MICROHOUSING: 8600 Delridge Way SW proposal; comment time for city rule change

| Delridge | Development | West Seattle housing | West Seattle news

Two microhousing (aka “small efficiency dwelling units”) notes:

8600 DELRIDGE WAY SW: City files reveal an early-stage proposal to replace a 77-year-old single-family house on a 4,327-square-foot lot at 8600 Delridge Way SW (map) with 10 “small efficiency dwelling units.” The tentative site plan shows them all at street level; the lot is zoned Lowrise 2. Documents in the file indicate the developer is talking with the city to clarify issues including lot coverage and zoning before making a formal application for the project.

SMALLER UNITS? This week’s first Land Use Information Bulletin included a notice about a proposed “director’s rule” change that would allow smaller SEDUs. The summary:

The draft Director’s Rule 9-2017 for Small Efficiency Dwelling Units (SEDU) outlines criteria that allows design flexibility to create living spaces smaller than required by Seattle Building Code (SBC) Section 1208.4 for Efficiency Dwelling Units (EDU), commonly called studio apartments, and provides a method for developers to achieve the 220 SF minimum unit size specified by the Seattle Land Use Code.

Here’s the detailed explanation. The bulletin notice says written comments are being accepted through June 19th.

JanS June 7, 2017 (11:12 am)

smaller units? Let’s just call them closets…and charge an arm and a leg…and have a communal bathroom…like in a barracks…

kgraham June 7, 2017 (12:00 pm)

Micro housing aka expensive cell’s to live in

Such a waste!

SpaceDust June 7, 2017 (12:01 pm)

On site parking? LOL

JeffK June 7, 2017 (12:11 pm)

From the proposed rule: “They discussed the innovation of modern medicines and technologies have eliminated some of the factors driving minimum room side requirements.”

So, have an anti-depressant and a tiny house.

BlairJ June 7, 2017 (12:20 pm)

If developers are going to push for SEDUs, they should be required to set the rent at a multiple of the minimum wage.

wb June 7, 2017 (12:29 pm)

Apartments in NYC under 400 square feet are illegal. 220 ft? Here come the tenements.

Vanessa June 7, 2017 (12:39 pm)

Remember lily tomlin’s quote about, …”even if you win the rat race, you’re still a rat…?

DirkDigs June 7, 2017 (3:00 pm)

This is disgraceful. This is one of those times where I agree the government needs to intervene and prohibit this type of development.

Why? Because these cubby holes are allowed under the guise of “affordable housing” but for the fact that they are anything but affordable. Thus also having a negative effect on the development of real, meaningful affordable housing. And the developers come out on top and usually build crap units.

wetone June 7, 2017 (4:57 pm)

Never seen a city anywhere in the US that changes or modifies it’s building codes as quickly as Seattle for these type of builds and or usable lot coverage. No impact studies or common sense. Strictly a shoot at the hip move that will have huge impacts for surrounding neighborhoods. Owners of these type of projects should be capped on what they can rent rooms for, and get no tax breaks….then see what happens ;) If these builds are not capped, it will only push all other rent prices up. Just another item added to Seattle’s worst mayor ever list. Thanks Mayor Ed Murray and city counsel. Nuttiness at it’s best.

Ric June 7, 2017 (6:17 pm)

My kids in SE Vegas (nice neighborhood)rent a beautiful 3 bdr, 2 1/2 ba home with a living room,family room,dining room,pool and a garage (much larger than these dorm rooms) for a whopping 1400.00 a month. House would sell for about two eighty. It really is getting close to moving time.

Swede. June 8, 2017 (12:09 am)

Nevada was one of the worst hit states from the bank greed/crash. Florida, Arizona and other ‘sunshine states’ too. I’ve been thinking the same but unemployment is also really high there…

rob June 7, 2017 (6:18 pm)

we can say all we want about this. But if it is the tax payers making the comments the city has deaf ears. You can bank on the fact it will be built no matter what we say. The CC moves to there own beat.

bolo June 7, 2017 (7:44 pm)

Is 10 “small efficiency dwelling units” really 10 “small efficiency dwelling units” in this case? In some microhousing math concepts there seems to be a multiplier, as in 10 “small efficiency dwelling units” turns out to be 40 actual units. As in they somehow are able to label the number of kitchens or bathrooms as units, instead of labeling the number of actual “units” as “units.”.

WSB June 7, 2017 (9:15 pm)

If you look at the site plan I linked, it’s ten units, one level. Have never seen that before.

AMD June 7, 2017 (9:40 pm)

It’s weird that they’re all on one level, given that most of that stretch is multi-level apartments anyway. Seems like a waste of real estate to eat up the lot spreading out instead of going taller.

WSGuy June 7, 2017 (11:00 pm)

This is ridiculous! I’m sure we can get the minimum size down to 80 sq ft. That’s plenty of room for a cot, a sink, and a toilet.

Treesallneed June 7, 2017 (11:43 pm)

Or maybe combine the sink and toilet into a single, flushable bowl..

the “Toil-ink”!
Swede. June 8, 2017 (12:13 am)

No, no, no. Can’t have one sink AND toilet in each unit, they need to chare those, not enought room for such luxurious stuff. There will be a few units with ‘in-unit-toilet’ for $750 extra.

WD fundie June 8, 2017 (8:11 pm)

What’s with all caps microhousing? Plenty of people like studio apartments. I’ve lived in a couple. No one is forcing YOU to do anything. Live and let live already.

WSB June 8, 2017 (8:33 pm)

If you’re referring to the headline, that’s nothing specific to this story; it’s a style we’ve been moving toward for most stories, initial word or two or three or four in all caps, usually denoting a general subject, sometimes a time/day (HAPPENING NOW or SATURDAY).

WS since '66 June 10, 2017 (6:41 am)

Lots of angst and comments strongly against small homes like
they are something new. If you have no
desire to live in a tiny home…..then don’t. Believe it or not lots of people
want to live in them proven by how fast they fill up. In our capitalistic
society supply and demand set the value. If there was no demand, and left empty,
then builders and developers wouldn’t build them, would they?

Sorry, comment time is over.