02.BA260033 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
Case:   
 
 
BA260033 – Red Ledge Property   
 
Hearing Date:  
 
June 18, 2026 (Continued from May 14, 2026) 
 
Supervisor District: 
 
3 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Applicant:  
Kyle Balster, Designtank  
 
Property Owner: 
HIGAZ, LLC 
 
Request: 
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit: 
 
1) 
Proposed front setback of 30’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per 
MCZO Article 502. 
 
Site Location: 
APN 169-16-038A @ 7339 N. Red Ledge Dr. – Near Clearwater Pkwy. & 
Tatum Blvd, in the Clearwater Hills area 
 
Site Size: 
 
 
47,640 sq. ft. (1.09 acres) 
 
Current Use / Zoning: 
Single-family residence / Rural-43 
 
Open Violation: 
N/A 
 
Background: 
 
1. 
September 8, 1955: The Clearwater Hills subdivision was recorded creating the subject parcel 
identified as Lot #38 on the recorded plat (MCR BK64 PG 42). This is a county island surrounded 
by the Town of Paradise Valley and the City of Phoenix with portions of the subdivision annexed 
into Paradise Valley. 
 
2. 
1959: The construction of a new single-family home was completed on the vacant lot.  
 
3. 
December 31, 2025: The current homeowner purchased the property (MCR 20260005888).  
 
4. 
April 10, 2026: The applicant filed for this variance request to reduce the front setbacks on the lot.  
 
5. 
May 14, 2026: The Board of Adjustment voted to continue this case to the June 18, 2026 agenda 
since the applicant was not present during the hearing.  
 
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 
 
6. 
On-site: 
Rural-43 / Single-family residence 
 
North:  
Rural-43 / Single-family residence 
South:  
Across Red Ledge Dr. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence 
East: 
 
Rural-43 / Single-family residence 
 
West:  
Rural-43 / Single-family residence

Page 2 of 7 
 
 
 
 
Variance Requests: 
 
7. 
The applicant proposes to replace the existing single-family residence with a new single-family 
residence with a much larger footprint. The developer indicates the only areas of the lot to 
accommodate the location of the new home is in the site’s southwest extreme due to an existing 
wash along the  eastern portion of the lot encroaching into both the required rear and side 
setbacks of the lot and encumbering the principal building envelope. The applicant is proposing 
to reduce the front setback from the required minimum of 40’ to 30’.  The applicant argues that 
without variance it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to develop a residence that 
functions efficiently on this site.   
 
Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 7 
 
                                                                   Photographs of subject site 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Site Analysis: 
 
8. 
The site is located on the east lower slopes of the Phoenix Mountains at a general elevation of 
1,605’. This lot is bisected by a wash in the east part of the lot with mountainous terrain on the 
remainder of the lot. However, the area where the existing home and where the new home will be 
situated was graded in the 1950’s and is level.  Since the grading that established the homesite 
took place before the County’s hillside requirements, staff considers this to be non-conforming 
making this a standard variance request not a hillside request. Additionally, this lot has a unique 
layout with multiple side yards and a curved front yard. Staff notes with the MCZO update 
approved by the Board of Supervisors, the side yard setback was reduced from 30’ to 20’ thus the

Page 4 of 7 
 
applicant’s site plan for a reduction of the side yard setback is not necessary and has been 
removed from the variance request.  
 
Aerial photo of subject site and environs 
                                                    
                                                 zoning District map (note location of other variances)

Page 5 of 7 
 
                                                               
                          Eagle view of subject site looking north] into subject parcel (aerial image dated 11/7/25).  
 
Zoning District Standards: 
 
9. 
The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning 
district with those proposed by the owner (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in 
bold). 
 
