Board allows limited expansion at 200 And Ninth Street, waiving 25% cap on nonconforming addition

The Planning and Zoning Board on April 15 approved a variance allowing the owner of 200 And Ninth Street to increase the gross floor area of a legally nonconforming house by an additional 515 square feet beyond the code’s usual 25% limit — provided the expansion does not enlarge the building footprint or lot coverage and that all other Land Development Code requirements are met.

Board staff described the property as a corner lot with an existing structure set back 5 feet on its west side where the current standard requires 7.5 feet; the house was constructed and received a certificate of occupancy in 1990. Staff said the previously approved work by a former owner had already used the allowance under the 25% rule and that the new owner’s contractor submitted plans adding another 515 square feet that would not increase lot coverage or the impervious-surface ratio (ISR).

James Whitehouse, attorney for the applicant, asked the board to approve the variance as a practical way to finish and improve a structure that has sat partially unfinished since the prior owner’s death: “All she wants to do is fix this structure up,” he said, and described the requested changes as limited to an adjusted roof line, some interior storage and bathroom adjustments, and enclosing a stair area. Whitehouse also said approximately 200 square feet of the requested addition involves enclosing an existing carport while the remainder is new living area above.

Staff confirmed that the proposal would not increase IRC-required lot coverage or ISR and that other standards (balconies, covered areas, and final elevations) must comply with the Land Development Code and with the building department’s review. The board’s motion to approve added an explicit condition that the footprint of the building shall not expand beyond what is shown in the application materials and that all other Land Development Code provisions and building permit requirements must be satisfied.

Board members discussed the rationale for the 25% limit on increases to legally nonconforming structures, noting the city’s preference to bring properties into full conformance when feasible. Several members said that, in this instance, asking the owner to remove a portion of the existing structure to attain a 7.5-foot setback would be unreasonable. The variance passed on a voice vote; the board included standard conditions that the approved plans will be enforced by building officials during permit review.