Comments on: Backyard cottages may soon be allowed in Ballard

By: Yo

Yo — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:55:40 +0000

They put two kinda attractive ones up. HOw about some pictures of the ugly ones…

By: Vagrant

Vagrant — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:59:33 +0000

I only wish I was compassionate enough to build one for a bum. Maybe the compassionate ones here will?

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:10:00 +0000

Why limit this to only 50 per year?

By: Susan George

Susan George — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:01:29 +0000

Type your comment here. where can you get the plans for the $50,000?

By: boardbrown

boardbrown — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:39:05 +0000

What's really exciting about this is it's a way to add a second floor above our garage and legally move my wife's home office/studio out of the basement of our house…something that wasn't possible before.

By: boardbrown

boardbrown — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:34:02 +0000

Only if they're designed by crap designers.

By: Sweet Rose

Sweet Rose — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:08:23 +0000

Whether people live in an apartment in Columbia City, Downtown or in a cottage in Ballard the sewage is equal and still goes into the sound. The people are already here, this is just a matter of them living in a different location.

By: xtevex

xtevex — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:38:33 +0000

I suppose this is great news for people who want to rent out an 800 sq ft space in the $700/month range or less … basically, I see this more as a way of packing cheap 1-bedroom or studio rentals into house-lined streets and allowing the Mayor to say he created “affordable housing.”

I live on a street with an alleyway … a 25' high cottage on the back property line would be a weird addition, to say the least. Thankfully the city's putting a limit on the number of permits, because I'm not a fan of this idea.

By: JM

JM — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:10:25 +0000

maybe this link will work…

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/static/Backyard%20Co...

the height requirements are on page 10

By: eve plumb

eve plumb — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:05:14 +0000

thanks city cottage.
I saw that afterward when I checked out the link in the actual article.

I wonder what lot widths they're considering. Most city lots are either 40' or 50' wide. I'd hate to think my 50' wide lot (where the garages can only be 15' high) could accomodate a 23' tall cottage.

as uncle snuffy suggests, these make for 'skinny houses' which besides being ugly, block lots of light.

By: Fredrickson

Fredrickson — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:02:22 +0000

Yes, and thank Mayor Nickels for the plan. This is an awesome way for density to increase in our neighborhoods without building the typical 4 pack of town homes.

By: boardbrown

boardbrown — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:00:26 +0000

The height limits have been changed, and vary according to lot width and roof design. The highest allowable would be about 23' .

By: gmer

gmer — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:55:55 +0000

I don't think that the DPD is exactly busy these days. The limit is weird, but either way I don't really see more than 50 of these a year being built. With the lot requirements and the economy, I would be surprised to see a few in the next year or two.

By: city cottage

city cottage — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:44:43 +0000

@eve plumb: The DPD site says “height limit of 15 – 23 foot height depending on lot width.” The city site also says that only 18 people have applied for permits in southeast Seattle since the program started in 2006–so either not many people are building cottages, or not many people are applying for permits. Anyway, that would suggest that 50 permits a year might accommodate most of the demand.

Very happy to see SPD moving forward with this proposal.

I'd also like to know where the photos came from.

By: Uncle Snuffy

Uncle Snuffy — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:24:26 +0000

I don't like it. It reminds me of the normal houses that got torn down with two skinny houses replacing it. Terrible. Skinny houses look like crap.

By: Born right the first time

Born right the first time — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:16:31 +0000

I think these look kinda big for being called a “cottage” .
Remember the guy and gal that were hoping to park their homemade cottage on someone's property while they went to the UW?
Remember how cute and little that was?
I was totally ready to have them park it in my back yard but we are not zoned for it…I wonder if they are still interested. Does anyone still have their info?

By: eve plumb

eve plumb — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:52:55 +0000

thanks Morgan.

so what you're saying is that the alley would allow access for the cottage-dweller's car, right? they would still need a space adjacent to the unit or a garage below then? unfortunatley the link you posted didn't work.

I'm also wondering about height restrictions. currently a garage can only go up 15' I believe. these cottages look much taller. can they be as high as the house proper? (30' or whatever that is)
I don't think I'd be too keen on a 30' tall building right along the rear property line. this would block A LOT of sunlight in my situation.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:41:50 +0000

Eve,

Yes, one on-site parking space is required for each Backyard cottage.

This would be perfect for the areas of Ballard that have alleyways.

Here is link to the Backyard Cottage Guide that the city put out in January 2009

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/static/Backyard%20Co...

By: Silver

Silver — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:41:38 +0000

I wonder if it's to help their permit department keep its head above water. I'd like to see more of these, too!

By: eve plumb

eve plumb — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:10:44 +0000

No, I think Jack means we should attend to our crumbling infrastructure before adding to the population density.

The impervious surfaces will remain the same as if the cottage was a garage. The big issues are parking and sewage treatment as Jack points out. I don't know if the DPD is requiring an on-site parking spot for the cottage. Anyone know?

By: Crai

Crai — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:03:19 +0000

Jack – so are you saying that we should stop having kids and put a wall around our city?

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:00:49 +0000

Well thought out indeed. And where will all of the sewage go. Into an already overloaded treatment plant causing more scheduled outflows into Puget Sound.

By: backyard

backyard — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:48:41 +0000

Can anyone provide info on the example cottages in this post? They are very nice.

By: boardbrown

boardbrown — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:44:06 +0000

I'm scratching my head about that one too. It's an exciting opportunity otherwise.

By: Edog

Edog — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:39:22 +0000

Probably to allow for error, but I don't know. It sounds like they've thought through this, but if they got it wrong, this mitigates potential problems that might not have been anticipated. Especially on a land use issue, get that wrong, and the results are a crying shame.

By: Luke

Luke — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:32:11 +0000

50 per year seems a little low. Why limit permits? If it's legal, it's legal…right?

By: Crai

Crai — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:43:06 +0000

This is a great and well thought through idea. There was an overwhelmingly positive response at last night's meeting. Hats off to Andrea Petzel and her colleagues for working through all the details to put together a solid proposal.