 
 
Standard 
 
Rural-43   
Zoning 
District 
Proposed with 
Variance 
Min. Front Setback (residence to southwest lot line)  
40-feet 
      30-feet 
Min. Rear Setback (residence to east lot line) 
40-feet 
      64-feet 
Min. Side Setback (residence to west & north lot line) 
20-feet 
      20-feet 
Min. South Side Setback (residence to south lot line)  
30-feet  
      41-feet 
Maximum Height  
35-feet 
Unkn.  
Minimum Lot Area 
43,560-sq. ft. 
47,640-sq. ft. 
Minimum Lot Width 
145-feet 
151-feet 
Lot Coverage 
25% 
       ~18% 
 
Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards 
 
  
 
State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 states the 
Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if, owing to peculiar 
conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if in granting the variance the 
general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.”

Page 6 of 7 
 
 
10. 
Statutory Test -1 Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition– Discuss and 
explain what is/are the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied.   
 
“The property is uniquely constrained by a combination of natural features that significantly 
restrict buildable areas. A large wash traverses a portion of the lot. And the terrain slopes steeply 
from front to rear, pushing the buildable pad into the southwest portion of the property. These 
conditions results in a limited area for residential development. The proposed variance seeks 
relief from the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance setback requirements, specifically requesting 
an additional 10 feet in the front and side yard setbacks to accommodate the projection of the 
newly proposed structure. The existing residence already contains two portions that project into 
the front and side yard setbacks. Enforcement of the standards setback requirements without 
relief would make it extremely challenging, if not impossible, to construct a residence that 
functions efficiently on this site while meeting the County’s intent  for safe and orderly 
development.” 
 
11. 
Statutory Test 2 – Does applying the requirements of the Ordinance to the applicant’s property 
create an Unnecessary Hardship – Explain how the peculiar condition identified in #1 causes an  
unnecessary hardship to the property when the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance are applied.  Explain how the that the peculiar condition of the property came to be and 
whether the condition was created by the applicant or someone in the property’s line of title. 
Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all 
peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, 
shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how 
enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on 
the property. 
 
“The hardship created by strict adherence to the setback requirements is a result of the property’s 
natural conditions and is not self-created. The large wash and steep terrain were present prior to 
ownership and are inherent to the site, limiting the usable area for construction. These peculiar 
conditions make it impractical to develop the property without encroaching slightly into the setback 
areas. The variance request provides a reasonable solution to allow for the placement if a functional 
residential structure, while recognizing and working within the site’s constraints. The relief sought 
is directly tied to the natural limitations of the property and is necessary to allow for development 
consistent with the neighborhood.” 
 
12. 
Statutory Test 3 – General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance – Discuss the purpose 
of the zoning requirement from which the variance is being sought. Then, discuss and explain 
how, provided statutory tests #1 and #2 are satisfied, the granting of the requested variance 
would preserve the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 
 
“Granting the requested variance will not negatively impact the intent and purpose of the Maricopa 
County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed relief allows for the home to be sited in the only practical 
buildable area while preserving the large wash, natural terrain, and overall character of the property. 
The existing encroachments into the front and side setbacks establish a precedent on the site, and 
the proposed projections will not adversely affect adjacent properties. Specifically, due to the 
significant elevation differences between the related to the sitework. The variance maintains the 
intent of the Ordinance by balancing property development with the preservation of natural features 
and adherence to the broader objectives.”

Page 7 of 7 
 
Findings:  
 
13. 
The applicant has the burden of proving to the Board that, in accordance with the standard set 
forth in ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2, the property requires a variance. To grant the 
relief, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, a physical condition of the 
applicant’s property that is peculiar and not common to the area or the universe of the zoning 
district. Also, any such peculiarity must not have been created either by the applicant or anyone 
in the chain of title. If the Board determines that there is no such peculiar physical condition, its 
inquiry stops, and the application must be denied. 
 
If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the applicant’s property which is not self-
imposed, then the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, an unnecessary 
hardship imposed upon the property due to the strict application of the requirements of the zoning 
ordinance which the applicant wishes to have varied such that there is no viable use of the 
property without the variance.  
 
