TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer C. Baptiste - Planning & Zoning Division Manager
FROM: Mikayla Layral - Planner II
DATE: November 10, 2026
RE:Title
A26-55: A variance at 2217 Jumalon Street, (0426928666) to reduce the front setback from 25’ to 14’ in a Single Family Residential 10 (SF-10) zoning district owned by Sewak LLC.
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
District 2 - Malik Davis
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal 2: Economic & Strategic Growth
• Objective 2.6: To manage the City's future growth and strategic land use.
Goal 3: Desirable Place to Live, Work, & Recreate
• Objective 3.5: To ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods.
Executive Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Unified Development Ordinance to reduce the required front setback from 25’ to 14’, for a proposed single-family dwelling at 2217 Jumalon St.
Per Section 30.2.C.14, variances are intended to provide relief from dimensional standards in cases where exceptional conditions, beyond the landowner’s control, create a unique hardship under the strict application of the Ordinance. Variances do not authorize changes to permitted uses or modify conditions of approval, and they are to be granted only under limited and specific circumstances.
Background:
Owner: Sanjay Khazanchi with Sewak LLC
Applicant: Michael Adams with MAPS Surveying Inc.
Requested Action: Reduce the required front setback from 25’ to 14’, for a proposed single-family dwelling.
Zoning District: Single Family Residential 6 (SF-6)
Property Address: 2217 Jumalon St.
Size: 0.18 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Single Family Residential
o North - Single Family Residential 6
o South - Single Family Residential 6 & Office & Institutional
o East - Single Family Residential 6
o West - Single Family Residential 6, Neighborhood Commercial & Community Commercial
Issues/Analysis:
The request is for a variance from the minimum front setback established in Section 30-3.D.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for properties zoned Single-Family Residential 6 (SF-6). The subject property, now addressed as 2217 Jumalon St., was previously addressed as 2220 Progress St. The address was changed during the variance application process at the applicant’s request to reflect the proposed access to the property from Jumalon Street.
The applicant is requesting a reduction of the required 25’ front setback to 14’ to accommodate the construction of a proposed single-family dwelling. The applicant states that the original lot was approximately 60’ wide by 138’ deep and that the construction of Jumalon Street reduced the lot’s depth and created an irregularly shaped property, limiting the area available for residential development.
Additionally, the applicant proposes a no-access easement along the Progress Street property line to designate Jumalon Street as the front of the property. This would distinguish Jumalon Street as the primary frontage for purposes of the double-frontage lot provisions in UDO Section 30-9.B.1. The requested variance would allow the proposed dwelling to be constructed while accommodating the existing lot configuration.
Insufficient Justification for a Variance:
The following do not constitute valid grounds for granting a Variance:
• The existence of conforming or nonconforming uses or structures elsewhere in the same or other zoning districts;
• A request to establish a use that is expressly or implicitly prohibited within the zoning district; or
• Claims of economic hardship or increased profitability that would result from approval of the Variance.
Findings of Fact (Based on Applicant’s Responses):
The findings are based on the applicant’s responses to the submitted application and the most reliable information regarding the proposal before any testimony is presented at the evidentiary hearing.
Findings of Fact Statements as reviewed by the Planning Staff:
1. There is sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
If the front setback from Jumalon Street is held, it creates a buildable depth of 10.8' on the left side.
2. There is sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
The original lot was created as 60' wide by 138' deep. Jumalon St was built and drastically reduced the lot depth. Jumalon Street was also constructed at a steep angle to the original lot, thereby creating a very odd shape property line along Jumalon. If Jumalon had been built more perpendicular to the original lot, the lot might have been left buildable.
3. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
The proposed house is one of the smallest that the builder has at his disposal. The house is still of size for comfortable living while utilizing the utmost of the lot. If strict adherence to the ordinance requirements are held, the only option for this lot would be tiny home.
4. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
The request is to maximize the lot usage in its current condition with a small single family house which is in harmony with the surrounding properties and keeps the spirit of the ordinance intact with the original intent.
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, and substantial justice has been done, as shown by the following evidence:
The variance will allow for the lot to be developed in harmony with the surrounding properties. Otherwise, the only buildable unit that can be kept within the ordinance values, would be drastically different from the surrounding properties.
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact associated with this request.
Options:
The board has the authority to approve or deny the request based on the five required findings of fact. Members must assess the evidence and determine whether the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships based on the land’s unique characteristics.
The motion is to approve the variance(s) as requested but with added conditions.
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request with added conditions:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
2. Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from unique circumstances related to the land. They are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, and substantial justice has been done, as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
Motion to deny the variance as requested.
Findings of Fact Statements Required to Deny this Request:
1. There is not sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
________________________________________________________________
2. There is not sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
3. There is not sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
4. There is not sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
5. There is not sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare has been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
N/Aend
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Site Plan