02/09/2016 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2016
5:30 P.M.
EAGAN ROOM—EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER
AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
III. FINAL PLAT (EAGAN WOODS OFFICE PARK 3RD ADDITION) — MSP COMMERCIAL
IV. RESEARCH ON BACKYARD MINIATURE PIGS
V. FIRE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OPTIONS
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
1lf111!_VaL•1l]:7►1►TiI:I►II
Agenda Information Memo
February 9, 2016, Eagan Special City Council Meeting
III. Final Plat (Eagan Woods Office Park 3rd Addition) — MSP Commercial
Action To Be Considered:
To approve a Final Plat (Eagan Woods Office Park 3rd Addition) upon approximately 4.2
acres located at the southwest corner of 1-494 and Pilot Knob Road.
Required Vote For Approval:
➢ Final Plat — Majority of Councilmembers present
Facts:
➢ A Planned Development Amendment and Final Planned Development to
construct a 3 -story 70,000 s.f. medical office and clinic for Summit Orthopedics
upon this site were approved on December 15, 2015.
➢ Typically a plat is approved concurrently with its associated development item, or as a
separate consent item. It is not staff's typical practice to have such items on a Council
workshop agenda.
➢ However, since previous Council action only approved the Planned Development and not
the Final Plat, Final Plat approval is being requested at the February 9 workshop
in order to accommodate the applicant's schedule for financing.
Attachments: (2)
III -1 Location Map
III -2 Final Plat
0 LO
C FL 9
LU 0 — a.
E M Ze
L. (1) z
M
lid = 0
L-
M
CL IL
C:)
U- C:)
C, px C\f
C_
M
L )
im CC i
co IL 0
Lq,
C)
OBED LO
C)
�
000 31N
ttl
Lb
0 VOV3 VIINVOV3
151
Z
in4
7
31IN3 V
OJ
It
so
:W
fij
Im
:of
aovNHal 3NI
CO
co
t a J�GlHaNld
rr
j
I a 31911ANS aomm
>
O/V
ED
03
Agenda Information Memo
February 9, 2016 Eagan Special City Council Workshop
IV. RESEARCH ON BACKYARD MINIATURE PIGS
Directions For Consideration:
1. To direct preparation of an ordinance amendment to allow miniature pigs on residential
properties.
2. If direction is given to prepare an ordinance amendment, provide direction on the public
policy questions/issues raised below.
Facts:
➢ At the January 5, 2016 Listening Session, the City Council received a request from a
resident to consider an ordinance amendment to allow miniature pigs on residential
properties. City Code currently allows pigs only on properties of at least 5 acres zoned
agricultural.
➢ Per the direction of the City Council, staff researched backyard miniature pigs and other
cities' ordinances. A summary of this research is included in the attached memo and a
table with a summary of 19 other cities' pig regulations.
➢ If the Council directs preparation of an ordinance amendment to allow miniature pigs on
residentially zoned properties, staff has identified public policy questions/issues for
consideration:
1. Should the City require spaying/neutering of miniature pigs?
2. Should the City prohibit slaughter on residential properties?
3. Should the City require a fenced area for miniature pigs?
4. Should the City limit miniature pig licenses to single-family residential
properties?
➢ Background information regarding each policy consideration is included in the attached
memo.
Attachments: (2)
IV -1 Backyard Miniature Pig Memo
IV -2 Summary of other cities' pig regulations
City of EaRan meso
To: Dianne Miller, Assistant City Administrator
From: Christina M. Scipioni, City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator
Date: February 5, 2016
Subject: Research on Backyard Miniature Pigs
Per the direction of the City Council at the January 5, 2016 City Council Listening Session,
research was conducted into the policy considerations of allowing backyard potbelly pigs. In
addition, a survey of 19 cities found that 8 allow miniature pigs on residentially zoned properties.
Attached is a spreadsheet with details of each city's regulations.
A question was raised at the Listening Session if City Code could be amended to allow
"domestic" animals within the City. The City Attorney has opined:
"Domestic is an adjective, which when used to describe an animal is often defined as
follows: tamed and kept by humans as a work animal, food source or pet. Many animals
fit this category, including some that could be considered a nuisance, e.g. goat. Since an
ordinance is to be construed in favor of the property owner and against the City, an
argument based on solely the term "domestic" could expand the type of animals that
would be required to be permitted in the City, including those that are known to be a
nuisance.
It is our opinion that the ordinance should be clear as to what animal is allowed, so as to
remove any doubt as to interpretation."
