Planning and Inspections

Planning and Inspections

Philip F. Etiwe, Director Planning and Inspections Department | 801 Texas Ave. | El Paso, TX 79901 Office: (915) 212-0104 | FAX: (915) 212-0084

HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

NOVEMBER 2, 2020, 4:00 P.M.

MEETING HELD ONLINE – DUE TO THE PANDEMIC THIS IS A VIDEOCONFERENCE

MEETING TO AVOID CONGREGATE SETTING IN PHYSICAL LOCATIONS

The El Paso Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing on November 2, 2020 at 4:00

p.m., the videoconference meeting was held online due to the pandemic and to avoid congregate

setting in physical locations.

TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF OPEN MEETINGS LAWS DUE TO EMERGENCY

The Texas Governor temporarily suspended specific provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act

to allow telephonic or videoconference meetings and to avoid congregate settings in physical

locations.

Notice is hereby given that the Historic Landmark Commission of the City of El Paso will be

conducted on the above date and time. Members of the public may view the meeting via the

following means:

Via the City’s website: http://www.elpasotexas.gov/videos

Via television on City 15, YouTube: https://youtube.com/user/cityofelpasotx/videos

A replay of the HLC meeting can be viewed at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jInp7iqOvI8&t=139s (Ctrl + Enter)

In compliance with the requirement that the City provide two-way communication for members

of the public, members of the public may communicate with the Historic Landmark Commission

during public comment, and regarding agenda items by calling the listed number:

1-915-213-4096. At the prompt please enter the following Conference ID: 460 569 214#

A quorum of the Historic Landmark Commission must participate in the meeting.

The following Commissioners were present: 8

Chairman Donald J. Sevigny Vice-Chairwoman Vicki Hamilton Commissioner Shane Mercer

(left the meeting at 6:13 p.m.)

Commissioner Chris Esper Commissioner Mark Cioc-Ortega Commissioner Eddie Castle

Commissioner Ivan Lopez Commissioner Francisco Macias (arrived 4:07 p.m.)

http://www.elpasotexas.gov/videos

https://youtube.com/user/cityofelpasotx/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jInp7iqOvI8&t=139s



Commissioners not present: 1

Commissioner Mark Cioc-Ortega

Vacancy: 1

District 5

The following City staff members were present:

Ms. Providencia Velázquez, Historic Preservation Officer, Planning & Inspections

Mr. Russell Abeln, Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office

Mr. Modesto “Moe” Melendez III, Building Plans Examiner, Planning & Inspections

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 4:04 p.m., quorum present.

I. CALL TO THE PUBLIC

No members of the public signed up to speak.

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

Item 9. – postponed to the next HLC meeting

Item 10. – postponed to the next HLC meeting

Ms. Velázquez read the following Statement from the Historic Preservation Office into the record.



Ms. Velázquez explained the statement is a reminder to the property owners and to the applicants

that the Historic Landmark Commission can approve, can approve with modifications, or deny

the application. Just because your neighbor may have the component that you are requesting

approval for, does not necessarily mean that you will get that same approval. It is all decided on

a case-by-case basis.

II. REGULAR AGENDA – DISCUSSION AND ACTION

Certificate of Appropriateness

1. PHAP20-00039 Indian Town W 47.47 Ft of Lot 5 (3077.26 Sq Ft), City of El Paso, El

Paso County, Texas

Location: 9124 San Fernando Street

Historic District: Ysleta

Property Owner: Rogelio Gaytan

Representative: Rogelio Gaytan

Representative District: 6

Existing Zoning: R-4/H (Residential/Historic)

Year Built: N/A

Historic Status: N/A

Request: Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a two-story

duplex on an empty lot

Application Filed: 10/02/2020

45 Day Expiration: 11/19/2020

Ms. Velázquez gave a presentation and noted the Historic Preservation Office recommends APPROVAL

WITH MODIFICATIONS of the proposed scope of work based on the following:

THE MODIFICATIONS ARE THAT:

1 THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING BE REDUCED TO ONE STORY;

2 THE PARKING BE ADDRESSED ON THE PLANS;

3 A LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH A LIST OF PLANTS AND DIMENSIONS OF THE YARD AND PAVING

BE SUBMITTED THAT SHOWS THE FRONT YARD IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GUIDELINES;

4 THE WINDOWS BE SASH WINDOWS INSTEAD OF SLIDERS; AND

5 THE MAIN FAÇADE INCORPORATE SOME DECORATIVE DETAILS



Ms. Velázquez explained this request came before Commissioners at the last HLC meeting on October 19th.

This is an empty lot, on a street filled with one-story, single-family houses. The applicant originally proposed

a two-story duplex. Commissioners requested the applicant reduce the size of the structure. One suggestion

was to start thinking about setbacks, which the applicant has done on the second floor. Per the revised site

plan, there is more detail with the window surrounds and the lintels and the second floor has been stepped

back. There is still an issue with the parking and the structure is still too big. It is a two-story building on a

block with one-story structures. Ms. Velázquez noted there have been some changes made with regard to

the massing but it is still a two-story building in an area where two-story buildings are few.

