2. HO MINUTES Variance Appeal: 1921 S. 6th Avenue

Hearing Officer Meeting Minutes
May 28, 2026
A meeting of the City of Yuma Hearing Officer was held on Thursday, May 28, 2026, at City Hall Council
Chambers, One City Plaza, Yuma, Arizona.
HEARING OFFICER in attendance was Ray Urias
CITY OF YUMA STAFF MEMBERS present included Jennifer Albers, Assistant Director of Planning;
Amelia Domby, Principal Planner; Guillermo Moreno-nunez, Associate Planner; Joshua Darrow, Assistant
Planner; John LeSueur, Assistant City Attorney and Alejandro Marquez, Administrative Specialist.
Hearing Officer Ray Urias called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Hearing Officer Ray Urias approved the minutes of April 23, 2026.
ITEMS REQUIRING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
VAR-45166-2026: This is a request by Skyler and Karen Poston for a variance to reduce the minimum
required parking space depth dimension from 20 feet to 18 feet 1 inch in the Low Density Residential (R-1-
8) District for the property located at 5630 E. 45" Street, Yuma, AZ.
Joshua Darrow, Assistant Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended DENIAL
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
Hearing Officer Ray Urias referred to Criteria No.1 of the Yuma City Code and asked Darrow if he had
found a special circumstance unique to the property. Darrow replied no.
Hearing Officer Urias stated that, in evaluating variance requests, he looks for special circumstances
directly related to the nature of the variance being requested, he then noted that the variance under
consideration sought to reduce the required parking setback distance from 20 feet to 18 feet 1 inch.
Hearing Officer Urias asked whether the subject property was level. Darrow answered yes it was. Hearing
Officer Urias then asked whether the lot was a standard rectangular lot. Darrow replied yes
Hearing Officer Urias further noted that the property included an angled cut due to its corner-lot
configuration and asked whether the modification was required to accommodate the sight-visibility triangle
established by engineering department standards. Darrow answered yes
Hearing Officer Urias then asked whether the angled cut was located on the side of the property where
the applicant was requesting the parking setback reduction. Darrow replied that it was not.
Hearing Officer Urias asked whether there were any unusual right-of-way dedications on the property,
such as those associated with power lines or underground utilities, that would affect the area where the
parking setback reduction was proposed. Darrow responded no.
Hearing Officer Urias then inquired about staff's findings regarding Criteria No. 3. Darrow stated that staff
found the criterion had not been met, as the requested reduction was not necessary to allow the applicant
to accomplish the intended use of the property. Hearing Officer Urias noted that the applicant could
achieve the desired outcome without reducing the required parking setback.
Hearing Officer Meeting Minutes
May 28, 2026
Page 1 of 4

Hearing Officer Urias then asked whether Criteria No. 4 had been satisfied. Darrow replied yes.
Hearing Officer Urias inquired whether any opposition or concerns had been received from neighboring
property owners. Darrow stated that no opposition had been received.
APPLICANT/APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE
Skyler Poston, 5630 E. 45"" Street, Yuma, AZ, clarified that the request applies only to the rear portion
of the existing three-car, L-shaped garage where the water heater is located, and not the entire structure.
Poston then noted that the remaining space would still accommodate a full-size vehicle.
Hearing Officer Urias then asked staff, since the applicant clarified where the office would be located,
does it change the special circumstance. Darrow noted that there will be a utility room next to the proposed
game room per the site plan on page six of the staff report. Hearing Officer Urias then asked if the garage
accommodates three vehicles. Darrow replied yes. Hearing Officer Urias then asked if the applicant was
going to change one-third of the garage space. Darrow answered yes. Hearing Officer Urias then asked
whether that information would change staff's opinion regarding the special circumstance requirement.
Darrow replied no.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
DECISION
Hearing Officer Ray Urias denied the request to reduce the minimum required parking space depth
dimension from 20 feet to 18 feet 1 inch in the Low Density Residential (R-1-8) District for the property
located at 5630 E. 45" Street, Yuma, AZ.
VAR-45199-2026: This is a request by Leonard and Ana Manos for a variance to increase the allowable
maximum size of a large accessory structure from 50 percent of the primary building to 94 percent of the
primary building, to increase the allowable maximum height of a large accessory structure from the total
height of the primary residence, 14 feet, to 18 feet, and reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet
for a large accessory structure in the Low Density Residential (R-1-6) District for the property located at
1921 S. 6” Avenue, Yuma, AZ.
Joshua Darrow, Assistant Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended DENIAL of the
request for a variance to increase the allowable maximum size of a large accessory structure from 50
percent of the primary building to 94 percent of the primary building and to increase the allowable maximum
height of a large accessory structure from 14 feet to18 feet, and recommended APPROVAL of the request
to decrease the side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet for a large accessory structure in the Low Density
Residential (R-1-6) District for the property located at 1921 S. 6" Avenue, Yuma, AZ, subject to the
Conditions of Approval in Attachment A.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
Hearing Officer Ray Urias asked for confirmation as to whether multiple variance requests were
associated with the case and then asked for clarification regarding whether the requests included overall
height, size, and setbacks, and noted that only the setback request had been found to meet all required
criteria. Darrow replied yes.
Hearing Officer Urias asked whether the applicant was also requesting a reduction to the height
requirement for a detached accessory structure. Darrow responded yes. Hearing Officer Urias then asked
for confirmation that the structure was not to exceed the height of the primary residence. Darrow replied
yes.
Hearing Officer Meeting Minutes
May 28, 2026
Page 2 of 4

