| 1 | Mar 2, 2010 6:02 PM | We are more concerned about rentals that have 5-6 cars parked all over the street. Should be limited to 2 cars, at the most. |
| 2 | Mar 2, 2010 6:45 PM | Good for Seattle for taking this important step to increase the availabilty of affordable multigenerational housing. The backyard cottage pilot program conducted by the City before it adopted this city-wide ordinance was very successful and showed no adverse impacts to the neighborhoods in which cottages were permitted. |
| 3 | Mar 3, 2010 2:25 PM | look to evanston illinois model for zoning / developpment |
| 4 | Mar 3, 2010 4:23 PM | What negative impacts? |
| 5 | Mar 3, 2010 5:13 PM | too many cars on streets where these cottages are. |
| 6 | Mar 3, 2010 5:38 PM | Potential for more cars parked and traffic on streets |
| 7 | Mar 3, 2010 6:16 PM | I think it will be OK if the standards are clear |
| 8 | Mar 3, 2010 10:40 PM | It is not a good direction. More density we do NOT need. |
| 9 | Mar 4, 2010 12:38 AM | There is a lot of space in many houses going to waste. Allowing rental of rooms or cottages will allow Seattle to be the family friendly place it pretends to be. |
| 10 | Mar 4, 2010 1:51 AM | increasing population density is not desirable |
| 11 | Mar 4, 2010 1:58 AM | Backyard cottages are very site specific in impact |
| 12 | Mar 4, 2010 2:25 AM | I don't want increased density; it's supposed to be single family. If you want to "live dense", get an apartment in Belltown! |
| 13 | Mar 4, 2010 2:42 AM | Parking for cottages should be on site or owners of cottage should provide bus pass |
| 14 | Mar 4, 2010 3:36 AM | There should be an idea of problem solutions - noise, parking |
| 15 | Mar 4, 2010 5:13 AM | potential for noise and disruption |
| 16 | Mar 4, 2010 8:04 AM | Reduces single family characteristic of neighborhood |
| 17 | Mar 4, 2010 8:12 PM | I like the flexibility that this offers, but there are some potential risks and negative impacts. |
| 18 | Mar 5, 2010 3:55 AM | May lose more trees |
| 19 | Mar 5, 2010 4:51 AM | renters, parking etc.. |
| 20 | Mar 5, 2010 8:19 AM | cottages also make housing affordable in a two fold way: mortgage helper for the family, and, an increase in rental stock for the renters - which provides them with more choice and possibly lower if not stablized rents as the overall mount of rentable stock goes up -- also, of course, it is the exact opposite of the absentee landlord, which everyone hates. infill is an excellent strategy for the environment, preserving the rural zones out in King county, and, making the neighbourhoods safe by having more people around. |
| 21 | Mar 5, 2010 7:34 PM | Backyard cottages are fine for hobbies or occassional guest rooms, but should not be allowed to increase density (used as a dwelling unit.) |
| 22 | Mar 5, 2010 10:26 PM | i dont have a strong opinion on these |
| 23 | Mar 5, 2010 11:41 PM | Concerned about extra cars parked on the street |
| 24 | Mar 6, 2010 4:52 AM | They're usually not "cottages"; but garages for rent. |
| 25 | Mar 6, 2010 3:44 PM | The devil is always in the details. It should preserve tree canopy. |
| 26 | Mar 6, 2010 5:18 PM | There could be conflicts over issues with parking. I.e. The single family home gets a backyard cottage and that person brings their car(s) and wants to park them on the street/in the yard etc |
| 27 | Mar 6, 2010 8:53 PM | there is already too much density in Wedgwood |
| 28 | Mar 6, 2010 10:00 PM | I don't know what the negative impacts would be. |
| 29 | Mar 7, 2010 11:08 PM | Sex offenders renting very unappealing!! |
| 30 | Mar 8, 2010 3:47 AM | Case by case basis obviously. If tenants are a problem, they need to go. |
| 31 | Mar 8, 2010 5:28 AM | would it pose a problem for on street parking- higher number of cars |
| 32 | Mar 8, 2010 9:52 PM | I would mainly be concerned about on-street parking issues |
| 33 | Mar 9, 2010 3:24 PM | I'm not aware of all the issues, but approve of higher density and spaces for extended families. |
| 34 | Mar 9, 2010 10:08 PM | Parking concerns for extra people living on a parcel |
| 35 | Mar 10, 2010 4:16 AM | because of the disproportionate rise in house prices over the last 5 years, it is reasonable to allow these structures, with guidelines |
| 36 | Mar 10, 2010 4:55 AM | The land plots in WW are already small; increasing density might instead call for careful additions of congregate structures in the community |
| 37 | Mar 10, 2010 3:59 PM | A way to help seniors remain in their home. |
| 38 | Mar 11, 2010 2:22 AM | backyard cottages have been utlized successfully in many other cities, without any negative concern. |
| 39 | Mar 12, 2010 9:09 PM | No rentals! |
| 40 | Mar 15, 2010 1:16 AM | It's all in how you do it. A high-rise in my neighbor's yard=bad! Converted garage=good. |
| 41 | Mar 15, 2010 7:59 PM | The multi-generational argument is usually bogus. Adds to on-street parking congestion. |
