The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1576 Cypress Avenue - Staff ReportItem# `=��:= Consent Calendar PROJECT LOCATION 1576 Cypress Avenue --> � Item # => �� , Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review for a First and Second Story Addition and Special Permits for a Detached Garage Address: 1576 Cypress Avenue Meeting Date: 4/14/03 Request: Design review for a first and second story addition and special permit for a reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on-site and a special permit for a detached garage at 1576 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040 and C.S.25.28.035((b)(e)) Property Owner/ Applicant: Peter and Sandy Comaroto Designer: JD & Associates APN: 028-295-130 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 8,3000 SF Date Submitted: February 25, 2002 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary: The applicant is requesting design review for a iirst and second—story addition and a special permits for a detached garage at 1576 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposal includes demolishing the existing two-car garage 20' x 20' (400 SF) providing side by side parking and constructing a new 504 SF tandem garage (14' x 36') and would provide one 10' x 20' covered parking space on-site. A special permit is required for accessory structures more than 28 feet in depth or width. The existing garage provides two code complying covered parking spaces, where the new garage will only provide one, code complying covered parking space, therefore a special permit is also required for the reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on-site. The remodeled house would have four bedrooms, requiring one covered parking space. The existing one-story house now contains 3,183 SF of floor area (0.38 FAR), including the detached garage. The first floor addition would expand the kitchen and the family room and would add 190 SF along the right side of the house. The 659 SF second floor addition would add two bedrooms and two full bathrooms. The addition would increase the floor area of the remodeled house to 4,138 SF (0.49 FAR), where 4,156 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing lot coverage is 35.3% (2,932 SF) and would increase to 39.5% (3,284 SF) where 40°/o (3,320 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. There is one covered parking space required for this four bedroom house. This space would be provided in the new detached garage that is part of this proposal. The den is not considered a bedroom in terms of parking calculations because the wall is open 50%to the hallway. The rear part of the new garage would be used for household storage (approximately 210 SF/5.7% of the gross floor area of the house is proposed for storage in the accessory structure, 363 SF/10% of the gross floor area of the house is allowed for storage in accessory structure). The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a first and second story addition; • Special Permit for reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on-site; and • Special Permit for an accessory structure greater than 28 feet in depth. Design Xeview & Specin! Penni�s jor a Detncher! Carage 1576 Cypress Avenue PROPOSED EXISITING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: lst flr No change 15'-0" 15' or block average (16'-4") 2nd flr 22' N/A 20' Side (left): No change 1'-0"* 7' Side (right): 14'-2" new poriion 10'-6" 7' Rear: Ist flr No change 52'-0" 15' 2nd flr 97� N/A 20' LOT COVERAGE: 39.5% 35.3% 40% (3,284 SF) (2,932 SF) (3,320 SF) FAR: 4,138 SF/ 3,183 SF/ 4,156 SF/ 0.49 FAR 0.38 FAR 0.50 FAR PARKING: 1 covered 2 covered 1 covered (14' X 36'0) (20' X 20') (10' x 20') + 1 uncoveredl & 2 + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered STORAGE AREA 5.7°/a N/A 10% IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: (appnc. 210 SF) (363 SF) HEIGHT: 30' 24' 2%2 stories 30' whichever is less DHENVELOPE: Meets Requirement N/A See code � �xastang non-conjorming ' Special Permit for an accessory structure with a depth exceeding 28' (36' proposed) 2 Special Permit for reduction of the number of existing parking spaces on-site March 24, 2003 Design Review Study Meeting: On March 24, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed this project for design review (see attached 3/24/03 Planning Commission minutes). The Planning Commission expressed a concern with the den because it appears to be a bedroom with a closet and a full bathroom. They asked the applicant how it will be used and the applicant noted that this room will be used as a den, but that it is convenient to have a bathroom downstairs, they will have two new bedrooms upstairs. Commission noted that the proposed detached garage was rather long. Applicant noted that she circulated a survey to the neighbors requesting a response to the proposed project, received positive responses from the neighbors. The Planning Commission voted to place this item on the consent calendar. After the study meeting, it was determined that a special permit is also required for the reduction in the number of parking spaces on-site from two to one, with the demolition of the existing 20' x 20' garage. The house will have 2 nesign Reviex� & Specia! Permits for u Detached Gar•ctge 1576 Cypress Avenue four bedrooms and is only required to provide one covered parking space, so the parking requirement is met with the new garage. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's March 24, 2003, design review study meeting, the proj ect is not excessive, the design is consistent with the existing architecture of the house, and fits in with the neighborhood character and is therefore found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for garage length the Planning Commission must find that thc following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Special Permit Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's March 24, 2003 design review study meeting, that the reduction in the number of existing parking spaces and the length of the new detached garage is necessary to retain the most use of the rear yard space because of the unusual shape of the lot; only one covered parking space is required for this project (4 bedrooms) and the new garage meets that need to code dimensions, for these reasons the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed in Code Section 25.51.020a-d. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped 3 Design Review Bc Special Perrruts fa• Detached Garage March 10, 2003, Sheets 1-9, and G-1, site plan, floor plans, and building elevations; 1576 Cypress Avenue 2. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subj ect to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's February 28, 2003 memo, and the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and Fire Marshal's memos dated March 3, 2003 shall be met; 4. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the proj ect architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Barber Planner c: JD & Associates, applicant and designer ROUTING FORM DATE: February 25, 2003 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal �Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney � �T��. Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second story addition and special permit for an accessory structure greater than 28 feet in length at 1576 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-130. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 3, 2003 �- p L�.� �� S� � �5�� G�,'a.�- � ` r �,�%c�r �� 6 � � �r `'�_ _ _ � ._ � i �-'l.l�, � C�il•°< <" �' , Z�..�=� WYi � � 2�b-�� ' �' � l � � �- ,-_ � ��u� ti�� f � � �4., n � � �'�� 1 � �IIC A �r� ��- (�`�� e�i �� G��a � f J� , , � �/ Reviewed By: Date of Comments: 2 2 4 's3 ROUTING FORM DATE: February 25, 2003 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official �Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second story addition and special permit for an accessory structure greater than 28 feet in length at 1576 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-130. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 3, 2003 � i.= �F�:.� z— � :�\�,s -F�� `'�as �., r � ? -`��,�� r r �'�� ---�—�� S�'-�,� �� - �` �.r � _��.: � , � T � �"a ._ .;�� .;3- �r'--�:'.. � =�:�-� ��.�� '-�C�_w-�r� `�'�''��= ^�']f!� \ Reviewed By: �� Date of Comments: _�' �' ��.��,� a, ROUTING FORM DATE: February 25, 2003 TO: City Engineer �Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second story addition and special permit for an accessory structure greater than 28 feet in length at 1576 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-130. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 3, 2003 �� ( S` �l S � `�f c� �{ �r""' �0 vUy��''' /' 1 r `' c. Cn�zy e w� � � � � �i Lh vs F-- ,(� a..- �� -�! vv r�'/�e — r/� � sti✓�- �� -� sGr! � e Sfvvc lYrr � ,? J � ��o� ►'e�v / v'' � � " � P��', �� ,,� �� Reviewed By: Date of Comments: -3�� 3 ROUTING FORM DATE: February 25, 2003 TO: � City Engineer _Chief Building O�cial Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney ��Ol�: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second story addition and special permit for an accessory structure greater than 28 feet in length at 1576 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-130. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 3, 2003 _ � , . , l � �� -�- ck ti,�-�-,,� � ' ,� : -�w�f � �J �;��"_" �--� .--�:� '1� `'`-r� ,��--�� % � �-C L �'�- � �I/L+�� o-�-c%�-� �'Q� -� �'�►�� -`-,-. � � � ,�,""'`'�' , �`"�- . J Reviewed By: � V Date of Comments: �JC {a �l�'�� City� of Burlingarne Plctn�:ing Comn:ission Uncapprovecl Minutes There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. March 24, 2003 C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when there is room after the revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when there is space and when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 11. 