Members of the Seattle City Council will hold a two-hour daytime meeting on April 18 in response to concerns raised by neighbors about micro-housing.
The meeting will be from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, second floor, 600 Fourth Ave.
Microhousing, sometimes rented under the trade name aPodments, consists of very small rental units, typically 150 to 200 square feet in size and equipped with a kitchenette (refrigerator, microwave, sink) and private bathroom. Rents vary based on location but typically range from $600 to $700 per month.
In 2012, Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development (DPD received applications for approximately 15 microhousing projects. Their appearance has surprised and distressed some neighbors, who have complained of a lack of parking and lack of public input on the buildings.
Proponents of microhousing say it is an affordable, efficient way to provide housing for single households.
The council is seeking public comment on whether microhousing developments need more regulation, such as a design review process that would allow neighbors to see and comment on project plans and environmental review.
The council has also questioned whether, given the relatively high cost of rent per square foot, microhousing could be considered affordable.
Microhousing first appeared in Seattle in 2009 in response to the recession, according to Bryan Stevens, spokesperson for Seattle’s DPD. The units have long been permissible under city code, which enables people to rent out rooms in single-family buildings, a practice common in the University District, where students share rental houses and live in fraternities and sororities (“Conlin to Capitol Hill: Microhousing’s no big deal,” RC, Feb. 6).
“Current code allows flexibility to allow up to eight people to live in one unit, assuming each have their own room,” Stevens said. “That number has been in our code for the past 30 years.”
Under current code, a dwelling unit is typically defined by the presence of a kitchen, and sometimes, a separate entrance.
In essence, Stevens said, “What a lot of these [microhousing] projects are is a single dwelling unit with seven or eight bedrooms.”
The city generally favors microhousing and wants to encourage it as a way to expand the variety of housing stock without a government subsidy, Stevens said.
But that tide may be turning. City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen told Real Change he’s concerned about the safety of the units and said they may need more design oversight (“At odds over aPodments,” Real Change, March 20).
Of the 44 applications issued for microhousing developments since 2006, only nine have gone under design review, Rasmussen noted.
The council could decide to develop regulations and guidelines or create an ordinance that would require a design review, Rasmussen said.
“We can’t just do nothing,” he said.
Councilmember Richard Conlin, chair of the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee, said the developments fill a need in the housing market and are consistent with the city’s building codes.
After meeting in December with Capitol Hill residents seeking a moratorium on microhousing, Conlin, writing on his blog, concluded no moratorium was needed; microhousing’s impacts are no greater than that of an apartment building, and they are going up in areas already zoned for apartments.
It seems not all councilmembers agree.
In announcing the April 18 meeting, the council stated that “Microhousing may not be an appropriate building type for all multifamily residential zones.”