On the agenda: Marshalltown Plan Zoning Commission Meeting — Data Center (Sep 17)

CITY OF MARSHALLTOWN
PLAN ZONING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
10 WEST STATE STREET
SEPTEMBER 17, 2026, 5:00 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Jon Boston, Mahala Casady, Deirdre Gruendler, Benjamin Harris-Medina, Patrick
Streit, Stephen Valbracht, Marty Wymore
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
1.

Approval of August 6, 2026 Meeting Minutes

2.

Approval of August 13, 2026 Meeting Minutes

3.

Approval of August 27, 2026 Meeting Minutes

BUSINESS
4.

Work Session on Data Center Regulations

ADJOURNMENT

MISSION STATEMENT
The City of Marshalltown collaborates to provide a welcoming, safe, vibrant, and growing community.
Page 1 of 72

HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Mike Ladehoff, Mayor
Carol Webb, City Administrator
Deb Millizer, Director
Clayton Ender, Assistant Director
24 North Center Street
Marshalltown, IA 50158-4911
Tel - (641) 754-5756
Fax - (641) 754-5717

Meeting Minutes – Plan Zoning
Thursday, August 6 2026, 5:00 pm
City Hall, City Council Chambers
10 West State Street, Marshalltown, IA 50158

1. Call to Order
Chair Jon Boston called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

2. Roll Call
Present: Jon Boston, Deirdre Gruendler, Benjamin Harris-Medina, Mahala Casady, Patrick Streit, and
Stephen Valbracht.
Commission vacancy: Matthew Brodin resigned from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff present: Deb Millizer, Housing and Community Development Director, and Clayton Ender,
Assistant Director of Housing and Community Development and Zoning Administrator.

3. Public Hearing and Recommendation on Ordinance No. 15123, Temporary Data Center
Moratorium
Clayton Ender presented the proposed amendment to Chapter 156 of the Code of Ordinances
establishing a temporary moratorium on new data centers and substantial expansions of existing data
centers. He reviewed the proposed definitions, development approvals covered by the moratorium,
treatment of pending applications, limited exceptions, enforcement provisions, and the proposed
expiration date of November 23, 2026. The ordinance would allow the City Council to extend the
moratorium one time for up to 60 days by resolution if additional time is needed to complete review or
approval of permanent regulations.
Ender stated that the City had no pending data center applications. He explained that ordinary repair
and maintenance of an existing facility would remain permitted so long as the work did not constitute a
substantial expansion. Staff recommended that the City Council waive the second and third readings
because of the temporary nature of the ordinance and the limited time available to develop permanent
regulations.
Chair Boston opened the public hearing at 5:10 p.m. The following comments were received:
Leigh Bauder, Marshalltown: Supported the moratorium and emphasized the importance of full
disclosure, public education, and having enough information to make informed decisions. She
described the issue as a long term community decision.

CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols,
Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez

Page 2 of 72

Erin Carpenter, 802 North Fourth Street: Strongly supported the moratorium and encouraged a
proactive planning approach. He stated that the current code was not prepared for the demands
associated with large data centers and supported waiving the second and third readings so the
moratorium could take effect sooner.
Linda Clark, Marshalltown: Supported transparency and a careful review process, but opposed
waiving the second and third readings. She encouraged the City to slow the process and allow
additional time for review.
Roberto Gonzalez, 214 North 15th Street: Encouraged the Commission not to rush the process and to
make sure the regulatory framework is complete before moving forward.
Nancy Adams, 2701 West Main Street: Supported the moratorium as a way to provide more time to
gather information and evaluate the quality and accuracy of the information before decisions are
made.
Layne Pieri, 20 State Street: Supported the moratorium and stated that the number of issues requiring
review might make an extension necessary. She noted that future regulations should consider
impacts on residential areas and other sensitive uses.
Maggie Valentine, 2345 Whispering Oaks Road: Supported the moratorium and asked when the
public would have an opportunity to comment on the substance of future data center regulations.
Chair Boston identified the August 27 community roundtable, future public hearings, an anticipated
public open house, and the City Council ordinance process as additional opportunities for public
input.
Annie Grisham, 2125 290th Street, Melbourne: Supported the moratorium and encouraged waiving
the additional readings so the temporary moratorium would take effect sooner. She expressed
concern about a potential project moving forward before the moratorium was in place.
Chair Boston closed the public hearing at approximately 5:20 p.m.
The Commission discussed the City's current regulatory process. Ender explained that, under existing
zoning regulations, a data center would currently be classified as a major utility and would require a
special use permit. The process would include staff review, public proceedings, a recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and final action by the Board of Adjustment.
Gruendler asked about the status of the 2026 Reimagine MarshALLtown Comprehensive Plan. Ender
stated that the plan was scheduled for public hearing before the Commission on August 13, 2026,
before proceeding to the City Council. The Commission also discussed the draft plan's treatment of
industrial development and emerging technologies.
Valbracht asked whether the moratorium would prevent City staff or officials from communicating with
prospective developers. Ender clarified that the moratorium would apply to development approvals,
including permit applications, zoning amendments, rezoning requests, site plans, development plans,
subdivision approvals, special use permits, variances, building permits, grading permits, utility
extension approvals, certificates of occupancy, and other City authorizations related to establishing,
constructing, expanding, or operating a data center. The moratorium would not prevent discussions
with prospects or information gathering.
Stephen Valbracht moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 15123 establishing the temporary
data center moratorium and to recommend that the City Council waive the second and third readings.
Deirdre Gruendler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 6 to 0, with Boston, Casady,
Gruendler, Harris-Medina, Streit, and Valbracht voting yes.

CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols,
Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez

Page 3 of 72

Chair Boston clarified that the proposed moratorium applies within the City of Marshalltown and does
not apply to property under Marshall County jurisdiction.

4. Data Center Regulation Work Session
Ender introduced the first work session focused on development of potential permanent data center
regulations. He recommended a process that begins with identifying community goals, followed by
research and analysis, and then policy development and implementation. He shared research
resources from Iowa's public universities and the University of Iowa Hubbell Environmental Law
Initiative and invited additional reputable sources from the public, academic community, businesses,
and other organizations.
Potential areas for review included data center types and scale, economic development, electrical
infrastructure, water supply, noise, emergency power, building size, construction activity, compatibility
with surrounding land uses, environmental considerations, and regulations used by peer communities.
No formal action was taken during the work session.
Water Supply and Infrastructure: Zach Mayfield, General Manager of Marshalltown Water Works,
participated in the discussion. He explained that water availability for a large development depends on
the specific site, main size, pressure, fire flow requirements, elevation, surrounding users, and existing
infrastructure. Water Works uses hydraulic modeling to evaluate whether a proposed demand would
affect service to other customers. Mayfield emphasized the need for Water Works to be involved early in
the review of large water users.
The Commission discussed closed loop cooling systems and the fact that these systems still require an
initial fill and periodic replacement water. Members discussed focusing future regulations on actual
water use and system impacts rather than relying only on a particular cooling system label.
Ender and Mayfield also discussed whether large users should be required to connect to the municipal
water system and whether private wells should be restricted within the City to help protect groundwater
resources. Members noted that requirements involving high water use might be appropriate for large
industrial users generally rather than applying only to data centers.
Electrical Infrastructure and Emergency Power: Ender advised the Commission that Alliant Energy
was expected to participate in the August 13 work session and that other local energy providers had
also been invited. The Commission discussed distinguishing emergency backup generation from
routine supplemental power generation. Members expressed interest in allowing appropriate
emergency backup systems while considering restrictions on large onsite generating facilities used as a
regular power source.
The Commission also discussed renewable energy, including solar and wind generation, and
recognized that different forms of onsite generation create different noise, environmental, and land use
impacts.
Data Center Size, Type, and Scale: The Commission discussed the range of facilities included within
the term data center, from small edge facilities to large hyperscale campuses. Members discussed
whether regulations should focus on physical size and community impacts rather than computing
capacity or electrical demand, which change as technology evolves.
Topics included total building square footage, multiple building campuses, maximum facility size,
building height, setbacks, and whether standards should vary according to the scale of development.
The Commission also discussed how regulations should address a campus made up of multiple
smaller buildings that collectively create a much larger development.

CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols,
Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez

Page 4 of 72

Land Use, Screening, and Design: The Commission discussed whether larger data centers should be
limited to industrial zoning districts and whether smaller facilities might fit in other districts when their
impacts are similar to other permitted uses. Members also discussed the location and character of
existing General Industrial districts and whether different industrial classifications might be appropriate
in the future.
Potential screening and buffering standards were discussed, including screening mechanical
equipment, landscaping, setbacks, and architectural standards for large industrial buildings. The
Commission discussed the importance of considering how facilities are viewed from public streets and
adjacent properties.
Noise and Lighting: The Commission reviewed the City's existing noise regulations in Chapter 134 and
discussed whether the current standards adequately address potential data center impacts. Ender
noted that existing standards regulate sound at the receiving property and include more restrictive
requirements for residential areas. Existing outdoor lighting standards were also discussed.
Members generally agreed that existing standards should be reviewed before creating duplicate
regulations and that measurable performance standards should be used where appropriate.
Environmental and Community Impacts: The Commission discussed groundwater protection,
potential hazardous materials, onsite power generation, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and
the need for regulations that address actual community impacts while remaining adaptable as
technology changes.
Economic Development: The Commission discussed potential benefits and costs associated with
data center development. Potential benefits identified included construction activity, skilled trade
employment, permanent employment, utility investment, and expansion of the tax base. Members also
discussed balancing those benefits against infrastructure demands, community impacts, and the
relatively limited number of permanent employees associated with some data center projects.
Next Steps: Staff will continue researching definitions and regulations used by peer communities, with
an emphasis on Iowa communities and comparable Midwestern jurisdictions. Commission members
were encouraged to review approaches used by communities including Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs,
Altoona, West Des Moines, and Waukee, as well as resources available through the University of Iowa
Hubbell Environmental Law Initiative.
The Commission will continue the data center work session during the regular Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting on August 13, 2026. Electrical infrastructure and energy use are expected to be a
focus of that discussion.

5. Adjournment
Chair Boston concluded the meeting and work session at 6:40 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols,
Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez

Page 5 of 72

HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Mike Ladehoff, Mayor
Carol Webb, City Administrator
Deb Millizer, Director
Clayton Ender, Assistant Director
24 North Center Street
Marshalltown, IA 50158-4911
Tel - (641) 754-5756
Fax - (641) 754-5717

Meeting Minutes – Plan Zoning
Thursday, August 13 2026, 5:00 pm
City Hall, City Council Chambers
10 West State Street, Marshalltown, IA 50158

1. Call to Order
Chair Jon Boston called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present: Jon Boston, Mahala Casady, Benjamin Harris-Medina, Patrick Streit, and Stephen
Valbracht.
Absent: Deirdre Gruendler.

Commission vacancy: Matthew Brodin resigned from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff present: Clayton Ender, Assistant Director of Housing and Community Development
and Zoning Administrator. Deb Millizer, Housing and Community Development Director
3. Approval of Meeting Minutes
The Commission reviewed the minutes from July 16, 2026. No corrections were offered.
The minutes stood approved as distributed.

4. Special Use Permit Application, 1776 Governor Road
Clayton Ender presented a special use permit application for a ground mounted solar array
at 1776 Governor Road. The proposal includes three rows of solar panels with an
anticipated generating capacity of approximately 200 kilowatts for use by the building on
the property.
Ender stated the property is zoned General Industrial and is identified for industrial use in
the Comprehensive Plan. Staff found the proposed solar installation compatible with the
existing industrial setting and recommended approval.
Commission members discussed the location and noted the array would be well separated
from the road and surrounding development.

Stephen Valbracht moved to recommend approval of the special use permit application. Jon
Boston seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 5 to 0, with Boston, Casady,
Harris-Medina, Streit, and Valbracht voting yes. Gruendler was absent.
5. Public Hearing and Recommendation on Rezoning, 707 East Linn Street and 205
South Eighth Avenue
CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols,
Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez

Page 6 of 72

Ender presented a request from Marshalltown Company to rezone 707 East Linn Street and
205 South Eighth Avenue from Medium Density Residential to General Industrial. The
intended use is additional off street parking associated with the company's expansion east
of South Eighth Avenue.
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions restricting certain land uses, consistent
with conditions accepted by Marshalltown Company on other recent rezonings. Ender
noted the current Comprehensive Plan identifies the area for low density residential use,
while the proposed Reimagine MarshALLtown Comprehensive Plan identifies the area for
light industrial use.
Chair Boston opened the public hearing at approximately 5:06 p.m. No one addressed the
Commission. Chair Boston closed the public hearing at approximately 5:07 p.m.

Stephen Valbracht moved to recommend approval of the rezoning application subject to
the proposed use restrictions. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously, 5 to 0,
with Boston, Casady, Harris-Medina, Streit, and Valbracht voting yes. Gruendler was absent.

6. Public Hearing and Recommendation on the Reimagine MarshALLtown
Comprehensive Plan
Ender presented the proposed Reimagine MarshALLtown Comprehensive Plan. He
reviewed the planning process, which began in 2025 and included a Plan Advisory
Committee, listening sessions, school and employer outreach, online engagement, a
community roundtable, and public workshops. He summarized the plan's primary areas of
focus, including land use and design, mobility, housing and neighborhoods, parks, trails and
environment, economic development and subareas, facilities and infrastructure, and
implementation.
Ender described the plan as a long range guide intended to remain adaptable as community
needs, development opportunities, and technology change. Staff recommended approval.
Chair Boston opened the public hearing at approximately 5:10 p.m. The following
comments were received:
Zach Hamilton, 2250 Shady Oaks Road: Supported continued planning but expressed
concern about the future industrial designation and potential annexation of the Shady Oaks
area. He discussed potential effects on rural residents, including noise, livestock and
firearm privileges, taxes, development regulations, property values, and compatibility
between rural residential properties and future industrial development. He asked the City
to consider the rural context when future zoning and development standards are prepared.
Erin Carpenter, 802 North Fourth Street: Supported adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
and described the extensive community process used to develop it. He emphasized the
value of trees, parks, and green space as functional infrastructure that supports
stormwater management, pavement protection, heat reduction, and community resilience.
Layne Pieri, 20 State Street: Supported adoption and offered recommendations for future
implementation. She identified trail connectivity, transit access for shift workers and
transit dependent residents, housing affordability and production, measurable
implementation goals, and stronger outreach to Hispanic and immigrant communities as
areas for continued attention.
CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols,
Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez

Page 7 of 72

Chair Boston closed the public hearing at approximately 5:19 p.m. No additional
Commission questions or amendments were proposed.

Stephen Valbracht moved to recommend approval of the Reimagine MarshALLtown
Comprehensive Plan. Jon Boston seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 5
to 0, with Boston, Casady, Harris-Medina, Streit, and Valbracht voting yes. Gruendler was
absent.