Ms. Velázquez stated staff’s recommendation still stands because this is too big and, at the very least, it

should be reduced in height to a one-story building. She thought the back yard could accommodate parking,

especially with regard to a duplex, that is going to be required. She explained one could not just rely on

street parking in this district. She thought the proposed structure was just too big for this area. She

commented that when Commissioners approve something unusual and/or different Commissioners and staff

guard against setting a precedent. Ms. Velázquez requested the proposal follow the guidelines which states

“you have to pay attention to the height, the setback, the massing, the details, etc., and it should be compatible.”

Compatible means it has to fit in and a two-story duplex on this block would never fit in.

Chairman Sevigny called for the property owner or representative.

Mr. Rogelio Gaytan, property owner, architect and, hopefully, contractor, was present. He would like to live

in one of the units and rent the other one. He stated, per the mandatory traffic study, he would be able to fit

four cars on the street. The reduction in the setbacks was part of the infill. He took the Commissioner’s

recommendation of moving the second floor to the rear of the property but architecturally it does not work.

The plumbing would not align anymore, structurally it would be a problem, and his budget. Mr. Gaytan

stated that by constructing this structure he would be improving the neighborhood as explained in the Ysleta

Historic District guidelines.

Chairman Sevigny asked Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Gaytan.

There were no responses.

Chairman Sevigny explained even with the revisions to the plans, this is out of scale with the rest of the street

and the rest of neighborhood. While the guidelines do note this building is acceptable in the district that

does not mean it is acceptable in the streetscape itself. Chairman Sevigny stated that was the big problem

Commissioners were dealing with. The proposed setback does not accomplish the overall goal of minimizing

the second story. That was the whole purpose of recommending a setback in the first place because it does

not do that, because it does not accomplish the overall goal. Based on the site plan, there is room in the back

yard for this home to move back onto …



Mr. Gaytan asked if it would be possible to do a one-story duplex in the back and apply that to the reduction

of setbacks that could possibly be a solution. He stated the front setback for the district was five feet setback;

however, he is proposing ten feet which is the average. For example, he would move it to the front five feet

and use the back for the other apartment, make it one-story, and try to follow the Pueblo Revival architectural

style and having the wood exposed, the stuccoing, the colors and also the massing as well.

Chairman Sevigny responded he could not speak for the Commission; however, that does fit in with the

recommendations of the Historic Preservation Office staff.

Chairman Sevigny asked Commissioners if they had any questions or comments on this new idea.

Commissioner Lopez agreed with the alteration to the design and to be able to maintain the proportions for

the neighborhood.

Discussion closed to Commissioners.

Ms. Velázquez noted the 45-day expiration date was Monday, November 19th and the next HLC meeting

would be held on Monday, November 16th. There was time for this item to be presented to Commissioners

before the expiration date.

Chairman Sevigny responded that was a great idea. Commissioners could take action and put this to a vote

because what Mr. Gaytan recommended is essentially what the Historic Preservation Office

recommendations include. There is still an issue regarding the landscape plan.

Mr. Gaytan responded the idea was to have xeriscape and to add planting as recommended in the guidelines,

the Mexican elder trees, the red yucca and river rock.

Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Gaytan if he could provide a list of the purposed plants along with the

dimensions of the yard with the revised plan.

Mr. Gaytan responded he would provide that information. He asked if it would be necessary to hire a

landscape architect to design the landscape or could he provide that.

Ms. Velázquez responded Mr. Gaytan could provide the landscape plan himself. She recommends more

planting versus hardscape. She stated staff and Commissioners like to see 50% of hardscape, which includes

gravel, paving, and brick. Ms. Velázquez noted if native plants are planted they do really well because they

do not require much water and they grow exponentially.

Mr. Gaytan asked if that applied to the just the front yard.



Ms. Velázquez responded yes, concentrate on the front.

Ms. Velázquez reiterated the expiration date for this request was November 19th and the next HLC meeting

is on November 16th.

Chairman Sevigny explained Commissioners have the option of tabling this or making a motion to approve

this with modifications right now. Personally, he would like to look over the plans one more time, see what

the revisions look like before providing final approval.

Chairman Sevigny asked if Commissioners had a different thought.

Commissioner Mercer concurred with the Chairman’s suggestion.

FOR THE RECORD

For the record, Chairman Sevigny recapped what had been discussed:

1. The design would change from a two-story plan to a one-story duplex;

2. The design would remain Pueblo Revival; and

3. The architect would provide a landscape plan to the Historic Preservation Office to specify the plants

and their locations.

MOTION:

Motion made by Chairman Sevigny, seconded by Commissioner Mercer AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO

TABLE THIS ITEM FOR THE NEXT HLC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 16TH.

NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE: Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton

2. PHAP20-00040 86 Government Hill 14 To 16 (10500 Sq Ft), City of El Paso, El Paso

County, Texas

Location: 1901 Radford Street

Historic District: Austin Terrace

Property Owner: Ernie J. and Katherine Fiocca

Representative: Ernie J. and Katherine Fiocca



Year Built: 1940

Historic Status: Contributing

Request: Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of garage doors






of the proposed scope of work. She explained this request was presented to Commissioners at the

October 19th HLC meeting. At that meeting, Commissioners recommended the property owner

research garage doors at www.overheaddoors.com.

