Photo by Deb Gau Marshall City Council member John DeCramer spoke during discussion on city building appearance standards, at Tuesday’s council meeting.

MARSHALL — More than three months after a local task force formed to look at Marshall’s city building department and ordinances, their recommendations were approved by the city council.

Tuesday night, Marshall Council members voted to pass changes to the city landscaping ordinances, and to repeal the city ordinance about building appearance standards. Both changes had been suggested by a group of local contractors and businesspeople as a way to change the perception of Marshall as a hard town to build in.

But the choice did spark a lot of discussion, both inside and outside of public hearings on the proposed changes. Community members spoke out about the need for action on the matter, while council member John DeCramer expressed concerns about keeping some standards to help keep Marshall looking nice.

“I’ve got some pretty grave reservations about taking it all out,” DeCramer said. “I understand there’s some areas that need to be changed.”

The first of two public hearings at Tuesday’s council meeting focused on proposed amendments to city landscaping ordinances.

“The landscaping ordinance has recently come into question” by local contractors, said Marshall planning and zoning administrator Jason Anderson. Earlier this year, the building task force submitted suggestions on making the standards less restrictive to Marshall city committees. The proposed amendments got rid of some landscaping requirements, like minimum size requirements for planted trees, and made others more flexible. For example, the requirement that at least one tree per 4,000 square feet of area on a lot was reduced to at least one tree per 5,000 feet of area. A requirement that at least 30 percent of a lot be landscaped was also reduced to 25 percent.

Language saying that trees cannot be planted in boulevards or the public right of way was also changed. Instead, those trees can be planted, as long as they comply with a city tree policy. Council member James Lozinski had positive feedback about that change — trees on boulevards help to shade local streets, he said. However, he said the city may also have to consider landscaping ordinances that cover alternatives to planting lawns.

Council members passed the proposed landscaping ordinance changes 6-1, with Lozinski casting the vote against.

The second proposal, for the city’s building appearance standards, was more drastic. The city council was being asked to consider getting rid of that ordinance altogether. The ordinance covered standards for the looks and acceptable building materials for the exteriors of different kinds of buildings, as well as for awnings, roofs, and accessory buildings.

DeCramer said he was concerned about repealing the building appearance standards.

“I really do not want to wipe everything out of there,” he said. “I’d actually like more discussion.” DeCramer suggested amending the standards, or only having them in effect on major roads through town.

Community members argued Marshall didn’t need detailed restrictions on how a building could look. No one would build a new home or business to make it look ugly, said Norm Gregerson. Fewer restrictions might encourage more people to build.

“A city this size should have a lot more construction than we’ve had,” Gregerson said.

Task force member Brad Meulebroeck said one of the things brought up in the group’s discussion was that the appearance standards were also difficult for city staff to have to deal with.

“This makes no sense, to overregulate something that doesn’t need to be,” he said.

Task force members also said they thought the city needed to take action, instead of sending the issue back for yet more discussion.

A motion by DeCramer to table action on the building appearance standards until the May 8 council meeting failed 5-2. DeCramer and council member Glenn Bayerkohler were the two supporters of the motion.

A motion to repeal the building appearance standards was then passed 6-1, with DeCramer passing the vote against.