Council upholds Planning Commission: variance denied for unpermitted backyard studio; staff lists compliance options

The City Council voted 7–0 on March 25 to deny an appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of a variance seeking to legalize a 112‑square‑foot detached accessory structure located close to property lines on a single‑family lot in the Washington Park area.

Staff described the structure as a conditioned, detached home office with electrical and air conditioning that was constructed without permits. The accessory building has a 2‑foot‑5‑inch side setback and a 2‑foot‑2‑inch rear setback while code requires 4‑foot side and 10‑foot rear setbacks for structures taller than 8 feet. The structure’s roof slopes to a peak of 9 feet‑11 inches and therefore exceeds the 8‑foot height that would otherwise exempt small detached accessory structures from setback requirements.

Senior planner staff explained the variance criteria and why staff recommended denial. Staff told council it could not confirm the building met health and safety requirements because the structure was constructed without opening walls or other permit inspections; staff also said a detached home office is not the same as an ADU and that ADU rules and affordability goals do not automatically justify waiving setback and height standards for other accessory structures.

The applicant, Scott McLennan, said the studio was intended to be a modest home office on a narrow lot and argued the rules push homeowners toward building larger ADUs when smaller studios would meet the same needs with less tree and neighborhood impact. McLennan said he consulted neighbors and submitted letters of support from adjacent property owners; he also said he would secure required safety approvals if council allowed the variance.

Several public speakers offered opposing views. A nearby resident urged the council to uphold the zoning rules and require corrective action for unpermitted construction; another resident argued the applicant had built in good faith and urged compassion and a policy study to allow similar structures in future.

Staff outlined three compliance options available if the variance was denied: lower the structure so its maximum height is 8 feet (which would exempt it from setbacks), relocate the structure to meet the 4‑foot/10‑foot setback requirement, or expand and convert the building into an ADU (ADUs require 150 square feet minimum and must include habitable spaces and plumbing, and state law allows conversion of existing structures into ADUs under specified conditions). Staff emphasized that any option that results in habitable space or electrical service requires formal building permits and inspections.

Council discussion focused on precedent, the need to apply variance‑finding standards consistently, and options to revisit accessory‑structure rules through a formal study issue. Council member Mellinger framed the council’s role as quasi‑judicial, saying the council must “apply the law” and could not make the variance findings staff identified as required. Several council members encouraged staff to consider a study‑issue review of detached accessory‑structure standards so the city can evaluate whether a new policy framework is warranted.

Action: Council member Srinivasan moved, and Council member Mellinger seconded, to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission. The motion passed 7–0.