MARSHALL — The city of Marshall has some new rules for how driveway entrances can be built — but the rules do allow residents more options than were first proposed by the city.

On Tuesday, members of the Marshall City Council voted to adopt the new ordinances, with the change that both concrete and asphalt would be allowed for building driveway aprons.

“I think city staff is open to that,” said Marshall City Engineer Jason Anderson.

In March, the council held a public hearing on a set of proposed driveway ordinances, but later voted to bring the proposal back for more discussion at Tuesday’s meeting.

The proposed driveway ordinances don’t affect driveways on public property, just driveways on the city right of way, Anderson said. For many homes in Marshall, that means the driveway apron between the street and the public sidewalk.

“Really this is just trying to limit the number and size of driveways, and what materials they’re constructed out of,” Anderson said. “These are common ordinances to have in municipalities across the state of Minnesota. It’s not something atypical, but it’s something that we haven’t had.”

The ordinances set out rules for the width, spacing and construction materials for driveways and sidewalks for both residential and commercial properties.

The question of whether driveway aprons should be required to be made of concrete sparked some discussion on the council, and was a big part of why they wanted to continue the discussion Tuesday.

“I just wanted the option (for bituminous),” said council member James Lozinski.

Lozinski said he wasn’t in favor of overregulation, plus asphalt might be a cheaper driveway option for Marshall residents.

“I’d even go as far as saying we can do pavers, just a hard surface. I don’t like to tell our residents, ‘You have to use concrete,’ ” he said.

Anderson said he would be open to allowing property owners flexibility to use blacktop for driveway entrances, but he had concerns about the pavers suggestion.

“I think I would take exception to pavers in the right of way, because if we do work in the right of way — it may be rare, but I don’t want to be disrupting that, and now the city or another utility is having to spend an inordinate amount of money to put that back in a condition that satisfies the property owner,” he said.

“I agree with council member Lozinski. I think if we’re going to make an ordinance, we let as much decision-making be left the property owner within reason,” said council member Steven Meister.

A motion to accept the driveway ordinances, with the change that both concrete and asphalt would be allowed, passed unanimously.