1576 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE DEPTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PETER AND SANDY COMARATO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) �61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER PLR Hurin hriefly presented the project description. Ttiec-e were no questions of staff: Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Rosemary Rayburn, project coordinator, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that there is a`for sale' sign on this property and asked if applicants purchased the property; yes. Commission expressed a concern with the den, contains a closet and a full bathroom, it appears to be a bedroom, asked applicant how it will be used; applicant noted that this room will be used as a den, convenient to have a bathroom downstairs, will have two new bedrooms upstairs. Commission noted that the proposed detached garage was rather long. Applicant noted that she circulated a survey to the neighbors requesting a response to the proposed project, received positive responses from the neighbors. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Visitca made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 12. 1136 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO STORY DWELLING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STEVE AND ALISA JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT PLR Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that the plans indicate that there is a scparate pei7liit for the new detached garage that it is currently under construction. Commission asked if the garage is now being built with windows within 10 feet of property line? PLR noted that the applicant can respond to this question during the public comment period. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Steve Johnson, property owner, and Jerry Deal, designer, were available to answer questions, noted that a building permit was issued for the detached garage without the windows, now asking to add windows within 10 feet of property line. Commission asked if the property owner looked into to the history of the architecture of the existing house, it is unusual; property owner noted that his ori�inal plan was to remodel the house and maintain the existing architectural design, but there was 13 City of Burlingame Planning Depadment 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 . F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin a�g `; CiTY � t �� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION �, �►,,._...•� � Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Vaxiance Special Permit Other Pazcel Number: Project address: �,�'% � �i��--�-5� I�'1r� APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: �� %� � - ld Name: {� �i�� -S'�.t.�1F' �h1 �1-(�vTo Address: /^ , Address: ( S"� �' �-i F'R�SS CitylState/Zip:,�i'�fc��,'G��Ps¢-�Lt /� CitylState/Zip: �� fZ�+J �►-�� i� �t' �o f o Phone (w):% l�/o , Q'g' % Phone (w):_ (h): �:Sv - t�? 9 � �S"9'S (fl:l �� — �',9 � - �Dr'J � ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: J � �� So �/�T�S �)� (fl� Address: �'Z2� ��4- C.-� n'L?� 1r9�'� City/State/Zip:�3 u�2�l6�-rn�, �a- y��b Please indicate with an asterisk * Phone (w): �3 `�3 -- � � �� )= (fl� 37s - 8�f-� � the contact person for this project. �n:�� :.,�d,.��..�'� F E 3 2� 2G�3 CITY o, ��u��ir�UNr;�E PL-`,�;�`:livG DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: /�C'rt�l�foT'L /��►'ti AFFADAVIT/SIGNA' given herein is true a�'id Applicant's I know about the proposed application to the Planning Property owner's signature:_ I e by certify to h b m} icafion and }�erel �� S��f� r�f � �'�i-+2, ty of perjury that the information and belief. Date: '� /a s f o 3 above applicant to submit this Date: a � a S% � � Date submitted: 2� f �,3 PCAPP.FRM SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION - CITY OF BURLINGAME Comarato Residence 1576 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, CA. Special pernut for a two car tandem garage to be 36 feet long We are seeking a special permit because the rear yard is severely restricted by the location of the existing garage. Additionally the shape of the lot creates a bottleneck to the rear yard which can be diminished with the new tandem garage. We also have a very long driveway that can be used for additional parking. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural charactertstics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. The garage has been designed to match the existing dwelling along with its new addition. Its length and width are not uncommon for a tandem garage. The length at 36 feet has been kept to a minimum to keep bulk to a minimum. All other zoning codes which are in effect to diminish mass and bulk have been met 2 Expdain how the variery of roof line, facade, exterior finish materiads and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The roof line, gable ends, exterior finish materials and elevations are consistent with the eaisting style of the dwelling The neighborhood consists of an eclectic miz. 3 How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidedines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The detached rear garage concept has been kept with the new tandem design. The