Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-18 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. October 4, 2011 5. Public Hearings 6. New Business a. Ordinance Amendment-Section 44-14, Street Widening and Diminished Lot Size b. Ordinance Amendment~Section 44-13, The City's authority to Approve Variances c. Ordinance Amendment-Article VI, Administrative Variances 7. Unfinished Business . a. Commissioner Minutes and Records Retention Discussion by City Council 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Commissioner report for the city council meeting of October 10, 2011. Commissioner Nuss attended in Commissioner Tripplers absence. The item discussed was the CUP for LaMettry Collision on Highway 61. . b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of October 24, 2011. Commissioner Desai is scheduled to attend. The anticipated item to be reviewed is the code amendment for Variance Reviews by the city council. 10. Staff Presentations a. Rosenburg's Rules of Order 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4,2011 1. CALL TO ORDER. A meeting of the Commission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Fischer. . 2. ROLL CALL AI Bierbaum, Commissioner Joseph Boeser, Commissioner Tushar Desai, Commissioner Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Robert Martin, Commissioner Tanya Nuss, Commissioner Gary Pearson, Commissioner Dale Trippler, Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood, Commissioner Present Present Present Present Present Pre~~nt ~,~~~\'lnt .... ~bs~n~ ..' . Preseiif' 3. L T'~ /',,,- c. Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior pi~q~,~p' ~"!H!i:i;>';, '''-ll!iih APPROVAL OF AGENDA", '::it, ,,',,1' ::,1, ii'iY ";mi: ';(;lji!:,~ . . Staff had no changes to the ag@M9~,RI911:1'l.~~,~~it\ted the report for 6. b. the Ordinance Amendment - Section 44-13 that was omiJI(jlp, ihut~e plan'rling commission packet. >"ii>. .1ar,'!'1\ :::/ "'iF:, "~ni Commissioner Pearson meyed to"l!i~prove the aqenda as submitted. 'iiqi\h>) ;,;(;: Seconded by Commissionerl'!l~~'a'i. Ayes - All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the September 6. 2011. PC minutes as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Ayes - All The motion passed. 5. PUBLIC HEARING None. October 4, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Ordinance Amendment - Section 2-41, The City authority to Approve Variances. i. Senior Planner, TOrllEkstrand gave the report on the Ordinance Amendment- Section 2-41 and answered questions of the commission. Commissioner Nuss moved to approve the Ordinance Amendment - Section 2-41 qivinq the citv the authority to approve variances. Seconded by Commissioner Pearson. Ayes - All The motion passed. b. Ordinance Amendment - Section 44-13, The City's authority to Approve Variances. i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the commission. ;"') Commissioner Pearson moved to table the Ordinarlce Amendment - Section 44-13, The City's authority to Approve Variances for staff tdU'&ettUirther information and brinq it back to the commission. i'ilil''!"!;,,, '\ill; Seconded by Commissioner Nuss. Ayes - Chairperson Fischer, . Commissioner's Bierbaum, Boeser, Desai, Martin, Nuss & Pearson "'<ii:'!;: Nay - Commissioner Yarwood . ',d.i:/' The motion to table pas,~,\ld. <iii!l!Ulc,; ....I.;!.;: c. Discussion Item: Vet~~~fi's Affairs Medical Clinic Proposal East of 2920 White Bear Avenue (Walgreen's) i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand discussed the Veteran's Affairs Medical Clinic Proposal and answered questions of the commission. No action was required. '/' 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Planning Commission Minutes Discussion ,(no report) i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report regarding the format of the Planning Commission Minutes and answered questions of the commission. Format for minutes CC/Manager Workshop, October 10 - PC representation requested for discussion about action minutes. After a lengthy and mixed discussion amongst the commission, staff stated the planning commission representative Robert Martin can share the views of the commission with the City Council at the workshop October 10, 2011, at 5:15 p.m. October 4, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS a. Mark Bradley, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Bradley asked the planning commission if a proposal comes forward to have commercial businesses on the bottom and residential on the top of the building the planning commission should take several things into consideration before approving it. His concern was that businesses with that type of set up have not been successful. (That was one of the styles of development that was discussed with the Gladstone area but no proposals have come forward in Maplewood). Mr. Bradley shared his opinion regarding the minutes and taping of the meetings for the permanent record. Mr. Bradley felt the recording of the meeting should be used over the minutes because it's a minute by minute account of what happened. Hearing and reading something could be two different things and hearing it means there is no chance of error. 9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS 'ii, /," "il'lt> a. Commissioner report for the city council m~~fingil~fSeptember 12, 2011. Commissioner Boeser attended. The iterw'!rdi~cusse~were the CUP revision for Maplewood Toyota and the storm wateriilJlPr~vements within the wetland buffer north of Wakefield .Lake. ...,., '> ::U:;;:!'iLnii_iU'",,::> ":"':::'" ' b. Commissioner report for the 9ity C~~.n,%IIi'rh~eting of September 26, 2011. Commissioner Pearson wa~ilisch~dule~'to attend. The item discussed was the right-of- way vacation on the northilt~~del~~:,~,r~ri)Avenue. '<;;11:<:;;/' ' """ !";;'''" 1::,;<;; c. Upcoming City coS\.n.dIMe~ti~gijQf October 10, 2011. Commissioner Nuss will attend for Commissioner r:bppler. ~me ~hticipated item to be reviewed is the CU P for LaMettry Collision. . '.. 10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. October 4, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Reductions in Lot Sizes through Street Widening-Amendment of Section 44-14 October 12, 2011 INTRODUCTION Request John Johannson, one of the owners ofthe Caribou Coffee property at 3100 White Bear Avenue, is requesting that the city amend ordinance Section 44-14. This ordinance provides that, if a public agency widens a street, and consequently reduces a lot's area or a building's setback to be less than the minimum required by ordinance, the property shall not be considered to be in violation of those minimum requirements. Mr. Johannson's concern is that this ordinance only addresses reductions in lot area and building setbacks and not other potential reductions like, parking lot setbacks and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. Mr. Johannson feels that, since the ordinance does not specifically cover these other reductions, he may encounter ~difficulties when he goes to sell this property if it is later found to be in violation of city requirements. Refer to Mr. Johannson's letter. In the past, the city has interpreted this ordinance to include other resulting deficiencies that could occur due to a street widening, such as a diminished parking lot setback and loss of parking spaces. Mr. Johannson would like to make sure that the ordinance fully addresses his concern to avoid any possible question in the future. DISCUSSION Staff agrees with Mr. Johannson's request to amend this ordinance and update the language. This ordinance has been "on the books" since the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1965. An update would be appropriate to address all the possible code deficiencies that could result from a street widening. In addition to lot area and building setbacks that Section 44-14 addresses, there are other site elements that a street widening could affect such as parking lot setbacks, a reduction in the number of parking spaces, pylon sign setback, diminished landscaping, lot width and the like. Staff proposes to leave the essence of the ordinance as it currently is, but to update it to include these other potential site-related reductions if a street widening would occur. The "grandfathering" provision would apply if the site meets city codes in the first place. It would also apply to undeveloped lots, in which case, the arnount of setback reduction to be permitted shall be no more than the arnount of the street widening which occurred. