f co*
or cl!
CITY OF COROI.{AI}O
f825 Strand \Uay
Coronado, California 921 f8
(619) 522-7320
Appeal Hearing Form
frEt't! flrF$'s $FFF*r Ftfi Id X*?E r'uS?j4*
Appellant: James and Melinda Marlar Appellant's Rep.:
Mailing Address:
Phone#:
_. , -Fax#:
Alt Phone #:
Email:
Signature:
Community Development - Planning
Mailing Address: 500 AAve.
Coronado, CA 921 18
Phone #: (520) 349-7945 #:
Alt Phone (520) 603-0480
Email: mel i nda. marlar @ g mail .com
Signature: l/t4. Lko^.L-r^-
This Appeal is relative to the action taken by the
Date of Determination
For the project known as:
Appl
Jan .7,2025
Board, Commission, Committee, or Department
Mo/Day/Year
ication for "Reasonahle Accommodation" (elevator; storage) (No.PC 2A24-06) Project Address:
500 AAve., Coronado, CA92118
X'or Use:
Acct X0&5400 .1,
qReceipt No.:
Describe Supplemental Materials submitted:
Appeal Fee Paid Per Fee Schedule
Nurnber of Copies of Materials Required
Complete & Legible Associated City Dept:
Associated Case No:
Sept" 2015 Page lof}
o
\
%
o
t
O
\
(,
t
Attachment 3
Appellant's Interest in the Appealed Determination:
Appellanis are the owners of ihe subject residential property.
Explain each reason why the review is being requested, including the grounds for the appeal, and provide the supporting relevant code sections:
The relevant Code sections arc Coronado Municipal Code Sec. 70.130.010 et seq.
Appellants asked to be allowed to enclose a 290 sq. tt. flat-roof, over an existing atlqgfted garlge, in order to install an elevator and connect the space to the home. ln addition, the Appellants also asked for accessible and safe storaiTe within tnat igg sq. ft. space.
The Planning Department approved the elevator and its ptacement, but limited the allowable elevator-related space to 76 sq. ft. ln the decision, the department did not allow any space to be used for accessible storage.
The following are the Appeltate issues:
1. Conclusion No. 4 is erroneous, and should be modified or reversed, because the allowed 40 square feet of "hallway" or travel path from the elevator to the home's access point is inadequate, ditficult to feasibly construct, awkward in that it does not create a factually viable travel path, and harms the architectural integrity and features, and thereby lessens the property value of the home. Conclusion No. 4 is not a "reasonable" one.
2. Finding No. 2 , is enoneous, in that it disallowed any square footage to be used for"accessible storage space." The Finding that there were ,,alternative reasonable accommodations" available which would "provide an eguivalent level of benefit" is unsupported by the facts.
3. The filing and appeal fees, for disabled individuals to seek "reasonable ac@mmodation" under the Fair Housing Act should be minimal, if anything, as such an a@ommodation is a "protected right" under federat law.
AN INCOMPLETE APPEAL SEALL BE RETURNEII TO YOU A]\ilI CONSII'ERED TO BE INAPPROPRIATELY NLEI'. THE APPEAL PERIOD E}OIRES 10 I}AYS ATTER TEE DETERMINATION AND CANNOT BE EXTENDEI) TO ACCOMMODATE AnEQUATE COMPLETTON OF TEE APPEAL rrLrNG ONLY MATEruAI.s SIIBMITIED BY TEE DEADLINA WILL BE CONSIDEREI' AT TITE MARING S€pt 2015 Page}df2
Attachment 3