placement follows the design guidelines where placement of a detached rear garage is typical of the neighborhood 4 Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. No trees are to be removed with the new garage SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION - CITY OF B�1RLINGAME Comarato Residence 1576 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, CA. Special pernut for reduction of two covered parking spaces to one covered parking sp�ace. Code requirement is for one covered parking space. We are secking a special permit because the rear yard is severely restricted by the location of the existing garage. Additionally the shape of the lot creates a bottleneck to the rear yard which can be diminished with the new tandem garage. We also have a very long driveway that can be used for additional parking. Lxplain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new constn�ction or addiJion nre consistent with 1he exisling strr�ct:�re :s desrgn and wilh the existing street and neighborhood. The garage has been designed to match the existing dwelling along with its new addition. A tandem garage better suits the property due to the bottleneck created at the rear portion of the property by the existing garage. All zoning codes in effect to diminish mass and bulk have been met. There is ample parking in the very long driveway. This driveway consumes a large part of the property. 2 f:'xplain how thc varicry ofroof linc, facade, cxicrior.finish matcrials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing stn�eture, street and neiKhborhood The roof line, gable ends, ezterior finish materials and elevations are consisteM with the existing style of the dwelling The neighborhood consists of an eclectic mix. 3 How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design �uidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The detached rear garage concept has been kept with the new tandem design. The placement follows the design guidelines where placement of a detached rear garage is typical of the neighborhood �t f:xplain how the remova/ ofnny trees located within the footprint ofany new structure or addition i.�• necessary and is consistent with the crly's refnrestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed.for the removal orany lrees? Explain why this mitigntion is appropriate. No trees are to be removed with the new garage ,�rb "TY ot CITY OF BURLINGAME BURlJNS3AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ,,,,,,,,,,.'J� TEL (650) 558-7250 � e: 1576 Cypress Avenue Application for design review and special permit for garage depth for a first and second story addition at: 1576 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 028-295- PUBLIC HEARING 130). A1 �1T1 i` G The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, April 14, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: April 4, 2003 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF RURLINGAME A copy of the applica[i�n and pl.ins for this ProjeCt�nay be reviewed prior to the meeting ut the Plaituin�� I)e�ru�tment t�iSQl Primrose Road, Burlingame, Califc�� rua. ' :- : "-, �h�. �`�' ....� 'V� \ If you challenge th�,�iihject application(s) in court, y�u m�a�'� be limited to raising only thos�"lssues you or somrcme else raisccl ai.�athe,�i�blic hearing, described in tl e.n, c� ui� in ��ritten c��cre��,��ncic.o��; � a�er d to the city at or prior to th,��j}C hcarin�. ;� � Property own�rti who receive this nc�ti�e are res}��i��sitil�;%r i'forming their tenants abc�ut [hi�s__ notice. For additional infor►nation� ple#jse call (650) 558-7250. Thanh �ou. �� yq� r�� a �; ;,. YC:.., ' � � 1 S'.� I �. Margaret Moqro�':.,��, �, �� , City Planner - _ i'�+ �r. '� � PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to otlzer side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desi�n review and special permits for reduction in the number of existin� arkin�paces on site and for garage depth for a first and second story addition and a new detached gara�e at 1576 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1; Peter and Sandy Comarato, propertv owners APN: 028-295-130; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April 14, 2003, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other writtcn materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section: 15301 Class 1- (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said design review and special permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permits are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14`h day of Apri12003, by the following vote Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permits. 1576 Cypress Avenue Effective April 21, 2003 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 10, 2003, Sheets 1-9, and G-1, site plan, floor plans, and building elevations; 2. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's February 28, 2003 memo, and the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and Fire Marshal's memos dated March 3, 2003 shall be met; 4. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.