Mr. Ernie Fiocca, property owner, was present. He stated he had checked with several garage

door websites without any success. He stated he did go to the www.overheaddoors.com and

noticed they have garages with 24 panels; however, the panels are raised. His intent was to go

with flat, recessed, panel doors, like what he has now. He does not like the raised panel doors.

He tried www.chioverheaddors.com and www.nationalwoodgaragedoors.com without any luck.

He cannot find garage doors with 24 flat, recessed panels with horizontal rectangles. He called

the local overhead garage door distributor three times and finally got ahold of them. They took

down his name and number, they are working limited hours and are swamped, so they would

call him back when they had time. After the installation of the new garage doors, Mr. Fiocca

intends to paint them the same color as the color on his existing garage doors. He would like go

with the same look, however, he cannot find any with the 24 panels in the horizontal layout of the

panel. He wants the recessed panels.

Personally, Chairman Sevigny stated he supports Mr. Fiocca’s choice to retain the recessed panel

aesthetic because it does make a difference. He thought, even if the number of panels changes, as

long as the recessed panel aesthetic is retained, then that would be a good compromise.

Commissioner Macias had the same sentiments as the Chairman.

Commissioner Lopez requested Commissioners proceed with the 16-panel recess. As long as the

product data sheet is provided for that type of door and have it be on record. That is a good

solution.

Chairman Sevigny asked Commissioners if we should specify 16 panels or just state compatible

overhead door with recessed panels to give the property owner some flexibility.

Commissioner Lopez suggested leaving off the 16-panel language.

Chairman Sevigny concurred with Commissioner Lopez’s suggestion.

No other comments.

MOTION:

http://www.overheaddoors.com/

http://www.overheaddoors.com/

http://www.chioverheaddors.com/

http://www.nationalwoodgaragedoors.com/



Motion made by Chairman Sevigny, seconded by Commissioner Lopez AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO

APPROVE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING OVERHEAD GARAGE DOORS WITH A

COMPATIBLE OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR PRODUCT WITH RECESSED PANELS.

3. PHAP20-00015 31 Sunset Heights N 72.45 Ft of 14 & 15 (3600 Sq Ft), City of El Paso,

El Paso County, Texas

Location: 812 Mundy Drive

Historic District: Sunset Heights

Property Owner: Noel and LCT Real Estate

Representative: Luis Talavera



Year Built: 1910


Request: Reconsideration of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness for

window replacement, painting of structure, and removal of a

window and infill with masonry after-the-fact






1. THE WINDOWS BE REPLACED WITH OPERABLE ONE-OVER-ONE WINDOWS;

2. THE WINDOW OPENINING THAT WAS INFILLED BE OPENED AND AN OPERABLE, ONE-OVER-

ONE WINDOW BE INSTALLED IN ITS PLACE;

3. THE WORK BE COMPLETED IN THIRTY DAYS; AND

4. NO NEW PERMITS BE ISSUED FOR THE PROPERTY UNTIL IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL

CITY CODES

Ms. Velázquez explained this request came before Commissioners in June, 2020. The property is located on

the corner of Mundy and Fewel. While out doing a site visit, she noticed changes had been made to the

property. The windows had been removed, the property had been painted, and a window was removed.

Ms. Velázquez read the following Certificate of Appropriateness language into the record.



Ms. Velázquez explained the owners did do some work on the structure regarding the windows with new

muntins in a 16 over 1 pattern. The replacement window had been removed once before and filled with

masonry and painted over and stuccoed over. Commissioners requested the property owners put the

replacement window back as it was originally, which they did. However, there are many issues with the

type, style, and finish for the new windows and grids and the new dormer windows. Ms. Velázquez

commented on the new application of the grids and muntins for the windows and what is preferred. Because

this not completely in compliance with what the HLC had asked, staff requested the property owners be

present for this November 2, 2020, HLC meeting for a reconsideration.

Commissioners and staff commented on the windows, grids, muntins, and upstairs sliders with an interior

grid.

Mr. Gilbert Quesada, one of the property owners, was present and explained the muntins were applied to

the windows with glue. He commented that the resolution stated the windows needed to be double-hung

but the windows he replaced were single-hung. Is there a reason why he was asked to install double-hung

windows instead of single-hung windows?

For the sake of clarity, Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Quesada if these were the same units he installed at the

start.

Mr. Quesada responded yes. The original windows he replaced were single-hung not double-hung. He was

confused as to why he was required to install double-hung windows when the originals windows were

single-hung.

Ms. Velázquez responded the information she has on record shows an original wood window which tends

to be double-hung. She noted the Historic Landmark Commission had asked him to replace double-hung

windows instead of single-hung windows because those are historically appropriate.

Mr. Quesada responded okay.

Chairman Sevigny asked if Commissioners had any questions for Ms. Velázquez and/or Mr. Quesada.



Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton thought the downstairs was more acceptable. She found it difficult to have that

one smaller window. She stated the dormer is very intrusive and jarring and they should do something about

that.

Commissioner Lopez suggested Commissioners propose to place the grid outside on that window.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton responded that would be the very minimum, place the grid outside in a way

that (inaudible) grid being equal to the original.

Mr. Quesada explained upstairs is living space, that is a bedroom up there and the reason he changed the

windows to sliders is because if he put single-hung windows there it would be tight for someone to get out

of the home in case of fire. The slider window allows more space to be able to open the window and exit the

property in case of an emergency.

Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Quesada if it was feasible to apply the exterior muntins to the dormer window

and enlarge the screen so that it encompasses the entire window.

Mr. Quesada responded he could remove the screen if so desired.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton commented on the proposed nylon screening saying it seems less transparent

than some of the screens that are made with the total goal of being transparent. She requested the muntins

get as close to what the original was as possible, and on the exterior. Additionally, use a screening material.

That one appears to be dark might be a black plastic.

Chairman Sevigny clarified the Vice-Chairwoman’s comments were to get a better material to improve the

transparency. To Mr. Quesada, Chairman Sevigny asked instead of enlarging the screen getting a more

transparent screen material that is not that cost prohibitive.

Mr. Quesada responded he could do that.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton added then put the muntins on the outside.

Chairman Sevigny agreed with the Vice-Chairwoman’s comment.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton suggested the Chairman take a hard look at that window that was added that

is a different size.



Chairman Sevigny responded that was a good point. Chairman Sevigny asked Ms. Velázquez to show the

property in 2001 to see what was originally on the structure.

Commissioner Lopez asked if the painting of the columns and the chimney was still in process.

Ms. Velázquez responded that was already completed.

Chairman Sevigny stated while the replacement window was not a one-to-one replica of the previous

window bay, the Certificate of Appropriateness does not specify this window has to match.

Chairman Sevigny thanked Mr. Quesada for putting the window back in.

Discussion closed to Commissioners.

Personally, Chairman Sevigny stated the work that was done essentially meets what the Certificate of

Appropriateness noted. While it is not necessarily ideal, the muntins are tacked on to the existing windows,

Commissioners have approved similar projects that had that same thing in the past specifically the train

depot downtown. Since this was done fairly consistently on the first floor, he thought it was reasonable for

Commissioners to ask that the second floor window have the same treatment to it.

Chairman Sevigny asked if Commissioners had any comments or questions.

There was no response.

MOTION:

Motion made by Chairman Sevigny, seconded by Commissioner Mercer AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO

APPROVE THE COMPLETED WORK WITH THE MODIFICATIONS THAT:



1. THE DORMER WINDOW ON THE SECOND STORY RECEIVE AN EXTERIOR MUNTIN GRID TO

BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS WHILE RETAINING THE SAME SIXTH

LIGHT CONFIGURATION OF EACH WINDOW; AND

2. REPLACE THE SCREEN FABRIC ON THE SECOND FLOOR DORMER WINDOW WITH A MORE

TRANSPARENT SCREENING MATERIAL TO REDUCE THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE NEW

SCREEN.

4. PHAP20-00042 48 Ysleta Tr 8 Tr 9-A Tr 9-B Tr 9-C Tr 10-A Tr 10-B Tr 10-C & Tr 10-

C-1 (1.0105 Ac), City of El Paso, El Paso County, Texas

Location: 9100 Alameda Avenue


Property Owner: Elizabeth Jacquez

Representative: Les Gutierrez


Existing Zoning: C-1/H (Commercial/Historic)

Year Built: 1950

Historic Status: Non-Contributing

Request: Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a cell tower




WITH A MODIFICATION of the proposed scope of work.

THE MODIFICATION IS THAT THE TOWER BE RELOCATED TO AN AREA IN THE REAR SO THAT IT

IS NOT AS VISIBLE OR PROMINENT.

Ms. Velázquez explained the request is for a cell tower located at 9100 Alameda Avenue. The lot is fairly big

and in the upper left corner on the screen, where Old Pueblo and Alameda meet, is the structure.

For clarification, Ms. Velázquez explained the structure is not going to be built upon, there will not be an

addition attached to it. The proposal is for a cell tower to be located somewhat in the center of this lot.

Commissioners have seen proposals for cell towers before; they are very hard to obscure and very hard to

hide. Staff always asks if someone has to put in this type of equipment, that they place it on the top of a very



tall building, somewhat hidden away, so that is not considered a structure and that it does not have an impact

on the historic district. However, in some cases, this would not be feasible.

The owner is proposing a 55-foot tall tower for the center of this lot. This will be a four faced tower with a

skin that somewhat resembles stucco. As the proposed location of the cell tower is in the middle of the lot,

this structure will be seen for a very long time and from quite some distance. The material for the exterior of

the cell tower is manufactured by Raycap | Stealth. The material is very thin for the exterior surface of the

proposed cell tower. The material is basically cladding to resemble stucco, which is quite dominant in this

district. The proposed location is right across the street from the Mission. This area is not known for its

skyscrapers.

Ms. Velázquez read the following into the record:

The Ysleta Historic District Design Guidelines recommend the following:

Mechanical, electrical and telephone equipment, as well as other obtrusive elements and/or structures, should be

screened from view. Obtrusive structures include satellite dishes, air conditioning units and radio and television

antennae

Any new construction must be compatible in size, texture, color, design, proportion and detail to adjacent buildings

and streetscapes and must follow the specific architectural styles designated appropriate for that particular zone.

