Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2006-018 LRHDC Revised Agenda 05/08/2006•i^JY�GYbv ,may DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 1�j` LITTLE ROCK •� I 723 West Markham Street HISTORIC Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 DISTRICT Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 rr t� COMMISSION LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION REVISED AGENDA Monday, May 8, 2006, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call II. Finding of a Quorum III. Approval of Minutes a. April 10, 2006 b. March 13, 2006 IV. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness a. None V. New Certificates of Appropriateness a. 1101 Cumberland Street b. 1301 Cumberland Street VI. Other Matters a. Enforcement Issues VII. Adjournment DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND .iDEVELOPMENT IK LITTLE ROCK 1 5, HISTORIC 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 d id ' , 3 DISTRICT != COMMISSION Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 9Y STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 1. DATE: May 8, 2006 APPLICANT: Wali Caradine ADDRESS: 1101 Cumberland Street COA Replace signage on building to reflect new business and new door on REQUEST: north side. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1101 Cumberland Street. The property's legal description is Lot 1, Block 46, Original to the City of Little Rook, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is listed as a Priority III (I being the highest and III being the lowest) and Historical Significance of Local Significance. Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people of social prominence. The 1988 survey shows it as a non-contributing structure. This application is to replace signage on building to reflect new business The building is currently the subject of a Conditional Use Permit to be heard on Location of Project May 25, 2006 at the Planning Commission. The proposed use is an Adult Daycare to serve elderly clients within the city and surrounding area. The application also includes a new door on the north side. It is approximately in the middle of the inset area. The door will match the other doors on the structure. It will replace one of the windows on that side. The sign change and the door addition are the changes to the exterior of the structure. The signage on the north and west side of the buildings above the blue awnings will be changed. The text "Summerset Adult Day Care Center" will reflect the new business. There will be signage at street level on the glass in vinyl letters applied to the glass. Any signage on the widows at street level will be considered a sign if the word "SummerSet" is included. Hours of operation, services provided, payment options, etc do not constitute a sign. Currently, the sign "Fashion Park Cleaners" has text that is approximately 24 inches tall (the "F" and the "P"). The proposed signage has letters that are 24", 20" and 6" tall. West fagade in 1978 Existing Building from NW Existing front of building PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On June 9, 1988, a COA was approved and issued to Brookshur Banks of Fashion Parks Cleaners for rebuilding the burned building. On September 21, 1987, a COA was approved and issued Fashion Park Cleaners for a facade treatment. ANALYSIS: The current signage has wall signs facing Cumberland and 11th Street with the text "Fashion Park Cleaners" in two lines of text. The words are out of "EIFS" and the wall is also of "EIFS". The proposed letters on the wall signs "will be out of plastic and painted blue with a color and finish to compliment the matte blue color and finish of the ceramic tile blocks that accent the building." The new signage will occupy the same space as 2 the current signs. The diamonds on each side of the text will not be removed and the signage will fit between those diamonds. When the "EIFS" letters are removed from the building, the fagade of the building will need to be repaired to make the fagade smooth and the texture and color of the building the same as the surrounding area. K41- fwmm r. TJ 19 JIM Proposed West signage Proposed North signage J13'�- 8x rlL MIMM r E R_ rna Proposed Text WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Sign Guidelines states fifteen items relating to the design of signs, of which eleven items are relevant to this case: B. Signs that flash or rotate should not be used. C. Signs should be kept to a minimum, one per house or two per commercially -used residential building. E. Signs that are attached to a building should be painted on windows or doors, small identification panels at entrances, small signs hung on porches between posts, flush mounted signs on building wall, small projecting signs, or part of an awning. 3 G. Signs of neon or internal lighting should not be used on dwellings or commercially —used residential buildings. H. Signs should not be illuminated with visible bulbs or luminous paints, but with remote sources. I. Signs should be of traditional materials such as finished wood, glass, copper or bronze, not plywood, plastic, or unfinished wood. J. Signs should utilize logos or symbols for businesses. L. Signs should use no more than three colors and use colors that coordinate with the building colors. M. Signs should have traditional lettering such as serif, sans serif, or script and letters which do not exceed 18 inches in height or cover more than 60 percent of the total sign area. O. Signs should otherwise comply with the Little Rock Sign Ordinance provisions. The proposed signage conforms to the above criteria with the exception of part "I" and "M". The letters are to be made of plastic and painted matte blue. No mention of how the signs will be illuminated has been made. The letters are approximately the same size as the previous letters. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. M RECEIVEx-1; i APR 0 7 2006 BY: CAMINE & COMPANY April 7, 2006 Brian Minyard, Planner Il LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: REQUEST OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 1101 CU13MERLAND STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Dear Mr. Minyard: We, hereby, submit to the Little Rock historic District Commission for your review and approval of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the property located at 1101 Cumberland Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The intent is to use an existing building for an Adult Daycare Center and Offices to serve adult elderly clients within the City of Little Rock, as well as, the surrounding communities. The proposed development will consist of a 6000 square feet Adult Daycare Center and 1500 square feet of general office space. The exterior of the property will not change except for replacing the signage on the north and west side of the building above the blue canvas awnings, in the same location as the previous signage to depict the name of the- businesses. Signage at the street level will be added to provide general information such as the name of the business(s), street address, and hours of operations. Lettering above the awnings will be surface mounted and all other lettering will be vinyl applied to glass windows and doors. Should you have any questions regarding any issues related to this application, please contact me at 501-372-4199. Sincerely, CARADINE & COMPANY ARCHITECTURE Wali Caradine, AIA, Architect/Owner WC:ddn 2200 SOUTH MAIN STREET • LITTLE ROCK. AR 72206-1530 • OFFICE (501) 372-4199 • FAX (501) 372-2261 Cover letter from applicant 5 RECEIVED T�l LITTLE ROCK DEPARTMENT' OF PLANNING AND APB ; 0 7 2006 DEVELOPMENT F HISTORIC DISTRICT BY: 723 West Markham Street r�ffi ` COMMISSION Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (301) 371-4790 Fam (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: April 7.2006 Date of Public Hearing: 8 day of May 2006 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Address of Property: 1101 Cumberland Street 3. Legal Description of Property: Lot 1,Block 46, Original City of Little RQck, Pulaski County Arkansas 4. Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax): Wali Caradine _ 1.001_ Cumberland Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 _ 5. Owner's Agent: Same(Phone/Fax/E-mail):501-372-4199 / 501-372-2261 / %%,caradine/,a-)woodscaradine.com 6. Project Description (additional pages may he added): See attached additional information 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements: $2,400.00 8. Zoning Classification: R4 . Is the proposed change' a permitted use? Yes No 9. Signature of Owner or Agent_ (The owner will need to authorize any Agent Drperson representing the owner at the public hearino. NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA, applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appmpriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordi- nances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. (Thissectionto be completed by.s*ta*f*t)'.......................... —....................................................... Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑ Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑ Approved with Conditions ❑ See Attached Conditions Q StaffSignature- pate: Little Rock Historic District Commission' ♦ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street ♦Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦Phone: (5.01) 371-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application Co, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval -with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining all permits: building and signs 2. Submittal to Staff of any lighting fixtures to illuminate sign. 7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT alb i LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC 723 West Markham Street DISTRICT Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 COMMISSION Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 2. DATE: May 8, 2006 APPLICANT: Karen Butler Reddig ADDRESS: 1301 Cumberland Street COA Amend Certificate of Appropriateness per letter dated March 6, 2006 REQUEST: from City Attorney's office. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1301 Cumberland Street. The property's legal description is Lot 1 Block 48, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The 1988 survey does not list a particular style for this building but claims there have been major renovations. It is listed as a Non -Contributing Structure. The 1978 survey does not list this structure at all. The applicant has submitted this application to Amend the Certificate of Appropriateness in response to a letter from City Attorney's .office dated March 6, 2006. Listed below are nine items that were presented in the letter. Location of Project The presence of a detached accessory dwelling with kitchen facilities will require approval by the Little Rock Planning Commission. (A "Conditional Use Permit (CUP)" is the appropriate application for Accessory Dwelling units. The presence of a kitchen in this structure makes this an additional dwelling unit. If there is not a kitchen facility in the structure, the applicant will go to the Board of Adjustment for a "One and Two Family Zoning Variance". Both applications will address the variances associated with this application.) The Property is zoned R4-A which has as permitted uses of Single Family and Two -Family residences. The definition of a Two -Family residence is two (2) attached dwelling units one (1) lot, each occupied by not more than one (1) family. The CUP will also consider, among other things, the location and height of the cinder block wall along 13th Street, the second floor porch located to the north of the Carriage House building, percent of rear lot coverage and percent of total lot coverage. The next filing deadline for the CUP application will be May 30, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On February 12, 2004, a COA was approved and issued to Karen Butler Miller to "Construct New Carriage House and Courtyard, i.e. Secondary Structure; Demolition Of Existing Garage." The conditions placed on that COA were as follows: 1.) Recommendation that the roof pitch of the new structure match that of the existing structure. 