7. Data Center Regulation Work Session
Before the work session discussion, Patrick Streit disclosed a potential conflict related to
his legal practice and stated that he would recuse himself from voting on the data center
matter.
Ender summarized the August 6 work session and stated the Commission remained in the
goal setting, research, and analysis phase. He identified recurring themes, including the
need to understand data center types and scale, focus regulations on measurable
development impacts, evaluate whether standards should vary by project scale, balance
economic development opportunities with infrastructure and community impacts, and
determine whether existing City regulations are sufficient.
Electrical Infrastructure and Large Loads: Kiley Miller, Lead Community Engagement
Consultant for Data Centers with Alliant Energy, participated in the discussion. Miller
explained that large load customers first undergo engineering review to determine
available capacity, infrastructure needs, timing, and cost. Alliant requires new large load
customers to pay the costs associated with serving their load, and individual customer rate
arrangements are reviewed through the Iowa Utilities Commission.
Miller explained that electric rate cases are reviewed through the Iowa Utilities
Commission and include a public process. He stated Alliant is under a five year rate freeze
through 2029 and that anticipated large load growth contributed to the utility's ability to
make that commitment. Ender emphasized that the City does not set electric utility rates.
Miller stated Marshalltown is well positioned from a transmission standpoint because of
regional transmission investment. He explained that Alliant, as a regulated utility, has an
obligation to serve qualifying customers within its service territory and must plan for
generation and infrastructure needed to serve new load. Miller encouraged early
coordination among the City, utilities, and prospective developers because utility timing,
rights of way, and infrastructure needs can affect project feasibility.
Data Center Types, Size, and Scale: Ender reviewed common industry terms, including
enterprise, colocation, hyperscale, cloud, edge, artificial intelligence, managed service,
modular, and high-performance computing data centers. He cautioned that many terms
describe business models or changing technologies rather than physical land use impacts.
He recommended focusing future regulations on durable characteristics such as building
size, campus size, utility demand, noise, water use, and other measurable impacts.
Ender presented examples of existing Iowa data centers ranging from small facilities of
roughly 12,000 to 18,000 square feet to large multi building campuses exceeding one
million square feet. The Commission also compared the scale of existing Marshalltown
industrial buildings to help place the examples in a local context.
The Commission discussed whether regulations should distinguish among smaller and
larger facilities, or instead apply performance standards to industrial uses more broadly.
CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols,
Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez

Page 8 of 72

Members expressed concern about adopting data center standards that might
unintentionally restrict existing manufacturers or other industrial development. Discussion
included the possibility of creating separate light and heavy industrial districts, using
context specific standards, and evaluating both individual building size and the aggregate
size of a multi building campus.
Screening, Setbacks, and Design: Members discussed landscaping, screening of
generators and cooling equipment, setbacks, building appearance, and the relationship
between design standards and surrounding land uses. The Commission generally favored
stronger design and buffering protections where industrial development is near residential
areas or other sensitive uses, while avoiding unnecessary architectural requirements in
locations already characterized by heavy industry.
Community Roundtable: Ender reviewed a draft agenda for the August 27 community
roundtable. Doors are planned to open at 5:00 p.m., with the discussion beginning at 5:30
p.m. and a planned conclusion near 7:00 p.m. The purpose is to gather community input
and identify policy considerations before staff prepares draft regulations. No draft
ordinance or specific regulatory proposal will be presented at the roundtable.
The proposed format includes a brief staff overview, small group discussions at round
tables, a large group report out, and closing remarks. Commissioners and staff will be
distributed among the tables to listen, take notes, and gather input. Ender anticipated using
three or four broad discussion prompts, including feedback on data center size, scale,
community impacts, and development standards.
Noise and Compatibility: The Commission reviewed the City's existing noise standards
and discussed whether residential limits should remain uniform or vary according to
zoning district and surrounding context. Members noted that changes to existing standards
would affect all regulated uses, not only data centers, and might create compliance issues
for existing industrial facilities. The Commission agreed additional analysis is needed
before considering changes.
In response to discussion about future industrial development near areas outside the
current City limits, Ender reviewed the annexation and rezoning process. He stated
annexed property initially receives low density residential zoning. A proposed industrial
use would therefore require rezoning, providing an opportunity for Planning and Zoning
Commission review and City Council action. He also identified conditional rezoning and
development agreements as potential tools for establishing site specific protections when
appropriate.
Next Steps: Staff will finalize the August 27 community roundtable materials and continue
research on data center definitions, scale, industrial zoning, noise, utility impacts,
screening, setbacks, and other development standards. The next regular Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 17, 2026, when staff anticipates
returning with an initial draft of potential regulations for discussion.
8. Commission Vacancy and Future Meeting
Ender reminded the public that applications for the vacant Planning and Zoning
Commission seat would be accepted through August 19, 2026. Staff anticipated that the
Mayor could bring an appointment to the City Council for consideration on August 24,
2026.
9. Adjournment
Chair Boston concluded the meeting and work session at approximately 6:18 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols,
Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez

Page 9 of 72

Deb Millizer, Director
Clayton Ender, Assistant Director
24 North Center Street
Marshalltown, IA 50158-4911

HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Tel - (641) 754-5756
Fax - (641) 754-5717

DATA CENTER COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE
MEETING MINUTES

No formal action was taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council as part of the roundtable.

1. Welcome, Roll Call, and Opening Remarks 5:30 p.m. to 5:35 p.m.
Clayton Ender, Assistant Director of Housing and Community Development and Zoning Administrator,
opened the roundtable and stated that the session was an official public meeting. He conducted roll call of
the public officials identified on the agenda.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Present: Jon Boston, Mahala Casady, Deirdre Gruendler, Benjamin Harris-Medina, Marty Wymore, and
Stephen Valbracht.
Absent: Patrick Streit.
City Council
Present: Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols, and Gary
Thompson.
Absent: Jeff Schneider.
Mayor
Present: Mike Ladehoff.
City staff participating
Clayton Ender, Assistant Director of Housing and Community Development and Zoning Administrator.
Deb Millizer, Housing and Community Development Director
Carol Webb, City Administrator
Public attendance
Nine sign in sheets contained 100 signed lines. This is a sign in count and is not a verified count of unique
attendees.
Ender reviewed the planned format and stated that the majority of the meeting would be reserved for small
group table discussion and full group discussion. He emphasized that the City was still gathering information
and had not started preparation of draft regulations.

2. Staff Overview: Data Centers and Local Considerations 5:35 p.m. to 5:50 p.m.
Ender presented a brief overview of data center terminology, types and scales of facilities, examples of data
center development in Iowa, and recurring community questions. He explained that the term data center

CITY COUNCIL
Melisa Fonseca, Barry Kell, Mike Ladehoff,
Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 10 of 72

covers facilities with significantly different physical sizes, electrical demand, water demand, operations, and
infrastructure needs.
The overview identified topics for discussion including electrical load, utility rates, water use and cooling
systems, noise, setbacks and buffers, employment, lighting, substations, emergency response, construction
activity, traffic, site design, and surrounding land uses. Ender stated that the examples were intended to
support discussion and were not proposed development models for Marshalltown.

3. Facilitated Discussion: Policy Considerations 5:50 p.m. to 6:35 p.m.
Participants discussed the policy questions at their tables using the individual discussion sheets, table report
sheets, Marshalltown context maps, and data center example materials. Participants were encouraged to
record their individual comments and to identify up to three considerations, questions, or differing
perspectives for the full group report out. Tables were not required to reach consensus.
City staff and public officials circulated among the tables during the discussion. Participants were asked to
submit their written materials at the end of the roundtable so staff could review comments that were not
reached during the verbal report out.

4. Community Discussion Summary and Key Takeaways 6:35 p.m. to 6:55 p.m.
The table report outs below are presented as spoken during the full group discussion. Table numbers were
matched using the verbal identifications in the recording and the written table report sheets. Obvious
automated transcription errors in names, table numbers, and confirmed terms were corrected only when the
written materials resolved the wording. Where the audio or automated transcript remained unclear, [unclear]
is shown. Audience interruptions and facilitator comments are not included inside a table report unless
needed to preserve the speaker’s statement.
Table 5

I have table five, and I have some great friends here that I just met, some that I've known for a long time, and we
went to the process of looking at. We want to look at the company financials because the industry, help me a little
bit here, under volatile, and we're concerned about an AI bubble. Okay, so if you have an AI bubble, and we have a
startup company such as Swarm, I'll pick on them. Yeah, are they truly startup? Will they have the ability to survive
a bubble burst? We want to look for revenue per city, not only the land sale, but let's look at how do we generate
revenue from services that are being provided. So, if they're having a billion dollars of services that they're
providing, how do we get a piece of that pie? The other thought that we had is we had a lot of discussion about
decommissioning. So, if it goes up, we don't need another hospital here, as you guys know, that we need to take
care of, but we said, what are the recycle ideas, etc. We had an idea on the table of dollars. So, if this is a $500
million bill, make them right up front. Put away 10% of the bill. Put that in an account. Let that say here our
decommissioning plan is 10 years down the road, and at that time period, you know maybe we earn 5 million a year
interest on that. Nobody can touch that except the interest. You can't touch the principal, you you touch the interest,
and a portion of that goes to the schools. Portion would go to the city. Portion would go to the county, so it's a way
to get some additional revenue. Barring sales to foreign ownership, we have some concern about that. We want
permanent employees on the premises, not just remote employees. Educational fund tax, and we had a great table
with consensus.

Table 2

We had a lot of discussion. One big issue was fire. A data center is going to contain a lot of lithium batteries. I don't
know if you are aware of that, but it has, you cannot fight a lithium fire, it just has to burn out. So, what about the
fire department? I mean, are there new technologies in order to fight these fires? What kind of chemicals are going
to be released into the air in the event of a fire. We also talked about, oh, getting a a soundproof wall built around
the borders to help protect the neighborhoods that are unfortunately going to be close by for the edge of it anyway.
And we also talked about how the developer should be required to pay to relocate any homeowner who chooses so
within 2,000 feet of any border line, and then the city can just take down the houses, maintain it as a green space.
We do need green space in Marshalltown, and that would certainly, because once that data center goes in, those
property values are going to bottom out, and I don't think that's fair to the property owners.

CITY COUNCIL
Melisa Fonseca, Barry Kell, Mike Ladehoff,
Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 11 of 72

Table 4, first report

You guys have brought up a lot of things that we have discussed, but there was a few more things that I don't want
to duplicate. But a huge thing on our table was environmental issues. What is going to happen visually? Huge
visual concerns about where it is, what it is, and what it rooms for, and also noise. What kind of noise is it going to
produce? There's two different kinds of noises. You have your DBA and your DBC, and some can penetrate
through your walls, and some really don't. What are going to be the regulations on how far, how much noise can go
into our community? I agree about building the wall, but the wall is only going to impact the the residents that are in
a lower type area. As you know, noise can travel up and over those walls, and there's a lot of residents who live in
higher areas that the noise will just bypass that and just completely go straight to you. For one, I am that person.
We live way up on a hill, and all the proposed areas do nothing but give me an open view and open noise directly
to my home. Also, a huge issue was devaluation of our property. What's going to happen if we're going to do this all
for tax reasons. We want all this additional tax, but then all of a sudden our properties start to devaluate because
there's people that do not want to live near a data center. They don't want the visual environmental impacts. What's
going to happen to that? I mean, we are going to lose houses. Is the city going to take them over. I don't know
where that goes. And how is the money going to be spent to to benefit our community? If we all agree with this, and
and we get the information that we need, and we're all excited about this new data center because it's going to
bring a lot of money to our community. I think we need to be educated on how much money that we're going to be
able to use directly in our community and the people. How is it going to benefit the people that are going to have to
live with the data center in their area? And another concern is legal impacts. After the data center is built, then what
are the legal impacts after that? Are are as I have looked bypass the the AI, the social media, and everything. I
went directly to the sources, the American Bar Association, to see how much legal impact data centers have
brought to communities, and I just want us to be aware that that is a possibility in our area. And water, of course,
the water thing. We we need to know usage and the impact of the water usage environmentally and in our direct
community. And is there anything else that anybody else wants to add? Yes. I think.

Table 4, additional report

So. Like closed loop [unclear] system. I know there's a lot of [unclear], but the closed loop system requires a lot of
maintenance. It requires a lot. It requires a lot of maintenance and and a lot of a lot of due diligence on the data
center developer to take care of that, so it doesn't break or water doesn't [unclear] into the water systems. That's it.

Table 9

All right. If anybody needs me to speak up, I know sometimes I don't speak very well in my opinion. Oh yeah, there
it's going out. Let me know. All right. So a lot of what we had has been kind of covered by other tables, but one of
the things that we thought was really important is the buffer from the property line and a larger buffer from the
residence or places of assembly, because Nancy had pointed out. Oh, I'm sorry, honey, that in one of the slides
that Clayton had shown from, was it Cedar Rapids? It looked like it was really close, like 200 feet to the property
line and 1000 to place of residence. So we definitely want it to be more than that. And then other people have said
stuff about environmental impact. We definitely want to know, you know what happens if 10 years from now this,
you know, is obsolete. You know some of the bigger data centers may be obsolete. They need to have some kind
of decommissioning plan, maybe a decommissioning fund that they are, you know, held responsible for, you know,
the environmental impact on that land and taking care of the land for us, and then also we felt that they should be
required to build in a green energy percentage as part of the purchase agreement. I mean, we're all worried about
the water, and I do. That is something we talked about, and I do agree. None of us want our water to be depleted.
The water is more important on a level than the energy is because we have renewable energy sources we can use,
and that we can maybe, you know, ask them to implement where the water, once it's gone, it's gone, and then as
they also mentioned, the like a required ratio of jobs per square foot, and you know, have more boots on the
ground jobs than remote jobs. Are they going to assure us that, you know, they have are employing a certain
amount of people from, you know, the community versus, you know, just remote from somewhere else? Anything
you guys want to add?

Table 3

And so our table, we pretty much had consensus that I just don't, we just don't want them around, and so it's, I I
don't know. Thank you. The use case. Our town is not that big. We don't have that much space to even build one
or, like, these companies, they're not beholden to us. They're beholden to shareholders or whoever owns the place,
and like, I don't know, it just does not seem like a good idea to even have them. And I like my one of my favorite. I
tell this to everybody. My favorite thing about Marshalltown is the drinking water. The drinking water is delicious.
We have delicious drinking water. You've already been warning that stuff tastes like poop. And people look at my

CITY COUNCIL
Melisa Fonseca, Barry Kell, Mike Ladehoff,
Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 12 of 72

look at me weird because I drink the drinking water, no matter where I'm at. But I'm always saying this just this was
not this was not good. I I don't like having to buy plastic water bottles. Yeah. What else do we have? Oh, and we
we don't want them associated with surveillance. That's like my second biggest thing. All right. Does anyone else
have anything else from Mark David? Oh, we also don't want it down by JBS. Okay. Thank you.

Table 6

I'm Jan Mcinnis. I'm speaking for table six, and we really didn't have a lot, as you haven't already discussed,
concerns about what this would do to water and electricity bills in the community. Who's going to pay for the
infrastructure that has to be built? There were quite a few moments about the noise, especially if it's a low hum or a
steady pulsing, because this could affect people with seizure disorders or migraines. And then who's going to pay
for a deconstruction, and can we have a plan in effect before it goes out? If we're going to do that, and no TIF or tax
breaks, pretty much in agreement with the rest of you.

Table 15

Also, I will agree over there with the drinking water. I went on a trip like a few years ago. I was complaining about
the water to everybody, so I was the pretentious water kid for that entire three week trip. So I think we talked a lot
about issues that had already been, you know, brought up about like the noise, the devaluation of properties. But
one thing that I want to bring up in specific is that according to a bunch of online polls, 70% of Americans say that
they, okay. 70% of Americans say that they don't want data centers in their com, in their communities. So I wanted
to ask. I wanted to ask why we weren't asked if we wanted a data center here in the first place. We're talking about
creating a data center here without anybody asking what we, the taxpayers, want. Why was that never brought up
to us? Why are we moving forward with a proposition that we don't want?

Table 14

I would say we were divided on issues, but a couple of things that we talked about that hadn't hadn't gotten brought
up yet was EMF containment. So the actual EMF frequency that the is rotating out from the building and including
that in our regulations, that I can't remember exactly what the like the terminology was, but requiring that the
building have an EMF shield in addition to the noise buffering. So that was one thing we talked about. We also
talked about, and we all agreed that not only do we want regulations, we also want to include how we monitor and
especially enforce the regulations. You know, we all know that things are currently regulated, but we really want to
make sure that those regulations are monitored and enforced, and so really making sure that we include that in this
conversation as well. We had different opinions about what size facilities, and I think that probably is not just our
table. Some people are okay with larger facilities, myself, I don't want any facilities, so we had the full range there.
And so maybe the focus is what fits our community and and what size facility would serve our community best as a
way forward with that consideration. Oh, another thing, you guys might have touched on this, but we had some
serious concern about making sure that there were no private wells allowed and protecting not only the level of our
aquifers, but also any heat or anything, any other thing being introduced to the aquifers. So those, I think, those
were our main concerns.

Table 13, first report

One I haven't seen brought up yet was what do we lose by, what do we lose the ability to support in the future by
supporting this now? What is the opportunity cost of the data center going in, so we had a representative at our
table from U of Energy discussing JBS in the same, in the same situation as employment for the data centers. I
looked it up. JBS hires about 2,300. The center might employ 50 to 60, I believe. But yes, if we, if the data center is
using the electricity, the water to support these jobs, do we lose the ability for another another company, another
manufacturer to come in later that's going to employ a lot more people and could use those same resources better.

Table 13, additional report

I'd like to know if anybody from the city has checked like this lady said up here about the fire, about these batteries
being burnt, and I know she's 100% right on that because they have to burn out. And has anybody checked with
the fire department? It's always a possibility we have a fire. So, and what fire puts off is toxic waste, and
everybody's breathing it down there, like I said earlier, the cost being. I live like three blocks away. I got some
people sitting with me right now. Live right across the street from it. So I mean, we got to look at the safety part of
this too. And another thing, I all the talk I hear is what I'm like, what I'm liking here about it is the water, the
electricity, all that's good stuff, but I'm also big concerned. I'm a Army veteran. I'm concerned about the security of
this place because I, they teach you in the military. First thing, you don't say it can't happen here. It could happen
here tonight. Never know. China could come over here and send a rocket, take this thing out. What kind of data's

CITY COUNCIL
Melisa Fonseca, Barry Kell, Mike Ladehoff,
Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 13 of 72

good? This thing's gonna hold, because they're going after the data center. They go after animal dumps. They go
after silos like Nebraska. They have a whole bunch of silos over there. So I'm concerned about the safety, not just
to myself and everybody else in here, but our grandsons, our granddaughters, and everybody else's kids, so that's
one thing to look at. That's all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Table 18

Came here because I started seeing this yesterday, and I want to know more about it. Look into it. I almost can't
find anything that has a tangible history. I have more questions than I have answers, and I have more questions
than I have statements. My biggest, one of my biggest concerns, one of our biggest concerns, was the
environment. Right? What concerns are there not about the environment? There's the water. There's electricity.
There's our land. There's [unclear]. What amount of questions aren't being asked? And the point I'm making is that
there's too many. When you look at the environment, you have to look at everything. Everybody's concerns is with
everything. It's like I said, it's the environment, the land, the water, the people, the energy we have to put in
because construction workers have to put into this, and we we all want to focus on that. One of the, yeah, the
[unclear]. It's my first night speaking. I'm sorry that I'm not as articulated as I should be, but I'm here, and at least
I'm saying my point, right? And I'm I'm only 20. I just graduated two years ago. I still live around here. My worry is
the future that that people that won't be any, won't be here anymore because of data centers, because of things like
this. We, there is research out there of how AI data centers have affected the environment, and it's almost, and it's
almost never positive. Okay, and that's that's what the environment. The other questions we had is where did it
come from? Where's the origin of this? Why is it that when I search up Swarm Systems Inc. I can find almost to
nothing? I I search up the name of Tefi Amir, I can almost find nothing. I I find stories about a city called, or called
Marshall. No, sorry, not Marshall, Marshfield, Missouri, and they had, they were gonna, it was gonna go, and then it
got paused, and then there was a controversy over there. But there's only two cities that come up. How do we know
that this is going to be promising if it doesn't have a history. That's also another of our concerns. And some,
somebody at our table put it in a good way, right? Why is this presented? If it's already going to happen, if there's a
moratorium going on right now, right? Also, somebody earlier pointed out a really good point. Nobody wants really
to live near a data center. We have peers that have come here from other parts, have already expressed how these
data centers sound, how they work, how they don't like living near it. There's, there's statistics about people not
wanting it, and I guess with, like, with our table we generally did agree, but I guess the biggest question that we had
is how is this directly going to benefit Marshalltown people, we don't have answers for that. I want answers. I want
answers as how this is going to benefit me. And if it's not a simple answer that you can, you know, say, then it's not
a good enough answer. It's not a good answer if you can't talk to it to your people. If they need to be present in
these things, if it's not something that you can publicly say, if it's not something that you can share with everybody,
how, how do you expect people to trust you? So that's pretty much all I have to say. But I don't want it. I don't want
these data centers, and I feel like a lot of people would agree on that.