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution for the attached revisions to Section 44-14. p:\ ORDlStreet Widening-Lot Size Reductions Section 44-14 PC Report 10 11 te Attachments: 1. Letter from John Johannson dated September 7, 2011 2. Ordinance Amendment to Section 44-14 2 '-,---"""""""~~~'- ''''-j , I Attachment \IV E 1.5 H l-b'( , ,!1 Septe,mber 7, 2011 . Dear Mayor Rossbach and Council Members: I am one of the owners of the property that Caribou Coffee qccupies at 3100 White Bear Avenue North in Maplewood. Like many neighboring properties, a portion of our land was acquired through eminent domain to support the widening of White Bear Avenue. This loss of land has necessitated some changes to our site plan. , The loss of land has resulted. in a reduction of the number of parking spaces on our lot and we no longer meet the parking setback requirements. The City has been processing our site plan modifications under City Code: 44-14 Reductions in lot si;;;esthroudhstreet widenin~bYJa condemninqauthoritvadiustments to lot size reauirements ofthischaoter. City Code 44-14 is clearly limited to addressing lot size and building setback'reqLlirements. It does not mention the word parking. Our planning and legal advisors have told\ls that, ~s written, Code 44-14 does not establish the authority to approve plans that do not corrlply with the parking requirements and related setbacks, Let me say at the beginning that my partners and I have been grateful for the attitude of support and cooperation that the City has demonstrated throughoLit this process. This land taking, and. the requisite site plan changes, are challenging. We are doing' all we can to try and retain our existing tenant and provide a reasonably functional site plan:; Nb matt,er how we try to redesign the site, we have challenges. ' Weare grateful for the flexibility that the City is l;lemonstrating by interpreting Code 44-14 so liberally. What we are worried about is that down the road We may se,eksome financing, or qhoose to sell the property, or some other event that would require a'due diligence review by another party. Absent the recorded documentation, of variances for our parking non"compliance, or more explicit language in Code 44-14, our property willsl:1ow up as non,conformlng. , ".' '''..' '-""{.' '.::-. -., The easiest way to remedy this situation, and the action we respectfully request you take, is to amend the language ili Code 44-14 to include parking. T!'iis should include both parking lots that became non-conforming in regards to setbac,ks as aresult of street-widening and lots that 4350 Baker Road, Suite 400, Minnetollka, MN 55343 TEL 952.897.'7700 FAX 952.897.7704 www.welshco.com~ Ii J! (\1 ;.. j i ! i i I ! ; , ! I , , ! ! I i , , ! ! ! j ~ j i , i , I i i i I , i ! ! j i , , I I , i ! ! , , , , ! , ! ! j ; , ! j ; j I , i i ! i ! , i i ! no longer meet the minimum number of parking spaces. In regards to reductions in the number of, sJ)aces 'you will probably want to establish some maximum ,percentage reduction, but we trust that the City staff and Planning Commission oan determine What that acceptable percentage of required parking spaces should be. In closing, please understand that We are making this request only as a matter of practical . necessity. We, and our tenant Caribou Coffee, are concerned that following the taking, we will not have adequate parking remaining on the 'site, If, at some, point in the futUre, we were required to com~ly with more restrictive setbacks for parking, it would only exacerbate the concern. Likewise, if we were to redevelop the site in the future, and if historic parking ratios were to be applied, we could find ourselves in the position 'of having to reduce building size in ordedQ improve our asset with a new structure. We understand that we are not in this position due to actions implemented by the City - but rather, a regional road improvement project. As such, we harbor no animosity. We are merely tryi'ng to minimize impact, and preserve an asset, Tl'ie change we are requesting is really just a clariHcation of the poliCy you have already decided to apply to properties that have lost land to accommodate the s~reet widening. With the change in language we are requesting, we will have the 'official code language to address any future due diligence review, and/or redevelopment, of our property. . Sincerely, Enclosures c: John Shardlow, Bonestroo Jeff Wurst, Caribou Coffee ~ ~ i: " r: II Ii II " ;(1) Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE DUE TO STREET WIDENING The Maplewood City Council approves the following revision to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. (Additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out.) Section 1. Section 44-14 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 44-14. Reductions in lot sizes and site develoDment reauirements due to through street widening by Gonllemning authorities; adjustments to lot size r-elluirements of Ghaptar. 'Nhonever the 'Nic:lth of a streot right of way is increaaec:l by aGtien ef any gO'/orning autherity having tho right of conc:lemnatisn anc:l auch inGreaae in the 'Nic:lth of tho street Gausoa the abutting Iota to be mac:lesmaller than the minimum lot sizo permitted in this chapter er in any ether erc:linanGe, rule sr regulalion of the Gity or where alJGh wic:lening GalJses the aetbaGk ef buildings existing on tho abutting preperty te be less than the setbaGk pre'/isiens set ferth in this Ghapter er any ether erc:linanGo, rule or r.egulation of the Gity, SUGh resulting r-eduGlien en let size er setback c:IistanGe shall net be Gonsic:lerec:l a ;.'iolation of this Ghapter or any ether erc:linanco, rule or regulation of the Gity anc:l shall in all respects be Gonsic:lorec:l to be in Gonfermity with this Ghapter anc:l all other orc:linanGes, rules anc:l r.egulations. SUGh c:Iecreasec:l setbaGk anc:l such c:IeGreasec:llot size is '/alic:l anc:l Gonsistent with the re€1uiroments of this Ghapter, pro'lic:lec:l that the let sizo and sotbacks of the atrUGture en the let prior to the stroet widening wer-e lawful anc:l all usec:l thereef whiGh were lawflJl prior SUGh Ghange in area er setbaGk pertaining thereto shall centinuo as permitlec:luses thereaftor as if SIJGh r.eduGtions in area or sotbaGI~ had not oGGurrec:l. It is further provic:lec:l that as to all unimpro'loc:l lots or traGts of lanc:l ablJtting en that pertien of any roac:l, stroet or higRway which is wic:lenec:l se as to r.ec:lUGO tho available setbaGkc:liatanGo, the minimlJm sotback shall be the sotbask c:IistanGe roqlJirec:l by this Ghapter loss tho amount ef rec:lustien sausec:l by roaaon of the str.eet widening. For the ac:lminiatratien ef this aestien, the "amount of ret:luGtien" shall be sensic:lerec:l to be the nlJmber ef feet that the normal dO feot setbaGk, establishec:l by this Ghapler anc:l any ether orc:linances, rlJlo or roglJlation, as it aUeGts improved lots has been shertenec:l by SUGh str.eet wic:lening. Whenever the width of a street riaht-of-way is increased. which causes an abuttina lot to be made smaller than the reaulations would allow. such lot shall not be considered to be in violation of those aovernina reaulations. Nor shall such a lot be considered to be in violation of other site-related. dimensional or developmental requirements such as buildina setbacks. parkina lot setbacks. number of required parkina spaces. freestandinq sian setback or similar requirements as determined bY the director of community development. Appeals of the director's decision shall be reviewed by the city council. 3 These allowances shall applY as lona as the subiect property complied with lot size and development-related desian requirements prior to the street Widenina. The minimum setbacks for unimproved lots abuttina a street which is widened. shall be calculated to be the setback distance required by ordinance minus the reduction in lot depth caused bY the street widenina. