Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission raises preservation concerns at study session for 617 Fremont Avenue mixed‑use proposal
Summary
At a Feb. 20 study session the applicant presented a plan to convert an existing 1909 Craftsman house into mixed use, add a rear three‑story duplex and subterranean parking. Commissioners said the proposed massing and extent of demolition was inconsistent with the city’s historic‑inventory guidance; staff and applicant will continue revisions.
At a Feb. 20 study session the South Pasadena Cultural Heritage Commission reviewed preliminary plans for a mixed-use conversion and new rear duplex at 617 Fremont Avenue. The applicant described a design that would retain the front portion of a 1909 Craftsman residence, add a second‑story studio to that structure, relocate the house temporarily to allow subterranean parking, and construct a three‑story duplex at the rear of the lot.
Project designer Chong Chen told the commission the site is zoned commercial office with a mixed‑use overlay and that the team sought to balance downtown redevelopment goals with recognition of the house’s historic value. “Building today, but for the future,” Chen said, describing the project’s intention to provide housing near downtown and a stepped massing intended to reduce perceived bulk from the street.
Staff presentation and commissioner comments focused on historic‑inventory standards. Staff said the design conflicted with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards (staff cited Standards 2, 9 and 10 as relevant) and with the city’s design guidelines because of the proposal’s mass and scale relative to the existing house and neighboring properties. Commissioners expressed concern that the proposal would remove large portions of the historic fabric—one commissioner described the amount of demolition proposed as excessive and said a three‑story structure behind a small historic house would be “a nonstarter.” Several commissioners urged stronger differentiation between the original structure and new construction, and recommended alternatives such as a two‑story rear addition or other approaches that preserve more of the front historic envelope.
The applicant and owner (Eric Madrigal) asked whether removing the subterranean parking would reduce the amount of structural relocation and demolition; commissioners acknowledged that removing parking could change constructability and that the chair retains discretion to refer projects to the full commission when visibility or other factors warrant. Staff said parking is not required for the site because it lies within a half‑mile of a high‑quality transit stop, but the applicant said they plan to provide on‑site subterranean parking for economic feasibility and to avoid overflow parking in the neighborhood.
The commission did not take a vote; the session was advisory. Staff said it will continue to work with the applicant on revised designs intended to reduce loss of historic material and to better differentiate new from original construction. No formal approvals or entitlements were granted at the meeting.
