To allow gravel or not to allow gravel? That, once again, was the question before the Marshalltown city council on Monday night, and for the third time in as many meetings, they arrived at a different answer.

The third and final reading of the new Chapter 72 parking rules ordinance came before the council for approval on Monday, but the main point of contention throughout the process has been whether or not gravel should be allowed as an acceptable surface for parking pads. The first reading, which passed on Oct. 14 by a 6-1 vote (Mike Ladehoff was the lone dissenter), did not include language allowing gravel, but the second reading passed two weeks later did after Melisa Fonseca, Greg Nichols and Gary Thompson joined Ladehoff in voting for an amendment to allow it.

In another plot twist, however, Nichols and Thompson ended up changing their votes for a second time and reverting to their original positions against allowing gravel. Nichols made the motion to amend and then elaborated on his stance.

“In reviewing this after the fact, I can understand why it’s very hard to basically manage and codify gravel — how much gravel, what is required, how it’s maintained. I see a very possible issue with weeds and all that kind of stuff coming up through, and therefore I am changing my vote on this because I see it as being an unmanageable addition,” Nichols said.

Ladehoff, who was serving as mayor pro tem, has been the most consistent advocate for allowing gravel and responded that the size of the pad is “clearly stated” and would therefore restrict the amount of gravel to be used, much like concrete.

“It can’t be spread all over the place, no. We have square footage requirements for this, so I myself, anyway, I find that gravel is an acceptable surface,” he said.

Fonseca noted that gravel is one of five options and is the most economical for local property owners, which is why she supported allowing it.

“We talk about the weeds and the aesthetic of a gravel pad. I think it all comes down to the workmanship,” Fonseca said. “A gravel pad can look really nice compared to, maybe, one that was done with concrete or asphalt and it’s not as nice. So what it comes down to is workmanship and the quality. If we look up, on Google, gravel parking pads, there’s some really nice ones. You can make them look really nice, and I think that giving the community a choice is important.”

Councilor Mark Mitchell worried that residents would “take advantage” of the codes if gravel is allowed and said the city’s code enforcement officers are already up to their noses in work.

“I feel that someone will be taking advantage and not doing it the correct way, and we won’t have no way to stop it. My vote will be no,” he said.

Fellow Councilor Barry Kell researched other similar sized communities in Iowa (Marshalltown was the state’s 17th largest as of 2024). He did not find language supporting the use of gravel in any of the five next largest or the five next smallest communities.

“It was all hard surface, poured, dust free, which I had to look at definitions (of) — again, prohibiting the use of gravel,” Kell said. “So as I think (about) the larger picture, I understand we’re giving people options with the inclusion of gravel, but if we go back to the spring when Planning and Zoning placed forth their recommendation, it wasn’t to allow any parking pads at all which wasn’t there to start with. So we are giving them options with the inclusion of this, and then we all know the desire and the need to increase property values in our community both from the properties that we have or through new builds. I guess I don’t see how the inclusion of gravel helps support that.”

Councilor Jeff Schneider said he agreed with Kell and Mitchell.

“We can’t allow gravel. It’s gotta be concrete,” he said.

Thompson originally pledged to go along with the consensus but said, as he read the room on Monday, he just wanted something enforceable.

“If the consensus is that it’s gonna open up a can of worms, then I guess I will be changing my vote to ban the gravel,” he said.

During the public comment period, Linda Clark said she dealt with a neighboring property where gravel makes up the whole backyard, but she also commended Fonseca for her position on allowing options including gravel.

“I think we need to have options, and it would be nice if everybody had a beautiful home and had everything the way they want it. But there’s a lot of people that are retired here, and we can’t afford some of the things that are these pretty wants that the city seems to be wanting,” she said. “My needs come first, people.”

The amendment passed 5-2 with Fonseca and Ladehoff opposed, and the third and final reading of the ordinance change passed by the same tally.

——

Contact Robert Maharry

at 641-753-6611 ext. 255 or

rmaharry@timesrepublican.com.