Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gladstone adopts clearer ADU rules; staff to study SDC relief after homeowner testimony
Summary
Council adopted Ordinance 1544 to revise ADU dimensions and objective design standards and closed the public hearing. Separately, after a resident testified that Gladstone's SDCs create high barriers to creating ADUs, council asked staff for a May work session on potential SDC reductions or payment options.
The Gladstone City Council approved Ordinance 1544 (TXTDash26Dash01) to update accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules in the municipal code, adopting clearer, mostly numeric standards to comply with state requirements for objective criteria.
Heather Austin, consulting planner, summarized the changes: a maximum ADU size of 800 square feet or 75% of the primary structure (whichever is less); a maximum height of 26 feet; and a numeric “menu” of design options from which owners would choose (two out of five) so that design requirements remain measurable. Clackamas Fire requested and staff added language requiring visible addresses on units. The planning commission held two work sessions and recommended approval.
Councilor Huckabee moved to adopt the ordinance; the council approved the measure 6‑0. The ordinance and municipal code amendments were recorded as adopted.
Item 11 (SDCs applicable to ADUs) followed. Heather Austin presented research showing neighboring jurisdictions’ approaches—size‑based reductions, half‑rate SDCs, or pilot waivers—and noted SDCs balance infrastructure funding against housing goals. Homeowner Jonah Watkins testified that Gladstone’s SDCs are a major barrier to conversions: he cited comparative numbers (for a 1‑inch water meter, Astoria’s SDC ~$6,600 vs. Gladstone ~$16,700; sewer SDCs cited as ~$1,400 in Astoria and ~$7,200 in Gladstone) and urged consideration of waivers, phased payments or equivalency calculations to avoid prohibitive upfront costs.
Councilors thanked Watkins for providing concrete examples, discussed targeted reductions (including income‑restricted agreements) and phased implementation options, and directed staff to hold a May work session to explore SDC options with a goal of informing the July fee schedule update.
No immediate change to SDCs was adopted at the meeting; staff committed to return with policy options.
