Microhousing Resolution

Signatures 658 total

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 14 › »

1. 151
   Name: Dennis Saxman on Dec 14, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 152
   Name: Brad Chamberlain on Dec 14, 2012

   Comments: The current use of apodments to dodge design reviews that buildings with a similar number of apartments would need to go through is shameful to neighborhood planning and clearly being exploited by developers. I'd like to see the city trigger reviews based on the things that really impact a street/neighborhood: relative volume/population compared to neighboring buildings.

   Flag
3. 153
   Name: Natalie S. Daley on Dec 14, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 154
   Name: Deborah Holten on Dec 14, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 155
   Name: Anne Meegan on Dec 14, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 156
   Name: Brian Baltin on Dec 14, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 157
   Name: Will Mapel on Dec 14, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 158
   Name: Alex Liberato on Dec 14, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 159
   Name: Anonymous on Dec 14, 2012

   Comments: The apodment concept should require more, not less, scrutiny. The entire process so far has been deceptive and lacks serious consideration for neighborhoods. I'm appalled and angry.

   Flag
10. 160
    Name: Richard Bowman-Brown on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: Does the city council act in the people's interests?

    Flag
11. 161
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 162
    Name: Abraham W Gates on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 163
    Name: Mary Pat DiLeva on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: Think about what's best for the neighborhoods not the developers.

    Flag
14. 164
    Name: Kate Ackerman on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 165
    Name: Steven Lane on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 166
    Name: Kate Neville on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: I wholeheartedly support this petition, and wish to thank Reasonable Density Seattle for their efforts in this matter.

    Flag
17. 167
    Name: Jennifer Stevens on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 168
    Name: Jean Pauley on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 169
    Name: Marcia Weaver on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 170
    Name: Mistie Erickson on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 171
    Name: Sarah Butler on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 172
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: Growth yes, but not with the destruction of our neighborhood's character. Apodments without sufficient design review is simply wrong.

    Flag
23. 173
    Name: John J. Swaner on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: This form of apodment development cannot be allowed to proceed without adequate oversight and approval mechanisms.

    Flag
24. 174
    Name: Tamara A. Turner on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: Fix the loophole and preserve single family neighborhoods. You are supposed to REPRESENT us, not sell us out.

    Flag
25. 175
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 176
    Name: Tim Silbaugh on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 177
    Name: Linda Irene Nyquist on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 178
    Name: Benjamin Munoz on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 179
    Name: Jon Bridgman on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 180
    Name: Beth De Sort on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 181
    Name: Andrew Keller on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 182
    Name: Guy Haycock on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 183
    Name: Neil Wechsler on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: Developers should not be allowed to re-define "dwelling unit" to get around established rules.

    Flag
34. 184
    Name: Pia Dixon on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 185
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 186
    Name: Leslie Brazeau on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: An apodment is being built adjacent to TOPs school in Eastlake. The micro-housing is sited on a single family and small MF street with stable tenants. Like a hotel, the apodment will have a constant stream of changing tenants that is disruptive to the currently close-knit community. It also has no parking units. Parking is already very tight in this neigborhood. A stable single family/small MF neighborhood is not appropriate for this type of development.

    Flag
37. 187
    Name: Tamara Engel on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: I believe there is a place for this housing but it is not in single family zones.

    Flag
38. 188
    Name: Erika Lawler on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 189
    Name: Sara Davila on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 190
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 191
    Name: Mike Vernon on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 192
    Name: Ellen Vernon on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 193
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 194
    Name: Phil Gorsuch on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: Enough is enough!

    Flag
45. 195
    Name: Sam Porter on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 196
    Name: David Kremers on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: Really?

    Flag
47. 197
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 198
    Name: Joann Lund on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: this issue of new housing development needs more light/discussion/ awareness so a hold is necessary.

    Flag
49. 199
    Name: Freya Skarin on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: This is totally inappropriate for this neighborhood.

    Flag
50. 200
    Name: Marina Gray on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: One of these projects is slated to go in next door to my family home. The windows will be looking directly into my preschoolers bedroom. It is slated to have 55 people living in a single family home lot. That level of density is not needed in our city. This dormitory style living makes sense when it is in close proximity to a school. The additional housing that is already being developed around Seattle University and SCCC is located appropriately. This development is not in close proximity to the schools and makes no sense for our neighborhood.

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 14 › »