HEX Final Decision #2026-18
Page 1 of 6
HEX NO. 2026-18
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
March 13, 2026
PETITION.
PETITION NO. VA-PL20250007070, 1074 Hollygate Ln - Request for a variance from Land
Development Code (LDC) Section 4.05.03.A, specific parking requirements for residential uses in
mixed use urban residential land use for single-family dwelling units, to allow the designated
parking area to be increased from the maximum 40 percent of the required front yard to 62 percent
of the required front yard for an unimproved legal nonconforming lot of record located in a
Residential Single-Family-4 (RSF-4) Zoning District at 1074 Hollygate Lane; further described as
Lot 20, Block B, Oak Knoll Unit No. 1, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4,
Page(s) 42, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, in Section 22, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The Petitioner seeks to increase the maximum required front yard parking allowed to 62
percent where only 40 percent is permitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(2) of the
Collier County Code of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter
9 of the County Administrative Code.
2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all
County and state requirements.
3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in-person in accordance with
Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04.
4. The County Staff presented the Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s
representative, public comment and then rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s
representative. There were no objections at the public hearing.
Page 2 of 6
5. The Hearing Examiner disclosed having reviewed the record and having had no ex parte
communications.
6. The County’s Land Development Section 9.04.03 lists the criteria for variances. The Hearing
Examiner having the same authority as the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant, deny, or
modify any request for a variance from the regulations or restrictions of the Collier County
Land Development Code.1
a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the
location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner’s
reasoning is : “The three-car garage configuration requires a wider, functional driveway
for safe vehicle maneuvering. Applying a fixed 40% front yard parking limit to this lot
creates a constraint not faced by homes with smaller garage footprints. The variance to
permit up to 62% is needed to achieve safe, reasonable access consistent with the home’s
intended design.” Zoning staff did not disagree; however, Zoning staff also believes the
property’s marketability is also a significant factor motivating the petitioner’s requested
relief. Zoning staff stated that this petitioner has also held a Pre-Application Meeting,
LDCA- PL20250007074, with the County for the purpose of submitting an LDC
Amendment to increase or eliminate the 40% parking limitation within the Urban
Residential Area, which may be a more appropriate mechanism to remove the specified
development regulation.
b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action
of the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are
the subject of this variance request?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner’s
position is : “The petitioner acted in good faith and relied on neighborhood precedent –
specifically the permitted driveway at 1060 Hollygate Lane. Substantial investment
exceeding $700,00 was made based on these established conditions and prevailing market
expectations. The hardship stems from subdivision layout and prior County approvals, not
from choices by the applicant.” The petitioner further stated: “The variance is necessary
to ensure functional, safe access to the three-car garage. Without relief, the 40% cap would
result in a driveway too small to maneuver vehicles, diminishing both the homes’ utility
and its marketability. This is a hardship created by the lot’s configuration, the
subdivision’s original platting, and precedents already established – not by any action of
the petitioner.” Zoning staff noted that the petitioner is/was the owner of property located
at 1060 Hollygate Lane, which was razed and for which a building permit
(PRFH20220312746) was issued on 8/12/2022. Plans submitted for the 2-story single-
family residence are very similar to those of the subject property, including a driveway
area exceeding 40 percent of the front yard. Further staff research revealed that the
planner charged with reviewing the plans for zoning compliance missed the parking area
1 The Hearing Examiner’s findings are italicized.
Page 3 of 6
limitation and inadvertently approved their review, which resulted in allowing the building
permit to be issued in error. Additionally, staff notes that the subject property has been
deemed to be a legal nonconforming lot of record due to inadequate lot depth. Therefore,
LDC Section 9.03.03.A.1 allows the property to be developed using RSF-5 standards, being
the most similar zoning district; thus, the required Rear Yard has been reduced from 25
feet to 20 feet for the principal structure.
c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary
and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner
stated: “Strict enforcement of the 40% limit would render the three-car garage difficult or
unsafe to use, reduce the property’s value, and risk termination of the current sale contract.
