Prospective buyers propose restoring 1898 Stoofer House; commission largely supportive of roof changes and preserving historic barn

Prospective buyers and their architect presented a rehabilitation and landmarking work session on Dec. 2 for the historic 1898 Stoofer House at 110 South Harris Street.

The proposal, presented by architect Janet Sutterly and prospective purchaser Larry, would remove a nonconforming 1970s rear addition, reconstruct a smaller rear module roughly in the original historic footprint, move all existing front-of-lot parking to the rear alley as required for a Class A development, and restore a 330-square-foot historic barn that will remain on-site.

"The historic roof massing that you're looking at tonight is exactly the same as on your site plan," Janet Sutterly said, explaining the proposed shift of the house forward on the lot and the intent to reduce visual massing created by the later addition.

Commission questions focused on two staff-identified issues: whether the proposed low-pitch transition roof and stepped gabled form comply with Priority Design Standard 121 in the town's character-area handbook, and whether a proposed bonus room above the new garage should be classified as a bedroom for parking purposes.

Solar easement and neighbor support Neighbor Tim Casey, the beneficiary of a recorded solar easement on the lot to the north, told the commission the redesigned separation between ridge lines actually increased usable solar area for his property and said he supports the project. "I think it's a win-win," Casey said.

Bonus room, bedroom definition and parking impact The applicants and staff said the space above the garage is intended as an office for the owner's construction business and would not meet the building-code definition of a sleeping room: it would be accessed only through the garage, lack a closet and would not be part of the dwelling's primary habitable square footage. "It does not meet the definition of a sleeping room," the prospective purchaser, Larry, said.

Commissioners suggested soft conditions to preserve that status at final hearing — for example, a condition limiting high-capacity circuits or prohibiting a shower installation that could enable conversion to an accessory dwelling. Several commissioners said they were comfortable moving the house forward on the lot by roughly 4 ft 11.5 in and praised the design for emphasizing the original 1898 cottage while reducing the 1970s addition's visual weight.

Historic barn and parking constraints Staff noted the small historic barn must remain in its current location to qualify for positive preservation points; commissioners and the applicant said engineering and site constraints make rotating or reorienting the barn impractical. Because parking must be relocated to the rear alley and part of the lot footprint is occupied by the preserved barn, adding a bedroom would likely trigger an additional parking requirement that the site cannot easily accommodate.

Next steps Staff said the work session provided useful direction and that the applicant will likely proceed to formal application and a public hearing with conditions addressing bedroom conversion and final roof-pitch verification. Several commissioners encouraged the applicant to proceed; staff will return with the formal submittal.

The planning commission did not take a formal vote during the work session.