Can we add anything about flock cameras or do we- We sure could. Just a discussion, please. How about if we add that as 9C6?

I think there was a discussion, and I'd like to add that you, Mr. Morris, or somebody confirm that this does not start the clock on the 60-day rule, just as a technicality, because I know we talked about that.

I think we should note that we were talking about the old Lurks bar. There's no identification of the building that we were discussing.

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. If we approve this percentage, and we're going to have another, I just want everybody to understand that this is just one year of it. We're going to have to go over 5%. Next year, we're probably going to be looking at this same kind of increase.

The formula's kind of weird to me. We haven't had a joint powers agreement discussion in a long time, and Anyway, there are tax capacities involved in this. There's absolutely no talk about service use or anything like that, and I'm all for we probably have the wealthiest city of the five cities, and I'm fine with us paying a little bit more. But I think we should really be examining what's fair and equitable in terms of service too, that everybody pays their fair share.

The other thing that we really desperately need in the Lower St. Croix Valley with our five cities is to have representation at the state. I can't emphasize that enough. These formulas for us, and what the state does, and it's not their fault, they have no idea what Affton and the other four cities are about here. They treat us like we're the metro area, like we're Woodbury.

We look forward and we hope that this is the first step to a long life in Affton. And we believe that this structure, as well as the life we live out here, will be very well in line with what Affton stands for.

It's because of the age of the structure when it was built. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an issue because it's a non-conforming structure. It's just this weird glitch. We are really strict on variances and this totally meets with our tough standards.

My biggest concern is that there doesn't seem to be very much difference between what we're now calling the training facility, sports training facility, and though, but fitness centers are not allowed. And I was reading those definitions, and I just feel like there's not a lot difference...

We hinged it on the idea of that drop-in, first of all, you can't have drop-in, so unlike Lifetime Fitness, you just drop in wherever you want. So there's this idea that the service they're providing is there's an instructor on site and there's scheduled activities.

This would be by appointment only, training only. And I think it's going to be limited for us in our portfolio to probably certainly less than 30% of the building, probably closer to less than 10 or 15% of the building because for that exact reason. We don't want 126,000 feet and have 10 different sports-related uses with traffic coming in and out.

In the course of reviewing a conditional use permit, you can consider traffic. So if on a particular basis for a particular use of this building, you could take that into consideration and say, 'That is too big for that building. It exceeds 30%, and it generates too much traffic.'

Right now your industrial district has quite a few uses that have specific square footage limits, and they don't use percentage, but putting some sort of cap on that wouldn't be irregular within some of your industrial Definitions.

I did just point out that we talked about the 12 foot limit. And generally, I think we had the idea, whatever limit, whatever number you pick, somebody's going to try to build up to it. After the meeting, I did go take a look at some shed designs and stuff. And I just want to point out, you are de facto, and this is fine, but limiting some of the designs that you can get for a stock one.

I talked around a little tiny bit about, as this is written, it covers every district. And kind of like what I said, that's where I live in the historic district, but I don't know that we want... This is the extra building, right? We always have to keep remembering that. It's not the accessory building, it's the extra building. I don't know that we want to do this in the historic district.

I thought basically that since the FAA is in the process of redefining, especially this area with small engines, drones, ultralights. The ultralight definition is from the '80s. Since that's ongoing, I think it's kind of premature to actually go through and change our ordinance.

I was at the Planning Commission meeting, and I thought it was discussed that 16402 emergency, and this is really picky, but number one, emergency landings and takeoffs of aircraft. I know it sounds super picky, but I thought we added emergency landings and emergency takeoffs- That's true ... to put emergency before takeoffs. You did recommend that.

This really was initially done, if you'll remember, when the developer's agreement has a definition of completion of development, and that says when every lot is developed, and every driveway has been built and all that stuff. Well, there were going to be two lots that were going to be held in trust for who knows how long.

We should require a touch base or something from those HOAs annually, just so that we know they're doing what they're meant to be doing, and they're keeping us kind of updated on it.

It's deer hunting, deer population management, it's firearm use, types of firearms, and I would like this committee to also take a look at some of the stuff that we've heard in the last few months from some of our neighbors about who have maps. If you have a very small lot. We're just going to get a recommendation from this group, but it's something that I think we should consider, which is Cottage Grove has small lots where it's archery only.

I think we should give guidelines to this task force and say that it's open meetings, you're a public entity, you're subject to the open meeting law, which means if a majority of the group is together, seven, that's an open meeting.

I would very much agree with some of the comments on size of group. I'm happy that we got 12 people to volunteer. I think it's great there's that much interest, but if you want the group to be productive, 12 people won't be productive. So I think that's just a challenge, like with any group.