Potbelly Pig Background Information
(See sources footnoted below)
The term "potbelly pig" can refer to the Vietnamese Potbelly Pig breed or to a broader category
of miniature pig breeds. Miniature pig breeds typically weigh between 80 and 160 pounds and
stand up to 20 inches (measured from the ground to the shoulder). Pigs of smaller sizes
(sometimes called "micro mini" or "teacup") are usually the result of poor breeding practices,
underfeeding, or are represented to be adults but are still growing. In the United States, it can be
difficult to determine a miniature pig's exact breed, as there has been a history of crossbreeding
miniature pig breeds.
Pigs are intelligent and social animals. Some pig experts strongly discourage owning only one
pig, as it can become bored and lonely. Because of their intelligence, pigs are notorious for
escaping from their enclosures if they become bored or hungry.
Urban pigs may be kept for pets or as a food source. Pigs kept as pets live between 12 and 15
years. Pigs raised as a food source are typically on the property three to four months. Pigs can be
litterbox trained and may live inside a home, but should have outdoor access for exercise and
stimulation. Pigs can also be kept outside in shelters, called arks. Proper fencing for pigs is
important, as they are inquisitive animals. Pigs are generally clean animals. In warmer weather,
they must be supplied with a way to cool themselves, as they do not sweat. Pigs on a farm use
mud wallows to cool. Urban pigs typically keep cool in small plastic swimming pools.
Applying Dog Regulations to Miniature Pigs
As the City of Zimmerman does, the City could modify its dog licensing regulations to allow for
the licensure of miniature pigs in a similar fashion (an administrative, two-year license without
an inspection requirement).
If miniature pigs were incorporated into the regulations for the harboring of dogs, the following
regulations already exist in Code and could be applied to miniature pigs:
• Limit to no more than three per property (in combination with dogs, cats, ferret and
rabbits)
• Housing must not be infested by rodents, vermin, flies or insects and must provide
adequate protection from the elements
• Running at -large prohibited
• Require proof of rabies vaccination with licensure
• Unlawful for an owner to:
o Permit habitual barking, crying, whimpering or other loud noises
o Permit animal to damage or defecate in or upon public property or the property of
another
o Permit feces to accumulate on the owner's premises for more than 24 hours
If a pig's owner chooses to build a shelter for their pigs, they would be required to obtain a
zoning permit or building permit, based on the size of the structure. The structure would be
subject to the same setback requirements as other accessory structures on residential properties.
Additional Policy Considerations for Miniature Pigs
While miniature pigs and dogs can be kept in similar manners, there are differences between the
two species that could require additional regulations for miniature pigs. The Council may want to
consider the following additional regulations for keeping miniature pigs:
1. Should the City require spaying/neutering of miniature pigs?
Unneutered male pigs are aggressive and give off a strong odor. Intact female pigs go
into estrus every 21 days, during which time they also become more aggressive and
moody. The American Mini Pig Association and the Pig Placement Network (a rescue
organization) both recommend neutering/spaying pigs kept for noncommercial purposes.
2. Should the City prohibit slaughter on residential properties?
Some residents may choose to raise miniature pigs as a source of fresh pork. Similar to
the prohibition against slaughtering chickens on-site, the Council may want to prohibit
the slaughter of pigs on residential properties.
Should the City require a fenced area for miniature pigs?
Experts agree that pigs are inquisitive creatures with a tendency to roam. Fencing is the
preferred method for securing pigs. It is not recommended to tether miniature pigs in a
yard unattended. Electric fencing does not appear to be an option for miniature pigs. If
left outside without a fenced yard, a miniature pig is likely to roam onto a neighboring
property. The City's animal control officer is not currently trained in or equipped for
capturing at -large miniature pigs. Additionally, the City's existing pound facility does not
accept pigs. Staff has been unable to locate an impound facility for miniature pigs.
4. Should the City limit miniature pig licenses to single-family residential properties?
Miniature pigs need outdoor space, which may not be available within multifamily
homes. Additionally, miniature pigs living within multifamily housing complexes will be
in closer proximity to neighbors, potentially becoming a nuisance. Beekeeping and
chickens are limited to single family residential properties for these reasons.
Sources
American Mini Pig Association Retrieved 01 15, 2016: http://americamninipigassociation.com/
Curnutte, M. (2014, October 1). The Big Problem With Mini -Pigs . National Geographic.
Is a Pig Right for You? (n.d.). Retrieved 01 15, 2016, from Pig Placement Network:
http://www.pigplacementnetwork.org/adopt/is-a-pig-right-for-you/
Klober, K. (2009). Storey's Guide to Raising Pigs. North Adams: Storey Publishing.