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance revision on Mayor Attest: City Clerk 4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: JamesAntonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Variance Authority Ordinance Amendment of Section 44-13 October 11, 2011 INTRODUCTION At the October 4, 2011 planning commission meeting, the commission reviewed an amendment of the ordinance that authorized the city to review variances from the zoning ordinance. This ordinance included a provision that "the city may approve administrative variances according to article VI of this chapter." The planning commission directed staff to see: · Whether the administrative variance process would meet the intentions of the new state law regarding variances, and . Whether the administrative variance ordinance should be amended based on changes to state law. DISCUSSION The Administrative Variance Ordinance does not reference the statutory findings for variance approval. Refer to the attached Administrative Variance Ordinance. Staff has prepared an ordinance amendment of that ordinance which would state that the statutory findings for variance approval shall be applied when reviewing administrative variances. SUMMARY Staff recommends amending Section 44-13 by deleting the reference to the statutory number and simply require "compliance with state statute." This is to avoid inaccuracy in case the state changes their numbering in the future. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the ordinance amendment to revise Section 44-13 concerning the review of variances from the zoning code. REFERENCE Previous Variance Criteria from State Statute The City Council was required to make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Revised Variance Criteria from State Statute The new provisions of state law require that variances shall only be permitted when they are found to be: (1) In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control; (2) Consistent with the comprehensive plan; (3) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. ' The Primary Changes to the Statutory Variance Requirements The differences between the former variance guidelines and the revised language are: 1. The new statute now states that variances must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. This was not mentioned in the previous language. 2. Cities must now determine that the property owner is encountering "practical difficulties" because of ordinance provisions that regulate the use of his or her property. Previously, the terminology was that, to grant a variance the city must determine that strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the property owner "undue hardship" because of circumstances unique to the property. Practical difficulties exist when: a. A property owner proposes to use their property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance; 2 b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner, and; c. The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The previous language stated that a variance could only be granted if a property could not be put to any reasonable use without a variance. The new language states that a variance may be granted if a proposed use is reasonable. p:\ ORDIVariance\ YarianGe Authority Amendment Section 44-13 10 11 te PC Report #2 Attachments: ' 1, Administrative Variance Ordinance 2. Ordinance Amendment to Section 44-13 3 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 712 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /firstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 jull Attachment 1 ~ 44-1131 MAPLEWOOD CODE ') ARTICLE VI. ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES IN R.l AND R-2 RESIDENCE DISTRICTS' Sec. 44-1131. Purpose. It is the purpose of this article to provide for a method of administratively granting certain variances for single dwelling and double dwelling building permits. (Code 1982, ~ 36-4(31) Sec. 44-1132. Types; authority for granting. The city council hereby authorizes the director of community development or such other qualified person as designated by the city manager to grant variances in areas of the city zoned R-l and R-2 wherein the following situations exist: (1) Where the provision to be varied concerns garage setbacks; or (2) Where the amount of variance to any other setback is five feet 01' less; or (3) Where the result would be a variance in the size or frontage of the lot not to exceed a five-percent deviation from the Ininimum requirements, as provided otherwise in this Code; and ,(4) Where the applicant submits a petition signed by 100 percent of the adjacent landowners. approving the - variance. (Code 1982, ~ 36-462) ) Sec. 44-1133. Procedure. (a) Any person seeking a variance described in section 44-1132 shall submit to the director , of community development or other person designated by the city manager under the section 44-1132 a written application therefor and shall provide the city with a plan or drawing therefor acceptable to the director of community development or such other person so designated. The director or such other person so designated shall notify the surrounding property owners by mail of the requested variance and shall allow the property owners a period of ten days in which to respond. (b) Thereafter, the director or such other person so designated shall make his decision known to the applicant and to all of the previously notified parties. The director or such other person so designated shall document his decision and the applicant's justification in the department's filing system. (Code 1982, ~ 36-463) , Sec. 44-1134. Appeal to city council. Within ten days of the notification of the decision ofthe. director or other person designated by the city manager, pursuant to section 44-1132, the applicant or any of the notified parties 'State law reference-Powers of board of appeals and adjustments to heal' and grant variances from the provisions of a city zoning ordinance, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.357. ) CD44:110 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 713 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /firstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 JulI , ZONING ~ 44:U63 may appeal the decision by notifying the manager of any objections to the decision and requesting a hearing before the city council, such hearing to be held within 30 days. The right to this appeal shall be made known to all parties at the time of the notification of the decision or the director of community development or other person designated by the city manager. (Code 1982, ~ 36-464) Sees. 44-1135-44-1160. Reserved. ARTICLE VII. AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES ) Sec. 44-1161. Initiation generally. An amendment to this chapter, including an amendment to the zoning map, may be initiated by the city council, the planning commission, the city staff or by petition of affected property owners, who are hereby defined to be the owners of the property to be rezoned, An amendment not initiated by the planning commission shall be referred to the planning commission for study and 'report and may not be acted upon by the city council until it has received the recommendation of the planning commission on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the planning commission. (Code 1982, ~ 36-481) State law reference-Similar provisions, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.357, subd. 4. Sec. 44-1162. Petition of affected property owners. The director of community development shall, upon petition of the owners of the property to be rezoned, fix a date for a hearing. Such petition shall be accompanied by an abstractor's certificate showing the names and addresses of all property owners within 350 feet of the property to be rezoned. The petition and certificate shall be filed with the director of community development and shall be accompanied by a completed application form and payment of a ree to defray the expenses of advertising, public hearing and other expenses incurred by the city in the handling of the petition. The amount of such fee shall be imposed, set, established and fixed by the city council, by resolution, from time to time. (Code 1982, ~ 36-482) ) Sec. 44-1163. Public hearings. No amendment to this chapter, including an amendment to the zoning map, shall be adopted until a public'hearing has been held thereon by the planning commission or by the city council, as determined by the council. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person CD44:111 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERr<lING THE REVIEW OF VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING CODE The Maplewood City Council approves the following revision to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. (Additions are underlined ahd deletions are crossed out.) Section 1. Section 44-13 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 44-13. Variances. The city may grant variances to the requirements of this chapter. All variances must follow the requirements provided in Minnesota State Statutes Minn. Stats. eh. 482. The city may approve administrative variances according to article VI of this chapter. , Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the approval by the city council and publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance revision on Mayor Attest: City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Administrative Variance Ordinance Amendment DATE: October 12, 2011 INTRODUCTION The administrative variance ordinance outlines what circumstances allow the administrative variance review process and describes the procedure for processing such minor variances. This ordinance does not mention what the findings should be for, approving a' variance administratively, however. Staff is recommending a revision to this ordinance that would require the statutory findings for administrative variance approvals. DISCUSSION Staff's proposed revision would add Section 44-1135 which would say, "the approval of variances shall be based on the findings required by Minnesota State Statutes." RECOMMENDATION Adopt the ordinance amendment to revise Article VI, the administrative variance ordinance dealing with R1 (single dwelling) and R2 (double dwelling) residential districts. REFERENCE Previous Variance Criteria from State Statute The City Council was required to make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Revised Variance Criteria from State Statute The new provisions of state law require that variances shall only be permitted when they are found to be: (1 )In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control; (2) Consistent with the comprehensive plan; (3) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is' due, to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Primary Changes to the Statutory Variance Requirements The differences between the former'variance guidelines and the revised language are: 1. The new statute now states that variances must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. This was not mentioned in the previous language. 2. Cities must now determine that the property owner is encountering "practical difficulties" because of ordinance provisions that regulate the use of his or her property. Previously, the terminology was that, to grant a variance the city must determine that strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the property owner "undue hardship" because of circumstances unique to the property. Practical difficulties exist when: a. A property owner proposes to use their property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance; 2 b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner, and; c. The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The previous language stated that a variance could only be granted if a property could not be put to any reasonable use without a variance. The new language states that a variance may be granted if a proposed 'use is reasonable. p:\ ORDIVariance\ Administrative Variance Code Amendment 10 11 te Attachments,: 1. Administrative Variance Ordinance 2. ,Administrative Variance Ordinance Amendment 3 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 712 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /firstlpubdocs/mcc!3/l12173ull Attachment 1 ~ 44-1131 MAPLEWOODCODE ARTICLE VI. ADMlNISTRATIVE VARIANCES IN R-l AND R-2 RESIDENCE DISTRICTS' Sec. 44-1131. Purpose. It is the purpose of this article to provide for a method of administratively granting certain variances for single dwelling and double dwelling building permits. (Code 1982, ~ 36-461), Sec. 44-1132. Types; authority for granting. The city council hereby authorizes the director of community development or such other qualified person as designated by the city manager to grant variances in areas of the city zoned ,R-l and R-2 wherein the following situations exist: (1) Where the provision to be varied concerns garage setbacks; or (2)' Where the amount of variance to any other setback is five feet or less; or (3) Where the result 'would be a variance in the size or frontage ofthe lot not to exceed a five~percent deviation from the Ininimum requirements, as provided otherwise in this Code; and ,(4) Where the applicant submits a petition signed by 100 percent of the adjacent landowners. approving the .varh~.nce. (Code 1982, ~ 36-462) Sec. 44-1133. Procedure. (a) Any person seeking a variance described in section 44-1132 shall submit to the director of community development or other person designated by the city manager under the section 44-1132 a written application therefor and shall provide the city with a plan or drawing therefor acceptable to the director of community development or such other person so designated. The director or such other person so designated shall notify the surrounding property owners by mail of the requested variance and shall allow the property owners a period of ten days in which to respond. (b) Thereafter, the director or such other person so designated shall make his decision known to the applicant and to all of the previously notified parties. The director or such other person so designated shall document his decision and the applicant's justification in the department's filing system, (Code 1982, ~ 36-463) , Sec. 44.1134. Appeal to city council. Within ten days of the notification of the decision of the, director or other person designated by the city manager, pursuant to section 44-1132, the applicant or any of the notified parties 'State law reference-Powers of board of appeals and adjustments to hear and grant variances from the provisions of a city zoning ordinance, Minn. Stats. ~ 462,357. CD44:110 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 713 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:3J :JO 2003 /firstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full j ZONING ~ 44-1163 may appeal the decision by notifying the .managerof any objections to the decision and requesting a he~ring before the city council, such hearing to be held within 30 days. The right to this appeal shall be made known to all parties at the time of the notification of the decision of the director of community development or other person designated by the city manager. (Code 1982, ~ 36-464) Sees. 44-1i35-44-1160. Reserved. ARTICLE VII. AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES .t: ,. Sec. 44-1161. Initiation generally. An amendment to this chapter, including an amendment to the zoning map, may be . initiated by the city council, the planning commission, the city staff or by petition of aflected property owners, who are hereby defined to be the owners of the property to be rezoned. An amendment not initiated by the planning commission shall be referred to the planning commission for study and report and may not be acted upon by the city council until it has received the recommendation of the planning commission on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without s report by the planning commission. (Code i982, ~ 36-481) State law reference-Similar provisions, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.357, subd. 4. Sec. 44-1162. Petition of affected property owners. The director of community development shall, upon petition of the owners of the property to be rezoned, fix a date for a hearing. Such petition shall be accompanied by an abstractor's certificate showing the names and addresses of all property owners within 350 feet of the property to be rezoned. The petition and certificate shall be filed with the director of community development and shall be accompanied by a completed application form and payment of a fee to defray the expenses of advertising, public hearing and other expenses incurred by the city in the handling of the petition. The amount of such fee shall be imposed, set, established and fixed by the city council, by resolution, from time to time. (Code 1982, ~ 36-482) Sec. 44-1163. Public hearings. No amendment to this chapter, including an amendment to the zoning map, shall be adopted until a public' hearing has been held thereon by the planning commission or by the city council, as determined by the council. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city at least ten 'days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of aflected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person CD44: 111 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE STATUTORY FINDINGS TO APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES The Maplewood City Couhcil approves the following revision to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. (Additions are underlined.) Section 1. Article VI, Administrative Variances in R-1 and R-2 Residence Districts is hereby amended by adding Section 44-1135 as follows: Sec. 44-1135. Criteria to Approve Variances Administrativelv. The approval of varianGes shall be based on the findinqs required bv Minnesota State Statutes. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the approval by the city council and publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance revision on Mayor Attest: City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Commissioner Minutes and City Records Retention Policy October 12, 2011 INTRODUCTION On October 10, 2011, the city council reviewed the attached memorandum from Karen Guilfoile, the Director of Citizen Services, and gave their direction as to the nature of commissioner minutes (action minutes vs. summary minutes vs. verbatim minutes) and the keeping of such information. In summary, the council stated and directed the following: . The written minutes are the legal format for recording and keeping a record of all city meetings. . The recorded version of meetings will only be available by the cable television company for 18 months. The city, however, will keep a recorded disc copy for five years. ' . All commissioner minutes shall be in the form of "action" minutes with "summary" information being included occasionally as may be appropriate for a specific case. . Commissioners should forward any questio,ns about the need for action vs. summary minutes directly to the city council and not through staff. . The council is satisfied with the content in commissioner minutes currently being presented to them in the form of action minutes and do not wish to make any changes in this policy. p:1 planning commissionlCommissioner Minutes & Records Retention Policy 10 11te Attachment: Memorandum from Karen Guilfoile Regarding Council and Commissions Records Retention Policies and Procedures ' Item D2 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, Director Citizen Services DATE: October 4, 2011 RE: Discussion on City Council and Council Commissions Records Retention Policies and Procedures Introduction' In reviewing current policies and procedures for records retention for the city council and for boards and commissions, staff is requesting a conversation with the city council so that our direction is clear in these matters. In the Rules of Procedure for City Council and Council Meetings on Page 5, Section 4 Minutes D. it states: Minutes for city council meetings will be summary minutes. Minutes for Boards and Commissions, will be either action or summary minutes. Further on Page 11 under Other Matters it states:. Web streaming of city council meetings will be available on the city website as soon as is practical after each meeting and will remain available on the website for no less than 12 months after any given meeting. Backaround ACTION MINUTES are defined as minutes containing information that is required by State Law. The following items must be included: );> The members of the public body who are present );> The member who makes or second motions );> Roll call vote on motions );> Subject matter of proposed resolutions or ordinances );> Whether the resolutions or ordinance are defeated or adopted );> The votes of each member SUMMARY MINUTES are defined as minutes containing all infor,mation required in action minutes and a summary of any reports or information submitted by boards, commissions, developers, etc. VERBATIUM MINUTES are minutes where every word during the meeting is transcribed. Although not generally required by statute, several court decisions suggestthat including certain information in the minutes can help to defend a city's action should a lawsuit occur. The following types of data are examples of information that should be included in the minutes: Packet Page Number 1 of 5 ~ Findings offact. Case law requires them for land-use decisions and some personnel decisions. ~ The council's conclusions. Case law requires them for land-use decisions and some personnel decisions. ~ The specific reasons behind the council's conclusions. Examples would include such things as the economical, social, political or safety factors that were considered when the council made a particular decision. State Statute requires that agenda packets of city council meetings are permanent records and are to be kept for posterity. State Statute also directs that agenda packets for boards, commission, committees, etc. that are council approved or appointed are to be retained for three years. ' The State Retention Schedule states that video (DVD) recordings of public meetings can be erased and reused three months after formal approval of written minutes. And audio tape recordings of city council, commissions, boards, etc. are to be kept one year after formal approval of the written minutes. Finally, by State law, tape recordings cannot be the permanent record. Web Streaming: The city began web streaming in January of 201 0 which i!\ accessible on the city website and sponsored by CTV. Staff is requesting a discussion regarding this since our agreement with CTV is to make city meetings available up to 18 months at any given time. CURRENT PRACTICE: Minutes: Currently the city council minutes are a mixture of action and summary minutes as it is with most Commissions and Boards. Some Commissions and Boards consistently request additional information in their minutes which becomes staff intensive. Mnutes are stored in Laserfische and retained for permanent record. Video (DVD): Video/DVD of the city council, boards and commissions has been retained since January of 2006. Recommendation, Staff is requesting that minutes of the city council, boards, commissions and any council appointed committees be action minutes as described above including information as suggested by court decisions outlined above. It is recommended that video recordings of all city council meetings be retained for a period of five years. Packet Page Number 2 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Rosenberg's Rules of Order October 12, 2011 INTRODUCTION On October 4, 2011, Commissioner Pearson asked for a summary sheet on Rosenberg's Rules of Order. The city council has adopted them as the parliamentary procedure to be followed. Staff downloaded the attached information on-line for the commission's review. p:\ planning commission\Rosenberg's Rules of Order 10 11 te Attachment 1. Rosenberg's Rules of Order 2, Rosenberg's Rules of Order at a Glance 'Attachment 1 Rosenberg's Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century ,~ rules of procedure ar meerings _l ~~ould be simple enough for most people to understand. Unfortunately, ~hat hasn't always been the case. Virtu- ally all clubs, associations, boards, coun,.. cils and bodies follow a set of rules, Roberts Rules of Order, which are em- bodied in a small but complex book. Virtually no one I know has actually read this book cover to cover. Worse yet, the book was wdtten for another rime and purpose. If you are running the British Parliament, Roherts Ru/es afOrder is a dandy and quire use- ful handbook. On the orher hand, if you're mUlling a meeting of a five- member body with a few members of the public in attendance, a simplified version of the rules of parliamentary procedure is in order. Hence, rhe birth of "Rosenberg's Rules of Order." This publication covers the rules of parliamentary procedure based on my 20 years of experience chairing meetings in state and local government. These rules have been simplified and slimmed down for 21st century meetings, yet they retain the basic tenets of order to which we are accustomed. ((Rosenberg's Rules of Order" are sup~ ported by the following four principles: 1. Rules should establish order. The first purpose of the rules of parlia~ mentary procedure is to establish a framework for the orderly conduct of meetings. 