Zoning Board approves Lake Harriet home elevator variance despite staff concerns
Minneapolis's Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 5-1 on July 23 to allow a homeowner at 4629 East Lake Harriet Parkway to build a 33-foot elevator enclosure, exceeding the 28-foot height limit for flat roofs in the Shoreland Overlay District near the lake.
The property owner sought the variance to install an elevator serving all three floors of his home. The elevator enclosure would exceed the height restriction that applies to structures near Lake Harriet, which is designed to limit building mass and protect views of the water.
City staff recommended denying the request, arguing the property didn't meet the legal standard of having "unique circumstances" that justify an exception. However, Vice Chair Wang and other board members found those circumstances in the property's topography. They noted that when a previous house on the site was demolished, the land was backfilled lower than its original elevation, creating a unique challenge for the current owner.
Board members also emphasized that the elevator's visual impact would be minimal—the building's chimney could legally reach 33 feet anyway, so the elevator wouldn't change the home's overall appearance. The applicant, Tom Bormann, explained he has mobility issues and cannot use the rooftop deck without an elevator, making the structure necessary for his accessibility.
In a separate matter, the board discussed but took no vote on proposed changes to the city's fence regulations. Staff presented amendments aimed at reducing the number of variance requests by increasing flexibility. The changes would allow taller, partially open fences in corner yards, reintroduce 3-foot opaque fences in front yards (removed in 2023), and require setbacks for fences near side doors to prevent blocking emergency exits. Board Member Ikolts expressed frustration with the current volume of fence variance requests, calling many "nitpicking" disputes between neighbors. Staff emphasized that a life safety incident—where a fence blocked a neighbor's door—prompted the proposed changes. Board members requested that staff include photos and diagrams in public materials to help residents understand what fence designs are allowed.
Our proprietary artificial intelligence agent analyzed publicly available documents including meeting agendas, minutes, and transcripts to write this story to help inform local residents. Feedback helps us improve, so please consider rating how we did with the thumbs up or down below.
Go deeper on this topic
Research related meeting documents and build a brief — without rewriting the story.
Full analysis
Votes (2)
4629 East Lake Harriet Parkway Variance Request
Dissent: One unidentified board member voted Nay, despite 6 individual Aye votes heard, the clerk's final tally was 5 Ayes and 1 Nay.
Moved by Vice chair Wang [00:01:00] · Seconded by Board Member Ikolts [00:01:01]
The item focused on a variance to allow a 33-ft flat-roofed elevator enclosure, exceeding the 28-ft flat roof limit in the Shoreland Overlay. Staff highlighted the intent of the Shoreland Overlay to limit massing and protect views, noting the applicant's proposal had less massing concerns than a 'by right' alternative. The main staff concern was the lack of 'unique circumstances' for the property. The applicant argued for the design's lower massing and the need for elevator accessibility. Board members discussed how topography changes and potential tree canopy impacts from alternative designs could constitute unique circumstances.
Staff Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments: Fence Regulations
Dissent: null
Moved by null · Seconded by null
Sarah Roman presented proposed changes to Chapter 550, Development Standards, focusing on fence regulations. The amendments aim to increase flexibility and address a life safety issue. This includes allowing 6-ft partially open fences in corner side yards, reinstating 3-ft opaque fences in front yards (removed in 2023), and mandating setbacks for fences near side doors to ensure safe egress. Staff emphasized the goal of reducing the need for variances by addressing common issues that currently lead to complaints and non-compliance. Communication strategies for these changes were also discussed.
Notable Quotes (8)
The variance request in this case is to increase the allowed maximum height for a flat roof structure, or a portion of the structure that has a flat roof, to 33 ft in height. ... because it's in the shoreland, that specific ... section B would not apply in this case. It's not eligible.
Really the one clear clarification ... I'd like to have is the chimney itself in its current design would be allowed up to that 33 if the elevator did not extend up into that third story. And so, from an overall form standpoint, if they just extended their elevator to their second floor and first floor, the form of this wouldn't change at all.
The elevator is needed cuz I can barely walk. I mean, I have you you don't want to know all the problems I've got, but I can't go upstairs. ... you think about going out of a What's the roof the the top? You have a hatch and you have to go up steps and you have to if you're going to carry some orders or a drink or make a party out of it. It's It's work and they just don't do it. So they never used it.
So I thought there we could find a unique challenge of the property. So when we heard the testimonies about when the previous house was demolished and how the way that was backfilled sat a little bit lower, I think it is worth exploring on what that original property looked like, what what that topography actually was before all of those changes were made.
Enforcement is almost completely complaint-based in the city. ... What we're looking for is uniqueness to the property when we're granting a fence variance. And so things that we see commonly from applicants are, um, arguments around uh, necessity for safety, um, which is generally not considered a circumstance unique to the property historically at board.
we had a life safety issue where a fence was constructed on a property line and an adjacent home that was built within 3 ft of the property line was not able to open their door anymore. And then there was a safety issue where that was a problem.
I second the Hope that we would get less variance requests for fences. They just if it's not a health and safety issue it It usually comes across as neighbors nitpicking or tattletaling or Um Yeah, someone decided to put their own fence up and just never thought they'd even have to check for something. It's frustrating for all parties involved because they're The way that they present their cases are very much why am I even here
I appreciated the way that um you included photos and diagrams of like what would and would not be allowed. And I guess I would just um sort of request if it's possible to also include some of those photos in the fence regulation handout ... cuz I think for um the layperson does not understand what 60% opaque necessarily translates into um into reality.
Ordinances & Resolutions (12)
The agenda for the July 23rd, 2026 meeting, which was approved.
Minutes from the previous meeting, which were approved.
Zoning district for the 4629 East Lake Harriet Parkway property.
Overlay district for the 4629 East Lake Harriet Parkway property.
Overlay district for the 4629 East Lake Harriet Parkway property, impacting height regulations.
Specific code section regarding elevator exemptions, noted as not applicable in Shoreland Overlay.
Specific code section defining structure height, particularly related to chimneys.
Interpretation allowing chimneys to exceed 33 ft minimally for building code compliance.
Chapter of the zoning code containing fence regulations.
Study that previously removed allowances for opaque front yard fences.
General term for the city's fence regulations.
Public communication document explaining fence regulations.
Source document
Was this story helpful?
Other Topics from This Document
Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments: Fence Regulations
Want to know when new stories arrive?
Enter your email to receive updates.
We will not use your email for any other purpose. You can unsubscribe at any time.