Lewis, C. (2011). The Illustrated Guide to Pigs. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
McDonald -Brown, L. (2009). Choosing and Keeping Pigs. Buffalo: Firefly Books.
a
I
O
41
E
O
pbA
a)
C
n
Y U
N
L1
sN
-O
Q
_
iii
-0
vL-'i
()
C
a)
O ��,
`+—
E
>
()
a)M
16
i
a1
N U
aJ
C
C
7
'�'
"O
i
a)
U)
C
0)
U
Y
N N
a)
Q}
O E
Q
O
rLo
v
(o
,
L) EE
Q
O
c
0
U
E
E
..Q
�
� 'o
O
U
'C
�"!
OU
N
O
OU
�
Q -
OC
N
,�
i
ci
i1
O
C
a)
•C
cn
rE
�^
C
.�.,
QOj
qA
C
O
m
A
v
0)
j
L
In
L
a"
N
E
—
LJ
ro
L1
C
C
O
C
0
N
>1 a)
to
C
Q
0
}' L
Ln
C
.�
�
4+
L
'D
o
C
(6
U_
'�
N
Q .L
vi
C
>,
a)
Q
c
a) a)
�
N
O a)
N
m
O
Ov
' O
am
t>6 0
O_
L
m
+
C
Q M
4-
V'
L)
h
O
a
O
O
S
O
Q
n
Z
Z
O
u
a
E
E
v
m
c Q
m
U
co
C
M
L
L
N L
41
"O
N
bA
L
a)
>
Q a)
O
(0
(O
U
c.
-_
LL
Lo
v
N
�-
0
a)
01
o
a)
CL
C
C
Q
Q
v v4�
m
L
U
^
a
L
O
C
a)
M
O
E
M
L
_u
cu
O U
Q
Q O
}U
U
CLM
L
O
L
sQ
.Q
Q
oL
u
o co
o
o
°�uaQQu
ca
:3
ou
Z
m
H
m
m
H
r
H
H m
Q
u
m
z
m a)
s
Z
m
U
aJ
()
U
41
O
o
E
\
C
\
\
\
4j)-
/}CL
CL
a)
L
cr
v
O
O
O
O
'n
Ln
N
z
z
z
z
}
}
E
w
a
_
¢
a)
Ln "_
-0
O
io
n.
m
>
O
E
c
y
i
u
v—
Ln
O
Q
3
o
Q
N
C
Z3
�
oo
�,
v
v
v
v
o
r,
O
.c
a
>
>
m
to
L
E
H
UA
a)
L
g
N
a)
}
C
U
O L
L
N
a
a)o0
E
u
m
o
_
O
>
>
v
coo
a
V
(D
a
Q
v
v
2
>
Vi
O
Q
c
L
O
d
O
V)
o �
k _
\ci
e
$
E ~
(\
E ro
-> E \ \
\ \ 0
t
\ b.0
k
10E
\ \
u e ƒ
Q w- k E
\
/ o-
\ & / /
0 5
\41
1
2
E 0 \ u
z
3
a 9
c
c
c=
c
c=_=
c
c
to
/
a
�
_
u
/\
\<
z
z�
/
02
\ � 7 \
/
\ % °
2
2 \ c
/
Ln / _
�
�
a
§
_R �
CL) Q #
2 E a 2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
_ 2
¥
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
\\CL
E
�
.z
>
%
\
0
§
\
m
•-
C
_
/
/
�
\
/
w
0
\
E
—
CL
_
..
/
�
e
\
°
�
_
"
£
E
y
®
/
a
\./
3
/
2
2
23
>
u
=
Agenda Information Memo
February 9, 2016, Eagan Special City Council Meeting
V. Fire Administration Building Options
Actions to Be Considered:
Discuss and define expectations and parameters for the future use of the Fire Administration Building,
including:
➢ The Council's desire for additional discussions with the specific groups that have expressed
interest in renting space in the building.
➢ The Council's expectations for rental income (i.e. is it acceptable to lease the building provided
the annual maintenance/utility costs for the building are fully recovered?)
➢ If the annual maintenance/utility costs are fully paid via a lease, is the Council comfortable
proceeding ahead with the proposed addition and remodel of City Hall and Police with the
expectation no City staff or operations would be located in the Fire Administration Building?
FACTS regarding the Fire Administration Building
➢ The Fire Administration Building was constructed in 1998, with an addition in 1999.
➢ The Fire Administration Building is two stories, with a total of 13,541 square feet; 8,334 square
feet of office space; 1,409 of two bay garage space, and lower level storage space of 3,736
square feet.
➢ The building is situated on 2.1 acres.
➢ 50 parking stalls are situated on the property.
The current zoning of the property is Limited Business.
➢ The property was listed for sale from August 1, 2013 through July 31, 2014 as the City retained
Cassidy Turley as the broker to assist with marketing the property. The property has not been
marketed actively since July 31, 2014.