2. Rules should be clear. Simple rules lead to wider understanding and participation. Complex rules create two classes: those who understand and participate and those who do not, fully understand and do not fully participate. 3. Rules should be user-friendly. That is, the fules must be simple enough that citizens feel they have been able to participate in the process. 4. Rules should enforce the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. The ultimate purpose of the rules of procedure is to encourage discussion and to facili- tate decision-making by the body. In a democracy, the majority rules. The rules must enable the majority to express itself and fashion a result, while permitting the minority to also express itself (but not dominate) and fully participate in the process. The Chairperson Should Take a Back Seat During Discussions While all members of the governing body should know and understand the rules of parliamentary procedure, it is the chairperson (chair) who is charged with applying the rules of conduct. The chair should be well versed in those There are exceptions to the general rule of free and open debate on motions. The exceptions all apply when there is a desire to move on. by Dave Rosenberg rules, because the chail; for all intenrs and purposes, makes the final ruling on the rules. In fact, all decisions by the chair are final unless overruled by the governing body itself. Because the chair conducts the meeting. it is common courtesy for the chair to take a less active role than other mem- bers of the body in debates and discus- sions. This does not mean that the chair should not panicipate in the debate or discussion. On the contrary, as a mem- ber of the body, the ch~ir has full rights to participate in debates, discussions and decision-making. The chair should, however, strive to be the last to speak at the discussion and debate stage, and should not make or second a motion unless he or she is convinced that no other member of the body will do s.o. The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion Formal meetings normally have a written, published agenda; informal meetings may have only an oral or understood agenda. In either case, the meeting is governed by the agenda and the agenda constitutes the body's agreed-upon road map for the meeting. And each agenda item call be handled by the chair in the following basic format. First, the chair should clearly announce the agenda item number and should clearly state what the subject is. The chair should then announce the format that will be followed. Second, following that agenda format, the chair should invite the appropriate people to report on the item, including any recommendation they might have. The appropriate person may be the chail; a member of the governing body, www.cacitles.org 1 Rosenberg's Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedure for the 21 sf Century a staff person, or a committee chair charged with providing information about the agenda item. Third, the chair should ask members of the body if they have any technical questions for clarification. At this point, members of the governing body may ask clarifying questions to the people who reported on the item, and they should be given time to respond. Fourth, the chair should invite public comments or, if appropriate at a formal meeting, open the meeting [Q public input. If numerous. members of the pub- lic indicate a desire to speak to the sub- ject, the chair may limit the time of each public speaker. At the conclusion of the public comments, the chair shduld ann- ounce that public input has concluded (or that the public heal'ing, as the case may be, is closed). Hfth, the chair should hwite a motion from the governing body members. The chair should announce the name of the member who makes the motion. Sixth, the chair should determine if any member of the body wishes to second the motion. The chair should announce the name of the member who seconds the motion. It is normally good practice fOl" a motion to require a second before proceeding with it, to ensure that it is not just one member of the body who is interested in a particular approach. Howeverj a second is not an absolute requirement, and the chair can proceed with consideration and a vote on the motion even when there is no second. This is a matter left to the discretion of the chair. Seventh, if the motion is made and sec- onded, the chair should make sure every- one understands the motion. This is done in one of three ways: 1. The chair can ask the maker of the motion to repeat it; 2. The chair can repeat the motion; or 3. The chair can ask the secretary or the clerk of the body to repeat the motion. 2 League of California Ci~ies Eighth, the chair should now invite dis- cussion of the motion by the members of the governing body. If there is no desired discussion or the discussion has e:q.ded, the chair should announce that the body will vote on the motion. If there has been no discussion or a very brief discussion, the vote should proceed imrnediately. and there is no need to re- peat the motion. If there has been sub- stantial discussion, it is normally best to make sure everyone understands the motion by rep~ating it. Motions are made in a simple two-step process. First, the chair recognizes the member. Second, the member makes a motion by preceding the member's desired approach with the words: "I move..." A typical motion might be: "I move that we give 1 0 days' notice in the future for all our meetings," The chair usually initiates the motion by: 1, Inviting the members to make a motion:"'A motion at this time would be in order." Debate on policy is healthy; debate on personalities is not. The chair has the right to cut off discussion that is too personal, too loud or too crude. Ninth, the chair takes a vote. Simply asking for the "ayes" and then the "nays" is normally sufficient. If members of the body do not vote, then they "abstain." Unless, the rules of rhe body provide otherwise or unless a super-majority is required (as delineated later in these rules), a simple majority determines whether the motion passes or is defeated. Tenth, the dlair should announce the result of the vote and should announce what action (if any) the body has taken. In announcing the result, the chair should indicate the names of the mem- bers, if any, who voted in the minority on the motion. This announcemellt might take the following form: "The motion passes by a vote of 3-2, with . Sm:th and Jones dissenting. We have passed the motion requiring 10 days' notice for all future meetings of this governing body." Motions in General Motions are the vehicles for decision- making. It is usually best to have a mot- ion before the governing body prior to discussing an agenda item, to help every- one focus on the motion before them. 2. Suggesting a motion to the members: ''A motion would be in order that we give 10-days' notice in the future for all our meetings." 3. Making the motion. As noted) the chair has every right as a member of the body to make a motion, bur normally should do so only if he or she wishes a motion to be made bur no other member seems willing to do so. The Three Basic Motions Three motions are the most common: 1. The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward a deci- sion for consideration. A basic mot- ion might be: "I move that we create a five-member cOlnmittee to plan and put on our annual fundraisel'," 2. The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion that is under discussion, he or she would move to amend it. A motion to amend might be: ,"I move that we amend the motion to have a 1 O~ member committee.