Two weeks after the Marshalltown city council passed the first reading of a controversial new ordinance that will allow parking pads in yards — just not pads made of gravel — an amended second reading that does allow gravel passed by a narrow 4-3 tally.

Once Public Works Director Heather Thomas shared a brief overview of past council discussions and actions, she opened the floor up to questions and comments. Scott McLain stepped forward first and urged the council to reconsider its position on gravel as an allowable surface, noting the cost difference between installing gravel ($300 to do it oneself, $750 to hire the work), asphalt ($1,500 for the materials, $5,000 to $7,000 to have it installed professionally), concrete ($1,300 to $1,500 for the material, $4,000 to $5,000 to have it installed) and concrete pavers ($1,600 for the pavers, $7,000 to $11,000 to install them).

“(If there are) concerns about the rock getting into the street, getting into the other areas, it’s not supposed to be connected to a driveway. It’s supposed to be in a yard,” McLain said. “Therefore, I don’t think the rock coming out into the street is the biggest issue with the parking pads. I understand the driveway one, I understand the grandfathered (in driveways), I understand all that, and I agree with that, but I think the parking pads, we’re cutting our people a little short. We’re costing them a lot of money that they may not have, and they’re just gonna do it anyways.”

Dan Oswald agreed with McLain’s take and added that the county had just put in “a ton of gravel” that could wind up in the same watershed. Lonnie Hogeland spoke about junk cars and said that a junk car shouldn’t be considered OK just because it’s parked on “a beautiful piece of concrete.”

First Ward Councilor Mike Ladehoff reiterated his position that gravel pads should be allowed in the interest of affordability.

“If you’re like a lot of people, maybe you buy a $1,500 boat. Now you can’t put it in the backyard because you need a $3,000 pad to put it on, so you put it in the front driveway and you park out in the street,” Ladehoff said. “And do we want more cars parking out in the street because they can’t afford the parking pad? I would love if everyone could afford a $4,000 parking pad, that type of thing. I think that’d be great, but most of the time, if you’re buying a camper or something like that, a lot of people don’t buy the brand new stuff. And then to turn around and double the cost just so have you a place to park it, I just think that gravel’s a good enough option for people who still want to be able to put that in their backyard where it should be.”

Fourth Ward Councilor Melisa Fonseca also felt gravel should be allowed and made a motion to amend the ordinance as such. After it was seconded, Second Ward Councilor Mark Mitchell commented that professionals should be hired to come in and pack the gravel down to ensure it is installed properly.

“You just can’t put limestone in and call it good,” Mitchell said.

At Large Councilor Gary Thompson didn’t feel anyone with the city had a solid count on how many gravel parking lots and driveways had been grandfathered in, noting the concern of the rock washing out and ending up in the storm sewer system.

“Like I said before the first time, I just want something that I know is gonna be enforced,” he said.

Thompson had unsuccessfully attempted to amend the ordinance at the previous meeting and said he still supported the change. Fonseca felt city staff would do a great job of guiding property owners through the process of installing a gravel pad, and during public comments, Hogeland again touted the importance of “curb appeal” in beautifying the community.

Dave Grieve suggested railroad tie borders and vegetation around the pads to keep the gravel in place, and Marshalltown Area Chamber of Commerce President/CEO John Hall, while clarifying that he had no dog in the fight, warned of a “slippery slope” for new commercial developers who have asked for the ability to put gravel in their non-maneuvering areas, which has drawn pushback from city officials in the past.

The motion to amend ultimately passed 4-3 with Fonseca, Ladehoff, Thompson and Greg Nichols in favor and Mitchell, Barry Kell and Jeff Schneider opposed. A subsequent vote to pass the ordinance as amended passed 5-2 with Mitchell and Kell opposed.

City Clerk Alicia Hunter confirmed that the change to the overall ordinance is minor enough that it will only need to pass one more reading to take effect.

——

Contact Robert Maharry

at 641-753-6611 ext. 255 or

rmaharry@timesrepublican.com.