Application to Exceed Three Cats and/or Dogs

Opinion on Public Hearing and Lease Agreements
Why Lease Terms Should Be Upheld in Apartment Communities
Introduction
The recent public hearing regarding pet policies in the apartment complex managed by Oaks Lincoln Properties, and leased by Monica Schultz and Emery Day, has raised significant concerns about the rights of property owners and tenants. In my opinion, the city should not have the authority to override private lease agreements, especially when such decisions directly impact property management and the well-being of residents.
The Importance of Lease Agreements
Lease agreements are binding contracts between property owners and tenants. They outline the terms and conditions of residency, including rules regarding pets. These agreements are designed to protect the interests of both parties, ensuring a safe, clean, and well-maintained living environment. Allowing a public hearing to alter these terms undermines the contractual relationship and sets a concerning precedent for future disputes.
Potential Breach of Contract
If the city allows residents to keep more pets than the lease agreement permits, it constitutes a breach of contract. Property owners, such as Oaks Lincoln Properties, should have the right to enforce the terms of the lease, including evicting tenants who violate the pet limit. Overriding these terms through public hearings removes the owner's ability to manage their property effectively and opens the door to legal complications.
Consequences of Increased Pet Allowances
Increasing the pet limit can have several negative consequences for the apartment community:
• Additional Wear and Tear: More pets can lead to increased damage to the property, resulting in higher maintenance costs.
• Increased Pet Smell: A greater number of animals may contribute to odors in shared spaces and individual units, affecting overall living quality.
• Displacement of Lease-Abiding Residents: Residents who follow the lease terms may feel uncomfortable or dissatisfied, potentially leading them to move out.
Conclusion
In summary, the city should respect private lease agreements and refrain from intervening in matters that are governed by contractual law. Allowing more pets than stipulated in the lease not only breaches the contract but also jeopardizes the quality of life for all residents and places an unfair burden on property owners. Upholding lease terms are essential for maintaining trust, order, and stability within apartment communities.
Thank you,

Jerrold Lindberg
5200 Lincoln Drive Apt 307
Edina, MN 55436

Opinion on Public Hearing and Lease Agreements
Why Lease Terms Should Be Upheld in Apartment Communities
Introduction
The recent public hearing regarding pet policies in the apartment complex managed by Oaks Lincoln Properties, and leased by Monica Schultz and Emery Day, has raised significant concerns about the rights of property owners and tenants. In my opinion, the city should not have the authority to override private lease agreements, especially when such decisions directly impact property management and the well-being of residents.
The Importance of Lease Agreements
Lease agreements are binding contracts between property owners and tenants. They outline the terms and conditions of residency, including rules regarding pets. These agreements are designed to protect the interests of both parties, ensuring a safe, clean, and well-maintained living environment. Allowing a public hearing to alter these terms undermines the contractual relationship and sets a concerning precedent for future disputes.
Potential Breach of Contract
If the city allows residents to keep more pets than the lease agreement permits, it constitutes a breach of contract. Property owners, such as Oaks Lincoln Properties, should have the right to enforce the terms of the lease, including evicting tenants who violate the pet limit. Overriding these terms through public hearings removes the owner's ability to manage their property effectively and opens the door to legal complications.
Consequences of Increased Pet Allowances
Increasing the pet limit can have several negative consequences for the apartment community:
• Additional Wear and Tear: More pets can lead to increased damage to the property, resulting in higher maintenance costs.
• Increased Pet Smell: A greater number of animals may contribute to odors in shared spaces and individual units, affecting overall living quality.
• Displacement of Lease-Abiding Residents: Residents who follow the lease terms may feel uncomfortable or dissatisfied, potentially leading them to move out.
Conclusion
In summary, the city should respect private lease agreements and refrain from intervening in matters that are governed by contractual law. Allowing more pets than stipulated in the lease not only breaches the contract but also jeopardizes the quality of life for all residents and places an unfair burden on property owners. Upholding lease terms are essential for maintaining trust, order, and stability within apartment communities.
Thank you,

Jerrold Lindberg
5200 Lincoln Drive Apt 307
Edina, MN 55436

Yeah, this is Scott Savage at 5241 Lincoln drive. Just calling to leave a comment about, the dogs exceeding three, three dogs or cats in my building. I just wanted to leave a comment about that. I think that's too many animals for a small apartment. That's my second message. The other point I just wanted to make was there should be some, it's the problem with the dogs, too many dogs in the apartment at Lincoln drive, yeah. And, it depends on how many, I'm sorry, it depends on how big dogs are, and it depends on if there's a special circumstance, whether it's cancer, special needs, service dog. I mean, I think all you know if there's four chihuahuas, I don't think anybody cares about that. Or four cats, you know, whatever, that's NO big deal. But if it's four German shepherds, yeah, that sounds wrong. So I just wanted to make sure there should be some, we need to see for somebody in the service special circumstance for this. Thank you.