If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the property which is not self-imposed, and 
that in applying the requirements of the zoning ordinance to the property, because of the peculiar 
physical condition, an unnecessary hardship exists, the applicant must prove, and the Board must 
find and identify, how the granting of the variance will preserve the general intent and purpose of 
the zoning ordinance. 
 
In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion 
memorializing the above.   
 
14. 
Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the 
following positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: 
 
• 
This is a large lot and the lot’s disturbance area takes up a large portion of the lot.  
• 
The existing disturbance on the lot was created prior to the County hillside requirements.  
• 
Arguably, the proposed new home footprint could be reduced to fit perfectly in this lot without 
the need for a variance.  
• 
The lot is subject to a wash and mountainous terrain that limit pragmatic area for 
development of the lot.  
• 
Granting the variance request would hardly be noticeable to the neighbors, since this is a 
neighborhood of large lots with large home substantially spaced far from each other.  
• 
Clearwater Hills is subject of numerous variances, many similar to the subject request. 
 
15. 
And further, if the Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, and has stated its 
findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize the following: 
 
a) 
Variance approval establishes a 30’ front (southwest) setback line for APN 169-16-038A.  
 
 
Presented by: 
Martin Martell, Planner 
Reviewed by: 
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager  
 
Attachments: 
Case Map (1 page) 
 
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3  pages) 
 
Site Plan / Floor Plan (4 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
3
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated April 23, 2026 9:32 AM
BA260033
Application Name:
Legal Description
Red Ledge Residence
Applicant
Case Address
2N 4E 6
Kyle Balster
7339 N RED LEDGE DR
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:169-16-038A
(920) 840-1007
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
Map scale 1:709
Supervisor District No.
Variance request to reduce the required front setback from 40' to 30' and reduce the required interior
west/north side setback from 30' to 20' in the Rural-43 zoning district on a lot classified as hillside.

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Residential Variance Application Packet 
12/2/24 
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE  
PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION 
APPLICATION FORM 
 
ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE 
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE REQUEST 
Description of Request: 
Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: 
Related Case Number(s): 
PROPERTY INFORMATION 
Address (if known): 
General Location (include nearest city/town): 
 
Size in Acres: 
 
Square Feet: 
Legal Description: 
Section: 
Township: 
Range: 
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 
Subdivision Name (if applicable): 
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes  
  No  
APPLICANT INFORMATION 
Name: 
Contact: 
Address: 
City: 
State: 
Zip: 
Phone #: 
Fax #: 
E-mail Address: 
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION 
Name: 
Contact: 
Address: 
City: 
State: 
Zip: 
Phone #: 
Fax #: 
E-mail Address: 
PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION  
I (property owner) 
 
authorize (applicant’s name) 
to file this application on all matters relating to this request with Maricopa County. By signing this form as the property owner I hereby agree to 
abide by any and all conditions that may be assigned by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Planning and Zoning 
Commission, or Maricopa County Planning and Development Department staff as applicable, as part of any approval of this request, including 
conditions, development agreements, and/or any other requirement that may encumber or otherwise affect the use of my property. 
PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER – SIGNATURE REQUIRED  
The property owner acknowledges that the approval being sought by this application may cause a reduction in the existing rights to use, 
divide, sell or possess the private property that is the subject of this application.  The property owner further acknowledges that it is the 
property owner who has requested the action sought by the filing of this application.  Therefore, with full knowledge of all rights granted to 
the property owner pursuant to A.R.S.§1§12-1132 through 1138, the property owner does hereby waive any and all claims for diminution in 
value of the property with regard to any action taken by Maricopa County as result of the filing of this application. 
Property Owner Signature: 
Date: 
INSPECTIONS 
By submitting this application, I am inviting County staff to conduct all site inspections they deem necessary. 
VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION INFORMATION  –  SIGNATURE REQUIRED  
I certify that the statements in this application and support material are true. Any approvals or permits granted by Maricopa County in reliance 
upon the truthfulness of these statements may be revoked or rescinded.  
Owner or Authorized Agent Signature: 
Date: 
ARS § 1605 TIMEFRAME EXTENSION  
I authorize a 50% timeframe extension for the review of my application as adopted by the Board of Supervisors per ARS § 1605 and as 
amended. 
 