This constitutes practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship for a single-family residence
designed to meet modern functional standards.” Zoning staff noted that during the permit
review process, Development Review staff initially rejected the driveway design on
03/19/2025, noting the 40 percent front yard parking limitation had been exceeded. A
subsequent design change was submitted, which resulted in the approval of the subject
review. The building permit was subsequently issued on 4/25/2025.
d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of
health, safety, and welfare?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner
stated: “Increasing the allowable driveway area from 40% to 62% is the least deviation
necessary to achieve safe and functional garage access. Mitigation – including engineered
stormwater controls, permeable pavers, and Clusia screening – ensures continued
protection of neighborhood character, drainage, and public welfare.” Zoning staff
concurred.
e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied
by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning
district?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner
stated: “Granting this variance is consistent with the previously permitted driveway at
1060 Hollygate Lane. Approval would restore parity rather than create special privilege,
ensuring similar properties are treated equitably within the same subdivision. Zoning staff
disagrees, as the building permit issued to 1060 Hollygate Lane was issued in error and to
the same property owner. Additionally, it’s not entirely clear that the petitioner was
unaware of the 40% parking area limitation prior to issuance of the building permit for
the subject property. Staff noted however, that any other property owner facing a similar
hardship would be entitled to make a similar variance request and would be conferred
equal consideration on a case-by-case basis.
Page 4 of 6
f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner
stated: “The variance affects only the percentage of front yard designated for parking
and does not alter land use, density, or residential intensity. The project’s drainage
enhancements, permeable driveway surface, and landscape screening mitigate potential
concerns related to runoff or aesthetics, keeping the project consistent with LDC intent and
neighborhood character. Zoning staff concurred.
g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the
goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses,
etc.?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner
stated: “Although there are no natural preserves or water bodies implicated, the project
incorporates physically induced environmental improvements permeable materials and
engineered stormwater planning – that advance LDC objectives for drainage control and
environmental performance. Zoning staff concurred
h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner
stated: “The request preserves single-family residential character and does not modify use,
density, or intensity. It simply reallocates front-yard space to accommodate safe and
functional driveway access, aligning with GMP goals for neighborhood livability and
modern housing needs.” Zoning staff further noted that the subject Variance will not affect
or change the requirements of the GMP concerning density, intensity, compatibility,
access/connectivity, or any other applicable provisions.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the subject property is
designated Urban, Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict within the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM), an element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP does not address
individual Variance requests but deals with the larger issue of the actual use. As previously noted,
the petitioner is not seeking to change the land use, but rather to increase the allowable front yard
parking area. The subject use is consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the GMP. The
requested variance does not have any impact on this property's consistency with the County's
GMP.
Page 5 of 6
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the EAC does not typically
hear variance petitions. Since the subject Variance doesn’t impact any preserve area, the EAC did
not hear this petition.
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County’s staff
report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner’s
representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there
is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Section 9.04.03 of
the Land Development Code to approve this Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. VA-PL20250007070, filed by Anthony
Lober, representing the applicant/owner Cana Homes, LLC, with respect to the property described
as 1074 Hollygate Lane, AKA: Lot 20, Block B, Oak Knoll Unit No. 1, according to the Plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page(s) 42, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Property ID No.:
64410680001. Collier County, Florida, for the following
• A variance from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.05.03.A, specific parking
requirements for residential uses in mixed use urban residential land use for single-family
dwelling units, to allow the designated parking area to be increased from the maximum 40
percent of the required front yard to a maximum of 62 percent of the required front yard
for an razed legal nonconforming lot of record
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A” and the Proposed Site
Plan attached as Exhibit “B” and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A – Zoning Map
Exhibit B – Proposed Site Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 1074 Hollygate Lane, AKA: Lot 20, Block B, Oak Knoll Unit
No. 1, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page(s) 42, of the Public Records
of Collier County, Florida, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. Property ID No.: 64410680001.
Page 6 of 6
CONDITIONS.
• All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or
undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
APPEALS.
This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done
in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES
AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
March 27, 2026
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT “A”
VA-PL20250007070; 1074 Hollygate Ln. Page 2 of 8
02/20/2026
EXHIBIT “B”
S 00°09'45" E 135.00'HOLLYGATE LANE
(IMPROVED) 60' R/W (P.)