>> A motion to amend takes the basic motion that is before the body and seeks to change it in some way. 3. The substitute motion. If a member wants to completely do away with the basic motion under discussion and put a new motion before the goveming bodYI he Of she would "move a substitute motion." A substi- tute motion might be: "I move a sub~ stitute motion that Wf; cancel the annual fundraiseI' this yeaI'. " Motions to an'l.end and substitute mo- dons are often confused. But they are quite different, and so is their effect, if passed. A motion to amend seeks to retain the basic morion on the'floor, but to modify it in some way. A substitute morion seeks to throw out t'he basic motion on the floor and substi- tute a new and different motion for it. The decision as to whether a motion is really a motion to amend or a substitute motion is left to the chair. So that if a member makes what that member calls a motioll to amend, but the chair deter- mines it is really a substitute motion, the chaies designation governs. When Multiple Motions Are Before The Governing Body Up to three rP-otions may be on the floor simultaneously. The chair may reject a fourth motion until the three that are on the Aoor have been resolved. When .twO or three motions are on the floor (after motions and seconds) at the same time, theftrst vote should be on the last marion made. So, for exam~ pIe, assume the first marion is a basic "motion to have a five~member commit- tee to plan and put on our annual fund- raiser." During the discussion of this motion, a member might make a second motion to <{amend the main motion to have a 1 O~member committee, not a five-member committee, to plan and put on our annual fundraiser." And per- haps, during that discussion, a member makes yet a third motion as a <'substitute motion that we not have an annual fundraiser this year.n The proper proce- dure would be as follows. Rosenberg's Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedu1'i? for the 21st CentUlJ First, the chair would deal with the third (the last) motion on the floor, the substitute morion. After discussion and debate, a vote would be taken first on the thitd motion. If the substitute motion passes, it would be a substitute for the basic motion and would elimi- nate it. The first motion would be moot, as would the' second motion (which sought to amend the first motion), and the action on the agenda item would be complete. No vote would be taken on the first or second motions. On the other hand, if the substitute motion (the third motion) ftiled, the chair would proceed to consideration of th'e second (now the last) motion on the floorl the motion to amend. If the substitute motion failed, the . chair would then deal with the second (now the last) motion on the floor, the motion to amend. The discussion and debate would foclls strictly on the amendment (should the committee be five 01" 10 members). If the motion to amend passed, the chair would now move to consider the main motion (the first motion) as amended. If the motion to amend failed, the chair would now move to consider the main motion (the first motion) in its original format, not amended. To Debate or Not to Debate The basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion and debate. Accordingly, basic motions, !!lotions to amend, and substitute Illations are all eligible, each in their turn, for full dis- c;::ussion before and by the body. The debate can continue as long as members of the body wish to discuss an item I sub~ ject to the decision of the chair that it is time to move on and take action. There are exceptions to the general rule of free and open debate on motions. The exceptions all apply when there is a desire of the body to move on. The fol- lowing motions are not debatable (that is, when the following mo'tions are made and seconded; the chair must immedi~ ately call for a vote of the body without debate on the motion): A motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. This motion requires a simple majority vote. A motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately take a recess. Normally; the chair deter- mines the length of the recess, which may range from a few minutes to an hour. It requires a simple majority vote. The challenge for anyone chairing a public meet- ing is to accommodate public input in a timely and time-sensitive way, while maintaining steady progress through the agenda items. Third, the chair would now deal with the first motion that was placed on the floor. The original motion would either be in its original format (five-member committee) or, if amended, would be in its amended format (10-member com- mittee). And the question on the floor for discussion and decision would be whether a committee should plan and put on the annual fundraiseI'. A motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to adjourn the meeting at the specific time set in the motion. For example, the motion might be: "1 move we adjourn this meeting at midnight." It requires a simple majority vote. A motion to table. This motion, if passed, requireS discussion of the agenda item to be halted and the agenda item to www.cacities.org 3 Rosenberg's Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedure for the 21st Century be placed on "hold." The motion may comain a specific time in which the item can come back to the body: "I move we table this item until our regu- lar meeting in October." Or the motion may contain no specific time for the return of the item, in which case a motion to take the item off the table and bring it back to the body will have to be taken at a future meeting. A motion to table an item (or to bring it back to the body) requires a simple majority vote. A motion to limit debate. The most common form of this motion is to say: "I move the previous question" or <II move the question" or "I call for the question." When a member ohhe body makes such a motion, the member is really saying: "I've had enough debate. Lds get on with the vote." When such a motion is made, the chair should ask fat' a second. to the motion, stop debate, and vote on the motion to liInitdebate. The motion to limit debate requires a two.thil'ds vote of the body. Note that a motion to limit debate could include a time limit. For example: e'l move we limit debate on this agenda item to 15 minutes." Even in this format, the the motion fails. If one member is ab- sent and the vote is 3-3, the motion still fails. All motions require a simple majority, but there are a few exceptions. Th~ exceptions occur when the body is taking an action that effectively cuts off the ability of a minority of the body to take <\11 action or discllss an item. These extraordinary motions require a two-thirds majority (a super-majority) to pass: Motion to limit debate. Whether a member says, "I move the previous question," "I move the question," "I call for the question" or "1 move to limit debate," it all amounts to an attempt to CUt off "the ability of the minority to dis- cuss an item, and it requires a two~thirds vote to pass. Motion to close nominations. When chooslng officers of the body, such as the chair, nominations are in order either fmm a nominating committee Of fmm the Root" of the body. A motion to close norninations effectively cuts off the right of the minority to nominate officers, and it require~ a two-thirds vote to pass. If you are running the British Parliament, Robert's Rules of Order is a dandy and quite useful handbook motion to limit debate requires a two- thirds vote of the body. A similar mot- ion is a motion to object to comideration of an item. This motion is not debatable, and if passed, precludes the body frolll even considering an item on the agenda. It also requires a two-thirds vote. Majority and Super-Majority Votes In a democracy, decisions are made with a simple majority vote. A tie vote means the motion fails. So in a seven-member body. a vote of 4-3 passes the motion. A vote of 3-3 with OtlC abstention means 4 League of California Cities Motion to object to the consideration of a question. Normally. such a motion is unnecessary, because the objectionable item can be tabled or defeated straight up. However, when members of a body do not even want an item on the agenda to be considered, then such a motion is in order. It is not debatable, and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass. Motion to suspend the rules. This motion is debatable. but requires a two~ thirds vote to pass. If the body has its own rules of order, conduct or proce- dure, this motion allows the body to sus- pend the rules for a particular purpose. For example, the body (a private club) tY{ight .have a wle prohibiting the atten- dance at meetings by non-club mem- bers. A motion to suspend the rules would be in order to allow a non-club member to attend a meeting of the club on a particular date or on a particular agenda item. The Motion to Reconsider Thefe is a special and unique motion that requires a bit of explanation all by itself: the motion to reconsider. A tenet of parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion, debate and