The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Comm PKT 06-18-2003 03 City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROV AL OF MINUTES 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS . WORKSHOP Oversized Vehicle Code Amendment Robert's Rules of Order 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN Commissioners John Caulfield. Chair Dini Due/os William Drake Grant Newport Tony Moore (Alternate #2) Lawson Bronson (Alternate #4) Hope Elder, Vice-Chair Dave Osaki Marta Justus Foldi Christine Nelson (Alternate #1) Merle Pfeifer (Alternate #3) City Staff Kathy McClung, CDS Director Margaret Clark, Senior Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-661-4105 www.cityofJederalwm'.com KIPlanning Commission\2003IAgenda 06-18-03.docILast printed 6112/2003 II :24 AM City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting March 19,2003 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Grant Newport, Dini Duclos, and Bill Drake. Commissioners absent (excused): Marta Justus Foldi. Alternate Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, Tony Moore, and Christine Nelson. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Lori Michaelson, Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ApPROVAL OF SUMMARY It was m/slc (one abstain) to adopt the December 4, 2002, minutes. It was m/slc to adopt the March 5, 2003 minutes. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRA TIYE REPORT Ms. Clark announced that the City Council approved the text changes to the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. Site-Specific Request #1 was denied and the other site-specific requests were approved. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ~ Design Guidelines and Definition of Height Code Amendments, Continued It was III/sic to re-open the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Clark gave the staff report, which was a response to the Commissioner's questions and concerns. She stated that these code amendments are proposed to address problems with the current code. Some churches have sought a variance to the height requirements. The purpose of the code amendments is to make this unnecessary. In addition, there have been difficulties with the interpretation of the definition of height. The intent of the proposed code amendments is to make the definition less ambiguous. One question the Planning Commission had regarded light fixtures and how the height would be determined for institutional uses. Staff researched the issue and determined that the base height for buildings in zones where institutional uses are allowed is 30 to 35 feet. In addition, the Public Works KIl'lannll1g CummISsionl20UJIMeeting Summary OJ-I 9-03 - Corrected duc " Planning Commission Summary Page 2 March 19,2003 Department uses 30 feet for streetlights on local streets. Based on this, staff determined the height for lighting fixtures would be 30 feet and that cutoff shields shall be included. One other aspect taken into consideration is that if the height for lighting fixtures were left at 20 feet, the developer would have to use more fixtures and those fixtures would be out of scale with the building. The Planning Commission asked if landscaping requirements for buildings adjacent toright-of-ways and residential zones would provide sufficient visual screening so that the need for building modulation could be reduced or eliminated. Staff responded that the code says that modulation is required only if the building is visible. The landscaping required varies from "partial visual separation" to "solid screening." The final issue the Planning Commission was concerned with is whether there is a cost impact to designing a building with a major structural modulation in order for it to comply with seismic requirements. The staff spoke with the Building Official and an outside architect (with input from a structural engineer) and determined there should not be a quantifiable cost. , The Public Testimony was opened at 7:40 p.m. John Manuel, Austinicina Architects - He spoke at the last meeting. He wanted the Commission to know that he has spoken with the staff and supports the proposed code amendments. Gil Hulsmann, Abbey Road Group - He was in charge of the new Windennere building, and therefore, is very familiar with the zoning code. He said they are very happy with the results, which came from following the zoning code's design guidelines. He said the code amendments should bring about more flexibility. He is currently working on a project that will need a variance and is hopeful these code amendments are adopted because they would help with the variance. He is impressed that at Federal Way, the planners start at the preapplication stage and go through the whole process. No