NORTH NAPLES HEIGHTS (P.)
OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP
PL
PL PL
PL
PLPL
PL PLSET 1/2"
I.R. LB7502 SET 1/2"
I.R. LB7502
SET 1/2"
I.R. LB7502
FND. 5/8"
I.R. NO I.D.
SD
S89°55'10"E 60.00'N 00°09'45" W 135.00'N89°55'10"W 60.00'
CL CL
M.H.
TBM #2 ELEV. = 11.87'
LOT 21
BLOCK B
LOT 19
BLOCK B
MH
EL : 0'-0" (14.46' NAVD)FINISHED FL.EL : -0'-6" (NAVD 13.96')LANAI LOW PT.EL : -0'-4" (NAVD 14.12')ENTRYEL : 0'-0" (14.46' NAVD)A/C EQUIP. PADEL : 0'-0" (14.46' NAVD)
POOL EQUIP. PAD
48" X 48" NON-CLIMBABLE
SWIMMING POOL SAFETY
GATE TO MEET CURRENT FBC,
SELF CLOSING & LATCHING H. B.A/C #2A/C #1H. B.H. B.H. B.POOL EQUIPMENT PADC COPYRIGHTSOUTH FLORIDA DESIGN, INC.MIN 22"X36"ATTIC ACCESSA/H 1 INATTICGENERATORMINI-SPLIT A/CMINI-SPLIT A/CLOT 20
BLOCK B
2-STORY CBS
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE
SUN
SHELF
SPA
POOL
COVERED
OUTDOOR
DINING
ENTRY
2-CAR GARAGE1-CAR
GARAGE
7'-8"7'-8"10'-3 3/4"10'-6"7'-8"
COVERED
OUTDOOR
LIVING
5'-0"U.E.10'-0"ACC. S.B.7'-6"
SIDE S.B.
7'-6"
SIDE S.B.20'-0"REAR YARD S.B.20'-0"
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
30'-0"26'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"5'-0"5'-0"
7'-8"7'-8"25'-4 1/4"25'-2"25'-0"FRONT YARD S.B.48" X 48" NON-CLIMBABLE
SWIMMING POOL SAFETY
GATE TO MEET CURRENT FBC,
SELF CLOSING & LATCHING
48" NON-CLIMBABLE
SWIMMING POOL
SAFETY BARRIER TO
MEET CURRENT FBC 48" NON-CLIMBABLE
SWIMMING POOL
SAFETY BARRIER TO
MEET CURRENT FBC
EL : -0'-6" (NAVD 13.96')
LANAI LOW PT.
EL : -1'-4" (NAVD 13.12')
GARAGE LOW PT.
EL : -1'-4" (NAVD 13.12')
GARAGE LOW PT.
EL : 0'-0" (14.46' NAVD)
FINISHED FL.
AH13
X500
AH13
X500
EL : 0'-0" (14.46' NAVD)GEN. PAD12'-0"24'-0 1/2"WALKWAY
24'-0"
9'-0 1/8"30'-11 7/8"
DRIVEWAY
(PAVER FINISH)
SYMBOL LEGEND
WATER METER
MANHOLE
SD SEWER DRAIN
UTILITY POLE
OHP OHP
MH
SHEET
Drawn By:KP/MG
Job No:
Date:
55923
01-28-2025
DateNo.
Revisions
1
2
3 SINGLE FAMILY HOME1074 HOLLYGATE LANENAPLES, FL 34103CONFIDENTIAL COPYRIGHT SOUTH FLORIDA DESIGN, INC.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 102 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 17 U.S.C., ALL
CONCEPTS, IDEAS, DESIGNS, ARRANGEMENTS, DRAWINGS, AND
PLANS INDICATED OR REPRESENTED BY THIS DOCUMENT ARE
COPYRIGHTED BY SOUTH FLORIDA DESIGN, INC. AS SUCH ALL
CONCEPTS, IDEAS, DESIGNS, ARRANGEMENTS, DRAWINGS, AND
PLANS INDICATED OR REPRESENTED BY THIS DOCUMENT ARE
OWNED BY AND THE PROPERTY OF SOUTH FLORIDA DESIGN, INC
AND WERE CREATED, EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED FOR IT'S OWN USE.