2. The window details and ; Hardiplank / Harditrim siding details bey':• Y submitted to staff and approved by the ' Commission. r. On July 7, 2004, the owner submitted materials to the Commission as per the approved motion of February 12, 2004. x While different aspects of the project_.;:. were discussed - the motion was made - .•t _ ?Y: f only to approve the siding materials. The Commission and applicants have -� received complete copies of the minutes 1988 Survey photo of west facade of house as approved for these two meetings. ANALYSIS: The application as filed is to seek approval for improvements made to the property after the original COA was issued on February 12, 2004. Staff, at the time, recommended approval for a Carriage House that sat on the northern property line. Note: Staff, unless otherwise specified, took all current photos for this report on April 27, 2006 from the public right of way. Listed below are nine items that were presented in the letter from the City Attorneys office. 1. 2. 3. 4. Footprint relocation of the outbuilding. Relocation of the approved driveway. Addition of a second story shed roof to the west fagade of the accessory structure. Installation of ceiling fans on the underside of the second story shed roof. Current front facade of house. 2 5. Installation of outdoor security lighting on the north and south facades of the original structure. 6. Failure to construct the cinder block wall as specified in the COA application and as described at the public hearing. 7. Addition of a porch and stairway on the north side of the structure between the north facade of the accessory building and the wall. 8. Failure to plant proposed ivy screening to cover the cinder block wall. 9. Deletion of iron fencing from the cinderblock wall on the north side. Point by point analysis of the nine items as stated in the letter 1. Footprint relocation of the outbuilding. New Construction of outbuildings and additions specifically require approval through the COA process. The original COA had the building sited closer to the corner of the cinder block wall than it is now. The location of the building had to be moved to the present location to adhere to the Zoning Ordinance Setback requirements of 15' off of the north street side property line. The Zoning ordinance regulations supersede the Historic District Ordinance in matters of building locations. The HDC Guidelines address siting issues, but do not place numerical any setback. Photo showing increased setback of building to the south and relocated driveway. regulations on the number of feet required in 2. Relocation of the approved driveway. Public right-of-way improvements, in this case, driveways that are built in the right-of- way, specifically require approval through the COA process. The driveway to the garage doors had to be moved to relate to the garage doors. See above discussion of the relocation of the building. 3. Addition of a second story shed roof to the west fagade of the accessory structure. Porches (columns, cornices, railing,' flooring detailing) specifically require approval through the COA process. While the second story porch roof was discussed on July 7, 2004, it was not shown on the original documentation and was not included in the motion that was approved that evening. This porch was not shown on the original submittals; therefore it was an addition to the project that was not included in a motion granting approval. The guidelines state on the subject of Porches: on front facades should not be enclosed; should have wood steps with risers, not brick or concrete, for buildings with wood floor porches; should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the fagade; and should not have brick floors or steps. The porch floor is wooden, but it is unknown as to what size material the floor is made of, what orientation it is, or if it is tongue and groove. The steps are missing the risers. The porch roof is made of corrugated aluminum with exposed rafters. Photo showing second floor porch covering. Photo showing composition of wood porch floor and wood steps. 4. Installation of ceiling fans on the underside of the second story shed roof. Ceiling fans, as stated in the guidelines, specifically require approval through the COA process. While the second story porch roof was discussed on July 7, 2004, it was not shown on the original documentation and was not included in the motion that was approved that evening. This ceiling fan attached to the porch was not shown on the original submittals; therefore it was an addition to the project that was not included in the motion granting approval. The Guidelines state that the mounting of fans on exterior ceilings should be avoided if visible from the street. Photo showing ceiling fan as viewed from the right Photos showing security light on north fagade and of way. satellite dish. 5. Installation of outdoor security lighting on the north and south facades of the original structure. M Outdoor Security lighting, as stated in the guidelines, specifically require approval through the COA process. The guidelines state that 1) lighting for security, such as flood lights, should be mounted on secondary and rear facades and 2) lighting fixtures introduced to the exterior of a structure should be from the period of the structure, or new if simple in design, based on traditional designs of the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries and mounted on porch ceilings or adjacent to entrances. These lighting fixtures are not compatible with a historic home. Fixtures are available with motion sensitive activation that could be compatible with the guidelines. 