Incorporating existing architectural features with new design elements can contribute added interest and

compatibility

New structures should respect the integrity of existing buildings. Existing historic structures and streetscape need

to be taken into consideration before designing new infill construction. Setbacks, proportion, rhythm, and building

elements should all be addressed

Height of new buildings should conform to the heights of existing surrounding buildings

New additions should be planned so that they are constructed to the rear of the property or on a “non-character

defining elevation.” According to the Standards for Rehabilitation, new additions should be designed and

constructed so that the character-defining features of buildings are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or

destroyed in the process of rehabilitation



Additions should complement the original structure, but not necessarily attempt to duplicate or copy it. The older

structure should be identifiable from the new addition

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation recommend the following:

New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize

the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,

and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment

New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in

the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired

Ms. Velázquez explained a cell tower cannot be reduced in height but it could be moved further back so as

not to be so prominent. She has met with several cell tower companies before and she always recommends

relocating and redesigning the proposed cell tower but in the end a cell tower is a cell tower. Ms. Velázquez

reiterated her recommendation is moving the cell tower further back so as not to be so prominent.

Chairman Sevigny asked, for the establishment of a new cell tower, does this require approval from the FCC

or any sort of license or approval from the Federal government?

Ms. Velázquez was unsure if it requires approval from the FCC but she would not be surprised if it does. It

does require review from this body, the Planning Department, and in some cases the SHPO (State Historic

Preservation Office).

Chairman Sevigny stated if this does require approval from the FCC then it would trigger Section 106 and if

that is the case the SHPO would be involved. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation put together a

program comment on cell towers. It is an effort to streamline the review process. He wondered if that was

part of this item.

Ms. Velázquez wanted to say yes. This is not the only body that has to review this. Historic Preservation

and Planning and Zoning Department staff have informed cell tower companies that, basically, we do not

really want these things to be so obvious. Ultimately, the tower cannot be reduced in height.

Chairman Sevigny responded the main reason for this is that the proposed tower is located right across from

the Ysleta Mission. From his understanding, the steeple of the Mission is one of tallest landmarks in the area.

This cell tower would dwarf that if constructed. He cautioned Commissioners to take this very seriously and

be in coordination with other regulatory bodies to make sure we are not stepping on anybody’s toes.

Ms. Velázquez noted the proposed material for the exterior of the tower is Raycap | Stealth Proprietary 5G

mm Wave Material, InvisiWave.



Commissioner Castle asked to see the overall elevation slide. He stated this reminded him of something in

Florence, some tower. It seemed like at the top they are not really expressing … seems somewhat inconsistent

because of the scale at the top with other architectural elements in the neighborhood.

Ms. Velázquez responded that was a good point, she had been wondering why this looked off. As the

Commissioner stated it looked something from Florence, the crenelated parapet. This really looks more

Italian than anything else at this point.

Chairman Sevigny stated if this is meant to be in the Pueblo Revival style, no Pueblo building would be of

this height with such a slender profile. The aesthetics do not add up. Because of that, he was in favor of

keeping towers like this honest by just being a raw representation of a cell phone tower because that is less

intrusive than trying to cover it with something like this that attracts even more attention.

Commissioner Castle wondered if it was more appropriate to replicate some form of fauna.

Commissioner Lopez appreciated the fact they are trying to use a structure to hide it because, usually you

try to see the fake tree and the proportions are not right. He thought this was a possible opportunity for the

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo to act as signage. Because this elevation on Alameda is very prominent, you cannot see

the buildings because of the parking lot. Having a tower there by itself without the cover, he was unsure if

that was an enhancement to the district. Unless, if the tower was moved to the corner of the parking lot, not

the center. If Commissioners decide to maintain it on center, we would probably want to keep some type of

structure to hide it. If Commissioners decide to move it to the corner, then we should keep it as it is.

Commissioner Esper stated if Commissioners are considering a different approach, despite where

Commissioners decide to move it, it could be an opportunity for public art or a mural or something that could

be a beacon for the district. He was not opposed to proposing this entertaining some form of mural or art or

something so that it could do double-duty whereby the tower would be there anyway so it might be an

opportunity for the district to stand as its own type of monument.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton commented on the fake Cypress trees and stated they have not executed those

in a way that you would want them there. They are more intrusive than this. The fake trees tend to blow

away, parts of them, they become ragged looking whereas if this were simpler, even just a plain top, or

something more indicative of Pueblo Revival it would be better than a tree.



FOR REFERENCE

Chairman Sevigny stated he had uploaded the program comment in the meeting chat. Hopefully, all

Commissioners have access to it. To Ms. Velázquez, the Chairman asked her to look through it and see how

this could apply. This could be an important component to the review. A key component of this is

determining whether this tower can be moved at all.

Mr. Les Gutierrez, Site Acquisition Representative for Verizon, representing the property owner, was

present. He commented on the City’s new Telecom Zone Code. He did propose a mono-Cypress because

off to the east there is a big grove of Cypress trees; however, City staff said no because, per the new Telecom

Zoning Code, the new design must a four-sided structure. Regarding the FCC, he would have to secure FCC

approval only for height. Mr. Gutierrez stated this request still needs to go through the SHPO for approval.

Verizon is open to work with the Commissioners regarding doing some sort of design on the structure,

Verizon is open to that, too. The motif on top of the tower came from the structure behind it to the south.

