6. BRIEF Variance Appeal: 1921 S. 6th Avenue

Community Planning
Community Development
One City Plaza
Yuma, Arizona 85364
(928) 373-5050
Fax (928) 373-5053
TTY (928) 373-5149
www.YumaAZ.gov
TO: City Council
FROM: Joshua Darrow, Assistant Planner
DATE: July 7, 2026
RE: Appeal of the May 28, 2026, Hearing Officer Denial of VAR-45199-2026 for
the property located at 1921 S. 6th Avenue, Yuma, Arizona.
Executive Summary
This appeal concerns Mr. Leonard and Mrs. Ana Manos’s (“Property Owners”) variance
application. The Property Owners sought the Hearing Officer’s approval of VAR-45199-2026 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. 6th Avenue
(“Property”). Within this zoning district, the maximum height of an accessory structure is the
height of the principal building. The accessory structures code ensures accessory buildings or
structures are incidental to the principal residential use on the property. The Property is located
within the La Mesa Hermosa Unit No. 3 Subdivision.
On May 28, 2026, the Hearing Officer held a hearing on the Property Owners’ request for a
variance. City Staff filed a report with the Hearing Officer and recommended denial of the height
and size request, but approval of the side yard setback aspect. City staff noted that the Property
Owners’ requested variance for the height and size of the structure failed to meet the criteria of
§154-03.04(D) of the Yuma City Code. After taking testimony on the variance application, the
Hearing Officer denied the height and size variance request, and approved the side yard setback
variance request after determining that the first two requests did not meet the required findings
for approval under A.R.S. § 9-462.06 and Y.C.C. § 154-03.04(D). Specifically, no special
circumstance unique to the property was identified that would warrant relief from the zoning code
accessory structure height and size requirements as the variance request is based on a design
preference rather than the physical characteristics of the property such as size, shape, topography,
or location.
Pursuant to Yuma City Code § 154-02.02(C) the Property Owners appeal the Hearing Officer’s
denial of the variance request.
Timeline of Events
1

Oct. 28, 2025 A Pre-Development Meeting (“PDM”) was held with applicant.
Nov. 10, 2025 PDM notes and Variance application were emailed to
leonardmanos@gmail.com.
Mar. 10, 2026 The applicant applied for a Variance to increase the allowable size of an
accessory structure, and to reduce the required side yard setback.
Apr. 16, 2026 The applicant withdraws their request. The applicant applies for a new
variance, increasing the allowable size aspect of the request, and adding the
height aspect.
May 28, 2026 The hearing for the new Variance is held
Jun. 1, 2026 The Property Owner appeals against their request.
Argument
State law and City Code require four conditions for a variance. See A.R.S. § 9-462.06 and Y.C.C. §
154-03.04(D) Specifically, Y.C.C. § 154-03.04(D)(1) states that the Hearing Officer:
. . . shall grant a variance(s) only when findings of fact are made that all of the
following conditions exist:
(a) There is a special circumstance(s) or conditions(s) that applies to the property,
building, or use referred to in the application, that does not apply to most
other properties in the district.
(b) The special circumstance was not created or caused by the property owner or
applicant.
(c) The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial
property rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity, under
identical zoning designations.
(d) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to any person
residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood,
or to the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Each of the four (4) criteria required for the approval of a variance application must be answered in the
affirmative. The inability to answer any one of the four (4) criteria in the affirmative, as a matter of law,
must result in the denial of the variance application.
In this case, Staff determined the Property Owners failed to meet three of the four required conditions.
I. Is there a special circumstance that does not apply to most other properties in the
district?
Staff’s Position:
Staff was unable to find a special circumstance or condition that applies to the property
that does not apply to most other properties in this district. After researching the
property, staff was unable to identify a special circumstance that relates to the size,
shape, or layout of the property which satisfies the need to recommend approval of
2

this variance request. The maximum allowable height for an accessory structure on
this property is the height of the principal residential building – 14 feet, and the
maximum allowable size for an accessory structure is 50 percent of the principal
residential building – 560 square feet. Accessory structures are required to be designed
with a logical hierarchy of masses regarding height, size, and volume, and the
proposed structure would not meet the accessory structures development standards for
this zoning district.
Staff found that an existing accessory structure that maintains a 3-foot setback on the
property, as well as the accessory structures within the subdivision with reduced
setbacks, constituted a special circumstance satisfying the side yard setback element
of the request.
Hearing Officer’s Finding:
Hearing Officer Urias identified the existing structure as a special circumstance
regarding the side yard setback aspect of the request. However, after considering typical
special circumstances, such as lot shape or typography, he was unable to identify a special
circumstance that would apply to the height and size request.
II. Was the “special circumstance” created by the property owner or applicant?
Staff’s Position:
Staff analysis determined that there is no special circumstance that relates to this
property, building, or use that does not apply to most other properties in the district.
This is a new 18-foot tall, 1,056 square foot garage/workshop proposed by the
Property Owners. The Property Owners have an alternative solution in the form of
constructing the garage/workshop to be the same height as the home and within 50
percent of the primary building’s square footage.
Regarding the side yard setback, the special circumstance was note created by the
Property Owners as the residence and surrounding neighborhood was developed
prior to the current owner’s purchase of the property.
Hearing Officer’s Finding:
Hearing Officer Urias found the special circumstance for the side yard setback request
to not be created by the Property Owners. For the other aspects of the request, he was
unable to identify a special circumstance.
III. Would denying the variance prevent the applicant from enjoying substantial
property rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity?
Staff’s Position:
The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation of substantial property
rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity, under identical zoning
designations. The accessory structures code was adopted in 2014 and recently amended
and approved by City Council in 2025. There are existing accessory structures on the
3

neighboring properties, identified by the Property Owners, that were either
constructed without a building permit or prior to the adoption of the accessory
structures code. A similar structure to the proposed garage was constructed to the
north of the subject property and was granted a Variance to allow its size.
Hearing Officer’s Finding:
The Hearing Officer stated he does not know the circumstances of the other
structures, but that there is no precedent set by other Variances, and that each
Variance must stand on its own satisfaction with the four criteria. The Hearing
Officer found that denying this request would be preventing the substantial property
right of a garage and found this criterion to be met, but reiterated the lack of special
circumstance allowing the approval of this request.
IV. Would granting the variance be materially detrimental to other people residing or
working in the area?
Staff’s Position:
Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to any person residing or
working in the vicinity, as the proposed garage/workshop meets the minimum lot
coverage, and front and rear yard setback requirements in the Low Density
Residential (R-1-6) District. The request for the side yard setback Variance satisfies
all four criteria and will be constructed with a comment from Building Safety to
accommodate for the setback’s reduction.
Hearing Officer’s Finding:
Hearing Officer Urias stated that, although there is neighboring opposition, this criterion
was met.
Conclusion
The requirements for approval of a variance application required by Yuma City Code § 154-
03.04(D) have not been satisfied by the Property Owners. The Property Owners failed to
demonstrate a special circumstance applies to the Property in regard to the size and height aspect of
the request. Therefore, the Property Owners are not eligible for a variance for those aspects of the
request under State Law or City code. As such, the variance application for the Property must be
denied.
The Property Owners have noted their intent to provide supplemental material to the Council during
the meeting. Having not received these materials, staff cannot address their relevance to the case.
4