The South Pasadena Cultural Heritage Commission on Sept. 18 continued its review of a proposed renovation at 1901 Oxley Street after commissioners said a new front balcony and French doors would alter the primary facade of a contributor property in the eligible Southeast Mission Craftsman Historic District.

The project would convert attic space into a second habitable floor, add about 655 square feet of habitable area and a new shed dormer, and replace two north-facing double-hung windows with French doors and a small iron balcony. Staff said the work would increase the house’s total floor area to 1,939 square feet and recommended approval subject to conditions and CEQA categorical exemptions (staff cited Section 15301, Class 1, and Section 15331, Class 31).

Commissioners said they were broadly comfortable with the dormer located on the east (nonstreet) side but expressed concerns about changes to the north (front) elevation. Chair Lopez criticized the balcony and its railing, saying the “detailing on the railing is is not very nice. Is is not very craftsman style.” Several commissioners said the proposed French doors and balcony would be inconsistent with the simple double-hung window language on the facade and asked the applicant to consider alternatives.

Architect Tim Clark and project team members said the dormer would be visible primarily from Oxley and that the change in profile is to meet a 7-foot plate height for the upstairs living space. Clark told the commission that the balcony is a small “Romeo and Juliet” feature and defended the door opportunity for egress, noting existing windows do not meet current egress clear-opening requirements.

Commissioners and the applicant discussed code constraints and design options. The architect noted the team tightened the proposed baluster spacing to prevent a small dog from squeezing through; commissioners reminded the applicant that building-code minimum spacing is 4 inches and that the commission’s review focuses on compatibility with historic character, not code compliance.

After discussion the commission voted to continue the item so the applicant could revise the design. Commissioner Dink moved to continue; Commissioner Carbone seconded. The roll call vote was Dink — yes; Carbone — yes; Vice Chair Severson — yes; Chair Lopez — yes. Motion carries. The commission directed the applicant to return with revised detailing that either removes or materially revises the proposed north‑facing balcony, explores alternative egress/window configurations in the same window language where feasible, and provides simplified door/window detailing consistent with the house’s craftsman character.

The commission also noted a prior similar dormer project had been approved about 11 years earlier; the applicant referenced neighborhood precedents within a 300-foot radius but acknowledged the commission’s concern about altering the primary facade.

The applicant will return at a later meeting with revised drawings per the commission’s direction.