6. Failure to construct the cinder block wall as specified in the COA application and as described at the public hearing. In the public hearing of 2-12-04, Mr. Reddig stated, "that the cinder block portion of the wall would be five feet and the wrought iron would be three feet. In turn the wall is only solid for five feet and you can look through the wrought iron." This wall was also described graphically without the cinder blocks being installed over the door header. The guidelines state the following about fences that are relevant to this case: 1) Fences of wood boards for privacy should be located in rear yards; generally no taller than six feet; set back from the front facade (wall plane) of the structure at least half -way from the front to back walls; of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox); stained or painted to blend with the structure; and of a design compatible with the structure. 2) Fences of free-standing brick, stone, or concrete walls are not appropriate. The northern wall was installed with the height ranging from ninety inches (7'-6") on the east end to seventy four inches (6'- 2") on the west end with a height of .one. hundred fourteen inches ff -6") over the door. The Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment will review any Zoning ordinance variance. The height of the wall is measured from the lowest point: i.e. if you fill in the courtyard, you must measure from the outside original grade. This wall is over six feet tall at all points. The south wall is eighty-two inches (6'- Plioto showing height of north wall at door. 10") on the eastern end and seventy-four (6-2") on the western end. This wall is over six feet tall at all points. The zoning ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet along the interior property line. 5 Photo showing height of north wall at west end. Photo showing height of north wall at east end. The location of the northern wall as described in the original application was in the same plane as the northern fagade of the house. The wall as built is approximately 28" north of the north wall and on the five-foot setback line. 7. Addition of a porch and stairway on the north side of the structure between the north fagade of the accessory building and the wall. Decks and Porches (columns, cornices, railing, flooring detailing) specifically require approval through the COA process. This porch was not shown to the Commission as it was added to the project after learning of the increased setback from the side property line. This knowledge was gained though the process of obtaining the Building Permit that was pulled on October 4, 2004. The Board of Adjustment or the Planning Commission will review the porch and stairway at a later hearing for setback issues. The Guidelines state that decks: 1) should be located on the rear and be screened from street view with fencing and or native evergreen plants and shrubs where visible. 2) should be stained or painted to match or blend with the house if visible from street view. 3) should have square wood balusters set no more that three inches apart if deck is visible from the street and 4) should be kept to a minimum and subordinate to house and yard in size and scale. This deck is located on the rear of the property but is very visible from the street. Evergreen trees have been planted to screen the deck but the years that it will take to screen the deck is unknown. The deck appears to be unstained and unpainted. It has iron railings instead of wood railings and balusters. C1 Photo showing deck from the northeast. Photo showing deck from the northwest. 8. Failure to plant proposed ivy screening to cover the cinder block wall. Landscaping does not require a COA as listed in the guidelines, but as a part of the COA process the applicant stated that the ivy would be planted. Therefore, the planting of the ivy had become part of the application. Ivy was not planted in a timely manner. 9. Deletion of iron fencing from the cinderblock wall on the north side. The iron fencing part of the wall was totally omitted from the installation of the wall. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: This item has been a topic of the Interstate 30 Task Force Meetings that are held once a month with the Mayor, City Manager, and various department heads together with members of the Downtown Neighborhood Association and citizens of the MacArthur Park Historic District. The public reaction to this application has not been favorable. It has been on their agenda since January 2006. Courtyard interior view to east. �'1C�,f'.�::Y, ice..-.'..�s'?,ir,_rY�.... •'-w�T�. Courtyard interior view to north. 7 More owner Courtyard interior view to south. Courtyard interior view to west. r 1)1•T R3:tiL=,\TOFPLANN.NGANDDEVELOPMENT LIT"I'LE ROCK HISTORIC ,� West nsa 72am Stet DISTRICT Little Rack, Arkansas 391-1334 Phone: (501) 371�790 Fax (501) 399-3435 CONMSSION rrlf'�� APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Applications Bata: q-1 1-6 1. Date of Public Hearing:_ day of 200 —at p.m. 2. Address of Property r tJ O 5. Owner's Agent: onelFWE-mail) — �« 6. Project may bo added): 7. Estunated Cost of Improvements- 8. Zoning Classification: f�L Is he ro change a ear3i ed use? Yes 3•ia 9. Signature ofOwnerorAgenr rAX �wurwflf need to a�trGur4s pnyggcnt rpermvt reprcsWtng the oH+rn at Ou pa6Behmring). Nam: Should there be changes (design, materials, size etc oes from the approved COA, applicant shall notify Cowmmission staff and tuke approprinre actions. Approval by the Commission dexse