There is a town in our county that requires 2.5 cars per apartment, but only 2 cars per house. I figure someone who wrote that code really didn’t want apartments! I’ve had a number of cases of single family houses that were converted to multi-family without a permit eons ago and of course we keep having to get variances for not having enough parking. I think you should have some spaces, but this is ridiculous.
Ten or fifteen years ago there were a lot of tear downs in a neighborhood that had 10,000 sf lots with modest split-levels and and ranch houses from the 1950s and 60s. After a few McMansions went up the neighbors lobbied successfully for an update to the zoning code. It’s been a huge improvement.
My neighborhood is small lots of 1920s houses with lots of character and narrow streets. Other than someone occasssionally selling off half of a double lot, we get very little new building. I put an addition on the rear of our house - and yes did maximize the FAR. Our most immediate neighbors already had a similarly scaled addition, so it’s not out of place. We don’t have much privacy, but we don’t expect it either.
And none of these facts explain why people who don’t want places to park cars have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a place to park cars. The government is not in charge of providing free places for people to put their belongings. If you want to park your car, pay for it; don’t make me pay for it.
Wow, that’s terrible. We used to live on a 5,000 square foot lot then moved to multiple acres. I couldn’t stand moving back to a small lot for that very reason. Sadly, in our old house we were perched pretty high and could see into everyone’s living areas (and some bedrooms ugh). Privacy is important. I feel for the OP.
“And none of these facts explain why people who don’t want places to park cars have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a place to park cars. The government is not in charge of providing free places for people to put their belongings. If you want to park your car, pay for it; don’t make me pay for it.”
This is not how it works. No one is paying tens of thousands of dollars for others to park. Apartments charge a fee for their parking spots. Don’t have a car - your rent does not include parking. City already issues parking decals to residents. Let’s just say this war on cars is absolutely stupid without providing alternatives. And the city does zip about that.
That is exactly how it works if you require apartments and condos to have parking spaces. The person who wants an apartment or condo, but not a parking space, is forced to pay for the unwanted parking space. And parking spaces are expensive. Let people who want parking spaces pay for them. Don’t force non-drivers to subsidize drivers.
Apartments and condos have gyms, so why do I have to subsidize the owners and tenants that use the gym, when I don’t?
Apartments and condos have garbage collection, but my environmental footprint creates nothing that goes to the landfill, I recycle or compost everything, so why do I have to subsidize the owners and tenants that create garage and use the dumpsters?
Just don’t buy or rent from the complex where you would “subsidizing” the car owners. None of this is relevant to the OP.
When city zoning requires apartments and condos to have gyms, as it now requires new apartments and condos to have parking, your argument will make sense. Please cite me a zoning regulation in Seattle that requires gyms.
I have, except when living in apartments during my single youth, always lived where zoning is for 2-4 acre lots. Here, the zoning is in that range, but some people near us have 12-25 acres: it is semi-rural, I guess you could say. In our immediate area most of the visible houses are 100-200+ years old. There are newer houses in some small subdivisions on dead end roads extending back from the main road; the ones near us have fewer than 8 houses each, and they also have a couple of acres each. Reading this thread, I am so very happy about it once again.
I do have to chuckle when I see half an acre called “large lot zoning.”
Second, how about garbage collection? Why do I have to pay for renters and owners that create a landfill mess? The gym example was tongue-in-cheek, but gyms, game rooms and theaters are built-in to attract new renters and owners. Demand. Market forces require it to remain competitive. So, whether zoning requires it or it’s demand or market forces, it’s just semantics to me. It’s obviously required or needed to make sales or rent apartments.
Third, if you want to complain to the City of Seattle, and feel strongly about the subject, then I suggest you go down to City Hall and speak during the public hearing portion of the Planning Commission for future projects or even General Plan Amendments, where the project requires parking.
Fourth, most people use cars, rent or own. In the future, we’ll have robot cars. Maybe someday, we’ll have Hyperloop tubes that transport us, but until then, cars are here to stay.
I think the OP has to hope that the neighbors put in a nice pool and some tennis courts and that she gets to use them as her own personal country club.
127 - @eyemamom , no, we would be happy to be your neighbors. :) You are not knocking down a (big) existing house and replacing it with a rusty,reclaimed wood-clad box twice the sft. :)
(Just walked past the house of our neighbors down the street. Sigh. The rust from the rusted metal gets washed onto the concrete below… so there is a big rusty spot on the steps leading to the front door. Yuck.)
My sympathies as well. My backyard/deck looked over 12 acres of woods. I used to see tons of deer and other wildlife. The only way to get to my back property line is at least a 1/4 mile from a dirt road. Lo and behold someone buys a few acres and cuts down all the woods and builds a fairly modest house and a barn of sorts. The back of the barn faces my deck and they’ve decided to use it as a junk pile, storing every little thing there out of their eyesight and directly into mine. Separating their mess and my property line is a deep hollow making any type of fencing or plantings useless. Two months ago I started the permitting process for a garage/in-law apartment on the right side of my property at the top of a hill overlooking a hollow. My property line sits about 25’ from the edge of the hill down. Yup, someone just bought that property, again at least a 1/4 mile from a different dirt road and will be building their house exactly at 25’ from my property line (code). So my new deck will now be 50’ from their garage or back deck, not sure the exact layout.
Really, 12 acres of woods and one neighbor uses the property view as his own personal junkyard and the other builds exactly at the code allowance?
Honestly, I would consider selling if my house no longer had natural light. It is that important to me. And since there is a higher value house in the neighborhood, it may make the comps go up when the real estate agents come to appraise your house.
And I agree that these people are selfish. Their “niceness” is a cover for the fact that they are not kind. It’s classic mean girl strategy.
Haha, I’ve been reading this and chuckling. My Bil and sil are “those” people. They bought a nice small 1920’s house across the street from a Park. In their (small) defense their lot is huge. But put in a second floor and huge addition. The house is now very “distinctive”.
Then they bought a cottage and built a behemoth. But honestly that’s how waterfront properties are now. It is pretty unusual for cottages that have sold on their lake and kept the original cottage. Their behemoth is smaller than many of the “cottages” on their lake.
My relatives are lovely people though. But mean girl and no self awareness are pretty descriptive
Would it make people happy that the park has a bigger homeless population than when they bought. And since they put up the addition, the basement leaks like a sieve.
Yes. In our old neighborhood, most of the lots are 75’ x 150’ or 100’ x 150’. Our lot was 125’ x 150’, and in comparison with the smaller lot of our neighbors, it looked very wide. Our realtor really exploited that “oversized lot” stuff in our pricing and advertising. We cracked up a time or two over that.
