08.BA250035 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250035 – Craig / Thornton Property
Hearing Date:
July 17, 2025
Supervisor District:
2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: 
Earl Bakken
Property Owners:
Blake Craig and Whitney Thornton
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed rear yard coverage of 57%, where 30% is the maximum 
permitted per MCZO Article 1106.2.
Site Location:
APN 220-07-023E @ 915 N. 111th St. in the Mesa area
Site Size:
Approx. 43,562 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / Rural-43
Open Violation:
V202400275
Background:
1.
August 31, 2006: The subject parcel was created via minor lot split from APN 220-07-023 per 
split control ID 143065.
2.
March 19, 2008: Final inspections were approved for the single-family residence on the subject 
parcel, per B200609382.
3.
May 25, 2022: The current owners, Blake Criag and Whitney Thornton, took possession of the subject 
parcel, per Warranty Deed 2022-0450707.
4.
February 9, 2024: A code violation (V202400275) was opened on the subject property for 
construction of a detached accessory structure toward the rear yard without a building permit. The 
accessory structure remains unfinished and is the subject of this variance.
5.
February 28, 2024: The applicant applied for a building permit (B202402222) to remedy the violation.
6.
May 10, 2025: The applicant submitted the subject variance request.

Page 2 of 10
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
7.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
North:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
South:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
East:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
West:
111th Street, then Rural-43 / Single-family residence
Variance Request:
8.
The applicant and property owners are requesting a variance to Article 1106.2 of the Maricopa 
County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) to permit a detached accessory garage and storage building 
on Parcel 220-07-023E with a rear yard coverage of 57%, where a maximum of 30% is allowed by 
right. Construction of the accessory building began without permits and is the subject of an active 
code violation, per case V202400275. A building permit was subsequently submitted for review, 
per case B202402222. Although the zoning clearance was initially approved with the original site 
plans showing the building meeting the required rear yard coverage standard, construction 
continued on the building out of conformance with the approved site plan resulting in the 
expiration of plan approval. The permit remains in review as of July 2025. Approval of the variance 
would allow construction of the accessory building to continue above the maximum rear yard 
coverage of 30%.
Excerpts from Proposed Site Plan

Page 3 of 10
Photographs of the Accessory Building

Page 4 of 10
Site Analysis:
9.
The parcel is located in a lot-split area over ¼ mile southeast of Brown Road and Signal Butte 
Road in the Mesa area. The property is flat and there is no floodplain near the property. There 
does appear to be a small wash that approaches the southwest property corner from the 
southwest. However, this wash has not restricted development of the property and the applicant 
has not referenced it as a peculiar condition facing the property. Despite the atypical diagonal 
alignments of the side lot lines, the property meets all the intensity of use regulations of the 
underlying Rural-43 zoning district. The single-family residence onsite meets all required 
setbacks.

Page 5 of 10
10.
The accessory structure subject to this variance request is a new feature on the property and, per 
the applicant’s photographs, remains under construction. The active code violation, V202400275, 
was reported shortly after construction commenced. The 2024 Parcel Viewer aerials, taken 
between October and December 2023, show no construction onsite, although the violation was 
reported only 2-4 months later. The owners’ general contractor applied for a building permit one 
week after the violation was confirmed. However, as the owners state in their supplemental 
questionnaire, the original contractor submitted falsified site plans showing a structure that 
conformed to the requirements of the MCZO (including rear yard coverage), and subsequently 
continued building the structure out of conformance with those plans. Contrary to the initial site 
plans, the building under construction exceeded the 30% coverage allowed for an accessory 
structure in the rear yard. The owners hired a new applicant to evaluate the work completed and 
prepare plans. Per the amended site plan, the accessory structure does not encroach into the 3’ 
setbacks from the rear and side lot lines but does cover approximately 56.7% of the rear yard.
11.
Granting this variance would allow the building permit to proceed to zoning clearance. The 
applicant and property owners would be responsible for obtaining issuance of the permit and 
passing all required inspections. If the variance is denied, the applicant and owners would be 
responsible for modifying construction to meet the required 30% rear yard coverage.
12.
Staff notes that the site plan submitted for this variance request shows the existing residence 
slightly within the required 40’ front yard setback and 30’ south side setback. However, 
measurements on the Parcel Viewer show the residence meeting these setbacks, and the zoning 
information provided in the case file for B200609382 confirms that the residence was built to a 
setback of 51’ from 111th Street, 30’ from each of the side lot lines, and 184’ from the rear lot line. 
Therefore, no variances to the setbacks are necessary.
2024 Aerial Image of the Subject Site
The assessed parcel area is outlined in red. The area corresponding with 111th Street, included within 
the legal description and the total gross area of the property, is outlined in blue.