other city he has worked with has done the same. Cleveland Hobdy, Pastor of the Love of Life Fellowship Church - He is concerned about the definition of church and school. What if there are two uses in one building? How can they be called a dual use if they are in the same building? It is the same space. Wade Fisher, Brooklake Church - He thanked the staff for their clarification and stated he agrees with the previous testimony. They have a multi-use auditorium that is used for more than just a church. How are setbacks determined for a multi-use building? Rick Bud, Calvary Community Church - He thanked the staff for the opportunity to comment. He stated that they welcome most guidelines. He said they find them helpful and they have a great deal of flexibility. Merle Pfeifer, Alternate Planning Commissioner - He commented on the proposed code amendment for dormers that says if the total roof area of dormers exceed 35 percent of the total area of the underlying sloped roof, height will be measured to the ridge of the highest principal gable. He feels this is dictating to architects. He said the side view of a residential structure with multiple dormers does not look too bulky. Steve Hammer, Broweleit, Peterson, Hammer Architects - He commented on the seismic design issue. He stated that at the last meeting the comment was made that if the applicant is required to do significant structural modulation, it could impact the cost of the seismic design of the KIPlanning Commission\2003lMeeting Summary 03-19-03 - CoITected.doclLast printed 6/18/2003 303 PM Planning Commission Summary Page 3 March 19,2003 building. This is not true. Design guidelines do impact the cost if modulation is required, but not the cost of the seismic design. He supports the proposed code amendments. For lighting fixtures, he would like the code to define what is "large" (in regards to large institutional use) and suggested five acres. He stated that the design guidelines cannot address all issues and feels the staff interprets some "should" regulations as "shalL" The more you define terms, the more success you will have. He feels this code amendment is headed in the right direction by clarifying definitions. He questioned whether 15 feet for religious icons is enough and said he would support higher for larger buildings. Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner - He asked if other cities regulate religious icons and if they do not, why are we? Also, why restrict to just one religious icon? He would support no restriction of religious icons. He also wonders since there are no view corridors in Federal Way, why are we restricting height? He agrees with Mr. Pfeifer on the issue of dormers. He asked if putting a definition for height in the zoning code is repeating information found in the building code. Roddy Nolten -He is not criticizing modulation, but feels it could increase the cost. He would like the staff to consider what the building would look like, rather than just follow the rules. The Public Testimony was closed at 8: 13 p.m. Ms. Clark commented that there can be flexibility in regards to churches with multiple-uses. The staff would work with the applicant to determine the primary use of the building. The Planning Commission then went over each proposed code amendment. In response to the comment on defining what is "large," the staffwould prefer to leave the determination of what is "large" up to staff. In regards to the use zone charts, the Chairman Caulfield asked why there is a statement protecting view corridors when the City does not have any and is there any risk or liability to the City from this statement? Ms. Clark replied that the language had always been in the code and when the staff had previously suggested it be removed, the City Council wanted it kept as a "placeholder," in case view corridors are recognized. Ms. Kirkpatrick responded that there is no risk or liability to the City as a result of this statement because it is a placeholder. It was m/slc to recommend adoption ofthe proposed code amendments as amended in the March 19,2003, memorandum. It was m/s/c to close the public hearing at 8: 18 p.m. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS There was some confusion over whether the vote should be held before or after closing the public hearing. Ms. Kirkpatrick said the vote could stand and she would research the issue. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03.19-03 - Corrected.doclLast printed 6/1812003 3 :03 PM City of FederalWay PLANNING COMMISSION Regular MeetiM~ May 21,2003 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Grant Newport, and Dini Duclos. Commissioners absent (excused): Marta Justus Foldi and Bill Drake. Alternate Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer and Lawson Bronson. Alternate Commissioners absent (excused): Tony Moore and Christine Nelson. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Consultant Janet Shull, Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ApPROV AL OF SUMMARY A question arose regarding a statement in the meeting summary and the Clerk of the Commission was asked to review the tape and correct the statement if it is incorrect. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRA TIVE REPORT Moved to the end of the meeting. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - Changes to Business Park Use Zone Charts Code Amendments It was III/sic to open the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Clark introduced Janet Shull of Janet Shull Designs who gave the staff presentation. The City received two requests from citizens to amend the Business Park zone to: I. Allow more office space per tcnant. 2. Allow existing nonconforming single tenant office buildings to be permitted outright. The requests went before the City Council and were deemed to have merit. Ms. Shull presented three options for each request, which are outlined in the staff report. In order to eliminate confusion, staff developed a new use zone chart for office in Business Park (BP) (Exhibit A in the staff report). Therefore, K \Planning Commission\2001\Med;ng Summary 05.21.0} doc 4--. Planning Commission Summary Page 2 May 21,2003 the notes pertaining to office use are to be removed from the other BP use zone charts (Exhibit B in the staff report). Staff developed three options in response to each request (see the Staff Report). In response to request # 1, the staff recommendation is Option B: ~ Allow office use to utilize up to 50 percent of the total gross area of one or more buildings located on the same parcel in the BP zone. . This is a change from emphasis on the tenant to the building/parcel. Meaning that a building/parcel could have one or more tenants that are solely office, and others that are light industrial, so long as the office tenant(s) occupy no more than 50 percent ofthe building/parcel. In response to request #2, the staff recommendation is Option C: ~ Allow office use as a stand-alone use only on parcels in the BP zone that are less than 1.5 acres in size, were platted prior to incorporation, and are not under common ownership. In their research, staff discovered that many parcels in the BP zone are less than 1.5 acres in size and many of those are stand alone office use. They are currently legally nonconfonning and this amendment would make them confonning. Staff feels it is important to have some land in the City dedicated to light industrial use, which is why they applied this amendment to parcels less than 1.5 acres in size. The Commission asked how many parcels exist outside the BP zone for office and what input could this have on them? Staff replied that theydo not have this infonnation, but they know that there is vacant office space. If BP were to be fully opened up to office, this could have an impact on other office zones. The Commission opened the hearing to Public Testimony. Bob Hart, Fedway Associates II LP - He stated there would be design issues when converting a building designed for industrial use to one for office use. The parking is less for industrial, there are loading docks, and the buildings tend to be longer with fewer windows. He said the staff/Commission should not designate a percentage for office use. The amount of office needed is different for different buildings. Some may only need about 10 percent of their building for office; others may need 70 percent for office. Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner - He commented that all uses in place before the City incorporated should be grandfathered. They should be considered confonning and allowed to make any improvements they want and/or need. If the type of business changes, then they should be required to confonn to the current zoning code. The Commission expressed concern that under the staff recommendation, there would still be nonconforming office use in the BP zone. Staff responded that to their knowledge, there is only one parcel that would remain nonconfonning under this code amendment. Commissioner Elder commented that office is our strength in this City. We should allow the market to dictate and therefore allow office without restrictions in the BP zone and thereby, build upon our strength. It was m/s/c (four yes, one no) to adopt the staff recommendation (Request #1, Option B), to allow office use to utilize up to 50 percent of the total gross area of one or more buildings located on the same parcel in the BP zone. It was m/s/c (four yes, one no) to adopt the staff recommendation (Request #2, Option