➢ At the time, the property had a list price of $1,575,000. The City received one written offer
during this time period, well below the list price.
➢ When the Fire Administration Building was occupied, total utilities were about $22,800 per year.
Since its vacancy, the City has been paying about $13,700 per year for utilities at the Fire
Administration Building.
➢ The Fire Administration Building is scheduled for a roof replacement in 2016 at an estimated
cost of $30,000.
FACTS regarding the City Hall/Police Station Improvement Project
➢ The City Hall/Police Station space needs study completed in December, 2014 indicated that
approximately 8-15 Staff members could be relocated from the City Hall to the Fire
Administration Building for operational purposes.
➢ City Hall expansion project costs might be reduced by $1,518,000 if certain City Staff operations
were relocated to the Fire Administration Building.
➢ Remodeling and maintenance project costs to relocate City Staff operations at the Fire
Administration Building were projected at $443,000.
➢ The Space needs study projects an additional $22,000 per year of operational and utility costs if
certain staffing operations were relocated from City Hall to the Fire Administration Building.
Over a 20 year period, that would total $440,000.
➢ In summary, the net savings from retaining the Fire Administration Building and relocating
certain City Staff operations was projected at $635,000:
Project Cost Savings: ($1,518,000)
Relocation/Remodel Facility: 443,000
20 years additional operations and utility costs: 440,000
Net savings from keeping the FAB: $635,000
ISSUES regarding the possible relocation of City Staff to the Fire Administration Building
➢ The primary candidates for relocation to the Fire Administration Building are Staff in the Parks
and Recreation Department who are currently located in City Hall.
➢ Relocating City Staff to the Fire Administration Building may also allow for the utilization of the
Fire Administration Building's second floor multi -function meeting space for additional City
functions, or rent for other complimentary uses.
➢ Valuable storage space in the basement of the Fire Administration Building would remain
available, should the City not sell the building.
➢ Relocating City staff and their operations to the Fire Administration Building would likely result
in operational inefficiencies with a split staff from City Hall operations, compounded by the
travel needed between more sites than currently exist with Parks and Recreation Staff.
➢ Proper supervision may be challenging with a split staff, should there be relocation to the Fire
Administration Building.
➢ Customer service to the public may be reduced for those in need of Parks and Recreation
services, should there be Staff at the Fire Administration Building, City Hall, and other Park and
Recreation sites.
FACTS, Regarding the Recent Discussion about the Fire Administration Building
➢ The Finance Committee conducted a meeting on October 19, 2015 at the Fire Administration
Building, which included a brief tour.
➢ Interest was expressed to pursue a possible partnership with multiple organizations to rent
space at the Fire Administration Building in conjunction with some City operational needs.
➢ There was consensus that partnerships should result in rented space, rather than space be
offered free of charge.
➢ The Finance Committee asked staff to continue conversations with organizations to determine
their level of interest in the Fire Administration Building and report back to the full City Council
at the February 9, 2016 City Council workshop.
FACTS, Regarding Outside Interest in the Fire Administration Building
➢ City Staff has received a proposal from Art Works of Eagan a non-profit organization being
formed for the purpose of providing working artists with the necessary space, community, and
programming. They plan to offer studio space to artists at either a private, semi -private, or
communal level, as well as general community gathering space for a variety of art programming,
events, performances and other educational opportunities. Art Works of Eagan would also
include retail space and a fine art gallery to promote the work of local artists and provide the
public with this service. The proposal provides extensive financial projections of their first five
years of locating in the Fire Administration Building and appears they could at least cover the
utility costs should they locate and occupy the entire Fire Administration Building, which is their
preference.
➢ Staff visited with the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce. Their offices recently
relocated (April, 2015) and they are currently not interested in relocating to the Fire
Administration Building.
➢ The Eagan Convention and Visitors Bureau is currently located in the Eagan Community Center.
ECVB rent is $1,268/month, or $15,216/year. In addition, they pay $1,467/month or
$17,600/year for original capital costs to construct space for them in the Eagan Community
Center. The unpaid principal on the ECVB note is $148,292 with the amortization continuing
through 2026. There may be interest from the ECVB in considering locating to the Fire
Administration Building based on recent discussions between the City and ECVB.
➢ Conversations with Dakota County Administration last fall included the topic of their usage of
the building. The discussion last fall suggested there would not be any interest in considering
the Fire Administration Building for any County uses. The conversation has not been resurrected
in the recent past.
➢ Staff completed a tour of the Fire Administration Building with representatives from the YMCA
for possible consideration of a child care facility. Staff recently learned the YMCA has an
interest in discussing further the possibility of renting space at the Fire Administration Building.
Attachments: (0)