Page 6 of 10
2025 Aerial Image of the Subject Site
2025 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs

Page 7 of 10
Eagle View of Subject Site Looking North (dated March 1, 2025)
Zoning District Map (Subject Parcel Outlined in Red)

Page 8 of 10
Zoning District Standards:
13.
The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning 
district with those proposed by the owner (proposed changes to standards are indicated in bold).
Standard
Rural-43  
Zoning 
District
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Setback (residence to 111th St.) 
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Rear Setback (residence to east lot line)
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to north lot line)
30-feet
30-feet
Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to south lot line)
30-feet
30-feet
Maximum Height 
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
43,562-sq. ft.
Lot Coverage
25%
18.6%
Rear Yard Coverage
30%
56.7%
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.”
14.
Statutory Test 1 – Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition – Discuss and 
explain the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County 
Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied.  
“My wife and I had no intention of violating any county codes. We hired a Maricopa County licensed 
general contractor to ensure all regulations were met. Unfortunately, this contractor worked in bad 
faith and defrauded both us and the county. This contractor recommended the size and location of 
the accessory structure and told us that all requisite permits and inspections were acquired and 
passed. Unfortunately, this wasn't true. The contractor submitted falsified documents to the county 
showing the size and location of the accessory structure entirely different from what he built. We 
had no idea the depth and breadth of the fraud until the contractor disappeared with over $200,000 
in paid for work left incomplete. We hired an architect and engineering firm to evaluate the work 
completed and prepare building and site plans. After submitting this information to the county, we 
were informed that while the structure maintains a setback of 5ft or more from the property lines, 
the accessory building's coverage of the rear yard exceeds the 30% maximum defined in MCZO 
Article 1106.2. We are requesting a variance to permit a rear yard coverage of 57%.”
15.
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 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.

Page 9 of 10
“Enforcing the zoning regulation would require the entirety of the already completed work 
demolished and the project started anew. This would result in a loss of over $400,000 for work 
already completed and demolition.”
16.
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.
“There is a similar accessory building located on the property directly north. Numerous properties 
in the area have accessory buildings located in their rear yards. No views from neighboring 
properties are blocked.”
Findings: 
17.
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.  
18.
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:
•
Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property. Typical for most 
residential properties, the subject parcel is flat, is not encumbered by washes or 
floodplain, and meets the Rural-43 zoning district’s intensity of use regulations.
•
Staff is unable to identify an undue hardship created by the enforcement of the MCZO. 
The development of a primary use (a single-family residence) on the property fulfills the 
general intent and purpose of the Rural-43 zoning district. Furthermore, the code violation 
could have been avoided, and the need for variance negated, had the owners’ original 
authorized agent acted in good faith to obtain zoning clearance before commencing 
construction and then construct the building to MCZO requirements.

Page 10 of 10
•
The lot is tapered and narrows to the rear, making for a smaller, narrower rear yard than 
expected for a Rural-43 lot that meets minimum lot width.
19.
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 maximum allowed rear yard coverage of 57% for APN 
220-07-023E.
Presented by:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager 
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (3 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
2
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated June 25, 2025 11:25 AM
BA250035
Application Name:
Legal Description
CRAIG BLAKE D/THORNTON WHITNEY R Accesory Building
Applicant
Case Address
1N 7E 13
Earl Bakken
915 N 111TH ST
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:220-07-023E
(602) 451-5846
earlsbakken@gmail.com
MESA, AZ 85207
Map scale 1:751
Supervisor District No.
Accessory building allow increase in percentage of back yard available for buiding.