Table 1
Why do data centers build in poor neighborhoods.

Not every table provided a verbal report before the posted end time. Written individual comments, table
report sheets, maps, and example discussion sheets were collected for separate staff review.

5. Closing Discussion and Next Steps 6:55 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
As the posted 7:00 p.m. ending time was reached, Ender acknowledged the time and thanked participants for
speaking. Staff had stated that comments from the roundtable and written materials would inform the next
stage of the City review process, including preparation and review of draft regulatory concepts at future public
meetings.
The Data Center Community Roundtable concluded at 7:00 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL
Melisa Fonseca, Barry Kell, Mike Ladehoff,
Mark Mitchell, Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 14 of 72

HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:

Mike Ladehoff, Mayor
Carol Webb, City Administrator
Deb Millizer, Director
Clayton Ender, Assistant Director
24 North Center Street
Marshalltown, IA 50158-4911
Tel - (641) 754-5756
Fax - (641) 754-5717

Planning and Zoning Commission
Clayton Ender, Assistant Housing & Community Development Director
September 17, 2026
Data Center Zoning Study – Work Session No. 3

Background
Data centers have emerged as a significant land use issue for communities throughout Iowa and
the United States due to increasing demand for cloud computing, artificial intelligence (AI), and
digital infrastructure. While these facilities may provide economic development opportunities,
they also present planning considerations related to electrical infrastructure, water
consumption, emergency services, noise, land use compatibility, site design, and long-term
community impacts.
The City of Marshalltown’s Zoning Ordinance does not currently define or regulate data centers
as a distinct land use. The City Council directed staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to
evaluate whether additional planning considerations or zoning regulations may be appropriate.
Since that direction, the Commission has held two work sessions, staff has gathered research and
stakeholder input, and the City hosted a community roundtable on August 27, 2026.
Staff has prepared four coordinated draft ordinances for Commission review. The September 17
work session is intended to introduce the drafts, explain how they operate together, and receive
feedback before the package advances to later public review. No formal action is requested at
this meeting.
Public Comment Summary
Public input has been received through Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
meetings, written correspondence submitted directly to the City, and the August 27, 2026 Data
Center Community Roundtable. The roundtable generated 100 signed attendance lines and 182
pages of written material, including individual worksheets, table reports, annotated maps, datacenter example sheets, and supplemental comments. The attendance figure represents sign-in
activity and should not be interpreted as a verified count of unique participants. Likewise, the
written comments constitute a qualitative public record rather than a statistically representative
survey or vote.
CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell,
Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 15 of 72

The comments received to date reflect substantial concern about allowing data centers in
Marshalltown. Some participants supported a prohibition or an extended moratorium regardless
of the size or design of a proposed facility. Other participants were conditionally open to
considering data centers if the City first established strict siting requirements, measurable limits,
transparent public review, enforceable operating standards, and protections against public costs.
Even among participants who differed on whether data centers should be allowed, several
common areas of concern emerged.
Water and wastewater were among the most frequently raised issues. Comments requested
information about water sources, cooling technology, daily and peak consumption, drought
resilience, private wells, aquifer impacts, wastewater temperature and composition, treatment
requirements, and responsibility for contamination or infrastructure improvements. Participants
also requested enforceable water-use limits, monitoring, public reporting, and independent
technical review.
Electrical demand and potential ratepayer impacts were similarly prominent. Participants asked
how a large and continuous electrical load could affect system capacity, reliability, household and
business rates, and the need for new generation, transmission, or substation infrastructure.
Comments generally favored requiring the developer to identify its anticipated full-build
electrical demand and assume responsibility for project-related improvements and stranded
costs. Renewable-energy requirements, rooftop solar, energy efficiency, and the use of backup
generation were also raised.
Siting and compatibility concerns included proximity to residences, schools, parks, care facilities,
rural areas, farmland, natural resources, and other sensitive uses. Participants frequently
requested meaningful separation distances, landscaping, visual screening, lighting controls,
protection of property values, and consideration of residents outside the City limits who could
experience project impacts. Several comments favored industrial, brownfield, or previously
developed sites over residential areas, productive farmland, or environmentally sensitive
property.
Operational concerns focused on continuous and low-frequency noise, vibration, emergency
generators, lighting, waste heat, air emissions, hazardous materials, fire protection, and
emergency response. Comments requested objective property-line standards, baseline and postconstruction testing, independent monitoring, complaint-response procedures, and enforceable
corrective measures. Some written submissions requested stricter standards for rural residential
areas based on their lower existing background sound levels.
Participants also questioned the balance between potential public benefits and long-term
community costs. Comments requested credible information regarding permanent employment,
wages, tax revenue, incentives, local purchasing, company financial stability, and the effect of
the development on other economic opportunities. Some participants suggested communitybenefit requirements, full-tax or clawback provisions, local hiring commitments, scholarships,
infrastructure contributions, or productive reuse of waste heat.
CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell,
Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 16 of 72

Long-term responsibility was another recurring theme. Participants requested decommissioning
and site-restoration plans, financial assurance sufficient to prevent public responsibility for an
abandoned facility, and requirements for recycling or disposing of servers, batteries, cooling
equipment, fuels, chemicals, and other electronic or hazardous waste. Comments also requested
additional review when a facility expands, changes ownership, increases its utility demands,
changes its cooling or generation systems, or materially changes its operation.
The current ordinance package responds to several of these concerns. The Data Center Overlay
would require public consideration of the location of an initial data-center proposal.
Development Scale and Infrastructure Intensity thresholds would require additional review
based on aggregate buildout, electrical demand, non-domestic water demand, and traffic
generation. The Master Development Plan would establish binding maximums, require disclosure
of anticipated infrastructure needs, and allow the City to obtain independent technical review at
the applicant’s expense. The proposed separation and bufferyard standards address
compatibility with residentially zoned property, public assembly uses, and adjoining streets and
properties.
The Noise Control Ordinance would establish measurable A-weighted and C-weighted sound
limits, regulate routine generator testing, and distinguish actual emergency operation from
voluntary or commercial generation. The Mandatory Public Water Connection and Private Well
Prohibition ordinances would respond to concerns regarding the source of water serving
development by establishing the public water system as the primary source where service is
reasonably available and limiting the establishment or continued use of private wells. These
ordinances would not establish a numerical limit on data-center water consumption; proposed
water demand would instead be disclosed and reviewed through the zoning and Master
Development Plan processes.
Other subjects raised through public comment are not comprehensively addressed by the current
drafts. These include decommissioning and financial assurance, electronic-waste management,
renewable-energy requirements, waste-heat reuse, detailed air-emission standards, propertyvalue protections, community-benefit requirements, tax or utility-rate protections, ownership or
data-use restrictions, and project-specific economic commitments. Some of these subjects may
require additional technical or legal review, may be addressed through other regulatory or utility
processes, or may be considered in a later phase of the City’s review.
The public record demonstrates that technical standards alone will not resolve the concerns of
participants who oppose data centers in all circumstances. For those conditionally open to a
proposal, acceptance generally depends on receiving project-specific information and
establishing enforceable protections before approval. The purpose of the current work session is
to determine whether the draft package provides an appropriate initial framework and to identify
areas requiring revision or additional study. No formal action is requested at this meeting.

CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell,
Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 17 of 72

Proposed Regulatory Approach
The proposed approach does not establish an absolute prohibition or a fixed citywide cap on
data-center electricity or water use. Instead, it controls where a data center may locate, requires
more intensive public review when a development exceeds established scale or infrastructure
thresholds, and makes the maximum development and utility demands approved through that
process binding on the property.
The package consists of the following four draft ordinances:
• Data Center Ordinance – Establishes the data-center land use, Data Center Overlay, and datacenter development standards. The ordinance also establishes generally applicable Development
Scale and Infrastructure Intensity classifications and revises the Master Development Plan
process for qualifying mixed-use and nonresidential development.
• Noise Ordinance – Establishes objective A-weighted and C-weighted sound limits and standards
for emergency-generator testing and operation.
• Mandatory Water Connection Ordinance – Requires improved property to connect to the public
water system and restricts the use or interconnection of alternative water sources.
• Well Prohibition Ordinance – Restricts private wells where public water service is reasonably
available and establishes an exception process.
Data Center Zoning and Development Review Ordinance
The zoning draft creates the primary land-use framework. It defines Data Center, Data Center
Building, and Data Center Development and requires related buildings, parcels, infrastructure,
phases, operators, and ownership entities to be evaluated collectively. A development may not
be divided or phased for the purpose of avoiding an applicable requirement.
Location and Review Process
The draft ordinance would permit a data center only on property located within the DC, Data
Center Overlay and within an underlying zoning district where a data center is identified as either
a permitted or special use. Because the overlay has not been mapped to any property, an initial
data-center proposal would require the applicant to request a zone change to establish the
overlay. This would ensure that every initial proposal is considered through a publicly noticed
zone-change process.
All Data Center Development would also require Site Plan approval. A Special Use Permit would
be required when the use table identifies a data center as a special use within the underlying
zoning district. These reviews would address compliance with the development standards
applicable to the site and proposed use.
In addition to these data-center-specific zoning requirements, the draft ordinance would revise
the City’s development-review procedures for mixed-use and nonresidential development
CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell,
Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 18 of 72

generally. These broader changes establish Development Scale and Infrastructure Intensity
classifications and require a Master Development Plan for developments meeting specified
thresholds. As a result, the revised classifications and Master Development Plan requirements
would apply to qualifying development regardless of whether the proposed use is a data center.
Scale and Infrastructure Thresholds
The proposed Development Scale and Infrastructure Intensity classifications would apply
generally to mixed-use and nonresidential development. They are not limited to data centers. A
qualifying project may require Master Development Plan review because of the physical size of
the development, the demands it would place on infrastructure, or both.
Development Scale is based on the aggregate Gross Floor Area of the development. A
Neighborhood-scale development contains no more than 30,000 square feet. A Community-scale
development contains more than 30,000 but no more than 60,000 square feet. A Regional-scale
development contains more than 60,000 square feet and requires Master Development Plan
review.
A development is classified as Infrastructure-Intensive if it exceeds any of the following
thresholds:
• Electrical Demand of more than 25 megawatts;
• Non-Domestic Water Demand of more than 75,000 gallons per day; or
• Vehicle Trip Generation of more than 500 annual average daily trips or 100 trips during a peak
hour.
Exceeding any one of these thresholds would require Master Development Plan review,
regardless of the development’s Gross Floor Area or proposed use.
Master Development Plan
The revised Master Development Plan process would apply to Regional-scale or InfrastructureIntensive mixed-use and nonresidential development, including but not limited to qualifying
data-center development. It establishes a coordinated and binding framework for anticipated
ultimate buildout. The plan identifies the development boundary, maximum development
intensity, building layout, electrical and water demand, transportation demand, infrastructure,
public services, mitigation, and phasing. The Planning and Zoning Commission would conduct a
public hearing and make the final decision, subject to appeal to the City Council.
Once approved, the maximum Gross Floor Area, building count, Electrical Demand, Water
Demand, Non-Domestic Water Demand, Vehicle Trip Generation, phasing, and other approval
limitations may not be exceeded. An increase in these maximums or another material change
CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell,
Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 19 of 72

would require a major amendment through the same process as the original Master
Development Plan. Conforming Site Plans and permits could proceed through their otherwise
applicable administrative procedures.
A limited minor-expansion exception would be available only for development lawfully existing
or approved before the effective date of the ordinance. The aggregate post-expansion
development could not exceed 110 percent of its fixed adoption-date baseline, and the
expansion would be required to satisfy the ordinance’s infrastructure, compatibility, mitigation,
and anti-avoidance criteria.
Data Center Development Standards
The draft requires each Data Center Building, emergency electrical generator, exterior cooling
unit, and other exterior mechanical or electrical equipment serving a Data Center Development
to maintain a minimum separation of 300 feet from the property line of any property containing
a principal Public Assembly use and from any residentially zoned property, including residentially
zoned property outside the corporate limits. Parking areas, internal drives, security fencing,
stormwater-management facilities, landscaping, and utility connections not containing exterior
mechanical or electrical equipment are not subject to the separation requirement but remain
subject to all otherwise applicable development standards.
Landscaping would also be required along specified arterial and collector street frontages and
along property boundaries where a bufferyard is otherwise required. These areas would be
subject to the proposed 30-foot Type D landscape bufferyard standard. For each 100 linear feet,
the bufferyard would require four overstory trees, four understory trees, eight evergreen trees,
and 20 shrubs. A fence, wall, or berm could supplement the required landscaping but could not
replace it.
Applications would be required to document the development’s anticipated electrical, water,
wastewater, natural gas, telecommunications, transportation, and other infrastructure needs.
The application would also identify responsibility for improvements necessary to serve the
project. When specialized expertise is needed to evaluate the information submitted, the City
could require an independent technical review at the applicant’s expense.
The ordinance also identifies accessory facilities that may be incorporated into a data-center
development when they remain subordinate to the principal data-center use. These facilities may
include battery storage, renewable-energy generation, standby generation, electrical
substations, microgrids, water-treatment and reuse systems, offices, and other supporting
facilities.

CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell,
Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 20 of 72

Other Zoning Amendments
The draft includes several amendments to clarify how zoning is established when property is
annexed into the City. The existing ordinance does not provide a sufficiently clear or consistent
process for assigning zoning to newly annexed property. The proposed amendments are
intended to establish a predictable relationship between annexation, the Comprehensive Plan,
and the City’s zoning map.
Under the proposed process, newly annexed property would receive the base zoning district
corresponding to its Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation unless the City Council
establishes a different zoning district at the time of annexation or through a concurrent zonechange process. Property that is omitted from the zoning map or otherwise lacks an assigned
zoning district would default to the AG, Agriculture District until another zoning classification is
approved.
These changes are not specific to data centers. They are included to improve the administration
of the Zoning Ordinance and provide a clearer process for establishing zoning when land is
annexed or when a zoning-map omission is identified.
Noise Control Ordinance
The noise control draft replaces the City’s current measurement framework with objective sound
limits based primarily on the zoning or noise-sensitive character of the property receiving the
sound. Measurements used to establish a numerical violation would be required to be taken with
a qualifying Type 1, Type 2, Class 1, or Class 2 sound level meter that is maintained in calibration
and operated under representative conditions.
The proposed maximum sound levels for residential zoning districts and other noise-sensitive
receiving properties are 60 dBA during the daytime and 50 dBA during the nighttime. Properties
in the Mixed-Use, Urban Core, General Commercial, Agriculture, Public and Institutional, and
Recreation districts would be subject to a maximum of 65 dBA during both daytime and nighttime
hours. The maximum sound level for property in the General Industrial District would be 80 dBA
during both periods.
For purposes of these standards, daytime would extend from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and
nighttime would extend from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
The draft also establishes separate C-weighted limits for steady low-frequency sound received
on residential or other noise-sensitive property. The proposed limits are 73 dBC during the
daytime and 68 dBC during the nighttime. These standards are intended to address lowfrequency sound that may not be adequately represented by A-weighted measurements.
Supplemental frequency or vibration analysis could also be used when necessary to characterize
a potential noise disturbance.

CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell,
Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 21 of 72

Emergency Generators
The noise control draft establishes separate requirements for the routine testing and emergency
operation of electrical generators. Routine testing could occur without a noise permit between
8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., on no more than one day during any seven-day period and for no more
than one aggregate hour. Sound from routine testing could not exceed 80 dBA when measured
at residential or other noise-sensitive receiving property.
Additional, extended, commissioning, or load-bank testing could be authorized through a noise
permit. A recurring testing permit could approve a testing schedule for a period of up to 12
months. The draft proposes a $250 application fee for these permits, in addition to any costs
incurred for specialized technical review.
The numerical sound limits would not apply during an actual interruption of utility service, unsafe
or unavailable utility service, a mandatory grid disconnection or mandatory curtailment
associated with an emergency condition, or another emergency requiring temporary power to
protect life, public health, safety, or property. This emergency exception would be limited to
operation reasonably necessary to respond to the outage or emergency.
The emergency exception would not apply to voluntary demand-response programs, peak
shaving, economic dispatch, nonmandatory grid support, or commercial power generation when
normal utility service remains available. These activities would remain subject to the generally
applicable sound limits and other ordinance requirements.
Generator operation continuing for more than seven days would require notice to the City.
Operation continuing for more than 30 days would require an extended-operation and mitigation
plan. The plan would address monitoring, reasonable noise-mitigation measures, and compliance
with any conditions established by the Noise Control Office.
Mandatory Public Water Connection Ordinance
The draft creates Chapter 96 and generally requires occupied or occupiable improved property
within the City to connect to the public water system. Newly constructed structures must connect
before occupancy. Once connected, a customer or resident may not obtain water from another
source, and a private well or other source may not be interconnected with the public system.
An existing property supplied by a noninterconnected source on the effective date would be
exempt while ownership remains unchanged. The exemption generally ends upon transfer unless
the Chapter 97 private-well exception criteria are satisfied. The draft provides a 60-day
connection period following the effective date or official notice, authorizes connection and
assessment of costs when an owner fails to comply, and establishes municipal-infraction
enforcement.

CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell,
Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 22 of 72

Private Well Prohibition Ordinance
The draft creates Chapter 97 and prohibits drilling, constructing, operating, or maintaining a
private well serving improved property when connection to the public water system is reasonably
available. Existing wells are generally exempt until ownership changes.
The City Council may approve an exception based on extraordinary site-related hardship after
receiving specified findings from Marshalltown Water Works. Those findings address availability
of public service, aquifer and water-quality effects, effects on utility ratepayers, and potential
conflicts with monitored leaking underground storage tank sites or other water-quality concerns.
Violations are enforceable as municipal infractions.
Relationship Among the Drafts
The zoning ordinance determines where a data center may locate, what development review is
required, and the maximum development and infrastructure demands that may be approved.
The noise ordinance governs sound after construction and operation, including routine and
emergency generator use. Chapters 96 and 97 address the source of water serving development
and the circumstances under which a private source may continue or be approved.
The four drafts are separate ordinances and may advance independently. However, they should
be reviewed as a coordinated package because the practical effect of one ordinance may depend
on terminology, exemptions, approval procedures, and enforcement provisions contained in
another.
Work Session Objectives
The September 17 work session is intended to obtain Commission feedback regarding the overall
direction of the draft package. Discussion may include:
• Whether the combination of an overlay, Site Plan, Special Use Permit where applicable, and
Master Development Plan provides an appropriate level of review.
• Whether the revised Master Development Plan process should apply to all Regional-scale and
Infrastructure-Intensive mixed-use and nonresidential development or initially only to data
centers.
• Whether the proposed development scale, electrical demand, water demand, and traffic
thresholds are appropriate triggers for enhanced public review.
• Whether the 300-foot separation, Type D bufferyard, and existing-development expansion
provisions are appropriate.
• Whether the proposed daytime, nighttime, C-weighted, and generator-testing noise standards
provide an appropriate balance between property protection and practical enforcement.
• Whether the mandatory connection requirement, existing-source exemption, ownershiptransfer provisions, and extraordinary-hardship well exception reflect the City’s intended water
policy.
CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell,
Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 23 of 72

• What documentation, monitoring, equipment, staffing, or professional assistance may be
needed to administer approved utility-demand limits and enforce the noise standards.
• Whether the initial ordinance package should require a decommissioning and site-restoration
plan, financial assurance, or both; and, if so, whether those requirements should apply only to
Data Center Developments or more broadly to Regional-scale and/or Infrastructure-Intensive
development.
• Whether the initial ordinance package should establish requirements for the management,
recycling, or disposal of electronic waste and related equipment; and, if so, whether those
requirements should apply only to Data Center Developments or more broadly to Regional-scale
and /or Infrastructure-Intensive development.
• Whether later drafts should address additional subjects, including preconstruction noise
analysis, waste-heat mitigation, or other operational and long-term impacts not addressed by
the initial ordinance package.
No formal action is requested at this meeting.
Next Steps
Following the work session, staff will evaluate Commission comments and prepare revisions to
the draft ordinances as appropriate. A public open house is scheduled for October 1, 2026, to
present the draft regulations and receive initial public feedback.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to hold a formal public hearing on the draft
ordinances on October 15, 2026. Following the hearing, the Commission may take action,
continue its consideration to a later meeting, or request additional revisions. Any
recommendation by the Commission and subsequent consideration or adoption by the City
Council will occur at later meetings in accordance with the notice and procedures required by
law.

CITY COUNCIL
Sue Cahill, Melisa Fonseca, Marco A. Yepez-Gomez, Mark Mitchell,
Greg Nichols, Jeff Schneider, Gary Thompson

Page 24 of 72

ORDINANCE 15___
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA,
CHAPTER 156: ZONING, RELATING TO DATA CENTERS AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Marshalltown, Iowa, has adopted Chapter 156,
Zoning; and
WHEREAS, data centers cons�tute an emerging land use that may vary substan�ally in building
size, electrical demand, water demand, infrastructure requirements, and poten�al effects on
surrounding proper�es and public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it appropriate to regulate data centers according to the scale,
intensity, physical characteris�cs, infrastructure requirements, and effects of the proposed
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that regional-scale and infrastructure-intensive
mixed-use and nonresiden�al developments warrant coordinated public review of site design,
infrastructure, compa�bility, public services, phasing, and mi�ga�on; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the following amendments to Chapter 156 to be in the best
interest of the City and the public in general.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA:
Sec�on 1. Amendment. The following defini�ons are added alphabe�cally to § 156.M.003:
COMMON OR RELATED OWNERSHIP, CONTROL, OPERATION, OR DEVELOPMENT. Two or
more parcels, lots, uses, structures, businesses, or development ac�vi�es shall be considered
under common or related ownership, control, opera�on, or development when they:
(1) Are owned wholly or par�ally by the same person, partnership, corpora�on, limited
liability company, trust, or other legal en�ty;
(2) Are owned by separate en��es having one or more common owners, members,
shareholders, partners, officers, directors, managers, trustees, or beneficiaries;
(3) Are managed, controlled, or operated by the same person or en�ty;
(4) Func�on as part of a unified business opera�on, development project, or site plan; or

Page 25 of 72

(5) Are developed, constructed, marketed, financed, or approved pursuant to a common plan
of development or coordinated development scheme.
The existence of separate deeds, legal descrip�ons, lot lines, leases, tenants, or business
en��es shall not, by themselves, preclude a finding of common or related ownership, control,
opera�on, or development. Separate ownership, management, financing, or organiza�onal
rela�onships shall establish common or related ownership, control, opera�on, or development
only when the rela�onship is material to the ownership, control, opera�on, financing,
approval, construc�on, or coordinated development of the proper�es or ac�vi�es at issue.
DATA CENTER. A facility consis�ng of one or more buildings used primarily for the storage,
management, processing, or transmission of digital data and containing computer or network
equipment, systems, servers, appliances, or other associated components related to digital
data storage and opera�ons. The term includes commercial cryptocurrency mining opera�ons
and associated processing facili�es.
DATA CENTER BUILDING. A building, or por�on of a building, containing computer or network
equipment, systems, servers, appliances, or other associated components used primarily for
the storage, management, processing, or transmission of digital data.
DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT. One or more Data Center Buildings and associated
infrastructure located on a single site or on con�guous or func�onally related parcels under
common or related ownership, control, opera�on, or development, including buildings or
infrastructure constructed or proposed to be constructed in phases.
DEVELOPMENT SCALE, COMMUNITY. A Mixed-Use or Nonresiden�al Development containing,
or an�cipated to contain upon ul�mate buildout, more than 30,000 square feet but not more
than 60,000 square feet of aggregate Gross Floor Area.
DEVELOPMENT SCALE, NEIGHBORHOOD. A Mixed-Use or Nonresiden�al Development
containing, or an�cipated to contain upon ul�mate buildout, 30,000 square feet or less of
aggregate Gross Floor Area.
DEVELOPMENT SCALE, REGIONAL. A Mixed-Use or Nonresiden�al Development containing, or
an�cipated to contain upon ul�mate buildout, more than 60,000 square feet of aggregate
Gross Floor Area.
ELECTRICAL DEMAND. The maximum an�cipated simultaneous demand for electrical power
necessary to operate a Development at an�cipated ul�mate buildout, expressed in megawats
(MW), regardless of whether the power is supplied by a public u�lity, private u�lity, on-site
genera�on, or another source. On-site genera�on or energy storage shall not be deducted in
determining Electrical Demand.

Page 26 of 72

INFRASTRUCTURE-INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. A Mixed-Use or Nonresiden�al Development
for which one or more of the following applies:
(1) Electrical Demand exceeds 25 megawats;
(2) Non-Domes�c Water Demand exceeds 75,000 gallons per day; or
(3) Vehicle Trip Genera�on exceeds 500 annual average daily Vehicle Trips or 100 Vehicle Trips
during a peak hour.
MIXED-USE OR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. A Development containing one or more
principal uses other than Household Living or Group Living, whether or not the Development
also contains a residen�al use. An accessory nonresiden�al use that is incidental and
subordinate to a residen�al principal use does not, by itself, cons�tute Mixed-Use or
Nonresiden�al Development.
VEHICLE TRIP. A one-way movement of a vehicle entering or leaving a Development.
VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION. The an�cipated number of Vehicle Trips generated by a
Development at an�cipated ul�mate buildout, measured as: (1) the average daily number of
Vehicle Trips over a calendar year; and (2) the number of Vehicle Trips during the highestvolume peak hour. A motor vehicle entering or leaving the Development cons�tutes one
Vehicle Trip. Vehicle Trip Genera�on shall be determined using the current edi�on of the
Ins�tute of Transporta�on Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual or another professionally
accepted methodology approved by the City Engineer.
WATER DEMAND. The greatest an�cipated average daily volume of water withdrawn or
delivered from all sources to operate a Development at an�cipated ul�mate buildout,
calculated over any period of 30 consecu�ve calendar days and expressed in gallons per day
(GPD). Water recirculated within the same system shall not be counted more than once. Water
used only for construc�on or emergency fire suppression is excluded.
WATER DEMAND, NON-DOMESTIC. The por�on of Water Demand atributable to cooling,
manufacturing, equipment opera�on, treatment, irriga�on, or another commercial, industrial,
ins�tu�onal, or opera�onal purpose. Non-Domes�c Water Demand does not include water
used for drinking, handwashing, toilets, showers, ordinary employee or occupant food
prepara�on, or other ordinary domes�c or sanitary purposes.

Page 27 of 72

Sec�on 2. Amendment. § 156.B.002, ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED, shall be deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following text, which includes establishment of a new overlay
zoning district:
§ 156.B.002 ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED.
The following zoning districts are established for the purposes described below:
(A) Residential Districts.
(1) AG, Agriculture. The purpose of the AG, Agriculture Zoning District is to provide for
the preservation of land suitable for eventual development until such time as the
necessary facilities and services are provided to such areas.
(2) RR, Rural Residential. The purpose of the RR, Rural Residential Zoning District is to
provide for existing residential or future residential areas in areas of difficult
topography that will develop at a density of approximately two to three dwelling
units per acre.
(3) RL, Low-Density Residential. The purpose of the RL, Low-Density Residential Zoning
District is to provide for single-family and duplex homes at a density of
approximately four to eight dwelling units per acre.
(4) RM, Medium-Density Residential. The purpose of the RM, Medium-Density
Residential Zoning District is to provide for single-family and duplex homes,
townhomes, or small multiple-family developments at a density of approximately
six to 18 dwelling units per acre.
(5) RH, High-Density Residential. The purpose of the RH, High-Density Residential
Zoning District is to provide for single-family and duplex homes, townhomes,
apartments, and other multiple-family developments at a density of
approximately 14 to 31 dwelling units per acre.
(B) Mixed-Use Districts.
(1) MU, Mixed-Use. The purpose of the MU, Mixed-Use Zoning District is to provide for
mixed office, retail, and residential uses in neighborhood centers or in close
proximity to residential areas.
(2) UC, Urban Core. The purpose of the UC, Urban Core Zoning District is to provide for
mixed office, retail, medical, institutional, and residential uses in the more intense
setting of the urban core, including downtown.

Page 28 of 72

(C) Nonresidential Districts.
(1) GC, General Commercial. The purpose of the GC, General Commercial Zoning
District is to provide for general commercial uses and businesses such as
restaurants, retail, offices, hotels, banks, and other mixtures of uses in areas along
major road corridors and further from residential areas.
(2) GI, General Industrial. The purpose of the GI, General Industrial Zoning District is to
provide for manufacturing, processing, storage, and distribution activities generally
incompatible with residential, civic, and other public uses.
(D) Special Purpose Districts.
(1) PUD, Planned Unit Development. The purpose of the PUD, Planned Unit
Development Zoning District is to provide for the unified and coordinated
development of parcels or tracts of land. Certain freedom of choice as to intended
land uses shall be permitted, provided that the applicable site development
regulations are complied with and that the intended uses are not in conflict with
the general purpose and intent of this Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive
Plan.
(2) PI, Public and Institutional. The purpose of the PI, Public and Institutional Zoning
District is to provide primarily for religious, medical, governmental, institutional,
and educational facilities.
(3) REC, Recreation. The purpose of the REC, Recreation Zoning District is to provide
for areas of public or private ownership that will remain undeveloped as open space
or will be developed as parks, including trails, golf courses, and other recreational
facilities appropriate to the need and location.
(E) Overlay Districts.
(1) UC-HD, Urban Core – Historic District. The purpose of the UC-HD, Urban Core –
Historic District is to protect specific characteristics of the historic core of
downtown while facilitating new construction designed to harmonize with the
district's visual character.
(2) DC, Data Center Overlay. The purpose of the DC, Data Center Overlay Zoning District
is to identify locations eligible for Data Center Development based on compatibility
with existing and planned land uses and the ability to accommodate applicable
infrastructure, access, separation, buffering, site-design, public-service, and
mitigation requirements.

Page 29 of 72

Sec�on 3. Amendment. §156.B.003(D) shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following text:
(D) Omited or annexed land.
(1) Omited land. Any area within the City that is not shown on the Official Zoning Map as
being included in a zoning district shall be deemed to be in the AG, Agriculture District unless
the City Council designates another zoning district.
(2) Annexed land. Land annexed into the City shall be assigned the default base zoning district
corresponding to its applicable Future Land Use designa�on in the Comprehensive Plan, as
provided in Table 156.B.003-1, unless the City Council establishes another base zoning district
concurrently with annexa�on.
Table 156.B.003-1
Default Zoning of Annexed Land
Future Land Use Designa�on
Default Base Zoning District
Agricultural
AG, Agriculture Zoning District
Urban Reserve
AG, Agriculture Zoning District
Low-Intensity Area
RR, Rural Residen�al Zoning District
Medium-Intensity Area
RM, Medium-Density Residen�al Zoning District
High-Intensity Area
RH, High-Density Residen�al Zoning District
Commercial Mixed-Use
GC, General Commercial Zoning District
Downtown Mixed-Use
UC, Urban Core Zoning District
Industrial
GI, General Industrial Zoning District
Parks and Open Space
REC, Recrea�on Zoning District
Public and Semi-Public
PI, Public and Ins�tu�onal Zoning District
(3) Uncertain or mul�ple designa�ons. If the applicable Future Land Use designa�on cannot be
determined, is not addressed in Table 156.B.003-1, or includes more than one designa�on
applicable to the annexed land, the land shall be assigned the AG, Agriculture Zoning District
unless the City Council establishes another base zoning district concurrently with annexa�on.
(4) Overlay districts. Overlay Districts are not default base zoning districts that may be assigned
to annexed land. An Overlay District may be applied only by ac�on of the City Council in
accordance with the applicable Zone Change procedures.

Page 30 of 72

Sec�on 4. Amendment. §156.B.006(A) is deleted in its en�rety and replaced with the
following:
(A) Development classifica�ons.
(1) Residen�al development types. New developments that are primarily residen�al are
classified as Conven�onal, Cluster, Infill, or Tiny House Neighborhood or Cotage Court, as
applicable. Development of any residen�al development type permited in the zoning district
is at the op�on of the applicant. Where more than one residen�al development type is
permited in a zoning district, no development type is mandatory.
(2) Development Scale. Each Mixed-Use or Nonresiden�al Development shall be classified as
Neighborhood-scale, Community-scale, or Regional-scale in accordance with division (E) of this
sec�on.
(3) Infrastructure Intensity. Each Mixed-Use or Nonresiden�al Development shall be evaluated
for classifica�on as Infrastructure-Intensive Development in accordance with division (F) of this
sec�on.
(4) Independent classifica�ons. Development Scale and Infrastructure Intensity are
independent classifica�ons. A development may be subject to requirements associated with
either or both classifica�ons.
(5) Overlay districts. Applica�on of an overlay district does not replace, supersede, or
independently alter the Development Scale or Infrastructure Intensity classifica�on applicable
within the underlying base zoning district.
Refer to § 156.B.004, Residen�al District Development Standards, for lot density and
dimension standards related to each permited development and housing type combina�on.
Sec�on 5. Amendment. A new division (E) is added to § 156.B.006 as follows:
(E) Mixed-Use and Nonresiden�al Development Scale.
(1) Classifica�on. Each Mixed-Use or Nonresiden�al Development shall be classified as
Neighborhood-scale Development, Community-scale Development, or Regional-scale
Development in accordance with the applicable defini�ons in §156.M.003.
(2) Aggregate Development. When mul�ple buildings, lots, parcels, phases, facili�es, or
improvements are part of a single integrated or func�onally related Development under
common or related ownership, control, opera�on, or development, Development Scale shall
be determined from the aggregate Gross Floor Area of the en�re development.