NONE OF THE IDEAS, DESIGNS, ARRANGEMENTS, OR PLANS SHALL
BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON, ARCHITECTURAL OR
ENGINEERING FIRM, CONSTRUCTION FIRM, SUBCONTRACTING FIRM,
SUPPLIER, OR CORPORATION FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SOUTH FLORIDA DESIGN,
INC. PURSUANT TO SECTION 102 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 17 U.S.C.,
PROTECTION FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL WORK CREATED AS A WORK
MADE FOR HIRE ON OR AFTER DECEMBER 1, 1990, LASTS FOR 95
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE WORK OR FOR 120
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE UNPUBLISHED PLANS,
WHICHEVER TERM IS LESS. WARNING: REPRODUCTION HEREOF IS A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNDER SECTION 102 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT,
17 U.S.C.; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 506. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE MAY
CONSTITUTE TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION IN VIOLATION OF
I.C.24-2-31-1 ET. SEQ. AND OTHER LAWS. THE CONCEPTS, IDEAS,
DESIGNS, ARRANGEMENTS, DRAWINGS, AND PLANS DISCLOSED ARE
COPYRIGHTED AND HEREIN MAY BE PATENTED OR BE THE SUBJECT
OF PENDING PATENT APPLICATION. ANYONE VIOLATING THE INTENT
OF THIS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE
FULL EXTENT OF THE FEDERAL STATE AND LOCAL LAWS.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL HAVE
PRECEDENCE OVER SCALE DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS SHALL
VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND
CONDITIONS ON THE JOB AND THIS OFFICE MUST BE NOTIFIED OF
ANY VARIATION FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN
BY THESE DRAWINGS. SHOP DRAWINGS AND OR DETAILS MUST BE
SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE FOR REVIEW BEFORE PROCEEDING
WITH FABRICATION.
PERMIT SET
All construction shall be in
accordance with the 8th Edition
2023 FBC Residential and local
jurisdiction amendments.
Written dimensions on these
drawings have precedence over
scale dimensions. Contractors
shall verify and be responsible
for all dimensions and conditions
of the job.
SFD shall be notified in writing of
any variations or discrepancies
from the dimensions, conditions
and specifications shown by
these drawings.
03/18/25
DateNo.
4
5
6
Reviewed: 01-22-24 KP
08/15/25
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
LOT 20, BLOCK B, OAK KNOLL, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
4, PAGE (S) 42, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1074 HOLLYGATE LANE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103
PROPERTY ADDRESS
REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS
FLOOD ZONE
2NO. OF STORIES
PROPOSED HEIGHT 28'-1 7/8" (MEAN ROOF HEIGHT)
FINISHED LIVING FLOOR LEVEL
REFER TO DRAINAGE PLANFINISHED GRADE ELEVATION
PROJECT DATA
CODE REFERENCE 8TH EDITION 2023 FBC RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION TYPE "V-b" UNPROTECTED
DESIGNED FOR APPLICABLE
WIND LOAD
FLOOD ZONE X500 & AH 13
AVERAGE CROWN OF ROAD
14.46' (NAVD)
11.79' (NAVD)
GENERAL NOTES
1. THE CONTRACTOR/BUILDER SHALL VERIFY THE SITE
LAYOUT AND NOTIFY THE DESIGNER OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION.
2. SURVEY WAS PROVIDED BY OWNER AND PREPARED BY:
BENCHMARK LAND SERVICES, INC.
1807 J & C BOULEVARD
NAPLES, FL 34109
PH: 239-591-0778
3. THE CONTRACTOR/BUILDER SHALL PROVIDE CONDUIT
UNDER PAVED AREAS FOR IRRIGATION, TELEPHONE, TV
& GAS AS REQUIRED.
4. REFER TO DRAINAGE PLAN BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
OR ENGINEER FOR GRADING AND WATER DRAINAGE
INFORMATION.