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: 
  ______________________________ 
Digitally signed by Blake Craig 
Date: 2025.05.08 23:27:19 -07'00'
Digitally signed by Blake Craig 
Date: 2025.05.08 23:28:03 -07'00'
Digitally signed by Blake Craig 
Date: 2025.05.08 23:32:43 -07'00'
Locate accessory building in rear yard in excess of allowable percentage.
915 N 111TH ST MESA 85207 
Mesa between Brown and University Ave on 111th St.
0.92
39,938.00
13
1N
7E
220-07-023E
I
Earl Bakken
Earl Bakken
16801 N 49th St  Apt 540
Scottsdale
AZ
85254
(602) 451-5846
earlsbakken@gmail.com
CRAIG BLAKE D/THORNTON WHITNEY R 
Blake Craig
915 N 111TH ST
Mesa
AZ
85207
(858) 583-2422
bcraig@e2ei.com
Blake Craig
Earl Bakken
05/08/2025
RU-43  Single family residential.
05/08/2025
05/08/2025
Digitally signed by Blake Craig 
Date: 2025.05.08 23:27:19 -07'00'
Digitally signed by Blake Craig 
Date: 2025.05.08 23:28:03 -07'00'
Digitally signed by Blake Craig 
Date: 2025.05.08 23:32:43 -07'00'

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.
My wife and I had no intention of violating any county codes. We hired a Maricopa County licensed general contractor to ensure all
regulations were met. Unfortunately, this contractor worked in bad faith and defrauded both us and the county. This contractor
recommended the size and location of the accessory structure and told us that all requisite permits and inspections were acquired and
passed. Unfortunately, this wasn't true. The contractor submitted falsified documents to the county showing the size and location of the
accessory structure entirely different from what he built. We had no idea the depth and breadth of the fraud until the contractor
disappeared with over $200,000 in paid for work left incomplete. We hired an architect and engineering firm to evaluate the work
completed and prepare building and site plans. After submitting this information to the county, we were informed that while the structure
maintains a setback of 5ft or more from the property lines, the size of structure increases the setbacks required and violates code MCZO
1106.2. 
Maricopa County approved 3 inspections without notifying us of any violation. Without these approvals, we would never have proceeded.
Enforcing the zoning regulation would require the entirety of the already completed work demolished and the project started anew. This would 
result in a loss of over $400,000 for work already completed and demolition.

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 
There is a similar accessory building located on the property directly north. 
Numerous properties in the area have accessory buildings located in their rear yards. 
No views from neighboring properties are blocked.

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Variance Application Packet 
 
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.
My wife and I had no intention of violating any county codes. We hired a Maricopa County licensed general contractor to ensure all 
regulations were met. Unfortunately, this contractor worked in bad faith and defrauded both us and the county. This contractor 
recommended the size and location of the accessory structure and told us that all requisite permits and inspections were acquired and 
passed. Unfortunately, this wasn't true. The contractor submitted falsified documents to the county showing the size and location of the 
accessory structure entirely different from what he built. We had no idea the depth and breadth of the fraud until the contractor 
disappeared with over $200,000 in paid for work left incomplete. We hired an architect and engineering firm to evaluate the work 
completed and prepare building and site plans. After submitting this information to the county, we were informed that while the structure 
maintains a setback of 5ft or more from the property lines, the accessory building's coverage of the rear yard exceeds the 30% maximum 
defined in MCZO Article 1106.2. We are requesting a variance to permit a rear yard coverage of 57%.

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 
Variance Application Packet