That could be changed that to suit the Commissioners.

Chairman Sevigny stated since this request requires FCC and SHPO approval, he asked Mr. Gutierrez if he

would be reaching out to other consulting parties.

Mr. Gutierrez responded he would comply with whatever the FCC and SHPO requires; he was unsure if

there were other third-party entities that needed to be advised for approval. Of course, the Planning &

Inspections Department and the Building Department need to review the plans as well.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton asked if the Mission was part of a federally recognized tribe. She thought they

would need to be a consulting party. She was curious as to what the tribe had to say about it.

Mr. Gutierrez noted the sheathing is designed to allow the signal to propagate out of the tower. Being fully

concealed in stucco would not allow the signal to propagate. That’s why this end cap was designed. The

tower itself will be structurally designed with steel studs going all the way to the top of the structure.

Chairman Sevigny noted the Historic Preservation Officer recommended moving the tower. He asked Mr.

Gutierrez if that was feasible.

Mr. Gutierrez stated, because of the new Telecom Zone Code, the tower was put in its current location

because of setback provisions of the R-1 (Residential) zone districts from the east and the north, initiating 3-

to-1 setbacks. Looking at the drawings, there is 165 feet in one direction and 162 feet in the other direction.

The placement of the tower is due to setbacks. Mr. Gutierrez explained that, after further review, Planning

& Zoning staff felt the tower was too close to the back of the property, too close to an existing structure and

did not meet the setbacks. If the Telecom Zone Code would grant this request a waiver, that might be a

possibility. The property owner wanted the cell tower to be located in the center of the parking lot. Another

reason is the tower is structurally sound so even if a waiver was granted and they could move the tower



toward the back of the property, it would be close to the residential zone. The property owners would fear

the tower was blocking their view or be not aesthetically pleasing. He was following the Telecom Zone Code.

Regarding a proposed waiver, Ms. Velázquez stated Mr. Gutierrez has been working with the Planning &

Zoning staff. She read into the record an email from Planning & Zoning staff member, Andrew Salloum,

dated August 26, 2020: “To Mr. Gutierrez, the overall camouflage design is okay. The structure needs a little more

architectural details as opposed to solid brown faces. Also, we would like to see the tower placed more towards the back

edge of the property instead of right in the middle of the parking lot. You also need to provide the due diligence in

reference to why it cannot be a roof or facility mount. Since the property is within the boundaries of the historic district

it will require view from the Historic Landmark Commission.”

Ms. Velázquez stated it looked like Planning & Zoning staff was asking that the tower be moved further back

so that it is not so obvious. Additionally, would Mr. Gutierrez consider something else like a roof mount

which is what the Historic Preservation Officer would have proposed if the request had come to her

originally? While looking at the map, Ms. Velázquez stated she could see the boundaries of the district and

when it comes to this property, at the end of this parcel, then it becomes not part of the district. There is a

parcel on Valumbrosa zoned C-2/sc (Commercial/special commission) and she wondered if moving the cell

tower to Valumbrosa would be a possibility because it would be outside the historic district, would not be

subject to this review and is in a commercially zoned property. For previous cell tower requests, Ms.

Velázquez has asked that the tower be placed somewhere outside the historic district.

Mr. Gutierrez explained Verizon would be interested in placing a different structure going further east

towards the Cypress trees than put a mono-Cypress that would blend in, be at the end of the property and

would not be so obvious. He would like to try that route before having to start the process all over again

with a new parcel.

Chairman Sevigny stated his major concern is how this specific review fits in with the Section 106 review that

is needed. He explained, in addition to, this Commission and the SHPO there is the federally recognized

Tigua tribe. It is important to include any federally recognized tribes with an undertaking like this, as well

as any other local partners such as the County Historical Commission.

Ms. Velázquez stated the property owner is Elizabeth Jacquez, owner of Gabriel’s Café located at the corner

of Alameda and Old Pueblo.

Mr. Gutierrez explained that he would make sure Section 106 is cleared and all affected parties would be

noticed. He would have to have clearance from them before proceeding. He explained, even if the

Commissioners approve the request today, he is still six months out by the time all other approvals are done,

before the site is built, and before getting any permits. He has been working on this project for nine months.

Mr. Gutierrez explained that he was proposing the four-sided structure because that is what the City

Planning staff recommended. For Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton, Mr. Gutierrez will email her a couple of cell



tower structures in the Albuquerque area that are mono-Cypress. If he could work with Andrew Salloum

and Raul Garcia to waive the setbacks and allow a different structure, perhaps a mono-Cypress, that would

be Verizon’s preference. Additionally, the City wants the tower to be co-locatable so the design must be

structurally sound to allow one other carrier.

Commissioner Lopez asked Mr. Gutierrez if he was working with the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo community. That

would be a big recommendation because that building next to it is their current Administrative building for

the district. He thought Mr. Salloum needed clarification to ensure that he knows these are two separate

properties. Commissioner Lopez stated he was in favor of the four-sided structure compared to the mono-

Cypress tree. Regarding the exterior material, he noted there are horizontal joints on the tower. Is that the

full size of the panel or would they look like tiles at the end of the day? Commissioner Lopez preferred large

format panels so that they do look like the stucco feel. If you have 12’ x 12’ or 24’ x 10’ panels, you start

creating a tile look which would not be in character with the existing area in terms of the material.