C), to allow office use as a stand-alone use only on parcels in the BP zone that are less than 1.5 acres in size, were platted prior to incorporation, and are not under common ownership. K:\Pianning Commissionl2003IMeeting Summary 05-21..Q3.doclLast printed 611812003 5:57 PM Planning Commission Summary Page 3 May 21,2003 The Public Hearing was closed at 8: 12 p.m. The Commission asked if there was intent to review the BP zone? Staff replied that the City Council has approved a review of the BP zone that will look at such items as the mix of uses, traffic concerns/impacts, economic development, and more. The Commission feels strongly that the BP zone neéds to be reviewed for intent, uses, and best interest for the City. They also feel the trigger for nonconforming needs to be reviewed. Many of the issues they see deal with nonconforming and how the changes/improvements owners want to make exceed the trigger. It may be that the trigger should be changed. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Ms. McClung intrcx:luced Karen Jorgensen, the City's new Assistant City Attorney. Ms. Jorgensen will be working with Community Development. Ms. McClung commented that the staff is in full agreement with the Commission on reviewing the BP zone. The next Planning Commission meeting will be June 18 and the topics will be oversized vehicles and a presentation on Robert's Rules of Order. We will also meet July 2, unless there will not be a quorum. She asked Commissioners to let her know whether they will be in attendance or not. We have completed the 2002 Comprehensive Plan updates and will be starting the 2003 very soon. At this point, the staff only has specific parcel requests to review, no changes to chapters. Different City departments are working on aspects that if they are completed, we may have chapter updates for the comprehensive plan. The PAA study continues and we hope to be done by the end of the year. We have selected a consultant for the Downtown Planned Action SEP A. Improvements have been made to the City's Geographic Information System. We will let you know when a presentation on the improvements will be given to the LUTC so you may come to the meeting, or watch it on TV. Kitt's Comer is slowly making process. Ms. McClung met with them last week. The City will begin to accept application for Passports in June. The Volunteer Banquet is Friday, May 30. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. K:\Planning Commission\2oo3IMeeting Summary 05-21-03.doclLast printed 6/18/2003 5:57 PM ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapto- 22, Article XIII, Division 11, "Vehicles and Boats" (Oversized Vehicles) Planning Commission Meeting of June 18,2003 I. BACKGROUND Over the years, the City's Code Compliance Officer has received many complaints from citizens regarding the parking of oversized commercial vehicles on lots within residential zones. However, the limitations ofthe language in Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1176 concerning oversize vehicles have created problems in responding to citizen complaints about commercial vehicles and equipment stored on residential lots. As time permits during the year, staff prepares amendments of a housekeeping nature to address problems such as this. The purpose of this revision is to better define the types and nature of vehicles normally prohibited from being stored on a residential lot, yet accommodate to an appropriate extent vehicles normally associated with a residence. II. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS FWCC Seetion 22-1176, "Size and Use in Residential Zones Limited" states: Except as specified in FWCC 22-1177, it is a violation of this chapter to park or store any vehicle or boat on any lot in a residential zone if that vehicle or boat is both more than nine feet in height and more than 22 feet in length. Since commercial vehicles are not currently defined in the code, this language allows large commercial vehicles less than nine feet tall and 22 feet long to be parked on lots in residential zones. Proposed amendments would include a new definition for "commercial vehicle" and would address the types of vehicles that are prohibited, rather than prohibiting vehicles solely on size (please refer to Table I, page 3). A. New Definition of Commercial Vehicle The following definition would be added to FWCC Section 22-1, "Definitions": Commercial vehicle means any truek over 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), as defined in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the principal use of which is the transportation of commodities, vehicles, merchandise, produce, freight, or animals. In addition, language will be crafted to prohibit the storage of bulldozers, backhoes, cranes, and