25.00
922' 10"
145.00
32.00
45.18
54.44
28.64
43.36
57.83
29.53
30.99
29.37
11.91
62.97
56.40
84.85
Accessory Building
4,000 SF
80.00
80.00
50.00
811
812
101
100
106
4,600 SF Rear Setback
2,607 SF Within Rear Setback
Easement for 111th St. (MCR 
1988-0568705)
Setback
40' - 0"
30 '- 0" Setback
25' - 0"
40' - 0"
269' - 8"  Property Line
265' -8"  Property Line
112' - 6"
30' -0" Setback
30' -0" Setback
30' - 0" Setback
40' - 0" Setback
VICINITY MAP
CONTRACTOR: TBD
ADOPTED CODES
NORTH
THIS PROJECT
PROPERTY INFORMATION
2018 International Building Code
2018 International Residential Code 
2018 International Mechanical Code 
2018 International Plumbing Code 
2018 International Fuel Gas Code
2018 International Existing Building Code   
2017 National Electric Code w/Maricopa County Amendments
6/22/2025 2:56:17 PM
Site Plan - Cover
V100
CRAIG BLAKE D/THORNTON
WHITNEY R
915 N 111TH ST MESA AZ USA
85207
Owner Name:
CRAIG BLAKE D/THORNTON WHITNEY R 
In Care Of:
Property Address:
915 N 111TH ST MESA 85207 
Deed Number:
20220450707 
Property Information
Lat/Long:
33.432036 , -111.590911
S/T/R:
13 1N 7E 
Jurisdiction:
NO CITY/TOWN 
PUC:
0142 
Lot Size (sq ft):
39,938
Acres
39,938/43,560= 0.92
Floor:
1 
Construction Year:
2007 
Living Space (sq ft):
3,646 
Zoning
RU-43
Keynote Legend
Key
Value
Keynote Text
100
Existing Stair
101
Existign Septic Tank
106
Property Line
811
North Electrical Panel 400 Amp Existing
812
South Electrical Panel Existing
Sheet List
Sheet
Number
Sheet Name
V101
Adjacent Property
V100
Site Plan - Cover
V102
Exterior Elevations
1/16" = 1'-0"
1
Site Plan
Revision Schedule
Revision
Number
Revision Description
Revision Date
ARTICLE 1106.2. LOCATION: Detached accessory buildings and structures may be built in
the required rear yard and/or the required side yard but shall not occupy
more than 30% of any required yard and shall not be nearer than three
feet to any side or rear lot line. In the case of corner lots, accessory
buildings shall not be nearer to the street than a distance equal to not less
than one half the depth of the required front yard of the corner lot; and
when a garage is entered from an alley, it shall not be located nearer than
ten feet to the alley line. *11, *32
2,607 SF / 4,600 SF Rear Yard = 56.7%
Existing Residence 
  
3,646 SF
Accessory Building
  
4,000 SF
Total Under Roof
  
7,646 SF
Lot size 
            39,938 SF
Lot coverage 7,646/39,938   =     19%
5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1/16" = 1'-0"
0
FEET
SCALE

Accessory Building
2
3
220-07-023C
220-07-024D
220-07-024C
220-07-024A
220-07-023A
4
N 111th St.
Mountain Rd
Accessory Building
Accessory Building
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
REVISIONS
earlsbakken@gmail.com
602-451-5846
V101
Adjacent Property
Accessory Building
915 N 111TH ST MESA AZ USA 85207
Blake Craig
No.
Description
Date
12" = 1'-0"
2
View from East
1" = 60'-0"
1
Site Reference
12" = 1'-0"
3
View Facing North
12" = 1'-0"
4
View From West
60
60
120
1" = 60'-0"
0
FEET
SCALE

Roof
19' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Parapet
20' - 0"
Mezzanine
10' - 6"
Ceiling
15' - 6"
Roof
19' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Parapet
20' - 0"
Mezzanine
10' - 6"
Ceiling
15' - 6"
Roof
19' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Parapet
20' - 0"
Mezzanine
10' - 6"
Ceiling
15' - 6"
26
26
26
05
04
03
Roof
19' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Parapet
20' - 0"
Mezzanine
10' - 6"
Ceiling
15' - 6"
801
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
REVISIONS
earlsbakken@gmail.com
602-451-5846
V102
Exterior Elevations
Accessory Building
915 N 111TH ST MESA AZ USA 85207
Blake Craig
Keynote Legend
Key
Value
Keynote Text
801
200 AMP DISTRUBUTION PANEL
3/16" = 1'-0"
1
West Elevation
3/16" = 1'-0"
2
East Elevation
3/16" = 1'-0"
3
North Elevation
3/16" = 1'-0"
4
South Elevation'
No.
Description
Date
2
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
3/16" = 1'-0"
0
FEET
SCALE
2
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
3/16" = 1'-0"
0
FEET
SCALE
2
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
3/16" = 1'-0"
0
FEET
SCALE
2
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
3/16" = 1'-0"
0
FEET
SCALE