Page 31 of 72

(3) Phased Development. Development proposed or constructed in phases shall be classified
based on the aggregate Gross Floor Area proposed at an�cipated ul�mate buildout, including
all phases included in or reasonably an�cipated as part of the development proposal.
(4) Subsequent Development. An expansion, addi�on, phase, or other modifica�on to an
exis�ng development shall be evaluated based on the aggregate Gross Floor Area of the
exis�ng development and the proposed development following comple�on of the expansion,
addi�on, phase, or modifica�on.
(5) Avoidance prohibited. A development shall not be divided among separate buildings, lots,
parcels, phases, ownership en��es, operators, tenants, subsidiaries, affiliated en��es,
applica�ons, or other components for the purpose of avoiding an applicable Development
Scale classifica�on or requirement.
(6) Determina�on. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the applicable Development
Scale from the informa�on submited with the development applica�on and other informa�on
reasonably necessary to determine compliance with this chapter.
Sec�on 6. Amendment. A new division (F) is added to § 156.B.006 as follows:
(F) Infrastructure Intensity.
(1) Applicability. Infrastructure Intensity applies only to Mixed-Use or Nonresiden�al
Development and is determined independently from Development Scale.
(2) Classifica�on. A Mixed-Use or Nonresiden�al Development is Infrastructure-Intensive
Development if it exceeds any threshold established in the defini�on of InfrastructureIntensive Development in §156.M.003. A development that does not exceed any such
threshold shall not be classified as Infrastructure-Intensive Development.
(3) Applicant documenta�on. The applicant shall provide sufficient informa�on, as determined
by the Zoning Administrator, to determine the development’s Electrical Demand, NonDomes�c Water Demand, and Vehicle Trip Genera�on at an�cipated ul�mate buildout. The
informa�on shall include applicable development plans, equipment specifica�ons, u�lity
documenta�on, trip-genera�on calcula�ons, and other suppor�ng informa�on deemed
reasonably necessary by the Zoning Administrator to determine Infrastructure Intensity.
(4) Aggregate calcula�on. When mul�ple buildings, lots, parcels, phases, facili�es, or
improvements are part of a single integrated or func�onally related development under
common or related ownership, control, opera�on, or development, Electrical Demand, NonDomes�c Water Demand, and Vehicle Trip Genera�on shall be determined from the aggregate
demand and trip genera�on of the en�re development.

Page 32 of 72

(5) Phased and subsequent development. Development proposed or constructed in phases
shall be evaluated based on its aggregate Electrical Demand, Non-Domes�c Water Demand,
and Vehicle Trip Genera�on at an�cipated ul�mate buildout. An expansion, addi�on, phase, or
other modifica�on to an exis�ng development shall be evaluated based on the aggregate
demand and trip genera�on of the en�re development following comple�on of the expansion,
addi�on, phase, or modifica�on.
(6) Avoidance prohibited. A development shall not be divided among separate buildings, lots,
parcels, phases, ownership en��es, operators, tenants, subsidiaries, affiliated en��es, u�lity
or access connec�ons, applica�ons, permits, or other components for the purpose of avoiding
classifica�on as Infrastructure-Intensive Development or an applicable requirement of this
chapter.
(7) Administra�ve determina�on. The Zoning Administrator shall determine Electrical Demand,
Non-Domes�c Water Demand, Vehicle Trip Genera�on, and Infrastructure Intensity from the
informa�on submited with the development applica�on and any other informa�on deemed
reasonably necessary by the Zoning Administrator to determine compliance with this chapter.
Technical informa�on or review provided by a u�lity provider, the City Engineer, or another
public agency may be considered, but the Zoning Administrator shall make the final
classifica�on under this chapter.
Sec�on 7. Amendment. §156.C.002(C)(1) is deleted in its en�rety and replaced with the
following:
1. “P” means that the land use is permited by right, subject to all applicable standards of this
chapter, including any use-specific standards iden�fied in the Standards column of Table
156.C.003-1.
Sec�on 8. Amendment. §156.C.002(E) is deleted in its en�rety and replaced with the
following:
(E) Standards. The Standards column provides a reference to addi�onal use-specific standards
applicable to a use. Such standards apply regardless of whether the use is iden�fied as
permited by right (P), permited with limita�ons (L), or allowed as a special use (S), unless
otherwise expressly provided. Where “N/A” is shown in the Standards column, Ar�cle C
establishes no addi�onal use-specific standard beyond the standards otherwise applicable
under this chapter.

Page 33 of 72

Sec�on 9. Amendment. Table 156.C.003-1, Use Table, is amended by adding the following row
within the Industrial use category and adding a new table note:
Table 156.C.003-1,
Use Table
Use
Category

Data Center 3

Specific
Use1

Cv =
Conventional
Cl = Cluster
In = Infill

All Data Center Uses 3

Residential

Mixed
Nonresidential
- Use

RL RM RH
A R
MU UC GC PI REC GI
Cv Cl Cv In Cv In
G R
Industrial
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- S S -- P

Standards

156.C.012

Table Notes
3 The “P” and “S” designations for a Data Center apply only within the DC, Data Center Overlay District. A Data
Center is prohibited on property not encompassed by the DC Overlay.
Sec�on 10. Amendment. A new § 156.C.012 is added as follows:
§ 156.C.012 DATA CENTERS.
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this sec�on is to establish standards for the loca�on,
development, expansion, and opera�on of Data Centers according to the scale and physical
characteris�cs of the development and its poten�al effects on surrounding proper�es, public
infrastructure, u�li�es, transporta�on systems, and public services.
(B) Applicability and aggrega�on.
(1) A Data Center may be established only within the DC, Data Center Overlay Zoning District
and within an underlying base zoning district in which the use is designated “P” or “S” in Table
156.C.003-1. The DC, Data Center Overlay Zoning District does not authorize a Data Center in
an underlying base zoning district where the use is shown as prohibited.
(2) All Data Center Buildings, associated infrastructure, accessory facili�es, site improvements,
and phases that are part of the same Data Center Development shall be evaluated collec�vely
when determining Development Scale, Electrical Demand, Water Demand, Non-Domes�c
Water Demand, Vehicle Trip Genera�on, Infrastructure Intensity, and applicable developmentreview requirements.
(3) A Data Center Development shall not be divided among separate buildings, phases, parcels,
ownership en��es, operators, tenants, subsidiaries, affiliated en��es, applica�ons, permits,
u�lity connec�ons, access connec�ons, or other components for the purpose of avoiding or
reducing an applicable requirement of this chapter.

Page 34 of 72

(4) An expansion, addi�on, phase, or other modifica�on to an exis�ng Data Center
Development shall be evaluated based on the aggregate development that will exist following
comple�on of the proposed expansion, addi�on, phase, or modifica�on.
(C) Development review. A Data Center Development shall be subject to Site Plan review and,
when required under Subsec. 156.J.003.3, Master Development Plan review, in addi�on to any
other applicable development-review procedures of this chapter.
(D) Accessory uses and facili�es.
(1) Subject to all applicable standards of this chapter, the following uses and facili�es may be
accessory to a Data Center Development when incidental and subordinate to the principal
Data Center use:
a. Batery energy storage systems;
b. Solar arrays and similar on-site renewable energy genera�on systems;
c. On-site standby or backup power genera�on facili�es;
d. Electrical substa�ons, switchyards, transformers, and other electrical distribu�on
equipment;
e. District energy systems, microgrid infrastructure, and related energy distribu�on facili�es;
f. Water treatment, storage, reuse, and recycling facili�es; and
g. Offices, maintenance facili�es, employee support facili�es, and similar facili�es incidental
and subordinate to the Data Center use.
(2) An accessory use or facility shall remain subordinate and incidental to the Data Center
Development. Its size, capacity, site area, and poten�al effects shall be reasonably
propor�onate to and suppor�ve of the principal Data Center use as determined by the Zoning
Administrator.
(3) A use or facility designed or intended primarily to serve other uses, proper�es, or
customers is subject to the zoning requirements applicable to the corresponding principal use.
(4) The Zoning Administrator shall determine whether a proposed use or facility qualifies as
accessory based on its nature, size, capacity, loca�on, opera�onal rela�onship to the Data
Center Development, and poten�al effects.

Page 35 of 72

(E) Separa�on and buffering.
(1) A minimum separa�on distance of 300 feet shall be maintained between any Data Center
Building, emergency electrical generator serving a Data Center Development, exterior cooling
equipment serving a Data Center Development, or other exterior mechanical or electrical
equipment serving a Data Center Development and the property line of:
a. Any property containing a principal Public Assembly use; and
b. Any residen�ally zoned property, including residen�ally zoned property outside the
corporate limits.
(2) The required separa�on shall be measured as the shortest horizontal distance between the
applicable building or equipment and the property line from which separa�on is required.
(3) Parking areas, internal drives, security fencing, stormwater-management facili�es,
landscaping, and u�lity connec�ons not containing exterior mechanical or electrical
equipment are not subject to the separa�on requirement but remain subject to all otherwise
applicable setbacks, buffering, screening, and development standards.
(4) A Type D bufferyard in accordance with § 156.F.004 shall be provided:
a. Along each por�on of the outer perimeter boundary of a Data Center Development that
abuts the right-of-way of a street classified as a Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major
Collector, or Minor Collector in the Comprehensive Plan; and
b. Along each por�on of the outer perimeter boundary for which § 156.F.004 otherwise
requires a bufferyard based on the zoning district or use of adjoining property.
A Type D bufferyard required by this paragraph shall be provided in lieu of, and shall sa�sfy,
any less restric�ve bufferyard otherwise required along the same boundary. Bufferyard
requirements applicable to the same boundary are not cumula�ve.
(F) U�lity, transporta�on, and infrastructure coordina�on.
(1) In addi�on to the informa�on required under § 156.B.006(F), an applica�on for a Data
Center Development shall include documenta�on of an�cipated u�lity demand, transporta�on
demand, available capacity, service and interconnec�on requirements, infrastructure
requirements, and responsibility for project-related improvements.

Page 36 of 72

(2) Documenta�on shall address, as applicable:
a. Electrical service;
b. Water service;
c. Wastewater service;
d. Natural gas service;
e. Telecommunica�ons service;
f. Transporta�on access and capacity; and
g. Other u�lity or infrastructure services necessary to support the proposed development.
(3) Electrical-service documenta�on shall iden�fy the maximum Electrical Demand, an�cipated
u�lity-service capacity, required interconnec�on and infrastructure improvements, and the
general loca�on of proposed substa�ons, transmission or distribu�on facili�es, on-site
genera�on, energy storage systems, and backup power facili�es.
(4) Water- and wastewater-service documenta�on shall iden�fy the maximum Water Demand,
maximum Non-Domes�c Water Demand, an�cipated peak daily water demand, an�cipated
wastewater genera�on, water sources, water reuse or conserva�on systems, and public or
private improvements necessary to serve the development.
(5) Transporta�on documenta�on shall iden�fy an�cipated Vehicle Trip Genera�on, including
average daily and peak-hour Vehicle Trips; an�cipated employee, service, delivery, and truck
traffic; proposed access points and internal circula�on; affected streets and intersec�ons; and
public or private transporta�on improvements necessary to serve the development.
(6) Documenta�on shall be based on the maximum development proposed for approval,
including all phases included in or reasonably an�cipated as part of the Data Center
Development.
(7) The City may require a u�lity analysis, capacity analysis, traffic study, facili�es study, or
other technical documenta�on to be reviewed by an independent qualified professional
selected or approved by the City. The reasonable cost of the review shall be paid by the
applicant.
(8) The City may consult affected u�lity providers, the City Engineer, and other public agencies
when reviewing the documenta�on required by this division.

Page 37 of 72

(9) Review under this sec�on addresses local land-use, site-design, transporta�on,
infrastructure-coordina�on, and public-service effects. It does not cons�tute approval of u�lity
rates, service territories, u�lity genera�on or interconnec�on, or any other mater within the
exclusive jurisdic�on of a state or federal agency or u�lity provider.
(10) A Site Plan or Master Development Plan for a Data Center Development may be
condi�oned upon the construc�on or installa�on of, or payment of the development’s
propor�onate share of public or private improvements iden�fied through the documenta�on
required by this division and reasonably necessary to serve the development or mi�gate its
project-related effects, subject to applicable law.
Sec�on 11. Amendment. §156.D.002(I) is deleted in its en�rety and replaced with the
following:
(I) Exemp�on. A building wall is exempt from the requirements of this sec�on when either of
the following applies:
(1) The development is Neighborhood-scale or Community-scale Development located within
the GI, General Industrial Zoning District, and the building wall:
a. Is not visible from an exis�ng Principal Arterial or Minor Arterial; and
b. Does not face or adjoin a proposed street of either classifica�on iden�fied in the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The building wall faces directly adjoining undeveloped land designated as Agriculture,
Urban Reserve, or Parks and Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan.
Sec�on 12. Amendment. Table 156.E.004, Minimum and Maximum Parking, is amended by
adding the following:
Table 156.E.004
Minimum and Maximum Parking
SF = square feet GFA = gross floor area -- = no minimum or maximum, as applicable
Use Category
Subtype
Minimum Spaces
Maximum Spaces
Data Center
All Data Center Types
1 per employee
-Sec�on 13. Amendment. §156.F.004(A) shall be deleted in its en�rety and replaced with the
following:
(A) Generally. The bufferyards required by this sec�on provide transi�ons and physical barriers
between proper�es containing differing land uses to reduce visual, noise, and other
incompa�bili�es. Bufferyards are classified according to the level of screening they provide,

Page 38 of 72

from Type A, providing the lowest level of screening, through Type D, providing the highest
level of screening, based on the types and intensi�es of adjoining land uses.
Sec�on 14. Amendment. §156.F.004(B)(2) shall be deleted in its en�rety and replaced with the
following:
(2) Plan�ngs within Type A, Type B, and Type C bufferyards may be arranged in naturalis�c
groupings or evenly spaced. Plan�ngs within a Type D bufferyard shall be arranged in
staggered rows or naturalis�c groupings that provide a layered, year-round visual screen.
Sec�on 15. Amendment. §156.F.004(C) shall be deleted in its en�rety and replaced with the
following:
(C) Bufferyard types. There are four types of bufferyards, each of which varies in width and
the numbers and types of plants required per 100 linear feet. The minimum plan�ng
requirements for each type of bufferyard are set out in Table 156.F.004-1, Bufferyard
Classifica�ons, except that parking lot setback plan�ngs are set out in § 156.F.003,
Development Landscaping. Illustra�ve examples of bufferyards are in Figure 156.F.004-1,
Illustra�ve Bufferyard Types.
Sec�on 16. Amendment. Table 156.F.004-1, Bufferyard Classifica�ons, is amended by adding
the following row under “Op�on 1: Landscape Only Bufferyard” and adding Table Note 3:

Type

Width

Table 156.F.004-1
Bufferyard Classifica�ons
Required Plan�ngs per 100 Linear Feet
Overstory Understory Evergreen
Shrubs
Trees
Trees
trees

Height of
Berm,
Wall, or
Fence1

Op�on 1: Landscape Only Bufferyard
Type D 3
30 �.
4
4
8
20
N/A
Table Notes:
3 Only Op�on 1 applies to a Type D bufferyard. A berm, wall, or fence may be provided in
addi�on to the required landscaping but shall not replace or reduce the required bufferyard
width or plan�ngs.
Sec�on 17. Amendment. §156.F.004(F) shall be deleted in its en�rety and replaced with the
following:

(F) Warranted excep�ons to bufferyard requirements. When a bufferyard requirement would
overburden a property by making development imprac�cal, the Zoning Administrator may, in
the Zoning Administrator’s discre�on, reduce the required bufferyard width and require a
privacy fence, screening wall, or other measures to mi�gate the effects on the property to be
buffered. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the required width or plan�ngs of a Type D

Page 39 of 72

bufferyard shall not be reduced, waived, or otherwise modified under this division or through
an Administra�ve Adjustment. A fence, wall, berm, or other screening measure may
supplement, but shall not replace, the required Type D plan�ngs.
Sec�on 18. Amendment. §156.F.004(H) shall be deleted in its en�rety and replaced with the
following:
(H) Rela�onship to other bufferyard requirements. Certain uses may be subject to addi�onal or
different bufferyard requirements established elsewhere in this Zoning Ordinance. Where
more than one bufferyard requirement applies along the same por�on of a property boundary,
the requirement providing the greater level of screening shall apply. Bufferyard requirements
applicable to the same por�on of a property boundary are not cumula�ve.
Sec�on 19. Amendment. Table 156.J.002.6-1, Required No�ce, is amended by adding the
following rows under “Legisla�ve Applica�ons”:

Review
Procedure
Legisla�ve
Applica�ons

Applica�on
Type
Master
Development
Plan
Appeal of
Master
Development
Plan Decision

Table 156.J.002.6-1
Required No�ce
Review Body

Publica�on

Posted

Plan and Zoning
Commission

Not Required

Required

City Council

Required

Required

Page 40 of 72

Sec�on 20. Amendment. The row for Master Development Plan in Table 156.J.002.12-1,
Development Review Summary Table, is deleted and replaced with the following:
Table 156.J.002.12-1
Development Review Summary Table
Development
Submital
Expira�on1
Review Responsibili�es
Applicable
Applica�on
Timing
Standards
Recommenda�on
Final
(Reference)
Decision
Legisla�ve Applica�ons: Require final decisions that establish or change the way the use, design,
or development of land will occur on a site-specific, city-wide, or intermediate scale. Elected and
appointed administra�ve bodies make final decisions based on general considera�ons of
fostering and preserving the public health, safety and general welfare, including the city's fiscal
well-being. Such final decisions are characterized by the exercise of broad discre�on.
Master
Concurrent
2 years
Zoning
PZC
Ar�cle B,
Development with or a�er
Administrator
Ar�cle C, Ar�cle
Plan
any required
D
(156.J.003.3) Zone Change
or Special
Use Permit
and before
approval of a
Site Plan,
plat, or other
development
permit
Sec�on 21. Amendment. Table 156.J.002.12-2, Review Steps, is amended by changing the
entry in the “Public No�ce (156.J.002.6)” row and the “All Other” column under “Legisla�ve
Applica�ons” from “No” to “Yes.”
Sec�on 22. Amendment. Subsec. 156.J.003.3, Master Development Plan, is deleted in its
en�rety and replaced with the following:
Subsec. 156.J.003.3 Master Development Plan.
(A) Generally. A Master Development Plan establishes a coordinated and binding framework
for the an�cipated ul�mate buildout of Regional-scale or Infrastructure-Intensive
Development. The plan establishes the development's maximum intensity, general physical
layout, infrastructure requirements, mi�ga�on measures, and phasing before approval of
implemen�ng Site Plans, plats, and permits.