| 42 | Mar 15, 2010 11:23 PM | inappropriate usage/building |
| 43 | Mar 17, 2010 7:09 AM | A lot of "kids" are moving back in with their parents because of financial reasons. It's understandable to a certain degree, AND for a certain length of time. But Wedgwood as a whole is really not the kind of neighborhood to have "squatters" all over the place. If one of our kids needed to come home, we wouldn't turn them down, BUT where do you draw the line? |
| 44 | Mar 17, 2010 6:09 PM | the more 'apartment-style' living usually comes added increase of sex offenders near our kids |
| 45 | Mar 22, 2010 12:29 AM | I think these could be very positive with reasonable regulation |
| 46 | Mar 24, 2010 2:27 PM | I can see that careless neighbors could neglect a backyard cottage so we are called upon to maintain good releations with our neighbors and/or build good fences |
| 47 | Mar 24, 2010 5:37 PM | Many homes only have one offstreet parking space. With backyard cottages, will there be enough parking for everyone? |
| 48 | Mar 25, 2010 9:00 PM | all parking must be accommodated on site |
| 49 | Mar 27, 2010 5:09 AM | I am concerned about density. As Peter Steinbrueck said at a NE District Council meeting, "Seattle doesn't have to absorb ALL the growth." |
| 50 | Mar 27, 2010 3:46 PM | Yes, but what about size of houses? Minimal size is needed. |
| 51 | Mar 29, 2010 12:11 AM | Parking. Renters w/o concern for the community |
| 52 | Mar 30, 2010 2:35 AM | filling all the property with buildings not good for water absorption area or veggie garden spaces |
| 53 | Mar 30, 2010 4:24 AM | I lived in one for four years! Combined with use of household facilities (we were a collective) it was a super-marvelous experience! |
| 54 | Mar 30, 2010 6:26 PM | Smaller footprint- yes! |
| 55 | Mar 30, 2010 7:20 PM | There needs to be adequate parking for backyard cottages or else they should not be allowed. there are no sidewalks now and more cars just make it more dangerous for people and pets walking in the neighborhood. |
| 56 | Mar 30, 2010 8:13 PM | There's a natural tension between backyard cottages and local food production, not only in the yard where the cottage may be sited but in the neighbors' yards. Don't shade my tomatoes! |
| 57 | Mar 30, 2010 11:28 PM | I see no difference between a back yard cottage and a house full of people. Really, what's the difference? |
| 58 | Mar 31, 2010 3:28 AM | Encourage co-housing opportunities; enforce building footprint limitations to preserve garden space |
| 59 | Apr 2, 2010 3:47 PM | There will be no multi generations living in these cottages. They will be used as a money making opportunity only. We need to treat them as such. |
| 60 | Apr 4, 2010 5:13 AM | I need to think about this one some more. I think it would increase parking congestion. That would not be good. |
| 61 | Apr 4, 2010 11:16 PM | Only government hacks want greater density so they can tax, tax, and tax. |
| 62 | Apr 5, 2010 3:25 AM | Backyard cottages are definitely preferable to new construction, but they may add more car traffic. I guess I'm for the cottages, since we need to address car traffic anyway. |
| 63 | Apr 7, 2010 8:02 PM | Though I would consider adding a cottage to my property, it would only be to help me stay in my home as an elderly person. I watch and see what other people have been doing over the last 18 years and I know for a fact that there are lots of illegal units, bad landlords and inconsiderate people living in my neighborhood. It is sad to see houses literally rotting because people can't or won't fix them up. I wouldn't want this to be multiplied as density increases. I am also concerned that back yard cottages require off street parking in the back yard. Many houses don't have sideyards wide enough to accomodate a driveway, this would require easements. I am not infavor of this because of the potential impact on an individual property. AS aperson wholives on an arterial, I think that my front yard is a waste of space because of the negative impact of traffic. Why not have a different parking policy for houses on arterials and houses on side streets. |
| 64 | Apr 8, 2010 7:24 PM | onstreet parking congestion, bldgs. ultra close together, bldgs not to code |
| 65 | Apr 9, 2010 1:11 AM | possibilty of using as rental property |
| 66 | Apr 30, 2010 3:25 AM | Places dwellings closer to lot lines/neighbors; blocks sun |
| 67 | May 3, 2010 2:03 AM | mainly loss of vegetation |
| 68 | May 3, 2010 2:50 AM | if screening occupants there isn't a problem |
| 69 | May 3, 2010 3:20 AM | Crowded-density |
| 70 | May 7, 2010 4:43 AM | more traffic, more noise |
| 71 | May 7, 2010 4:58 AM | too much density, more green covered with concrete |
| 72 | May 9, 2010 4:13 AM | I am concerned about putting them close to adjoining properties. |