13, Construct new SFR and decrease, CorrespondenceJuly 240 1961
Mr. .ales E. Gibson
5035 Fa To nt. Lan
California
Dw ar ir. Gibson,
,
Enclo,, el heret^;itY► is they FINDINGS
AND FORMAL REPORT from the P? amiiu Commission
of the City of R o l.in Hills .
Socrotary, Pimar
mip
Commission
Zr. J. C. Lansing, Regional Engineer
Los Angeles County Building and Safety Dept.
1823 West 'Lomita Blvd.
Lomita, California
Dear Mr. Lansing,
At its meeting held July 18, 1961:
the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling
Hilts approved a variance for a three and one-
half (3.5) foot side yard setback (see Ord-
inance 33 Section 3.07) instead of a ten foot
setback for James E. Gibson for the location
of a residence at a Quail Ridge Road South
on Lot 16, Crest Hills, in the City of Rolling
Hills.
Very truly yours,
Gilbert L. dyers
City Clerk
GB14/mlp
• •
JAMES E. GIBSON
5035 FOXPOINT LANE
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
June 6, 1961
•
City of Rolling Hills
Palos Verdes Drive
Rolling Hills, California
Subject: Request for Setback Variance - Parcel 16, Survey Record 57/35, 36
References: 1. R.H. Ordinance 33, Section 3.07 (Requires 10 ft. Side Yard)
2. Articles 6.02, 6.03
Exhibits: 1. Survey dated 7 March 1961
2. Plot Plan dated 5 June 1961
Dear Sirs:
In accordance with provisions of the above articles, the applicant hereby
requests variance of the required side yard setback on the northerly property
line as follows:
Reduce setback to 3.5 feet at that portion of proposed
building which diagonally intrudes (see Plot Plan). It
is understood the eaves may protrude beyond this point but
in no case can they violate the recorded easement (150AE)
established by deed restriction.
This variance is necessary and appropriate for the following reasons:
A. Exceptional circumstances exist on this property, to wit:
1. Prior grading of the property by others has established a
partial building pad which must be utilized for practical
and aesthetic reasons.
2. Existing topography including a prominent knoll dictates
the indicated house placement for maximum view.
3. Denial of this variance would force a diminishment in the
size and quality of the proposed residence.
City of Rolling Hills
2 June 6, 1961
B. The granting of this variance will permit enjoyment of the
following property rights by owner:
1. Practical utilization of site.
2. Enjoyment of view and natural surroundings.
3. Opportunity to construct improvements generous enough
to be in keeping with land value and neighborhood character.
C. The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the
public welfare:
1. Existing residences to the northeast enjoy the same setback
petitioned by applicant.
2. The nature of subject residence is such that the proposed
setback intrusion is of a minor nature not interfering with
the privacy of neighbors nor detrimental to the appearance
nor serenity of the neighborhood.
It is requested that this variance be granted as described above.
Very truly yours,