a vote, there must be some closure to the issue. And so, after a vote is taken, the matter is deemed closed, subject only to reopening if a proper motion to reconsider is made. A motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to pass, but there are two special rules that apply only to the motion to reconsider. First is the matter of timing. A motion to reconsider must be made at the meet- ing where the item y.ras first voted upon or at the very next meeting of the body. A motion to reconsider made at a later time is untimely. (The body, however, can always vote to suspend the rules and, by a two-thirds majority, allow a motion to reconsider to be made at another time.) Second, a motion to reconsider may be made only by certain members of the body. Accordingly, a motion to recon- sider may be made only by a member who voted in the majority on the origi- nal motion. If such a member has a change of heart. he or she may make the motion to reconsider (any other mem- ber of the body Illay second the motion). If a member who voted in the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider, it must be ruled out of order. The pur- pose of this rule is finality. If a member or the minority could make a motion to reconsider, then the item could be brought back to the body again and again. which would defeat the purpose of finality. If the motion to reconsider passes, then the original matter is back before the body, and a new original motion is in order. The matter may be discussed and debated as if it were on the floor for the first time. Courtesy and Decorum The rules of order are meant to create an atmosphere where the members of the body and the members of the public can attend to business efficiently, fairly and with full participation. And at the same time, it is up to the chair and the members of the body to maintain COI;n~ mon courtesy and decorum. Unless the setting is very informal, it is always best for only one person at a time to have the floor, and it is always best for every Rosenberg, Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedure fOr the 21st Century It is usually best to have a motion before the gov- erning body prior to discussing an agenda item, to help everyone focus. lege relate to anything that would inter- fere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example, the room may be too hot or too cold, or a blowing fan might interfere with a person's ability to hear. Order. The proper interruption would be: "Point qf order, II Again, the chair would ask the interrupter to "state your point." Appmpriate points of order Motions to amend and substitute motions are' often confused. But they are quite different, and so is their effect, if passed. speaker to be first recognized by the chair before proceeding to speak. The chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an agenda item focus on the item and the policy in ques- tion, not on the personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is healthy; debate on personalities is not. The chair has the right to cut off discus- sion that is too personal, too loud or too crude. Debate and discussion should be fo- cused, but free and open. In the interest of time, the chair may, however, limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body. Can a member of the body interrupt the speaker? The general rule is no. There are, however, exceptions. A speaker may be interrupt- ed for the following reasons: Privilege. The proper interruption would be: "Point of privilege." The chair would then ask the interrupter to "state your point." Appropriate points of privi- relate to anything that would not be considered appmpriate conduct of the meeting; for example, if the chair moved on to a vote on a motion that permits debate without allowing that discussion or debate. Appeal. If the chait makes a ruling that a member of the body disagrees with, that member may appeal the ruling of the chair. If the motion is seconded and after debate, if it passes by a simple majority vote, then the ruling of the chair is deemed reversed. Call for orders of the day.. This is sim- ply another way of saying, "Let's return to the agenda." If a member believes that the body has dtifted ftom the agteed- upon agenda, such a call may be made. It does not require a vote, and when the chair discovers that the agenda has not been followed, the chair simply reminds the body to return to the agenda item ptoperly befote them. If the chait fails to do so, the chair's determination may be appealed. Withdraw a motion. During debate and discussion of a motion, the maker of the motion on the floor, at any time, may interrupt a speaker to withdraw his or her motion from the floor. The motion is immediately deemed with- drawn, although the chair may ask the person ~ho seconded the motion if he or she wishes to make the motion, and any other member may make the motion if properly recognized. Special Notes About Public Input The rules outlined here help make meet- ings very public-friendly. But in addi- tion, and particularly for the chair, it is wise to remember three special rules that apply to each agenda item: Rule Oue: Tell the public what the body will be doing. Rule Two: Keep the public informed while the body is doing it. . Rule Three: When the body has acted, tell the public what the body did. Public input is essential to a healthy democracy, and community pal:ricipa- tion in public meetings is an important element of that input. The challenge for anyone chairing a public meeting is to accommodate public input in a timely and time-sensitive way, while maintain- ing steady progress through the agenda items. The rules presented here for con- ducting a meeting are offered as tools for effective leadership and as a means of developing sOllnd pubJic policy. ~ www.cacltles.org 5 e south robertson neighborhoods council eny of LQ' Angeles Certified Nel9.hl>Ol'hood C-ouncll Rosenberg's Rules of Order at a Glance The Three Basic Motions Simple majority to pass / open to debate Basic Motion: "I move that we..." Motion to Amend: suggests changes to the basic motion. Motion to Substitute: replaces the basic motion entirely. Special Motions Simple majority to pass / no debate, goes directly to vote Motion to'Adjourn: ends the meeting. Motion to Fix a Time to Adjourn: ends the meeting at a set time. Motion to Recess: break in the meeting. Chair sets iength of the break. Motion to Table: defers the motion under discussion to a future date, Motions that Permanently Close Discussion 2/3 majority to pass / no debate, goes directly to vote Motion to Limit Debate: stops debate. "I move the question." Motion to Close Nominations: stops new nominations for a position. Motion to Object to the Consideration of a Question: rare, stronger form of tabling. Used before debate has begun. Motion to Suspend the Rules: temporarily changes meeting rules. Cannot be used to suspend non-parliamentary bylaws. Can be debated. Meeting Interruptions May be used at any time. Chair responds by asking you to state your point. Pointof Privilege: points out uncomfortable surroundings, like a cold room or being unable to hear a speaker. , Point of Order: points out faiiure to follow correct meeting procedures. Call for Orders of the Day: points out that the discussion has strayed from the agenda. Appeal: reverses a Chair's ruling when passed by simple majority. Requires a second and can be debated. Withdraw a Motion: used by the person making the motion. Others may immediately reintroduce the motion if they wish. Motion to Reconsider Simple majority to pass / open to debate May only be made by a member who previously voted in the majority tor the item. Must be made during the same meeting (or at the very next meeting, assuming it's been added to the agenda). Attachment 2 Life of a Motion 1. Chair announces item subject and number 2. Sponsor introduces item 3. Board asks technical questions for clarification purposes 4. Public comment on the item 5. Chair asks for motion 6. Chair asks for second 7. Board debates motion a. Board votes 9. Chair announces resuit Notes: . All motions require a second before they can be voted upon. . You must be recognized by the Chair before speaking. Chair may set limits on debate time or number of speakers. Abstentions don't count in vote tally. A tie vote fails to pass. To recuse, publicly state reason for recusal and leave room during debate and vote.