Mr. Gutierrez responded to his knowledge no, the property owner has not contacted the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

community. However, the Verizon environmental consultants and the SHPO people are working on that.

He would be happy to advise Mr. Salloum regarding the two separate properties. The parcel has always

been used as a parking lot for Gabriel’s Café and is used for overflow parking for events at the casino. Mr.

Gutierrez stated he would try to find an existing structure built by Raycap to have an idea of what it would

look like when it is completed.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton noted the City is a CLG (Certified Local Government) and asked Ms. Velázquez

how they participate in Section 106.

Ms. Velázquez responded when the SHPO asks her to participate in a Section 106 the city responds. The City

of El Paso does not have a programmatic agreement with the SHPO, per se, but she does get information

from the SHPO asking for input. She has been getting requests for information regarding the cell towers, not

only those located within historic districts, but in general as well. Ms. Velázquez stated whenever she gets

requests for cell towers in a historic district she asks them to look outside the district first. If there is nowhere

else the tower can go but in the historic district, make it invisible. She thought it beneficial to allow Mr.

Gutierrez time to take all the Commissioners’ comments and come back before Commissioners with

something closer to a resolution.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton stated that they should take into account the fact that wherever they put the cell

tower, even if it is just outside the historic district, it will be within the viewshed of the Mission which is a

very significant structure. That needs to be taken into account. It becomes much more controversial and

intrusive when it is within the viewshed of a very important structure. It is also impacting the Mission Trail.

Chairman Sevigny agreed with Ms. Velázquez request to allow Mr. Gutierrez more time.



Mr. Gutierrez thanked the Commissioners for their time and consideration. He stated that he was in a bit of

a quandary regarding adhering to the new Telecom Zone Code and the number of customers wanting service

in that area. The signal is very weak and there is all the cellphone traffic on Alameda, the homes, businesses

and the casino. It would be helpful to get a feel that if Verizon works with the City and moves the structure

further east, near the other Cypress trees, if a mono-Cypress is preferable than the four-sided structure, if

that’s a better feel then we would pursue that. Otherwise, he is a little bit confused about which direction to

go.

Chairman Sevigny stated looking into a waiver and reintroducing that mono-Cypress would be a viable

option to pursue. His primary issue is making sure this follows the Section 106 process found in 36 CFR Part

800. As long as that regulation is followed and the Commissioners are involved in it as a consulting party

then that would be a good way forward for this project. Additionally, the Mission has applied for a UNESCO

site.

Commissioner Lopez mentioned he was somewhat familiar with the new Telecom Zoning Code. He

remembered the 3 to 1 ratio. He thought the first step was to ask Planning & Zoning staff to waive the setback

requirement. He noted there are some Commissioners that favor the mono-Cypress tree and there are some

Commissioners that do not. He asked Mr. Gutierrez to provide images of the mono-Cypress tree to Ms.

Velázquez. Moving the tower closer to the Cypress tree grove in the corner would be a little bit discreet.

Mr. Gutierrez responded he would work with Planning staff Andrew Salloum and Raul Garcia regarding the

setbacks. In the next couple of days, he would email Ms. Velázquez designs and actual operations with the

Cypress tree from Albuquerque.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton asked Mr. Gutierrez if he would provide photos of “naked” cell towers to Ms.

Velázquez to see what it would look like with no covering.

Mr. Gutierrez stated Verizon has put up a couple of “light standards” which are up to 65 feet. It is a basic

power pole and at the top is a round canister concealing the antennas. Those are used quite often to replace

an existing light pole.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton requested Mr. Gutierrez provide any correspondence and any additional

comments regarding the height that he has had with the SHPO.

Mr. Gutierrez stated he had originally requested a 65-foot structure; however, SHPO would approve it if the

height was reduced to 55 feet. He would provide that correspondence information to Ms. Velázquez.

MOTION:

Motion made by Chairman Sevigny, seconded by Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED

TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR THE NEXT HLC MEETING TO ALLOW THE PROPONENT TO TAKE



COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS INTO ACCOUNT, TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. PROVIDE IMAGES OF DIFFERENT DESIGNS THAT COULD BE APPLICABLE TO THIS SITE TO

INCLUDE BUT NOT:

a. BARE COMMUNICATIONS POLE;

b. THE MONO-CYRPESS SHEATHING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED PREVIOUSLY;

c. ANY OTHER APPLICABLE AESTHETIC THAT MAY WORK; AND

d. PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THE AESTHETICS, THE SPECIFIC DESIGN OF THE

PROPOSED PUEBLO REVIVAL SHEATHING AS SHOWN TO COMMISSIONERS;

2. PROVIDE THE COMMISSION WITH A PLAN FOR VERIZON TO FOLLOW THE SECTION 106

PROCESS AS MANDATED BY 36 CFR PART 800;

a. TO INCLUDE SHARING PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE TEXAS HISTORICAL

COMMISSION AND VERIZON TO ENSURE WE DO NOT PROVIDE INCOMPATIBLE

GUIDANCE IN THE FUTURE;

5. PHAP20-00043 19 Sunset Heights 18 & 19 (6000 Sq Ft), City of El Paso, El Paso

County, Texas

Location: 1435 Hawthorne Street

Historic District: Sunset Heights

Property Owner: Ronnie and Cindy Stout

Representative: Ronnie and Cindy Stout



Year Built: 1918


Request: Certificate of Appropriateness for a new roof




WITH A MODIFICATION of the proposed scope of work.

