 55-foot restriction.

In a report recommending denial of the project, city staff sided with residents on some key issues. Despite the staff recommendation, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of the project, saying the city has to think "out of the box" regarding downtown redevelopment.

Councilman Lawrence Weekly, whose district includes the site, said in the downtown area, where neighborhood concerns can change significantly within only a few blocks, it is often difficult to gauge which projects will draw opposition.

"There is a similar project nearby that was done without too much concern and no opposition," Weekly said. "When there is opposition, as with this project, we want those concerns addressed."

Biagiotti points to the success of that nearby SDA project - City Center Apartments at 811 Bridger St. - as proof that there is a need for such housing downtown. The City Center complex also includes 300 apartments, each roughly 325 square feet, and offers rents comparable to those of the new project.

"This (new) project is almost identical to City Center, which we filled quickly," Biagiotti said. "In the redevelopment industry there are always people who are not happy (with projects), but in this case there are many people who are happy as well."

Those in the latter category include property owners whose land will be used for the project.

Woods says it's easy to be happy under their circumstances.

"What about those of us who are still going to be here?" he said. "This is a nice little neighborhood, and we don't want it to change."

Christine Patt shares the concerns of her neighbors and has an additional dilemma that shows how development plans sometimes conflict with each other.

She bought her home about four years ago under a plan that essentially gave low-income residents the land on which the house would be built. The catch was that if the residents moved within 15 years, they would have to pay the city $88,000 - the land's cost.

Patt, one of five neighborhood residents who made the deal with the city, said she agreed to purchase the home only because it was in a residential neighborhood.

"I love my little house," she said. "But if I had known they were going to allow these types of apartments, I'm not sure I would have made the deal."

Patt worries that if the development is approved, it will clear the way for similar projects that, by jamming in many more people in tight quarters, could diminish the quality of life in the neighborhood.

Woods, who has lived in the neighborhood for eight years, argues that the new development also does not address one of the most pressing concerns downtown - housing for low-income residents. His property includes several cottage-style apartments that are about 800 square feet and rent for about $360 per month.

"That's what we need downtown," he said. "Why isn't the city approving those kinds of projects?"

City officials say they would like nothing better, but add they have not seen any lately.

Although the item is on the council's agenda for Jan. 17, action is likely to be pushed back to February to give Weekly time to meet with residents to discuss their concerns.