Hearing Officer Urias asked if the height of the home was measured at 14 feet. Darrow answered yes.
Hearing Officer Urias then asked for confirmation that the applicant also proposed that the structure could
be reduced to fourteen feet six inches. Darrow answered yes. Hearing Officer Urias asked would staff
have an objection to that proposal. Darrow stated that the purpose of the height requirement is to ensure
the accessory structures do not overwhelm the height of the primary residence, he then noted that at 14
feet 6 inches, he does not believe the proposed structure would do so.
Hearing Officer Urias referred to the request for a 94 percent maximum size variance and asked whether
the applicant had made any proposed changes to this request. Darrow answered he was not aware ofa
change to this request.
Hearing Officer Urias clarified that Variance Criteria Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had not been met, and Criteria No.
4 had been met with some opposition by some of the neighbors. Darrow replied that some of the neighbors
had submitted emails in opposition to the request which were provided at the beginning of the hearing.
Hearing Officer Urias asked whether the applicant had been made aware of the emails submitted in
opposition to the request. Darrow replied that the applicant had not, as the emails had been received only
recently. Hearing Officer Urias then provided the applicant with copies of the emails for review.
Hearing Officer Urias asked about the size of the primary residence and what size the accessory structure
would need to be to comply with City Code requirements and noted that he understood the height of the
home to be 14 feet and inquired about the maximum allowable size for the proposed structure. Darrow
stated that the primary residence is 1,120 square feet and then stated that City Code would allow a detached
accessory structure of up to 560 square feet, which represents 50 percent of the home’s square footage.
Hearing Officer Urias asked if the structure was less than 50 percent would the applicant only need a
building permit. Darrow replied that was correct but noted that approval of the setback variances would still
be required.
APPLICANT/APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE
Leonard Manos, 1921 S. 6" Avenue, Yuma, AZ, was available for questions.
Hearing Officer Urias asked whether the property was rectangular in shape. Manos replied yes, it was
but noted that the lot is narrow and lacks sufficient access for ingress and egress. Hearing Officer Urias
then asked whether the property is flat and level. Manos answered yes.
Hearing Officer Urias asked whether the applicant was aware of any underground utilities in the area
where the structure would be constructed. Manos replied that the proposed structure had been shifted
away from the home due to the presence of underground utilities.
Manos presented improvements made to the home and stated that he had previously inquired with City
staff about the possibility of constructing a garage in front of the residence but was advised that it would
not comply with City requirements. Manos then noted that other nearby properties have similar accessory
structures, and that the proposed accessory structure would be located in the rear of the property and
would not be visible from the front of the residence.
Manos stated that he could potentially reduce the height of the proposed structure to 14 feet, however,
doing so would require an additional 1 foot added to the length to the building because of engineering to
the door. Manos stated that adjustments could be made to the design to reduce the height, but the structure
would need to be 49 feet in length.
Hearing Officer Urias stated that while he observed similar structures in the surrounding neighborhood
during a site visit, each variance request must be evaluated on its own merits.
Hearing Officer Meeting Minutes
May 28, 2026
Page 3 of 4

Hearing Officer Urias noted that there was some opposition from neighbors. Manos replied that he did
not agree with the opposition emails that were filed by some of his neighbors.
Manos reiterated that he could reduce the height of the building to 14 feet, but he would need the extra
space to be able to install roll up garage doors and then stated he would need 1 hour fire rating from the
wall.
Hearing Officer Urias stated that the Code does not allow a structure to exceed the maximum permitted
height or size, noting that the proposed structure exceeds the allowable size by approximately 45 percent.
Hearing Officer Urias then stated that he was attempting to identify a special circumstance to justify the
variance but was unable to find one.
Hearing Officer Urias then asked if there was access to the home from the alley. Manos stated yes and
that there is no other access to the back of the home only from the alley because the lot is so narrow and
that the home takes up most of the width of the lot.
Manos noted that the home had no storage and stated that there is an existing garage at the rear of the
property, however because it is below grade it fills with water during rainfall so nothing would be able to
be stored inside of it.
Jennifer Albers, Assistant Director of Planning stated that the standard parking space is 10 feet by 20
feet, then noted that a 400 square foot garage would accommodate two vehicles.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
DECISION
Hearing Officer Ray Urias denied the request for a variance to increase the allowable maximum size of a
large accessory structure from 50 percent of the primary building to 94 percent of the primary building and
to increase the allowable maximum height of a large accessory structure from 14 feet to 18 feet and
approved the request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet, subject to the
Conditions of Approval in Attachment A, finding that the four criteria of Yuma City Code §154-03.04(D)(1)
had been met.
Hearing Officer Ray Urias adjourned the meeting at 10:23 a.m.
Su
Minutes approved this day of , 2026.
Hearifig Officer
Hearing Officer Meeting Minutes
May 28, 2026
Page 4 of 4