Council adopts changes to allow accessory dwelling units consistent with new state law

The Cedar Falls City Council voted Oct. 6 to amend Chapter 26 of the zoning code to update local rules governing accessory dwelling units so they comply with Iowa Senate File 592, the state law signed earlier in 2025.

Planning staff told the council the state law requires jurisdictions to allow at least one accessory dwelling unit on any lot with a single-family residence and limits local restrictions: local governments may not set maximum ADU size below 1,000 square feet, may not impose height, setback or minimum-lot-size limits stricter than those that apply to the principal dwelling, may not require design materials to match the principal dwelling, may not require additional parking beyond what is required for the principal dwelling, and may not impose owner-occupancy requirements.

To mirror those requirements, staff proposed several changes: removing the owner-occupancy requirement, allowing up to two bedrooms in an ADU (a council-requested change), clarifying that ADU height cannot exceed the principal structure’s allowable height under the underlying zoning district, deleting design-and-material-matching standards, and modifying basement-egress-window rules (staff proposed changing the requirement to one egress window per bedroom). Staff also moved to eliminate an eight-foot separation standard for detached accessory structures because the building code already governs fire- and spacing-related issues.

The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the draft and recommended approval by a 7–0 vote. Public comments at the hearing were limited: Craig Fairbanks expressed support for the changes and said allowing two bedrooms is useful, while Kim Jordan raised concerns about stormwater, insurance and consistency with covenants in newer subdivisions. Staff responded that standard stormwater and detention requirements apply when new construction reaches thresholds that trigger them and that homeowners associations (HOAs) can still enforce covenants independently of zoning; the city does not enforce private covenants.

Councilors discussed the state law’s limits and acknowledged the directive to bring local ordinance language into conformance; several council members said their votes reflected a desire to comply with state requirements rather than endorsement of every policy detail. After discussion, the council approved the ordinance on first consideration with a roll call vote and accepted planning staff’s recommended language.