The South Pasadena Cultural Heritage Commission on Sept. 18 continued review of a project at 1901 Oxley Street after commissioners said a proposed second-floor balcony and changes to the front windows are incompatible with the house’s historic character or raised unresolved egress questions. The commission voted to continue the item and asked the applicant to revise drawings and return for further review.

The application, presented by city planner Tatiana Marine, proposes converting attic space to a habitable second floor that would add one bedroom, a bathroom, an office, a gallery and two closets. The house, listed in the city’s inventory of historic resources as a contributor to the eligible Southeast Mission Craftsman Historic District, would gain about 655 square feet of habitable area, bringing the total to 1,939 square feet on a 5,549-square-foot lot. Marine said staff finds the project complies with applicable RS zoning development standards and recommends a CEQA exemption under Section 15301 (Class 1) and Section 15331 (Class 31) for historic resource rehabilitation.

Tim Clark, the project architect, represented the applicants and described the design changes: a new shed dormer on the east roof, six new wood double-hung windows, and replacement of two north‑facing double-hung windows with French doors leading to a small iron‑rail balcony. Clark said the new dormer raises the profile only slightly to achieve required ceiling height and that screening trees limit visibility of the east side from the street. He also noted the railing spacing was tightened for pet safety: "That's what we call it, the Peanut railing," he said, referring to the owners’ small dog.

Commissioners said they generally found the dormer massing acceptable but expressed strong reservations about the balcony and the change from double-hung windows to French doors on the main (north) elevation. Commissioner Carbone said the balcony railing and detailing were not consistent with the Craftsman character and asked whether the applicant would be open to removing the balcony. Vice Chair Severson and Commissioner Nardin likewise said the principal façade should be preserved and that alternatives to a door-and-balcony — such as providing egress through a different window type or on a different elevation — should be explored. Commissioners also noted that building-and-safety review for egress requirements occurs after commission review and cautioned the applicant to present an egress solution that does not unduly alter the principal façade.

The commission offered two clear directions: (1) applicants should revise the balcony detailing or remove the balcony and rework the north elevation so it better matches existing window language on the home; and (2) if the proposed change is driven by egress requirements, the applicant should present an alternative egress solution (for example, appropriately sized casement windows or another compliant opening) and note that building-and-safety determinations will influence final choices. Chair Lopez summarized the commission’s position and asked the applicants to return with revised drawings. A motion to continue the project carried on roll call with four yes votes (Commissioner Dink: yes; Commissioner Carbone: yes; Vice Chair Severson: yes; Chair Lopez: yes). The motion record did not specify a mover or seconder in the transcript.

The commission’s discussion repeatedly referenced the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation and the staff memo’s finding that the project "substantially conforms" to applicable design guidelines for historic residences; commissioners stressed that "repair before replacement" of existing windows is the preferred approach under those standards. The applicants agreed to revise the front‑elevation treatment and to bring updated details showing material, railing design and suggested egress solutions back to the commission.

The commission did not take a final design approval or make a finding on the CEQA exemptions; rather, it continued the item so the applicant can incorporate the commission’s direction and return for further review.

The commission also recorded on the public record that no members of the public spoke on the item during the hearing.

Staff follow-up and next steps: the applicant will provide revised elevations and details addressing the balcony, railing and window/egress options and will return for continued review at a future Cultural Heritage Commission meeting. The commission noted that any final building‑safety determinations (egress clear openings, etc.) will be made by Building & Safety and could require additional changes.