Planning Commission recommends denial of variance for pool at 6580 Astor Trail

The City of Victoria Planning Commission voted on March 4 to recommend denial of a variance request that would allow a private pool and patio to encroach into the 100-foot shoreland setback at 6580 Astor Trail.

The recommendation to deny the variance follows a public hearing and a staff presentation that described new information regarding stormwater drainage, lot topography and retaining-wall needs. “A pool of any size on the north side of the home is not feasible due to the… stormwater mitigation issue,” applicant John Stockman told the commission, summarizing a written report from his pool contractor.

The variance application seeks to move the 100-foot shoreland setback inward so the pool’s water edge would be about 74–76 feet from the ordinary high-water mark (staff reported the proposed encroachment as roughly 24–28 feet into the setback depending on whether coping is counted). City staff said the lot is irregular and the home was built close to the 100-foot line; staff and the applicant’s contractor differed about whether a feasible pool location exists outside the setback without “significant retaining walls” and rerouting stormwater.

Planning staff said they consider several legal factors when evaluating a variance, including whether a request presents practical difficulties unique to the property and not created by the owner, whether the requested use would change the essential character of the neighborhood, and whether the variance would harm public health or the lake. Staff told commissioners they had discussed the application with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Carver County and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and that the city had reissued notice after receiving new information following the February hearing.

Homeowner John Stockman argued the pool is a reasonable accessory use, that other properties in Victoria have pools inside the 100-foot setback, and that placing a pool elsewhere on the lot would require removal of mature trees, large engineered retaining walls and grading that would worsen shoreline impacts. “We believe that we meet the requirements for variance including that our unique lot creates a hardship due to the stormwater control issues,” Stockman said, and said the family would use permeable pavers, native plantings and other mitigation if the variance is granted.

Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to the homeowners’ desire for a pool but reiterated that the variance standard requires a hardship created by the land itself rather than by the owner’s choice to place improvements close to the shore. One commissioner noted precedents and warned against routinely granting variances because that would erode the intent of the zoning code.

After deliberation, a commissioner moved to recommend denial to the City Council on the basis that the applicant had not established the practical difficulties required by statute and city ordinance. The motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote; the minutes record the commission recommended denial and will forward the recommendation and the stated reasons to the City Council for final action.

If the City Council grants a variance, staff explained, the adjustment is to the setback line on the property and would apply to permitted structures on that parcel unless the variance is later revoked; the DNR will also review any subsequent permit application and may request additional mitigation measures.

The Planning Commission closed the public hearing before deliberation and did not adopt specific conditions as part of its recommendation. The City Council is scheduled to take final action before the extended 60-day statutory deadline that staff said applies to the application.