Hi there, this is a resident calling from 5241 Lincoln Drive apartment 307 regards to the public hearing of Monica Schultz and Emery Day. I would like to say that I am opposed to them wanting to bring in three or more cats and dogs into their apartment. Again, I am opposed to that. Thanks, bye.

Yes, good morning. My name is Jeff Cater. I live over at 5200 Lincoln Drive, right next door to the place where these people are asking to have permission to exceed three cats and or dogs. I find it very interesting because I've heard they already have four cats and dogs in that apartment. It's a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment with two people and five animals. That's a little excessive. It seems a little cruel to the animals. Plus I really don't think it's fair to the people who live around them. Plus, I don't see where the city council has really the right to interfere and a contractual relationship between a person and a landlord. And also you're setting a very, very vial precedent here. Just so you know, if you allow this variance, I plan on organizing just about everybody I know with a dog or a cat in this complex and going to you for a variance. Because if you give one person a variance, you got to give everybody a variance. So you might wanna think real hard about this one. You're making a big mistake. Not that that's new to the Edina City Council, but you are making a big mistake. So, think about it, do something useful and say NO. Alright, bye.Thank you.

My name is Patrick McConnell and I live in the 5241 apartment complex on Lincoln Drive. As a renter in the building at Oaks Lincoln I prefer the current ordinance. I believe three animals is a good limit for the square footage and surrounding property for these apartments. I believe that more animals could lead to unnecessary sanitary and noise issues. I would be open to some flexibility if size of the animals was somehow taken into account and limited to smaller pets when exceeding three.

My name is Patrick McConnell and I live in the 5124 apartment complex on Lincoln Drive. As a renter in the building at Oaks Lincoln I prefer the current ordinance. I believe three animals is a good limit for the square footage and surrounding property for these apartments. I believe that more animals could lead to unnecessary sanitary and noise issues. I would be open to some flexibility if size of the animals was somehow taken into account and limited to smaller pets when exceeding three.

I just want to share my perspective on this because I think it’s important to look at what’s actually happening here. They’re not trying to sneak around or hide extra animals—they’re doing the right thing and going through the proper process. And honestly, that already shows more responsibility than a lot of people would take on, especially knowing it could lead to extra fees or potential backlash.

I also don’t think people should be shut down immediately without being given a chance to prove themselves. The number of pets someone has doesn’t automatically make them a bad or irresponsible owner. What really matters is how they care for them. In this case, they’re clearly trying to follow the rules and be transparent, and that says a lot.

And let’s be real—this is a pet-friendly complex. Anyone who has ever had an animal knows there’s going to be some barking, meowing, scurrying, whatever. That just comes with the territory. It only becomes a problem when it’s excessive and the owner refuses to do anything about it. Responsible owners don’t operate that way.

Speaking from personal experience, having a new puppy in an apartment is rough. Puppies are loud, especially during crate training—they cry, they howl, and it takes time for them to settle. When I got my puppy, I literally went around knocking on my neighbors’ doors with baked goods just to give them a heads up. Those of us who’ve trained puppies know you can’t give in to the crying, even when every part of you wants to. It takes patience, communication, and positive reinforcement.

That’s why empathy from neighbors matters. Training a puppy—or caring for multiple pets—is possible in an apartment when the owners are responsible and the people around them understand that some temporary noise is normal. It’s short-lived and manageable when everyone handles the situation with a little understanding.

So at the end of the day, I think the focus should be on whether they’re responsible pet owners—not the exact number of animals. And everything about how they’re approaching this shows they’re trying to do things the right way.

~ 5241 Resident

I believe they should be given the benefit of the doubt, as they’ve gone through the proper channels to make this request and are being transparent about their situation. This shows responsibility, especially compared to others who may be quietly keeping more than three pets without oversight.

Additionally, there could be several reasons why they might have more than 3 pets beyond just the desire for more:
- One of their pets may have just had a litter.
- Two roommates may have moved in with their own pets.
- They could be fostering animals temporarily.
- They might be involved in animal rescue.

While I understand there may be concerns, I believe the fact that they’ve made a formal request shows they are responsible pet owners. If issues arise, property management has the ability to address them, which is one of the benefits in this situation of apartment living compared to owning a house.

- 5241 Neighbor

How large (square footage) is this apartment? What does the landlord think? It does sound like too many animals for one place.

Way too many animals in one apartment. These ordinances were created for a reason and need to be enforced. They need to move.