applicant or property Fmm compliance with other applicable caries, ordinances Of poilsics of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordi- nances or polices rests with the appiicant, owner or agent. (This section to be completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑Approved with Conditions ❑See Attached Conditions Application Staff Signature: Little Rock Historic District Commission * . Department of Planning and Development 723 WestMarkham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 311-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 E OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 3I0 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Debra K Weldon Telephone (501) 371-4521. DLputy City Attorney Telecopier (501) 371-4675 March 6, 2006 CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (#7099 3400 0006 8452 5783) Bill Rettig and Karen Butler Miller 1301 Cumberland Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 RE: Enforcement Proceedings —1301 Cumberland Failure to Amend Certificate of Appropriateness Dear Mr. Retting and Ms. Miller, On February 13, 2006, the Little Rock Historic District Commission submitted a formal request for enforcement action regarding your property at 1301 Cumberland. Our records indicate that a Certificate of Appropriateness ("COA") was approved for this properly, but that several modifications to the approved plans were implemented without obtaining an amended COA from the Historic District Commission. These changes include: 1. Footprint relocation of the outbuilding (increased setback). 2. Relocation of the approved driveway. 3. Addition of a second story shed (roof to the west fagade of the accessory structure. 4. Installation of ceiling fans on the underside of the second story shed roof. 5. Installation_ of outdoor security lighting on the north and south facades of the original structure. 6. Failure to construct the cinder block wall as specified in the COA application and as described at the public hearing. 7. Addition of a porch and stairway on the north side of the structure between the north fagade of the accessory building and the wall. 8. Failure to plant proposed ivy screening to cover the cinder block wall. 9. Deletion of iron fencing from the cinderblock wall on the north side. Letter from Attorney page 1 of 3 10 See also the following images: Upon investigation, Planning and Development staff noted that the porch constructed north of the accessory building is in violation of existing zoning. This porch was not permitted and cannot• be permitted by the Department of Planning and Development without Board of Adjustment approval of a zoning variance. This letter is submitted to place you on formal -notice that the above -described deviations from your approved COA application are in violation of state law and local zoning ordinances. To bring your property into compliance, you must either alter the structures to comply with the approved COA or obtain a variance from the Board of Letter from Attorney page 2 of 3 11 Zoning Adjustment and an amended COA from the Little Rock Historic District Commission. Please attend the March 13, 2006 meeting of the Historic District Commission to_ show cause why enforcement proceedings should not be initiated against you hi Pulaski County Circuit Court. The meeting is at 5:00 pm in the Sister Cities Conference Room, on the second floor of City Hall, 500 West Markham. Failure to appear before the Historic District Commission on March 13 may result in the initiation of legal proceedings against you. Sincerely, Thomas M. Carpenter 'City Attorney 'fl Debra K. Weldon Deputy City Attorney TMC_DKW:dw Cc: Historic District Commission Members Tony Bozynski, Planning and Development Director Letter from Attorney page 3 of 3 12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation forthcoming at hearing. 13 Staff recommends approval of the following items as installed: A. Footprint relocation of the Carriage House. B. Relocation of the driveway. C. Deletion of iron fencing on top of cinder block wall. D. Two light fixtures on the north wall of the second floor of the Carriage House. E. Satellite dish as installed. Staff recommends approval of the following items with modifications to the existing structures based on the guidelines: F. Installation of ceiling fans on the underside of the second story shed roof. Fan is to be removed and replaced with one of a more simple design of motor housing and blades. G. Installation of outdoor security lighting on the north facade of the original structure. Lighting is to be replaced with a motion sensitive activation that is compatible with the guidelines. Applicant is to submit lighting fixture to the commission at the June 2006 hearing prior to installation. Staff recommends approval of the security light on the south side of the house as installed. H. The Cinder block wall on the south side shall be lowered to a level under six feet in height when measured from the outside of the wall (the view from neighboring properties). The Cinder block wall on the north side shall be lowered to a level under six feet in height when measured from the outside of the wall (the street view side) for the length of the wall within the rear yard setback of 25 feet. J. Remove or add cinder blocks around the top of the doorway on the north side of the 3 . property to simplifyhMake designshown phototothe design3` symmetrical. Applicant is to submit plan for = T.non i wall modifications to the commission at the12 IN i June 2006 hearing prior to installation. K. Deck on north facade of Carriage ;; ..` rt; House. Remove iron railing and replacewith wooden railings as specified by the -: — - - guidelines. Add risers to steps. wail suggestion at door. L. Planting of ivy on north wall. Install ivy along the entirety of the wall with plants that have runners of at least 24". 14