Page 41 of 72

(B) Applicability.
(1) Required approval. Master Development Plan approval is required for:
a. Any Regional-scale Development classified under § 156.B.006;
b. Any Infrastructure-Intensive Development classified under § 156.B.006; or
c. Any other use or development expressly required by this Zoning Ordinance to obtain Master
Development Plan approval.
(2) Independent triggers. Regional-scale Development and Infrastructure-Intensive
Development are independent classifica�ons. A development mee�ng either classifica�on
requires Master Development Plan approval. A development mee�ng both classifica�ons shall
be reviewed under one Master Development Plan encompassing the en�re development.
(3) Overall development. Development Scale and Infrastructure Intensity shall be determined
from an�cipated ul�mate buildout in accordance with § 156.B.006. The determina�on shall
include all related buildings, lots, parcels, phases, and suppor�ng facili�es under common or
related ownership, control, opera�on, or development or that func�on as a coordinated
development.
(4) Minor expansion excep�on. An expansion or modifica�on to a development lawfully
exis�ng or approved before the effec�ve date of the ordinance adop�ng this paragraph does
not require Master Development Plan approval when the Zoning Administrator determines
that all of the following criteria are sa�sfied:
a. The aggregate Gross Floor Area, Electrical Demand, Non-Domes�c Water Demand, and
Vehicle Trip Genera�on following comple�on of the expansion or modifica�on would not
exceed 110% of the corresponding amounts lawfully exis�ng or approved on the effec�ve date
of the ordinance adop�ng this paragraph;
b. The calcula�on includes the development lawfully exis�ng or approved on the effec�ve date
of the ordinance adop�ng this paragraph, the proposed expansion or modifica�on, and all
expansions or modifica�ons approved a�er that date;
c. The expansion or modifica�on would not materially increase adverse effects on surrounding
property, public infrastructure, u�li�es, transporta�on facili�es, or public services;
d. Adequate infrastructure, u�lity, transporta�on, and public-service capacity is available to
serve the aggregate development, or any improvements necessary to provide such capacity
will be completed as part of the expansion or modifica�on;

Page 42 of 72

e. The expansion or modifica�on does not remove or materially reduce required
infrastructure, buffering, screening, public-service measures, or other mi�ga�on;
f. The development complies with all other applicable standards and approval requirements of
this Zoning Ordinance; and
g. The expansion or modifica�on has not been divided, phased, or otherwise structured for the
purpose of qualifying for the excep�on.
For purposes of this paragraph, the Zoning Administrator shall determine the amounts lawfully
exis�ng or approved on the effec�ve date from permits, u�lity records, development plans,
equipment specifica�ons, trip-genera�on calcula�ons, and other reasonably reliable
informa�on. The baseline established under this paragraph remains fixed and shall not be
increased by an expansion or modifica�on approved under this excep�on.
(5) Expansions requiring approval. Except as provided in paragraph (4), Master Development
Plan approval is required before approval of an expansion or modifica�on to an exis�ng
development when the aggregate development following comple�on of the expansion or
modifica�on is Regional-scale Development or Infrastructure-Intensive Development. The
Master Development Plan shall encompass the exis�ng development and the proposed
expansion or modifica�on.
(6) Avoidance prohibited. A development shall not be divided among separate buildings, lots,
parcels, phases, applica�ons, owners, operators, tenants, subsidiaries, affiliated en��es, or
u�lity connec�ons for the purpose of avoiding Master Development Plan review.
(7) Timing. A required Master Development Plan shall be approved before final approval of a
Site Plan, plat, grading permit, building permit, or other permit authorizing site work or
construc�on.
(C) Rela�onship to other approvals.
(1) A Master Development Plan may be submited and reviewed concurrently with a Zone
Change, Special Use Permit, subdivision applica�on, or other required development
applica�on.
(2) Master Development Plan approval does not cons�tute approval of a Zone Change, Special
Use Permit, variance, Site Plan, plat, building permit, u�lity connec�on, development
agreement, or other approval required by this Zoning Ordinance or other applicable law.
(3) When more than one approval is required, development shall not proceed un�l all required
approvals have been obtained. Denial or expira�on of one required approval is not superseded
by approval of the Master Development Plan.

Page 43 of 72

(4) An implemen�ng Site Plan, plat, or permit may be reviewed concurrently with a Master
Development Plan but shall not receive final approval un�l the Master Development Plan has
been approved.
(D) Applica�on contents. A Master Development Plan shall include, as applicable, the following
informa�on at a scale and level of detail sufficient to evaluate an�cipated ul�mate buildout:
(1) Development boundary. The boundaries, acreage, legal descrip�on, and ownership or
control of all property included within the development.
(2) Exis�ng condi�ons. Exis�ng land uses, buildings, streets, access points, u�li�es, easements,
topography, drainage paterns, floodplains, wetlands, natural resources, and other physical
condi�ons affec�ng development of the property.
(3) Surrounding context. Exis�ng and planned development surrounding the property and
proposed transi�ons, separa�on, buffering, and compa�bility measures.
(4) Land uses. The general loca�on, type, and extent of each proposed residen�al,
nonresiden�al, mixed, accessory, and suppor�ng use.
(5) Development intensity. The maximum number of principal buildings, dwelling units where
applicable, Gross Floor Area, building coverage, building height, and other measures necessary
to establish the maximum intensity of the development.
(6) Building layout. The general loca�on, scale, orienta�on, and rela�onship of proposed
buildings and structures.
(7) Electrical demand and infrastructure. The maximum Electrical Demand of the development,
an�cipated demand of each phase, and the general loca�on and capacity of substa�ons,
transmission or distribu�on facili�es, on-site genera�on, energy storage systems, standby
generators, and other suppor�ng electrical infrastructure.
(8) Water and wastewater. The maximum Water Demand, maximum Non-Domes�c Water
Demand, an�cipated peak-day water demand, an�cipated wastewater genera�on, water
sources, water reuse or conserva�on systems, and the general loca�on and capacity of water
and wastewater infrastructure.
(9) Other u�li�es. The general loca�on and capacity of telecommunica�ons, natural gas, and
other public or private u�lity infrastructure necessary to serve the development.
(10) Access and circula�on. Exis�ng and proposed streets, driveways, access points,
emergency-access routes, internal circula�on, loading areas, parking areas, pedestrian and
bicycle facili�es where applicable, maximum Vehicle Trip Genera�on, including average daily
and peak-hour Vehicle Trips, and an�cipated transporta�on improvements.

Page 44 of 72

(11) Stormwater and environmental condi�ons. Proposed stormwater facili�es and areas
designated for floodplain protec�on, natural-resource preserva�on, erosion control, or other
environmental mi�ga�on related to the physical development of the site.
(12) Site design and mi�ga�on. The general loca�on and character of landscaping, buffering,
screening, open space, fencing, ligh�ng, noise mi�ga�on, and other site improvements
intended to address the effects of the development.
(13) Public services. An�cipated demands on fire protec�on, emergency response, law
enforcement, solid-waste services, transporta�on facili�es, and other public services, together
with proposed improvements or mi�ga�on.
(14) Infrastructure and cost responsibility. Infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the
development; the en�ty responsible for design, acquisi�on, construc�on, opera�on,
maintenance, replacement, and cost; and any proposed City par�cipa�on, reimbursement, or
separate agreement.
(15) Phasing. The boundaries, sequence, �ming, maximum development intensity,
infrastructure, public-service measures, and mi�ga�on associated with each phase.
(16) Implementa�on. The improvements, mi�ga�on measures, agreements, easements,
dedica�ons, demand limita�ons, or other ac�ons necessary to serve the development and
implement the Master Development Plan.
(17) Addi�onal informa�on. Other informa�on reasonably determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be necessary to evaluate the criteria in division (E) of this subsec�on.
(E) Scope of review and required findings.
(1) Limited scope. Master Development Plan review shall not reconsider the legisla�ve
determina�on embodied in the applicable base and overlay zoning classifica�ons that the
iden�fied use may be established on the property. Review shall be limited to determining
whether the proposed development complies with the standards and criteria expressly
iden�fied in this subsec�on.
(2) Required findings. The PZC may approve or approve with condi�ons a Master Development
Plan only upon finding that:
a. Infrastructure and u�li�es. Exis�ng or planned u�li�es, streets, drainage facili�es, and
other public or private infrastructure can serve each phase and an�cipated ul�mate buildout,
and the plan iden�fies necessary improvements, �ming, demand limita�ons, and responsibility
for project-related costs. Master Development Plan approval does not authorize City funding,
reimbursement, property acquisi�on, or another commitment requiring separate approval.

Page 45 of 72

b. Physical development. The general loca�on, scale, layout, access, circula�on, loading,
parking, stormwater facili�es, buildings, structures, and site improvements comply with
applicable physical-development standards and will func�on safely and adequately.
c. Compa�bility. The physical loca�on, scale, design, and opera�on of the development are
compa�ble with surrounding exis�ng and planned development, or will be made compa�ble
through separa�on, buffering, screening, design, opera�onal limita�ons, or other mi�ga�on
related to an iden�fied development effect.
d. Public services. Exis�ng or planned fire protec�on, emergency response, law enforcement,
solid-waste, transporta�on, and other public services can serve each phase and an�cipated
ul�mate buildout, or necessary improvements and mi�ga�on will be provided when required.
e. Phasing and mi�ga�on. Development phases are logically sequenced; each phase can
func�on safely and adequately; and required infrastructure, public-service measures,
compa�bility measures, and mi�ga�on will be provided when needed through clear,
measurable, and enforceable requirements.
(3) Public tes�mony. Public tes�mony may be considered only to the extent it provides
evidence relevant to the criteria in this division.
(4) Opposi�on or desirability. A Master Development Plan shall not be denied, and a condi�on
shall not be imposed, solely because of public opposi�on to or the perceived desirability or
undesirability of a use permited within the applicable zoning district.
(5) Writen findings. The PZC’s final decision shall include writen findings addressing the
applicable criteria in this division.
(F) Procedures and final decision.
(1) Staff review. The Zoning Administrator shall review the proposed Master Development Plan
and may distribute it to affected City departments, public agencies, u�lity providers, and other
en��es for technical review and comment. The Zoning Administrator shall prepare a report
and recommenda�on for the PZC.
(2) Public no�ce and hearing. No�ce shall be provided and the PZC shall conduct a public
hearing in accordance with Table 156.J.002.6-1, Table 156.J.002.12-2, Subsec. 156.J.002.6, and
Subsec. 156.J.002.7.
(3) Final decision by PZC. Notwithstanding Subsec. 156.J.002.7(F)(2), the PZC is the final
decision-making body for a Master Development Plan. The PZC shall approve, approve with
condi�ons, or deny the Master Development Plan. No recommenda�on to or approval by the
City Council is required. The PZC’s decision is final unless �mely appealed to the City Council in
accordance with §156.I.001(C) and paragraph (6) of this division.

Page 46 of 72

(4) Time for decision. The PZC shall take final ac�on within 60 days a�er the date on which the
public hearing is first opened unless the applicant agrees in wri�ng to a later date. Failure to
act within the period established by this paragraph does not cons�tute approval or denial. The
applicant may seek any remedy available under applicable law.
(5) Condi�ons. The PZC may impose condi�ons only when the condi�ons:
a. Address infrastructure, physical development, compa�bility, public services, phasing, or
mi�ga�on under division (E);
b. Are reasonably related and propor�onate to an iden�fied effect of the proposed
development;
c. Are stated with sufficient clarity to be administered and enforced; and
d. Do not regulate u�lity rates, service territories, genera�on, interconnec�on, or another
mater reserved to a state or federal agency or a u�lity provider.
(6) Appeal.
a. Filing. A person or en�ty with standing under subparagraph b may appeal the PZC’s decision
within 30 days a�er the date of the decision. The appeal shall be filed in wri�ng with the
Zoning Administrator.
b. Standing. The following persons and en��es have standing to appeal:
1. The applicant;
2. An owner of property included within the Master Development Plan; or
3. An owner of property having any por�on of its boundary located within 250 feet of the
boundary of the Master Development Plan, excluding the width of any intervening public rightof-way.
c. Grounds. The appeal shall iden�fy each finding, conclusion, condi�on, or procedural ac�on
being appealed and shall allege one or more of the following:
1. The PZC incorrectly applied a standard or review criterion of this Zoning Ordinance;
2. A material finding or conclusion is not supported by substan�al evidence in the record;
3. A procedural error materially prejudiced the appellant’s substan�al rights; or

Page 47 of 72

4. A condi�on of approval is not reasonably related or propor�onate to an iden�fied effect of
the development.
Mere opposi�on to the proposed use or disagreement with its perceived desirability is not
sufficient grounds for an appeal.
d. Scope of review. The City Council shall conduct the public hearing required by §156.I.001(C).
Review shall be limited to the record before the PZC, the PZC’s writen decision, and argument
concerning the grounds stated in the appeal. New evidence shall not be considered unless the
City Council determines that it could not reasonably have been presented to the PZC or is
necessary to address an alleged procedural error.
e. Decision. The City Council shall dismiss an appeal when the appellant lacks standing or has
not stated a permited ground for appeal. Otherwise, the City Council may affirm, reverse, or
modify the PZC’s decision or remand the mater to the PZC for further proceedings. The City
Council shall apply the criteria in division (E) and issue a writen decision addressing each
properly raised ground.
f. Stay. A �mely appeal stays the effec�veness of the PZC’s decision un�l the City Council issues its final

decision.

(G) Effect of approval.
(1) Binding plan. An approved Master Development Plan, including all plans, development
limita�ons, phasing requirements, condi�ons, and mi�ga�on measures incorporated into the
approval, is binding on the subject property and all subsequent owners, operators, applicants,
and successors in interest unless amended or expired under this subsec�on.
(2) Development limita�ons. The maximum Gross Floor Area, number of principal buildings,
dwelling units, building coverage, building height, Electrical Demand, Water Demand, NonDomes�c Water Demand, Vehicle Trip Genera�on, development area, number of phases, and
other limita�ons established by the approval shall not be exceeded.
(3) Subsequent approvals. Each subsequent Site Plan, plat, permit, and other development
applica�on shall demonstrate consistency and conformance with the approved Master
Development Plan and its condi�ons.
(4) Administra�ve implementa�on. A Site Plan or other implemen�ng applica�on that
conforms to the approved Master Development Plan may be reviewed and decided through
the otherwise applicable administra�ve review procedure.
(5) No construc�on authoriza�on. Master Development Plan approval does not authorize land
disturbance, grading, construc�on, occupancy, or opera�on without all other required
approvals and permits.