similar construction equipment on a lot in residential zones. B. Exemptions The following vehicles would be not be regulated by FWCC Section 22-1176: a) Pick-up or light trucks, 10,000 GVWR or less, with or without a mounted camper unit, which are primarily used for transportation purposes. b) Recreational and utility vehicles such as travel trailers, folding tent trailers, motor homes, truck campers removed from a truck or pick-up, horse trailers, boat trailers with or without boats, and utility trailers based on the following conditions: 1. Vehicles shall not intrude into public rights-of-way and pedestrian pathways, or obstruct sight visibility from adjaeent driveways, regardless of size. Vehicles shall be maintained in a clean, well-kept condition, which does not detract from the appearance of the surrounding area. At no time shall parked or stored recreational vehicles be occupied or used as a permanent or temporary dwelling unit, except as permitted under Section 22-1179. Vehicles in excess of 28 feet in length may not be parked or stored in a front required yard. 2. 3. 4. c) Vehicles used for agricultural purposes in Single-Family Residential (RS) 35 and Suburban Estates (SE) zones, or as may be permitted pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1177. c. Existing Language to be Retained FWCC Section 22-1177, "Exceptions": (a) A vehicle of any size may be parked on any lot in the City for not more than 48 hours for the exclusive purpose of loading or unloading the vehicle. (b) The City may, using Process III, approve a request to park or store a vehicle or boat of any size on a lot in a residential zone if: (1) The parking or storage ofthe vehicle or boat will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood; (2) The property abutting the subject property will not be impacted by the parking or storage; (3) The placement of the vehicle or boat will not create a potential fire hazard; and (4) The parking or storage is clearly accessory to a residential use on the subject property and the vehicle or boat is operated by a resident of the subject property. Workshop on Oversized Vehicles Code Amendment Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 FWCC Section 22-1178, "Additional Requirements": The City may impose sereening requirements, limit the hours of operation, and impose other restrictions to eliminate adverse impacts of the parking or storage. FWCC Section 22-1179, "Limitation on Use": It is a violation of this chapter to sleep in, or use for any other residential purpose, a vehicle or boat parked in a residential zone for more than 14 days in any ISO-day period. TABLE 1 Vehicle Current Code Proposed Code Pick-up truck (1 ton) 10,000 Pennitted (typically would not Pennitted GVWR or less exceed 9' high and 22' long) Commercial truck (approximately Pennitted if under 22' long or Not Pennitted 1.5 ton) over 10,000 GVWR under 9' high Excavation equipment (e.g., Pennitted if under 22' long or Not Pennitted backhoes, shovels, track-hoes) under 9' high Cab-over diesel tractor Pennitted if under 22' long or Not Pennitted under 9' high Recreational vehicles Not pennitted if over 9' high Pennitted if under 28' in length and can and more than 22' long be accommodated completely on driveway. More than 28' would require enclosure or special provisions. Cannot be stored within front yard setback. Commercial grade dump truck Pennitted if under 22' long or Not Pennitted under 9' high Flat-bed trailers (commercial) Pennitted if under 22' long or Not Pennitted under 9' high I:\DOCUMENlìO\t:rsized Vehicles\06I 803 Planning Commission StaffReport.DOC/06/12/2003 I I: 19 AM Workshop on Oversized Vehicles Code Amendment Planning Commission Staff Report Page 3 ~ i=ëderal Way Amending FWCC 22-1176 Why is this code amendment needed? FWCC 22-1176- Current Language . Except as specified in FWCC 22-1177, it is a violation of this chapter to park or store any vehicle or boat on any lot in a residential zone if that vehicle or boat is both more than nine feet in height and more than 22 feet in length. 1 A Sample of Vehicles Currently Permitted '5""".""""'31'" ,~"'.,i~,,NIDU . The following photos illustrate what types of vehicles are currently permitted on residentially zoned property. All the vehicles pictured are in compliance with 22-1176. Dump truck - currently permitted (not more than 22' long) 2 Conventional tractor - currently permitted (not over 9' high) Construction equipment - currently permitted 3 eavy commercia tow truck - currently permitted (not over 9' high) 22-1 Proposed Definition of "Commercial vehicle:" :;::;:,:"~,:: . a) Any truck over lOrDDD Ibs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), as defined in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the principal use of which is the transportation of commoditiesr vehicles, merchandise, produce, freight or animals, or . b) Bulldozers, backhoesr cranes and similar construction equipment. Proposed Exemptions .. 