Commission gives concept comments, tables ADU/garage plan at 321 East Eastleigh

The Historic Landmarks Commission reviewed a concept plan April 9 for a proposed detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with an attached two‑car garage, pool, pool hut and front‑yard stone and wrought‑iron work at 321 East Eastleigh. After public comment and substantive discussion, the commission provided detailed guidance to the applicant and voted to table the matter for redesign and further review.

Project overview: Architect Paul Zink presented a concept for a 1,072‑square‑foot ADU with a 500‑square‑foot garage and 46 square feet of storage, an in‑ground pool and spa and a 10‑square‑foot pool hut. The project description in the staff report also listed removal of 11 trees, a 6‑foot wood fence, a front garden wall with wrought iron, and demolition of an unpermitted rear shed. Zink said the existing garage sits “two inches from the property line” and described the proposal as rebuilding the garage in that location, adding that the ADU would meet the four‑foot ADU setback allowed under state law.

Public comment: Four in‑person speakers voiced views. Neighbors praised the rehabilitation of the main house but raised concerns about the new chimney under construction on the main residence, visual impacts and the scope of new hardscape and paving. Elena Urschel submitted written comments and showed photographs contrasting the existing chimney and a larger new stack; Steven Olsen and other neighbors asked whether the garage demolition had a separate permit, whether the spa is enclosed, and why the project lists many non‑historic exterior elements. Greg Dolan, a long‑time resident, said the preliminary designs were “sympathetic to the neighborhood.”

Commission guidance: Commissioners voiced consistent design directions: - Simplify the ADU and garage massing and roof forms; several commissioners said the current design is “overly complex” and recommended a much simpler roof and façade treatment. Commissioner Enzberg asked the applicant to “strip away” nonessential elements and return with a clarified formal approach. - Reconsider dormers and chimneys on the ADU. Commissioners noted that dormers can be difficult to proportion on a low‑slope secondary roof and suggested they may be unnecessary; some commissioners said a chimney on the ADU appeared unnecessary and urged study of whether to omit it. - Revisit front‑yard treatment. Multiple commissioners recommended finding precedents on the block before installing new sandstone walls and terraces, and to simplify the promenade from sidewalk to front door rather than add multiple terraced walls. - Clarify legal nonconforming/ set‑back issues for the existing garage. Staff reviewed zoning allowances for rebuilding a nonconforming garage footprint; commissioners asked the applicant to provide the legal analysis and clearly document why the proposed garage location and dimensions are allowed. - Use a simplified materials palette that draws from the main house (window division/muntins, shutters, simplified columns or piers, and compatible siding) rather than introducing new, ornate materials.

Action: Commissioner Butler moved to continue (table) the item for redesign and the motion passed on a roll call vote (ayes: Butler, Enzberg, Lundbeck, Vice Chair Ullie, Chair Grumbine). The commission’s action was a concept‑level continuance — the commission provided direction but did not grant project or demolition approvals.

Next steps: The applicant was asked to return with simplified massing and roof studies, clearer setbacks/legal nonconforming documentation for the garage, a materials and color board that ties to the residence, precedent images for proposed front terraces, and an explicit explanation of how trees, pool equipment and mechanical equipment would be sited and screened. The commission also requested clearer documentation on any already‑issued administrative permits for the main house chimney.