Seattle microhousing has rules, definition, and a name – SEDUs – after unanimous City Council vote

The city officially has rules for microhousing – or, if you prefer, SEDUs (small efficiency dwelling units). They’ve been in the works for months and, two weeks after the final committee discussion, won official, unanimous council approval this afternoon. Read the full bill here; here are the highlights from the city toplines featured our story about them last month:

*Creates a definition for small efficiency dwelling units (SEDU).

*Clarifies the definition of dwelling unit.

*Establishes required components of SEDUs, including a 150-square-foot minimum sleeping room area, a 220 square foot minimum total floor area, a food preparation area (sink, refrigerator, countertop, cooking appliance) and a bathroom (sink, toilet, shower or bathtub).

*Limits the issuance of Restricted Parking Zone permits to no more than one per SEDU or congregate residence sleeping room.

*Requires Streamlined Design Review to be applied, in all zones, to congregate residences and residential uses that are more than 50 percent comprised of SEDUs if they contain between 5,000 and 11,999 square feet of gross floor area.

*Limits the construction of congregate residences that do not meet certain ownership or operational requirements to higher density zones that are located within Urban Centers and Urban Villages

*Increases the minimum required area of communal space in a congregate residence from 10 percent of the total floor area of all sleeping rooms to 15 percent of the total floor area of all sleeping rooms.

*Creates a new vehicle parking requirement of one parking space for every two SEDUs for areas of the City where vehicle parking is required for multifamily residential uses.

*Increases bicycle parking requirements for SEDUs and congregate residences to 0.75 bicycle spaces per SEDU or congregate residence sleeping room.

*Requires the bicycle parking required for SEDUs and congregate residences to be covered for weather protection.

*Allows required, covered bicycle parking for SEDUs or congregate residence sleeping rooms to be exempt from Floor Area Ratio limits if the required parking is located inside the building that contains the SEDUs or congregate residence sleeping rooms.

*Calls on the Department of Planning and Development to complete an analysis of the City’s vehicle and bicycle parking requirements and present its recommendations for regulatory changes to the City Council by no later than March 31, 2015.

That last item, as we noted last month, goes beyond microhousing.

West Seattle has two microhousing buildings already open – Footprint Delridge and Footprint Avalon I – and three on the drawing board. As reported here two weeks ago, two of the not-yet-under-construction projects – at 3268 SW Avalon Way and 3050 SW Avalon Way – are on hold because of a court decision that would require them to go through Design Review, or undergo a significant redesign.

During this afternoon’s council meeting, discussion preceding the vote included a rebuke by West Seattle-residing Councilmember Tom Rasmussen for city departments not catching “loopholes” he said developers exploited when first opening these projects here. (You can watch the discussion and vote in the archived Seattle Channel video atop this story; the vote is 71 minutes into the video.)

10 Replies to "Seattle microhousing has rules, definition, and a name - SEDUs - after unanimous City Council vote"

  • pam October 6, 2014 (4:50 pm)

    This looks…uh… interesting. But I am always looking for ties between this type of super dense development and transit. If the city is going to approve housing of this level density, I think transit should expand to keep pace.

  • nextsteps October 6, 2014 (6:50 pm)

    Yeah. Interesting.
    And when I hear you say that, Pam, I think:

    Impact Fees on developers to support that.

    So. Simple.

    Can they untangle themselves and move to the obvious rational revenue machine?

    Stay tuned.

  • KM October 6, 2014 (7:19 pm)

    Point #3. Is that a requirement of a unit that wants the label of SEDU, or is that a requirement square footage for new units built in general?

  • rob October 7, 2014 (12:45 am)

    so these are, apartments?

  • Civik October 7, 2014 (8:23 am)

    More like glorified hotel rooms.

  • Peter October 7, 2014 (8:34 am)

    Nextsteps, state law forbids using impact fees to fund transit, and it’s a bad funding source because the first thing to stop in a recession is always construction. Any funding source for transit needs to be stable and sustainable, and development impact fees are neither. So … Not. So. Simple.

  • John October 7, 2014 (9:04 am)

    I hope we can all agree that transit should expand to keep pace.

    But without a level of civic responsibility shared by all, nothing will improve, much less be solved.

    City councilpersons reacting to a few vocal neighbor ‘concerns’ do not address the issues of affordable housing, transit or parking.

    With an eye towards upcoming elections the council kicked the real can down the road and fed the howling NIMBYs some raw restrictions to placate them.

    We all know the real problems can’t be solved by digging more underground parking, penalizing newcomers, telling people how they should live, requiring covered bicycle parking and
    demonizing development.

    So simple. Impact fees for developers…Right.

    Say, let’s charge impact fees of $100,000 per unit.
    How many units would it take to address mass transit needs as well as clear the streets for traffic and parking? We need billions of dollars.

    What effect would more impact fees have on the price of housing? Econ 101, cost rise for production = cost rise for consumer.

    The only obvious rational revenue machine is the tax paying public. Just as the livability issues are not all caused by newcomers, newcomers should not bare the burden of fixing the problems we all cause.

    If the city council had any integrity, they would have added a limit of issuance of Restricted Parking Zone permits to no more than one per
    SFR as well as adding required covered bicycle parking for all residences. What’s good for the goose…

    The council’s order of DPD analysis of the City’s vehicle and bicycle parking requirements conveniently stalls bad news until after the elections. Much of this data is already in-house as WSB’s coverage of the recent NERD lawsuit revealed, but no politician wants to address the facts about parking when they diverge from vocal NIMBY ‘concerns’.

    The problems we all share, were caused by all of us, why not all of us step up and act with civic responsibility?

  • skeeter October 7, 2014 (11:18 am)

    I, too, think developers fees are *not* the answer. A resident of a new construction apartment/condo/house receives the same services as a resident of an existing apartment/condo/house. So I don’t see why we would charge more fees or taxes to new construction. I think government services should be paid for by all taxpayers.

  • Don Brubeck October 7, 2014 (10:01 pm)

    Good to see that each sleeping unit is being classified as a full dwelling unit, instead of one bedroom of a fake dwelling unit.

    Good to see that RPZ’s are being considered, with a limit on stickers per household/dwelling unit to help keep these projects from overwhelming “free” (taxpayer subsidized) street parking.

    Good to see that bicycles are being considered as real transportation, a viable combination with bus transit if these projects are located near frequent-service bus routes.

  • John October 7, 2014 (11:25 pm)

    @Don Brubeck,
    Why not consider RPZs with limits on stickers per household across the board, covering every single house and apartment?

    Just RPZ limiting for micros (SEDUs) will have virtually no overall impact as there are only a couple of thousand micro units in the vastly larger pool of rental units of 147,148 and owner occupied 136,362 units (2010 census).

    As a bike rider, I am already aware that “free” (taxpayer subsidized) street parking is already abused and overwhelmed by existing homeowners and renters.

    Why not level the playing field, have everyone chip in a bit, show some civic pride and responsibility?

Sorry, comment time is over.