'W""',' . a) Pick-up or ligtt trucks, 10,000 CNWR or less, with or withOO: a mounted camper unit, vt1ich are primarily used f<l transportation purpose;, and . b) Recreational and utilty vehicles such as travel trailers, folding tent trailers, motorhorres, truck campe-s removed rom a truck or pick-up, horse trailers, IDat trailers with or withot.t boats, and utiliII' trailers. . c) Vehicles used for agricultural purpose; in Single-Family Residential (RS 25 and Suburban Esües (SE) zones, or as may be permitted pursuant to FWCC section 221177. " 4 Existing Language to be Retained . Fmr Secäon 22-1177, "Exœpöons": . (a) A vehicle of any size may be par1<ed on any lot in the Oty for not more than 48 hours for the exdusive purpose of loading or unloading the vehicle. . (b) The Oty may, using Process UI. approve a request to park or store a vehicle or boat of any size on a lot in a residential zone W: (1) The par1dng or storage of the vehicle or boat will not be detrimental to the character of the neighbort1ood; (2) The property abutting the subject property will not be impacted by the par1dng or storage; (3) The placement of the vehicle or boat will not create a potential fire hazard; and (4) The par1dng or storage Is dearly accessory to a residential use on the subject property and the vehicle or boat is operated by a resident of the subject i1""P"rty. Related Sections to be Retained . 22-1178 Permits the City to impose screening requirements and other restrictions on vehicle parking and storage. . 22-1179 Allows for visitors to sleep in or use a vehicle or boat in a residential zone for not more than 14 days in any 180 day period. The "guest" or "visitor" provision. Summary of Proposed Amendment . Prohibit commercial vehicles and heavy equipment from being stored on residential property. . Retain those sections that allow for expected and normal vehicle storage and uses in residential zones. 5 Basic Principles ~ Purpose is to facilitate the transaction of business ~ The organization is paramount ~ All members are equal, bu t majority decides ~ Only one main proposition al a time ~ Only one member can have the floor at a time ~ Full debate allowed on all questions Basic Definitions ~ Quorum - minimum number of members required to Ira nsact business ~ Bylaws - basic regulations ~ Standing Rules - administrative details ~ Motion - formal proposal that an action be taken Order of Precedence ~ Charter (Federal Way City Code) õ< Corporate Charter (City Council Rules of Procedure) ~ Bylaws/Standing Rules (Planning Commission Rules of Procedure) ~ Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition ~ Custom I '. Public Hearings ~ Chair cals meeting to order ~ Clerk conducts rol call ~ Chair opens public hearing ~ Staff report is provided 'tJ Public testimony taken ~ Discussion & questions by Commissioners 'tJ Chair asks for final cormlents ~ Commission has final discussions ~ Chair closes or coriinues the pubic hearing ~ Decision is made to approve, disapprovE\ continue, or rEtJm topic to staff Types of Motions ':i:t- Main Motion - brings a question before the assembly ~ Subsidiary Motion - modifies or dispenses Main Motion ':i:t- Privileged Motion -no connection to Main Motion but demand immediate consideration ':i:t-Incidental Motion -miscellaneous motions; apply to the method of transacting business Main Motion ~ Member makes a motion ~Another member seconds the motion ~ Chair places motion before the group ~ Motion is open for debate ~ Motion is put to a vote ~ Chair announces result 2 Unanimous Consent ~ For routine items or de bate is unlikely ~ Doesn't need a motion or second ~ Chair asks "Is there any objection to..." ~ Chair says "Since there is no objection..." 0< If there is objection, a motion must be made Subsidiary Motions 0< Amend - wording of another motion is modified 0< Postpone to a Certain Time - consider something later 0< Previous Question - stop debate on pending motion and vote 0< Lay on Table - put aside a pending motion 0< limit or Extend limits of Debate 0< Refer to Committee - send to another group for study 0< Postpone Indefinitely - group avoids direct vote on main motion 3 Privileged Motions ~ Recess ~ Adjourn ~ Raise a Question of Privilege ~ Call for Orders of the Day Incidental Motions ~ Point of Order ~ Division of Question ~ Division of Assembly ~ Rescind ~ Point of Information ~ Objection to Consideration of Question ~ Consideration by Paragraph ~ Suspension of Rules ~ Appeal Typesot Motions ~ Main Motion ~ Subsidiary Motion ~ Privileged Motion ~ Incidental Motion " 4