Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Demolition Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission OKs demolition and variances for 238 Auburn, including 794-sq-ft ADU
Summary
The Sierra Madre Planning Commission on March 6 voted unanimously to recommend approval of a discretionary demolition permit and associated variances that will allow the owners of 238 Auburn Avenue to demolish the existing house and build a replacement single‑family home with a 794‑square‑foot accessory dwelling unit.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Demolition Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Sierra Madre Planning Commission on March 6 voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2502, approving a discretionary demolition permit and a set of variances for 238 Auburn Avenue that would allow demolition of the existing single-family home and construction of a replacement house with an accessory dwelling unit.
Planning staff told the commission the property at 238 Auburn — a reverse corner lot near Sierra Madre Elementary School — is 9,600 square feet and that the preexisting main house dates to about 1890. "Staff's recommendation is to approve Planning Commission Resolution 2502 granting approval of variance 25‑01 and discretionary demolition permit 25‑01," a planning staff presenter said during the hearing.
Staff said the project requests variances from multiple zoning standards: front- and rear-yard setbacks for the main house, a reduced separation between buildings, and a front setback for a workshop/garage that would sit under the ADU. The proposed ADU would be 794 square feet and the north-side accessory structure (workshop) would sit about 12 feet 5 inches from the front property line. Staff also noted the ADU’s proposed height at the workshop/ADU structure would reach 22 feet 6 inches, exceeding the 16-foot ADU-height standard in the R2 zone but remaining under the 30-foot maximum for primary structures.
The staff presentation included project-level details: existing lot coverage at about 29.1 percent, proposed lot coverage rising to about 36.3 percent; existing on-site parking of four spaces and a proposed reactivation of an abandoned driveway approach to yield five spaces (two covered, three open); and a coastal live oak whose canopy extends onto the property from the neighbor’s lot. Staff recommended conditions of approval to conserve the oak (e.g., root‑zone protective fencing, limits on trenching), and to preserve the single‑family character of the block by restricting full enclosure of the front porch and keeping on-site parking areas clear and operable (conditions 2.5 and 2.6 in the staff report).
On the question of historic status, staff reported that a historic evaluation concluded the existing structure is not eligible for listing as a landmark because of prior alterations; the demolition is therefore recommended with a replacement home. The applicant and the architect were at the hearing: "We're the Emmanuels, 238 Auburn. We are very excited for this project," the property owners said, identifying themselves as the homeowners and thanking the commission for consideration.
Commissioners asked staff multiple clarifying questions about how treating the second-floor space as an ADU affects required variances and whether the variances would amount to a special privilege. Staff responded that many of the same variances (front yard setbacks, rear setbacks, porch encroachment) would be required whether the upper unit were an ADU or a second primary dwelling, and that the site's shallow depth and reverse-corner configuration materially limit reasonable development.
During deliberations commissioners raised visual concerns about the front yard setback and how a larger, wider replacement house might appear from the street. Some commissioners pressed for smaller porch depths or other articulation to reduce perceived bulk, while others said the lot’s unique shape and the project's stepped rooflines and dormers would lessen the visual impact. No commissioner opposed the concept after discussion.
A motion recommending approval of Resolution 2502 (approving Variance 25‑01 and Discretionary Demolition Permit 25‑01) was made and seconded; the commission voted unanimously in favor. The minutes record the outcome as "Motion carries unanimous." The commission’s action is advisory to the City Council, which will consider the ordinance/resolution adoption in a subsequent meeting.
What happens next: staff will forward the commission’s recommendation and the draft resolution to the City Council, per the schedule outlined in the staff report. Conditions noted in the staff report — including tree protection measures, parking maintenance, and restrictions on porch enclosure — were proposed as part of approval and will be part of any decision forwarded to council.
Project details and clarifications from staff - Address: 238 Auburn Avenue (reverse-corner lot; near Sierra Madre Elementary School) - Lot size: 9,600 sq. ft. (staff-reported) - Proposed ADU: 794 sq. ft.; proposed ADU height at 22 ft. 6 in. (staff said ADUs in R2 are normally restricted to 16 ft.) - Lot coverage: existing ~29.1%; proposed ~36.3% - Parking: existing 4 full-size spaces; proposed 5 total after activating an abandoned driveway approach; minimum required for project: two covered + one open space for the ADU - Trees: a coast live oak canopy extends over the property from a neighboring lot; staff recommended protective fencing and boring utilities beneath root zone rather than trenching - Historic evaluation: staff reported the property was found not eligible for landmark listing due to past alterations
The Planning Commission hearing transcript shows the commission weighed visual and neighborhood-character concerns during deliberation but ultimately recommended approval with the staff-recommended conditions. The commission vote was unanimous to forward approval to council.
Planner contact and documents: planning staff said the full staff report and project PowerPoint were made available to the commissioners and that the applicant provided architectural plans; staff also said the applicant will provide any additional plan materials required in plan check.