Page 48 of 72

(6) No waiver. Master Development Plan approval does not waive or modify a standard of this
Zoning Ordinance except through a variance, Administra�ve Adjustment, alterna�vecompliance procedure, or other modifica�on expressly authorized by this Zoning Ordinance.
(H) Amendments.
(1) Substan�al conformance. An implemen�ng Site Plan, plat, or permit that remains
substan�ally consistent with the approved Master Development Plan does not require
amendment of the Master Development Plan.
(2) Administra�ve Adjustment. The Zoning Administrator may approve an Administra�ve
Adjustment to an approved Master Development Plan under Subsec. 156.J.004.7 only if all of
the following criteria are sa�sfied:
a. Is not a major amendment under paragraph 3;
b. Remains consistent with the purpose, general layout, development limita�ons, and
condi�ons of the approved Master Development Plan;
c. Does not materially increase an effect on surrounding property, public infrastructure, or
public services; and
d. Does not remove or materially reduce required infrastructure, buffering, screening, publicservice measures, or other mi�ga�on.
(3) Major amendment. The following changes cons�tute a major amendment and require
review and approval through the same procedure as the original Master Development Plan:
a. An increase in the approved maximum Electrical Demand, Water Demand, Non-Domes�c
Water Demand, or Vehicle Trip Genera�on;
b. An increase in the approved maximum Gross Floor Area, number of principal buildings,
number of dwelling units, building coverage, or building height;
c. An expansion of the approved development boundary;
d. Addi�on of a development phase or a material change to approved phasing;
e. Addi�on of a principal use or a material change in the loca�on or distribu�on of approved
land uses;
f. A material change in the loca�on, type, or capacity of streets, access points, u�lity
infrastructure, stormwater facili�es, or other major infrastructure;

Page 49 of 72

g. Removal or material reduc�on of required improvements, buffering, screening, publicservice measures, or other mi�ga�on;
h. A change that would materially increase the development's effects on surrounding
proper�es, public infrastructure, or public services; or
i. Another change determined by the Zoning Administrator to be materially inconsistent with
the approved Master Development Plan or its condi�ons.
(4) No demand adjustment. An Administra�ve Adjustment to an approved Master
Development Plan shall not authorize an increase in the plan’s approved maximum Electrical
Demand, Water Demand, Non-Domes�c Water Demand, or Vehicle Trip Genera�on.
(5) Administra�ve determina�on. The Zoning Administrator shall determine whether a
proposed change is in substan�al conformance, requires an Administra�ve Adjustment, or is a
major amendment. An appeal of that administra�ve determina�on may be filed under Subsec.
156.J.005.3, Appeal of Administra�ve Decision.
(I) Time frame and expira�on.
(1) Ini�al validity. Master Development Plan approval is valid for the period established in
Table 156.J.002.12-1.
(2) Commencement. Unless an extension is approved, the Master Development Plan expires if,
within two years a�er its approval, no implemen�ng Site Plan or plat has received final
approval and no permit authorizing substan�al site work or construc�on has been issued.
(3) Mul�phased development. Following �mely approval of an implemen�ng Site Plan, plat, or
permit, the Master Development Plan remains effec�ve for subsequent phases so long as
development proceeds in substan�al accordance with the approved phasing schedule and any
phase-comple�on or commencement deadlines imposed as condi�ons of approval.
(4) Extension. An extension may be requested and considered under Subsec. 156.J.002.11,
Approval Extension. The PZC may require an amended phasing schedule or updated
informa�on regarding infrastructure capacity, physical development, compa�bility, public
services, or mi�ga�on as a condi�on of extension.
(5) Effect of expira�on. Expira�on of a Master Development Plan does not invalidate a lawfully
approved and unexpired Site Plan, plat, or permit or require removal of lawfully completed
improvements. An undeveloped por�on of the property is subject to the standards and
approval requirements in effect when a new development applica�on is submited.

Page 50 of 72

Sec�on 23. Severability.
If any sec�on, provision, or part of this ordinance is adjudged invalid or uncons�tu�onal, that
adjudica�on shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any sec�on, provision,
or part not adjudged invalid or uncons�tu�onal.
Sec�on 24. Effec�ve Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect a�er its final passage, approval, and publica�on
as provided by law.
Passed this _____ day of ____________ 2026 and signed this _____ day of ___________ 2026.
Signatures on the following page.

Page 51 of 72

CITY OF MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA

Mike Ladehoff, Mayor
ATTEST:

Alicia Hunter, City Clerk
I, Alicia Hunter, City Clerk of the City of Marshalltown, Iowa, do hereby cer�fy that the foregoing
ORDINANCE was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of Marshalltown, Iowa, on
the _____ day of ____________ 2026, and was published in the Marshalltown TimesRepublican, a newspaper of general circula�on in the City of Marshalltown, Iowa, on the _____
day of ____________ 2026.
_______________________________
Alicia Hunter, City Clerk

Page 52 of 72

ORDINANCE 15___
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE MANDATORY CONNECTION TO THE
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS OF THE CITY OF MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA
WHEREAS, the City of Marshalltown, Iowa (“the City”), pursuant to the powers vested in it by
Article III, § 38A of the Iowa Constitution and by Iowa Code chapter 364, in order to promote,
protect, and improve the public health and general welfare of the citizens of the City, deems it
necessary to make and place into effect certain rules and regulations regarding connections to the
public water systems within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City deems it necessary to promote, protect, and improve the public health and
general welfare of the citizens of the City by requiring the connection of homes, buildings,
premises or other facilities within the City to the public water systems and prohibiting the
interconnection of private well water systems so as to ensure the public water supply is not
contaminated by a private source of water; and
WHEREAS, the City has the Constitutional and statutory power to require such connections to the
public water systems and to prohibit the interconnection of private well water with City water; and
WHEREAS, all such powers of the City are appropriately exercised by the passage of this
ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA:
SECTION 1. TEXT AMENDMENT – TITLE IX. GENERAL REGULATIONS of the Code of
Ordinances is amended by adding the following new Chapter 96:
§ 96.001 PURPOSE. The City has the right and duty to promote, protect, and improve the public
health and general welfare of the citizens of the City, including by requiring the connection of
homes, buildings, premises or other facilities within the City to the public water systems of the
City in order to ensure sufficient access to potable water and by prohibiting the interconnection of
private well water systems in order to ensure that the public water supply is not contaminated by
contact with a private source of water.
§ 96.002 MANDATORY CONNECTION. Every parcel of land or premises within the corporate
limits of the City of Marshalltown, that is improved by construction of a home, building, premises,
structure, or other facility for occupancy and capable of being occupied or used by any person or
persons, for employment, for recreation, as a commercial business, as an industrial facility, or for
other similar purposes shall connect such land or premises with the City’s public water supply
system. Once so connected, a customer or resident shall not obtain water from any other source
and no resident of the City or customer of the City’s water utility shall interconnect a private well

Page 53 of 72

or other source of water with the City’s public water supply system. The purposes of the mandatory
connection requirement and the prohibition on the interconnection of private sources are to protect
the public health, welfare, safety, and environment, to promote water resource conservation; to
eliminate inferior treatment processes, to create economies of scale for source water treatment,
transmission and distribution, and the allocation of the costs of utility service fairly among all users
of the system. The owner, manager, or corporate officer responsible for the land or premises shall
make or cause to be made, such connection.
§ 96.003 EXEMPTION. Existing homes, buildings, premises or other facilities within the City
currently supplied by an existing water source that is not interconnected with the City’s public
water supply system on or before the effective date of this ordinance are exempt from the
mandatory connection requirement described in this chapter. This exemption applies only to
existing owners and shall not be transferred to a new owner upon a change in ownership of the
property, unless all the exceptions to private well restrictions in Chapter 97 of the City of
Marshalltown Code of Ordinances are satisfied.
§ 96.004 CONNECTION DEADLINE. As a matter of public health, all connections to the public
water systems shall be completed no later than sixty (60) days after the effective date of this
ordinance or the date of official notice by the City and/or City Utility to make such connections,
whichever is later. Newly constructed structures required to connect shall be connected prior to
occupancy thereof, and the City may withhold certificates of occupancy until the connection
requirement is satisfied.
§ 96.005 CONNECTION BY THE CITY OR THE CITY UTILITY. Whenever a connection is
required and the person owning the real estate fails to make the connection within the time fixed
by the governing body of the City or the City Utility, the governing body of the City or the City
Utility shall cause such connections to be made, and may assess against the property in front of
which such connections are made and the cost and expense thereof.
§ 96.006 REPORT OF COSTS WHEN CONNECTION IS MADE BY THE CITY OR CITY
UTILITY. Whenever the governing body of the City or City Utility shall cause a connection to
be made pursuant to this chapter, the person having charge of making the connection shall make a
return of the actual cost and expense thereof to the governing body at its first regular meeting
thereafter, giving a detailed statement and the description of the various pieces of property and the
names of the owners of the property, and the amount of cost and expense for making the
connections.
§ 96.007 ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WHEN CONNECTION IS MADE BY THE CITY OR
CITY UTILITY.
(1) In the making of the report of costs required in Section 6 of this ordinance, it shall be
the duty of the governing body of the City or City Utility to give notice to all whom it may concern,
by publication in the official newspaper of the city, that the cost and expense will be assessed

Page 54 of 72

against the property in front of which such connections have been made by the city and/or city
utility, and that the matter will be acted upon at the first regular meeting of the governing body
thereafter, and that any objections thereto will be heard at the meeting.
(2) After hearing objections, if there be any made, and making such alteration in the
assessment as the governing body may deem just, the governing body may make the assessment.
It shall be the duty of the person owning the property or premises so assessed to pay the assessment
within 30 days after levy of the assessment. At the expiration of the 30 days, the City and/or City
Utility shall report those having failed to pay, and shall certify the assessment, if there are any
delinquent thereon, to the county auditor, to be collected and paid over to the county treasurer in
the same manner as other taxes. In addition, the City and/or City Utility reserves the right to file
an appropriate action in a court of applicable jurisdiction to seek injunctive or other appropriate
relief to compel such connections.
§ 96.008 MUNICIPAL INFRACTION. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be
subject to a municipal infraction in accordance with Section 10.999 of the City of Marshalltown
Code of Ordinances. Each day that a violation continues and each premises of the owner at which
it occurs shall constitute a separate and distinct violation.
SECTION 2. Repealer. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, provision, or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. That the provisions of this ordinance shall become effective from
and after its final passage, approval, and publication as provided by law.

Page 55 of 72

STATE OF IOWA
COUNTY OF MARSHALL

ORDINANCE CERTIFICATE
)
) SS
)

1. I certify that Ordinance Number _______________, of which a true copy is attached, was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Marshalltown, State of Iowa, signed by the Mayor
and published as required by law and is now in effect. I further certify that the consideration(s)
and votes taken for the enactment of the Ordinance occurred as follows:
(For any consideration that was waived, insert N/A in the blanks for that consideration
and complete paragraph regarding waiver below.)
First consideration - Date:
Vote: In favor
,
Opposed
,
Absent or Abstain
.

2.
3.

4.

5.

Second consideration - Date:
Vote: In favor
,
Absent or Abstain

Opposed

,
.

Third Consideration - Date:
Vote: In favor
,
Absent or Abstain

Opposed

,

.

On the date of ____________________, 2026, the City Council adopted a motion for the
suspension of the rule requiring separate consideration at three meetings and voted the final
adoption of the Ordinance. The vote for suspension of the rules was by three-fourths of
the full City Council, voting _____ in favor, _____ opposed, and _____ absent, vacant or
abstaining and was duly recorded as noted above.
I further certify that if any consideration of the Ordinance did not receive an affirmative vote
for passage, there was no further consideration of the Ordinance on any date thereafter.
Following final approval of the Ordinance by the City Council, the full text of Ordinance (or a
summary of the Ordinance complying with Iowa Code Section 380.7(3)) was published in the
following newspaper(s): ____________________ on the following date(s):
_______________, 2026.
I further certify that each meeting for the consideration of the Ordinance was duly and publicly
held, with a notice of the meeting and tentative agenda naming the consideration of the
Ordinance timely posted and upon reasonable advance notice to the media as required by the
Chapter 21, Code of Iowa, and rules of the Council then governing.
I further certify that the individuals named therein were on the date thereof duly and lawfully
possessed of their respective city offices as indicated therein, that no Council vacancy existed
except as may be stated in the proceedings, and that no controversy or litigation is pending,
prayed or threatened involving the incorporation, organization, existence or boundaries of the
City or the right of the individuals named therein as officers to their respective positions.

Page 56 of 72

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the City hereto affixed this __________ day of
_______________, 2026.
City Clerk, City of Marshalltown, State of Iowa
(SEAL)
4894-1430-2177-7\20500-000

Page 57 of 72

ORDINANCE 15___
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA,
CHAPTER 134: NOISE CONTROL
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Marshalltown, Iowa, has adopted Chapter 134,
Noise Control; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it appropriate to establish objective A-weighted and Cweighted sound limits and to authorize supplemental measurement methods when warranted by
the characteristics of a sound; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it appropriate to establish reasonable standards for
routine testing and maintenance of emergency electrical generators while recognizing that
operation during an actual electrical outage or emergency may temporarily exceed otherwise
applicable sound limits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the following amendments to Chapter 134 to be in the
best interest of the City and the public in general.
IOWA:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARSHALLTOWN,

Section 1. Amendment. §134.001(C) is repealed and replaced with the following:
(C) A sound measurement used to establish a numerical violation of this chapter shall be made
with a sound level meter as defined in §134.002.
The instrument shall be maintained in calibration and good working order and operated within a
measurement range appropriate for the sound level being evaluated. A calibration check, as
defined in §134.002, shall be made at the time of a measurement used to establish a numerical
violation.
Measurements shall be taken in a manner that reasonably represents the sound produced by the
source under investigation. The microphone shall be positioned so as not to create an unnatural
enhancement or diminution of the measured sound. A windscreen shall be used for outdoor
measurements when required by weather conditions or the instrument manufacturer’s
instructions. A measurement materially affected by wind, precipitation, or sound from an
unrelated source shall be disregarded or repeated.
Unless otherwise provided by this chapter, sound shall be measured using the A-weighted, slowresponse setting. When expressly authorized by this chapter, sound may be measured using the Cweighted, slow-response setting. Octave-band, one-third-octave-band, narrow-band, vibration, or

Page 58 of 72

other technically appropriate measurements may be conducted or obtained as supplemental
analysis when warranted by the characteristics of the sound.
Section 2. Amendment. §134.002 is amended by adding the following definitions to the existing
list of definitions in alphabetical order:
C-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL. The sound pressure level in decibels measured using the C-weighting
network of a sound level meter. The level is designated dB(C) or dBC.
EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL GENERATOR. Equipment designed and operated primarily to provide
temporary electrical power during an actual interruption of normal utility service or during an
emergency requiring temporary electrical power to protect life, public health, safety, or property.
The term includes portable and permanently installed generators and their associated engines,
cooling systems, exhaust systems, transformers, and electrical equipment.
NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEIVING PROPERTY. Property containing a dwelling, school, childcare facility,
hospital, nursing or assisted-living facility, place of worship, library, or another use where quiet is
of particular importance to the intended use of the property.
RECEIVING PROPERTY. Property, other than the property containing the source of the sound, at or
within which sound from the source is received.
STEADY SOUND. Sound that remains essentially constant, fluctuating no more than plus or minus
two decibels during a two-minute observation period, and that occurs or may reasonably be
expected to occur for at least 15 minutes during any one-hour period.
Section 3. Amendment. The definitions of NOISE DISTURBANCE and SOUND LEVEL METER in
§134.002 are repealed and replaced with the following:
NOISE DISTURBANCE. Any sound or acoustic energy, whether or not audible to a particular person,
that:
(1) Endangers the welfare, safety, or health of a human being;
(2) Disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivities;
(3) Causes or contributes to objectively observable vibration, rattling, or structural resonance on
receiving property;
(4) Materially interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment of property; or
(5) Exceeds an applicable sound limit established by this chapter.

