The proposal would split the existing 39.83 acre lot into two lots measuring 33.83, and then parcel B, the newly created, would be about six acres, with three buildable acres. It meets the road frontage requirements for the lot width, as well as the depth and whole lot width requirements.

I walked the property, and I haven't seen any significant issues, so seems pretty straightforward to me.

And on the middle parcel, for many years, there was a landscaping business run there, and there's a lot of material that had been brought in, landscaping rock piled up, a lot of dirt has been hauled in, pallets of pavers, scrap metal. And I'm just curious if there's a remediation plan for all that. Will that be taken off site, or?

And I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I drove by there on Friday. I always try to drive by the properties in question. And there are three for sale signs with flyers up, and it irritates me to no end when we haven't even voted on this to approve it, and the lots are on the market.

The home was constructed in the late 1800s before any sort of zoning requirements. And the proposed addition is behind the dwelling. It meets all of those other six requirements for substandard structures. And so this really is that minimum variance necessary to use the property reasonably, which is a residential dwelling unit that is a little more feasible than a 440 square foot cabin.

It's also really important to us that we honor the character of the land. We have our architect, Tom, here, who is an Afton resident, who helped us over the past two years try to design this property so it fit to the land.

And I'd like to recommend that the city council at least go look at that requirement in the ordinance. If it's not an arterial street, get rid of the 150 feet setback.

The definition of training facility was an indoor training facility operated by a company to train its own employees... The other thing is that over the last few years, we have had a number of these type of use related to sports and sports training that came before the council in work sessions. And the council was generally supportive, but wanted to make sure that two things didn't happen. One is they didn't want any on-site retail... and that they wouldn't generate a high amount of traffic.

I agree. I think that this retail part seems like it's not going to really be functional, really. Because I think people go there and expect that, hey, if they have a... Maybe they get new shoes, right, for their gymnast, or they offer uniforms or outfits or some paraphernalia that's associated with the sport they're training in. So it just seems odd to me.

I'm not looking for the details of that, but these ordinance changes, things that we're going to have to deal with in the future, I would love to see that in the city council reports, especially given what we did today.

First of all, to look at the size of 300 square feet. That by itself is not a practical size based on four-by-eight panel if you do some calculation. So then effectively, you're regulating it down to something like 288 square feet, 280 square feet, not 300.

I recently started looking at replacing a storage shed on our property, and was kind of surprised to see the 160 square foot limitation and the small door size. It's too small to even put a normal size riding lawnmower in.

But if we go to 15, then there'll be people come in with variances for 16 feet. So I think at some point you've got to have a cap, and people are welcome to come and pitch their case for why they have a hardship on storage. But I think you have to put a line somewhere, and no matter where you put the line, someone's going to have a problem with it.

So, what the language in this ordinance amendment indicates is that we prohibit all takeoffs and landings of all gas-powered vehicles and all crewed or manned powered vehicles, with the exception of emergency landings and takeoffs, as they're allowed under FAA regulations.

In my neighborhood, we had something that went up in the air that sounded very, very loud. It looks like a motorized bicycle up in the air... it was kind of a nuisance.

As far as the FAA, that change around that, that actually means you have to follow codes. Those drones that anybody can fly are little Little tiny b*****s. And they have to have certain things. It's really, really small. I got one. Yeah. It is registered with the FAA. Yes. You can also register them, but you don't have to in certain cases. Now, mine, I have one that's registered. I also have one that goes through the exemption process, and it's taking... Well, right now, given our FAA, it took around 10 months of process to get all the licenses to get all the way to my airworthiness certificates. So that's a big deal how the FAA has permitted.

But to me, the fact that the FAA is currently looking at this and getting these definitions cleaned up is the reason we shouldn't touch the ordinance right now. There's so many questions.