CR 95-86 Amendment To The Hopkins Pet Ordinance
May 8, 1995 Council Report 95-086
.
AMENDMENT TO THE
HOPKINS PET ORDINANCE
Proposed Action
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Move that the Hopkins City Council take
no action to amend the current pet ordinance as it relates to the number of pets an individual can keep in a
household.
Approval of this action will maintain the current limit of four animals per household with no exceptions.
Overview
Staff has received a letter from Charlene Tietjin asking that the City Council consider amending the current
animal ordinance to allow individuals to have more than four animals in their household. Specifically Mrs,
Tietjin is requesting that some sort of annual license be issued to individuals who wish to maintain more than
four animals per household, This special license would be issued with certain conditions that the license
holder would have to agree to and maintain, These conditions would cover such things as animal control,
. sanitation, and noise. An annual inspection would be perfonned to ensure that the individual was complying
with the conditions,
Primary Issues to Consider
. Do any other cities allow this type oflicense?
Several cities have such provisions in their pet ordinance. The license is usually defined as a residential
kennel license, Specific conditions and inspections are required as part of the license,
. Should Hopkins have such a provision?
In 1989, the City Council amended the animal ordinance to delete references to kennel licenses in
residential districts. The purpose of this amendment was to make it clear that there would be no
exception to the limit of two dogs per household. Adoption of this motion would reverse this action.
Attached is page two of the 1989 Council Report which addressed this issue.
. Have the neighbors been informed of this action?
The neighbors have not been infonned of this item. Staff would notify interested parties, should the
Council instruct staff to amend the animal ordinance,
SUPIlortin2 Information
. Letter from Charlene Tietjin.
. Page two of Council Report #89-113
. ~4~'
J ames-'A.. Genellie
{Jt.{Clerk
---- -- -- -- - -
j fJ7~ Y /1'7>$ - ,
~~M~
· tr.:
~~
/~~ ~~7;-~~~
;Off ?UL~~ (" /It?e ?~S, d.f/)
.
~ ~~~z:;& ~
r~/Q,.~~?/& '
/~ ~J~,~~/', !L-
M~ ~ ~?Ld/ ~ t"I/ltil U1 M~
tuzL ~~t J~' ~ ~
· ~ tWtdv.~7 ~ ~ dt~~
~ /2ff/UU/-(jJ · 1le ~ ~ ~~
~ ~~. (' ~ UJ-atcI ~
. ~ (/ tUJIr~ / ~~,: ' ',.,' ~ '., '..' .. I.'.'
F~ ~ Z??~ ff ~ J/U_jA ,
~ ~ dAV tL:n-- ~"--' t;: ~ ~
~r.Z;., ~ t:u ~ Wlj' kAJe-U,
. J ~,~ ~~ :tcudL ~~
~. ~7/07U)!//1V /4, ~ ~ 1.
1J.~~ ~
t, ;; 'e 1j "f h t$ cZLA_--L -Z-:-3~
33 t/ - / 5 ~ /l f)c (l.J,
· /-I0Ph17 S '137 - 0 C; (/9
- - - - -- - - -- -.-
e) council Report #89-113
Page 2
Analvsis of Issues
0 Should residential kennels be allowed in the city of Hopkins?
The Council established a limit of two dogs per dwelling unit when the
ordinances were codified in 1987. Unfortunately no decision on
kennels was made at this time because this involved questions relating
to the zoning code. (See steiner memo, section 5c) . This limit
serves to prevent problems associated with keeping many dogs. These
problems include noise, sanitation and the humane treatment of the
dogs. It lS staff's opinion that allowing residential kennels would
not prevent any of these problems.
Should the Council decide to allow kennels in residential areas, rules
'I' and regulations for the establishment and maintenance of kennels would
have to be written. The kennels would have to be inspected. The city
would still have to establish a maximum number of dogs that would be
allowed in a residential kennel. The City would still be likely to
receive complaints about noise and sanitation.
.j If the city decided to license kennels in residential areas, how "'Would
the city respond to complaints? The City could seek to revoke the
kennel license of people who do not maintain the kennel according to
regulations. This would likely be an involved process requiring
several warnings. License holders may have spent money for additional
fencing or other required physical improvements.
The simplest way to handle this is to not allow kennels in residential
areas. Hopkins is not a large city, nor does it have large lots.
Eden prairie restricts such kennels to lots larger than one acre.
Minnetonka and st. Louis Park do not allow such kennels. Plymouth
allows such kennels on lots greater than five acres.
0 Is two dogs a proper maximum per dwelling unit?
There obviously must be an upper limit on the number of dogs per
dwelling unit. Is two the right number? This is impossible to say.
Staff has received complaints from residents who find this limit too
restrictive. Staff has also received complaints from the neighbors of
residents who have more than two dogs.
st. Louis Park and Robbinsdale have a maximum of three. Eden prairie,
Richfield, and st. Anthony have a maximum of two. The current city
code has a maximum of two. Staff recommends that this maximum be
~ maintained.