5. GENERAL CONTRACTOR / BUILDER IS RESPONSIBLE TO
ENSURE THAT ALUMINUM SCREEN ENCLOSURE MEETS
OR EXCEEDS THE RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL
SAFETY ACT, AS DOCUMENTED IN FLORIDA STATUTES
SEC. 515.21-515.37.
6. COORDINATION OF CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING
VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS AND FIELD CONDITIONS
IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR/BUILDER.
ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF SOUTH FLORIDA DESIGN AND RESOLVED
PRIOR TO START CONSTRUCTION.
7. REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR DETAILED
INFORMATION ON POOL DECK AND WALKWAYS,
DRIVEWAYS AND LANDSCAPE LIGHTING.
1. SWIMMING POOL MUST BE ENCLOSED WITH A SAFETY
BARRIER. THE TOP OF THE BARRIER SHALL BE AT
LEAST 48 INCHES (1219 MM) ABOVE GRADE MEASURED
ON THE SIDE OF THE BARRIER WHICH FACES AWAY
FROM THE SWIMMING POOL. THE MAXIMUM VERTICAL
CLEARANCE BETWEEN GRADE AND THE BOTTOM OF
THE BARRIER SHALL BE 2 INCHES (51 MM) MEASURED
ON THE SIDE OF THE BARRIER WHICH FACES AWAY
FROM THE SWIMMING POOL. WHERE THE TOP OF THE
POOL STRUCTURE IS ABOVE GRADE THE BARRIER MAY
BE AT GROUND LEVEL OR MOUNTED ON TOP OF THE
POOL STRUCTURE. WHERE THE BARRIER IS MOUNTED
ON TOP OF THE POOL STRUCTURE, THE MAXIMUM
VERTICAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE
POOL STRUCTURE AND THE BOTTOM OF THE BARRIER
SHALL BE 4 INCHES (102 MM).
2. ACCESS GATES, WHEN PROVIDED, SHALL BE
SELF-CLOSING AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS R4101.17.1.1 THROUGH
R4101.17.1.7 AND SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A
SELF-LATCHING LOCKING DEVICE LOCATED ON THE
POOL SIDE OF THE GATE. WHERE THE DEVICE RELEASE
IS LOCATED NO LESS THAN 54 INCHES (1372 MM) FROM
THE BOTTOM OF THE GATE, THE DEVICE RELEASE
MECHANISM MAY BE LOCATED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE
GATE AND SO PLACED THAT IT CANNOT BE REACHED
BY A YOUNG CHILD OVER THE TOP OR THROUGH ANY
OPENING OR GAP FROM THE OUTSIDE. GATES THAT
PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE SWIMMING POOL MUST OPEN
OUTWARD AWAY FROM THE POOL. THE GATES AND
BARRIER SHALL HAVE NO OPENING GREATER THAN 1/2
INCH (12.7 MM) WITHIN 18 INCHES (457 MM) OF THE
RELEASE MECHANISM.
NOTE:
POOL FENCE AND GATE TO BE PERMITTED UNDER
SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
POOL SAFETY NOTES
A-1
384 S.F.OUTDOOR LIVING
MAIN LIVING A/C
AREA SUMMARY
2,620 S.F.
TOTAL A/C 4,674 S.F.
FIRST FLOOR
LIVING A/C 2,054 S.F.
SECOND FLOOR
TOTAL UNDER ROOF 5,922 S.F.
805 S.F.GARAGES
59 S.F.COVERED ENTRY
POOL DECK 771 S.F.
1
1
DESIGNATED PARKING AREA
1,500 S.F.
926 S.F.
REQUIRED FRONT YARD
DESIGNATED PARKING AREA
(HATCHED AREA)
PARKING AREA = (<62%)
(MAXIMUM PERMITTED IS 38% OR 600 SQ. FT.)
2
2
HALF-CIRCLE TO BE LANDSCAPED
PERMEABLE PAVERS BY TREMRON
OR SIMILAR TO BE USED
ROW PERMIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED
FOR THIS AREA