Page 59 of 72

SOUND LEVEL METER. An instrument designed to measure sound pressure levels in decibels and
meeting the performance requirements for a Type 1 or Type 2 instrument under ANSI S1.4, a Class
1 or Class 2 instrument under ANSI/ASA S1.4/IEC 61672-1, or an equivalent successor standard.
Section 4. Amendment. §134.003(B) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(B) The emission of sound in the performance of emergency work, except that operation of an
emergency electrical generator is governed by §134.010.
Section 5. Amendment. §134.005(A) is repealed and replaced with the following:
(A) No person shall cause, permit, engage in, or participate in the making or creation of sound that
exceeds an applicable limit established by this chapter when measured in the manner prescribed
by §134.001(C) and this section, except when authorized by and operated in compliance with a
valid noise permit or an express exception contained in this chapter.
Section 6. Amendment. §134.005(D) is repealed and replaced with the following:
(D) For the purpose of determining and classifying sound as excessive or unusually loud, the
following measurement requirements and standards shall apply:
(1) Measurement Location. Sound shall be measured at or within the boundary of the receiving
property at the location reasonably nearest to the source of the sound or at another location on
the receiving property where the sound disturbance occurs. When measurement at the receivingproperty boundary is impractical or would provide a misleading result, sound may be measured at
another representative location using technically appropriate correction factors.
(2) Measurement Method. Except when another measurement method is expressly authorized by
this chapter, sound shall be measured using the A-weighted, slow-response setting. When
determining compliance with a C-weighted sound limit, sound shall be measured using the Cweighted, slow-response setting.
A measurement shall be taken during a representative observation period of at least two minutes.
The maximum sound level displayed during the observation period and attributable to the source
under investigation shall constitute the measured sound level. Brief sound events not attributable
to the source under investigation shall be disregarded.
(3) Maximum A-Weighted Sound Levels. The applicable maximum sound level shall be determined
by the zoning classification of the receiving property, except that any noise-sensitive receiving
property shall be subject to the residential sound limits regardless of its zoning classification. If
more than one classification applies, the lowest applicable maximum sound level shall govern.
Sound measured or registered in excess of the applicable maximum permitted level established
below is declared excessive and unusually loud and is unlawful:

Page 60 of 72

Table 134.005(D)-1
Maximum A-Weighted Sound Levels
Receiving Property
Daytime Maximum
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Rural Residential, Low-Density
60 dBA
Residential, Medium-Density
Residential, High-Density
Residential, or any noise-sensitive
receiving property
Mixed-Use, Urban Core, General 65 dBA
Commercial, or Agriculture
General Industrial
80 dBA
Public and Institutional or
65 dBA
Recreation

Nighttime Maximum
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
50 dBA

65 dBA
80 dBA
65 dBA

(4) Maximum C-Weighted Sound Levels. The C-weighted sound limits established below apply to
steady sound received at a residentially zoned or noise-sensitive receiving property. Sound
measured or registered in excess of the applicable maximum permitted level is declared excessive
and unusually loud and is unlawful:
Table 134.005(D)-2
Maximum C-Weighted Sound Levels
Receiving Property
Daytime Maximum
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Rural Residential, Low-Density
73 dBC
Residential, Medium-Density
Residential, High-Density
Residential, or any noise-sensitive
receiving property

Nighttime Maximum
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
68 dBC

Compliance with an A-weighted sound limit does not establish compliance with a C-weighted
sound limit, and compliance with a C-weighted sound limit does not establish compliance with an
A-weighted sound limit.
(5) Supplemental Analysis. When the Noise Control Office determines that an A-weighted or Cweighted measurement may not adequately characterize the sound under investigation, the Noise
Control Office may conduct or obtain octave-band, one-third-octave-band, narrow-band,
vibration, or other technically appropriate measurements.
Supplemental analysis may be used to characterize a sound, evaluate sound-control measures, or
determine whether the sound otherwise constitutes a noise disturbance. Supplemental analysis
does not reduce or adjust an applicable A-weighted or C-weighted sound limit and does not

Page 61 of 72

independently establish a numerical violation unless this chapter expressly establishes a numerical
limit for that measurement.
(6) Audibility. A sound or acoustic condition need not be audible to a particular individual for a
violation to be established through an applicable objective measurement. The mere detection of
infrasound, ultrasound, vibration, or other acoustic energy does not, standing alone, establish a
violation unless an applicable limit is exceeded or the condition otherwise constitutes a noise
disturbance under this chapter.
Section 7. Amendment. §134.006(B) is amended by adding a new subsection (4) to read as
follows:
(4) The application fee for a recurring generator testing permit issued pursuant to subsection (D)
shall be $250 for each permit period. Any reasonable cost incurred by the City for specialized
acoustic review, field measurement, or other technical assistance necessary to evaluate the
application shall be paid by the applicant in addition to the application fee. The City shall provide
the applicant with notice of the anticipated cost before incurring the expense.
Section 8. Amendment. §134.006 is amended by adding a new subsection (D) to read as follows:
(D) Recurring Generator Testing Permits.
(1) The Noise Control Office may issue a single noise permit authorizing a recurring schedule for
testing and maintenance of emergency electrical generators for a period not exceeding 12 months.
A permit may be renewed upon submission and approval of a new application.
(2) In addition to the information required by subsection (A), an application for a recurring
generator testing permit shall identify:
a. The number, type, and location of generators to be tested;
b. The purpose of the testing, including whether the testing is required by federal or state law, an
adopted fire or building code, the generator manufacturer, the authority having jurisdiction, or
another operational or safety requirement;
c. The proposed days and hours of testing;
d. The proposed frequency and maximum duration of each testing event;
e. The maximum aggregate testing duration;
f. The maximum number of generators to be operated simultaneously;
g. The anticipated sound levels at receiving properties; and

Page 62 of 72

h. The sound-control and vibration-control measures to be used during testing.
(3) The permit shall specify the approved testing schedule, maximum duration of each testing
event, maximum aggregate testing duration, number of generators that may be operated
simultaneously, maximum permitted sound level, and required sound-control measures. The
Noise Control Office may also require sound monitoring or advance notice to neighboring
properties.
(4) A separate application, permit, or application fee shall not be required for each testing event
conducted in accordance with the approved recurring schedule.
(5) Sound produced during testing conducted under a recurring generator testing permit shall not
exceed the maximum permitted sound levels established by subsection (C). For purposes of
applying subsection (C), duration shall mean the duration of each individual testing event and not
the total term of the recurring permit.
(6) Testing conducted outside the approved schedule or in violation of a permit condition is not
authorized by the permit and shall be subject to the otherwise applicable provisions of this
chapter.
Section 9. Amendment. Chapter 134 is amended by adding a new §134.010 to read as follows:
§134.010 EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL GENERATORS.
(A) Routine Testing and Maintenance. Notwithstanding §134.005, routine testing and maintenance
of an emergency electrical generator may temporarily exceed the otherwise applicable sound
limits without obtaining a noise permit, provided that:
(1) Testing occurs only between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.;
(2) Testing occurs on no more than one day during any consecutive seven-day period and does not
exceed one hour in the aggregate during that day;
(3) Testing does not exceed 80 dBA when measured at a residentially zoned or noise-sensitive
receiving property; and
(4) All manufacturer-provided mufflers, enclosures, vibration isolation, and other sound-control
components are installed, maintained in good working order, and used during testing.
Testing that does not comply with this subsection is subject to the ordinary sound limits of
§134.005 unless authorized by a noise permit.
(B) Additional or Extended Testing. Testing or maintenance that exceeds the frequency, duration,
simultaneous-operation, or sound-level limitations of subsection (A), including commissioning and
load-bank testing, may be authorized by a noise permit issued pursuant to §134.006.

Page 63 of 72

(C) Installation and Maintenance. A permanently installed emergency electrical generator shall be
located, enclosed, muffled, equipped, and maintained so that routine testing and maintenance
comply with the applicable sound limits of this chapter. Manufacturer-provided mufflers,
enclosures, vibration isolation, and other sound-control components shall be installed, maintained
in good working order, and used during operation.
(D) Actual Outage, Mandatory Disconnection, or Emergency Operation. The numerical sound limits
and adjustments established by §134.005 do not apply to the operation of an emergency electrical
generator:
(1) During an actual interruption of normal utility electrical service;
(2) When normal utility electrical service is unavailable or unsafe for use;
(3) When the owner or operator of the premises is directed to disconnect from, or materially
curtail its use of, the electric grid by the serving electric utility, a regional transmission
organization, an independent system operator, a balancing authority, or a governmental authority
because of an existing or imminent electric-system emergency, reliability condition, or safety
hazard; or
(4) During another emergency when generator operation is reasonably necessary to protect life,
public health, safety, or property.
Operation under this subsection shall be limited to the duration reasonably necessary. Operation
under paragraph (3) shall be limited to serving on-site electrical demand displaced by the required
disconnection or curtailment and shall cease within a reasonable period after the directive expires
or is withdrawn. Upon request by the Noise Control Office, the owner or operator shall provide
documentation identifying the issuing authority, the time and duration of the directive, and the
disconnection or curtailment required.
(E) Excluded Operations. The exception provided by subsection (D) does not apply to:
(1) Routine testing, maintenance, or commissioning;
(2) Peak shaving, economic dispatch, or operation undertaken in response to electricity prices or
other economic considerations;
(3) Voluntary demand-response or load-management participation, including operation
undertaken to satisfy a contractual commitment voluntarily assumed by the owner or operator;
(4) A self-initiated disconnection from, or reduction in use of, the electric grid when normal utility
electrical service remains available and safe for use and no directive qualifying under subsection
(D)(3) is in effect;

Page 64 of 72

(5) Grid-support operation that is requested, encouraged, or financially incentivized but is not
required by a directive qualifying under subsection (D)(3); or
(6) Generation of electricity for sale or another nonemergency commercial purpose.
(F) Restoration of Utility Service and Extended Operation.
(1) Operation under subsection (D) shall cease within a reasonable period after normal utility
electrical service has been restored and is reasonably stable, except for a manufacturerrecommended cool-down period or other operation necessary to safely return the equipment to
standby condition.
(2) If operation under subsection (D) continues for more than seven consecutive days, the owner
or operator shall notify the Noise Control Office no later than the first business day following that
seven-day period. The notice shall identify:
a. The condition necessitating generator operation;
b. The date generator operation began;
c. The current status and anticipated duration of the condition, to the extent reasonably known;
d. The efforts being made to restore or obtain normal utility electrical service or another lawful
source of power; and
e. The noise-control measures being implemented during the extended operation.
(3) If operation under subsection (D) continues for more than 30 consecutive days, the owner or
operator shall submit an extended-operation and noise-mitigation plan to the Noise Control
Office. In addition to updating the information required by paragraph (2), the plan shall include:
a. Documentation of the continuing qualifying condition and the circumstances causing it;
b. The electrical load that must be served;
c. An evaluation of reasonably available alternatives to continued operation of the emergency
generators;
d. Existing and proposed measures to reduce sound and vibration at receiving properties;
e. Proposed sound-monitoring procedures; and
f. A schedule for implementing additional reasonable mitigation measures.

Page 65 of 72

(4) During operation extending beyond 30 consecutive days, the owner or operator shall
implement noise-control measures that are technically practicable and reasonably proportionate
to the anticipated duration of operation, the sound received at affected properties, the electrical
needs served, and the cost and effectiveness of the measures.
(5) The Noise Control Office may establish reasonable conditions for operation extending beyond
30 consecutive days, including sound monitoring, operational limitations, temporary or permanent
sound-control measures, and periodic reporting. Such conditions shall not require cessation of
generator operation while:
a. A qualifying condition under subsection (D) remains in effect;
b. Generator operation remains reasonably necessary to respond to that condition; and
c. No reasonable alternative source of power is available.
(6) The owner or operator shall notify the Noise Control Office when the qualifying condition ends
and shall provide updated information upon a material change in circumstances or at reasonable
intervals requested by the Noise Control Office. An extended-operation and noise-mitigation plan
shall be reviewed at least annually while generator operation continues.
(7) Continued operation is not prohibited solely because of its duration. However, the exception
provided by subsection (D) applies only while operation remains a reasonably necessary response
to a qualifying condition. The exception does not protect:
a. A qualifying condition that is created, prolonged, maintained, or invoked for the purpose of
avoiding the otherwise applicable sound limits;
b. Generator operation that is voluntary or economically motivated; or
c. Failure to submit, implement, or comply with a notice, plan, mitigation measure, reporting
requirement, or operational condition required by this subsection.
Section 10. Severability Clause. If any section, provision, or part of this ordinance shall be
adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision, or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 11. When Effective. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its final passage,
approval, and publication as provided by law.
Passed this _____ day of ____________ 2026 and signed this _____ day of ___________ 2026.
Signatures on the following page.

Page 66 of 72

CITY OF MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA

Mike Ladehoff, Mayor
ATTEST:
Alicia Hunter, City Clerk
I, Alicia Hunter, City Clerk of the City of Marshalltown, Iowa, do hereby certify that the foregoing
ORDINANCE was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of Marshalltown, Iowa, on
the _____ day of ____________ 2026, and was published in the Marshalltown Times-Republican,
a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Marshalltown, Iowa, on the _____ day of
____________ 2026.
_______________________________
Alicia Hunter, City Clerk

Page 67 of 72

ORDINANCE ______________
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON DRILLING PRIVATE WELLS
IN THE CITY OF MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA
WHEREAS, the City of Marshalltown, Iowa, the “City” herein, under and pursuant to the powers
vested in it by Article III, § 38A of the Iowa Constitution and by Iowa Code chapter 364, in order
to promote, protect, improve the public health and general welfare of the citizens of the City, and
to reduce the burden on the aquifer and/or surface water source that supplies water to the public
water systems of the City deems it necessary to make and place into effect certain rules and
regulations regarding the public water systems within the City and the drilling of private wells;
and
WHEREAS, the City deems it necessary to promote, protect, improve the public health and general
welfare of the citizens of the City, and to reduce the burden on the underground aquifer and/or
surface water source that supplies water to the public water systems of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has the Constitutional and statutory power to restrict the drilling of private
wells within City limits; and
WHEREAS, all such powers of the City are appropriately exercised by the passage of this
ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA:
SECTION 1. TEXT AMENDMENT – TITLE IX. GENERAL REGULATIONS of the Code of
Ordinances is amended by adding the following new Chapter 97:
§ 97.001 PURPOSE. The City has the right and duty to promote, protect, and improve the public
health and general welfare of the citizens of the City, including by prohibiting the creation of new
private wells within the City in order to ensure the adequacy, integrity, and quality of the public
water supply of the City’s residents and to reduce the burden on the aquifer and/or surface water
source that supplies water to the public water systems of the City.
§ 97.002 PRIVATE WELLS PROHIBITED. No parcel of land or premises within the corporate
limits of the City of Marshalltown, that is improved by construction of a home, building, premises,
structure, or other facility for occupancy and capable of being occupied or used by any person or
persons, for employment, for recreation, as a commercial business, as an industrial facility, or for
other similar purposes may drill, construct, operate or maintain any water well used for any
purpose if connection to the public water supply system is reasonably available. The City reserves
the right to make the final determination as to whether the public water supply system is reasonably
available.

Page 68 of 72

§ 97.003 EXCEPTIONS.
A.
This chapter shall not apply to any private well existing and in operation within the
corporate limits of the City of Marshalltown on the date of the passage of the ordinance until such
time as there is a change in ownership of the property, unless all of the conditions in Section 3(B)
of this chapter are satisfied.
B.
This chapter shall not apply to a private well upon written application to the City
of Marshalltown and the City Council determines that the proposed private well is needed due to
extraordinary circumstances caused by the location of the property at issue which, if a private well
was not used, would impose an extraordinary hardship upon the property owner; and confirms its
receipt of all the following information from Marshalltown Water Works (“the City Utility”)
indicating that:
1.
the City’s public water system is not reasonably available to the point of
water use that is the subject of the private well application;
2.
the drilling and use of the proposed private well would not adversely impact
the underground aquifer that supplies water to the public water systems of the City;
3.
the drilling and use of the proposed private well would not adversely impact
the quality of the water used and supplied by the public water systems of the City;
4.
the drilling and use of the proposed private well would not adversely impact
the rate payers of the City Utility and shift costs to them inappropriately; and
5.
the City Utility verifies with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources that
the placement, depth and other features associated with the proposed private well do not
conflict with any actively monitored Leaking Underground Storage Tank site or cause other
water quality problems.
§ 97.004 MUNICIPAL INFRACTION. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be
subject to a municipal infraction in accordance with Section 10.999 of the City of Marshalltown
Code of Ordinances. Each day that a violation continues and each property or premises of the
owner at which it occurs shall constitute a separate and distinct violation.
SECTION 2. Repealer. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, provision, or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.

Page 69 of 72

SECTION 4. Effective Date. That the provisions of this ordinance shall become effective from
and after its final passage, approval, and publication as provided by law.

Page 70 of 72

STATE OF IOWA
COUNTY OF MARSHALL

ORDINANCE CERTIFICATE
)
) SS
)

1. I certify that Ordinance Number _______________, of which a true copy is attached, was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Marshalltown, State of Iowa, signed by the Mayor
and published as required by law and is now in effect. I further certify that the consideration(s)
and votes taken for the enactment of the Ordinance occurred as follows:
(For any consideration that was waived, insert N/A in the blanks for that consideration
and complete paragraph regarding waiver below.)
First consideration - Date:
Vote: In favor
,
Opposed
,
Absent or Abstain
.

2.
3.

4.

5.

Second consideration - Date:
Vote: In favor
,
Absent or Abstain

Opposed

,
.

Third Consideration - Date:
Vote: In favor
,
Absent or Abstain

Opposed

,

.

On the date of ____________________, 2026, the City Council adopted a motion for the
suspension of the rule requiring separate consideration at three meetings and voted the final
adoption of the Ordinance. The vote for suspension of the rules was by three-fourths of
the full City Council, voting _____ in favor, _____ opposed, and _____ absent, vacant or
abstaining and was duly recorded as noted above.
I further certify that if any consideration of the Ordinance did not receive an affirmative vote
for passage, there was no further consideration of the Ordinance on any date thereafter.
Following final approval of the Ordinance by the City Council, the full text of Ordinance (or a
summary of the Ordinance complying with Iowa Code Section 380.7(3)) was published in the
following newspaper(s): ____________________ on the following date(s):
_______________, 2026.
I further certify that each meeting for the consideration of the Ordinance was duly and publicly
held, with a notice of the meeting and tentative agenda naming the consideration of the
Ordinance timely posted and upon reasonable advance notice to the media as required by the
Chapter 21, Code of Iowa, and rules of the Council then governing.
I further certify that the individuals named therein were on the date thereof duly and lawfully
possessed of their respective city offices as indicated therein, that no Council vacancy existed
except as may be stated in the proceedings, and that no controversy or litigation is pending,
prayed or threatened involving the incorporation, organization, existence or boundaries of the
City or the right of the individuals named therein as officers to their respective positions.

Page 71 of 72

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the City hereto affixed this __________ day of
_______________, 2026.
City Clerk, City of Marshalltown, State of Iowa
(SEAL)

4856-5627-1329-4\20500-000

Page 72 of 72