Property Owner Signature: _________________________________________________________   Date: 
  ______________________________ 
10 feet of relief within the front, side, and rear yard setbacks
7339 N Red Ledge Dr, Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
Paradise Valley
1.09
47,640.00
169-16-038A
Clearwater Hills
I
Kyle Balster
designtank
2901 E Camelback Rd, Ste 201
Phoenix
AZ
85016
(602) 341-5175
kyle@designtankphx.com
HIGAZ LLC
4215 N Winfield Scott Plaza
Scottsdale
AZ
85251
(480) 545-0500
scott@vdevs.com
HIGAZ LLC
Kyle Balster
04/09/2026
Digitally signed by Kyle Balster
DN: C=US, E=kyle@designtankphx.com, CN=Kyle Balster
Date: 2026.04.09 10:59:26-07'00'
04/09/2026
Docusign Envelope ID: B5A2B7BB-7950-8F72-8175-925E3D935744
RECEIVED 13.APR 26 -- BA260033 -- 1. SUB

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Residential Variance Application Packet 
12/2/24 
 
 
 
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
ARS §11-816 B.2 
The Board of Adjustment may allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance when, owing to peculiar 
conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship, if in granting such variance the 
general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved. 
1.
Please discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar condition(s) facing the property and include reference to the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) to be varied.  Explain the proposed 
use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions on your property in regard
to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and
easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) would impose
a hardship on the property.
2.
Please explain the unnecessary hardship the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates because of a peculiar
condition/the peculiar conditions on site. Please discuss and explain that the peculiar condition of the property is
not self-created in the line of title.
The property is uniquely constrained by a combination of natural features that significantly restrict buildable areas. A large wash traverses
a portion of the lot, and the terrain slopes steeply from front to rear, pushing the buildable pad into the rear corner of the property. These
conditions result in a limited area for residential development. The proposed variance seeks relief from the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance setback requirements, specifically requesting an additional 10 feet in the front, side, and rear yard setbacks to accommodate
the projection of the newly proposed structure. The existing residence already contains two portions that project into the front and side yard
setbacks. Enforcement of the standard setback requirements without relief would make it extremely challenging, if not impossible, to
construct a residence that functions efficiently on this site while meeting the County’s intent for safe and orderly development.
The hardship created by strict adherence to the setback requirements is a result of the property’s natural conditions and is not
self-created. The large wash and steep terrain were present prior to ownership and are inherent to the site, limiting the usable area for
construction. These peculiar conditions make it impractical to develop the property without encroaching slightly into the setback areas.
The variance request provides a reasonable solution to allow for the placement of a functional residential structure, while recognizing and
working within the site’s constraints. The relief sought is directly tied to the natural limitations of the property and is necessary to allow for
development consistent with the neighborhood.
Docusign Envelope ID: B5A2B7BB-7950-8F72-8175-925E3D935744
RECEIVED 13.APR 26 -- BA260033 -- 1. SUB

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
 
 
 
3.
Please discuss and explain how the granting of the requested variance would not cause a negative impact on
the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
*Additional sheets may be attached.
** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION 
Residential Variance Application Packet 
6/17/24 
Granting the requested variance will not negatively impact the intent or purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed relief allows for the home to be sited in the only practical buildable area while preserving the large wash, natural terrain, and
overall character of the property. The existing encroachments into the front and side setbacks establish a precedent on the site, and
the proposed projections will not adversely affect adjacent properties. Specifically, due to the significant elevation difference between
the subject property and the neighboring uphill property, there will be no visual impact to their existing view nor any physical impact
related to the sitework. The variance maintains the intent of the Ordinance by balancing property development with the preservation of
natural features and adherence to the broader zoning objectives.
Docusign Envelope ID: B5A2B7BB-7950-8F72-8175-925E3D935744

existing setback
30' - 0"
existing setback
30' - 0"
existing residence
59'-6"
existing residence
109'-5 1/2"
existing residence
22'-6 1/4"
existing projection
6'-11"
existing projection
7'-5 3/4"
existing residence
77'-2"
existing projection
5'-1 1/2"
existing residence
31'-8"
existing projection
8'-4"
existing residence
133'-1 1/2"
existing residence
57'-10 1/2"
existing 
residence
existing fence
71'-5"
existing fence
102'-10 1/4"
existing fence
28'-6 3/4"
r.o.w.
25' - 0"
existing setback
40' - 0"
existing setback
30' - 0"
existing setback
40' - 0"
existing residence
24'-10 1/2"
existing residence
33'-1"
red ledge dr
existing residence - outline
plan legend
existing residence - setback projection
proposed setbacks (accounting for variance)
original setbacks (pre-variance)
2901 e camelback rd suite 201
phoenix, az 85016
phone: (503) 580-5626
web: designtank.co
instagram: @designtank.co
designtank 
©
red ledge dr residence
7339 n red ledge dr, paradise valley, az 85253
cr 002
site plan -
existing
1/16" = 1'-0" 01
site plan - existing
RECEIVED 13.APR 26 -- BA260033 -- 1. SUB

red ledge dr
existing setback
30' - 0"
existing setback
40' - 0"
proposed setback
20'-0"
proposed setback
20'-0"
existing driveway
new driveway
proposed residence
30'-3"
proposed residence
43'-11 1/2"
proposed residence
41'-10"
proposed residence
20'-10 1/4"
proposed residence
64'-0 1/4"
proposed setback
30'-0"
existing setback
30' - 0"
existing setback
30' - 0"
new residence
existing setback
40' - 0"
existing residence - outline
plan legend
existing residence - setback projection
proposed setbacks (accounting for variance)
original setbacks (pre-variance)
2901 e camelback rd suite 201
phoenix, az 85016
phone: (503) 580-5626
web: designtank.co
instagram: @designtank.co
designtank 
©
red ledge dr residence
7339 n red ledge dr, paradise valley, az 85253
cr 003
site plan - new
1/16" = 1'-0" 01
site plan

den
hall (guest)
bed 2
bed 3
bath 2
clo 2
clo 3
bath 3
bed 4 (office)
clo 4
bath 4
staircase
foyer
elevator
entertainment
bar
formal dining
great room
kitchen
butler's
pantry
laundry
powder
mud/drop
wine
2-car garage
her clo
hall (primary bed)
primary bed
ref
frz
ref
frz
morning bar
primary shwr
wc
primary bath
hall (primary bed)
linen
outdoor kitchen
spa
(10'x10')
pool
(15'x40')
stairs down
2901 e camelback rd suite 201
phoenix, az 85016
phone: (503) 580-5626
web: designtank.co
instagram: @designtank.co
designtank 
©
red ledge dr residence
7339 n red ledge dr, paradise valley, az 85253
cr 121
main level floor
plan
3/16" = 1'-0" 01
cr main level floorplan

elevator
mud/drop
hall (lower garage)
staircase
mech/sto
2-car garage
bed 5 (fitness)
clo 5
bath 5
mud/drop
linen/sto
lower 
level 
patio
stairs up
2901 e camelback rd suite 201
phoenix, az 85016
phone: (503) 580-5626
web: designtank.co
instagram: @designtank.co
designtank 
©
red ledge dr residence
7339 n red ledge dr, paradise valley, az 85253
cr 122
lower level
floor plan
3/16" = 1'-0" 01
cr lower level floorplan