THE MODIFICATION IS THAT THE NEW ROOF BE A UNIFORM BROWN.

Ms. Velázquez explained the property is located at the corner of River and Hawthorne. During a recent site

visit, the property owner stated the roof has not been replaced for 30 years. Staff checked the Sanborn Map;

however, little information was presented for this property. The owner has selected Copper Canyon, GAF

Timberline asphalt shingle as the replacement color which is not quite a match for the existing red on the roof

currently. The owner thought this was a good compromise between the color of the brick and the other colors

of the house. He thought this would look rather appropriate. Ms. Velázquez asked the property owner if



there was any original roofing underneath the existing roofing. The property owner responded no, the

current roof has been in existence for 30 years, it has held up well but it is time to go. Because it is not a match

for what is existing and staff has no record of what the roof looked like historically is the reason this request

is before Commissioners.


The Design Guidelines for El Paso’s Historic Districts, Sites, and Properties recommend the following:

The distinctive features of each roof type should be retained as they are character-defining elements

If a roof requires repair, the replacement materials must match the original or existing materials as closely as

possible


The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration

of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided

Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires

replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual

qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary,

physical, or pictorial evidence

FOR CLARIFICATION

Chairman Sevigny clarified the Sanborn Map Ms. Velázquez referenced did not have any indication of the

previous roofing material.

Ms. Velázquez responded no. She explained the El Paso Sanborn Maps are hit and miss. Staff was unable to

find a Sanborn Map from 1918.

Chairman Sevigny asked if the existing T-lock shingle was a uniform brown or a bit of variation in the color.

Ms. Velázquez responded it looked like a uniform red. She showed a sample of the existing roof to

Commissioners. Under the fluorescent office lighting the sample showed a weathered red color. She would

not be surprised if this composition roofing had been placed there to match the brick.

Mr. Ronnie Stout, property owner, was present. He explained he has needed to repair the roof for a while.

About two months ago he had air conditioning work done on the roof and when the air conditioning men

were working on the attic the temperature in the attic got up to 150°. The air conditioning men recommended

a lighter tile to reduce the heat in the attic. The Copper Canyon works with the existing red brick and the

beige siding.

Commissioner Lopez asked, in terms of replacing the front porch roofing, what is the thought on the detail

condition where it hits the wall, the flashing condition. He commented on the gallium strip, similar to a



chrome look, and thought Commissioners would want to prevent that and make it the same color of the roof

so there would not be a delineated shiny chrome piece along the top of the porch.

Mr. Stout agreed with the Commissioner. He spoke with the contractor about that and the contractor

informed Mr. Stout that he would minimize that as much as possible. He told Mr. Stout that it would match

what the Commissioner requested.

Regarding the purposed roof, Chairman Sevigny stated he was okay with this product provided the drip

edge matches the trim color.

Commissioner Lopez requested the flashing detail match the color of the roof that way Commissioners could

see a strip up there delineating the top of the roof.

Chairman Sevigny agreed with Commissioner Lopez’s request.

MOTION:

Motion made by Chairman Sevigny TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ROOF SHINGLE PROVIDED THE NEW

FLASHING MATCHES THE COLOR OF THE TRIM OF THE HOUSE.

Commissioner Lopez added the drip edge could be the trim of the color of the house but the top detail, flashing

detail should be the color of the roof because if you are going to see the perimeter along the brick you will see

the yellow. Through the years, you can see some roof repairs at the edges with that frayed look, just so that

the top flashing detail is the color of the roof.

FOR CLARIFICATION

Chairman Sevigny restated the motion, as clarified by Commissioner Lopez, as follows:

MOTION:

Motion made by Chairman Sevigny, seconded by Commissioner Lopez AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO

APPROVE THIS ITEM AND THE PROPOSED ROOFING SHINGLE WITH THE MODIFICATION THE

DRIP EDGE MATCHES THE TRIM OF THE HOUSE AND THE FLASHING DETAIL BETWEEN THE

EXTERIOR BRICK WALL AND THE PORCH ROOF MATCHES THE COLOR OF THE ROOF SHINGLE.

6. PHAP20-00044 Indian Town S ½ of Tr 12 Exc Wly 7.07 Ft (5618.01 Sq Ft), City of El

Paso, El Paso County, Texas

Location: 204 Candelaria Street


Property Owner: Ivan Ruiz, Yerania Cordero

Representative: Edward Arriaga





Year Built: 1951

Historic Status: Non-Contributing

Request: Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition after-the-fact






1. THE EXTERIOR CLADDING ON THE ADDITION BE STUCCO;

2. THE CHAIN LINK FENCE BE REPLACED WITH METAL PICKETS;

3. THE FENCE BE NO HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET TOTAL;

4. THE METAL ROOFED PORCH EXTENSION AT THE MAIN FAÇADE BE REMOVED, OR THE

METAL BE REPLACED WITH A COMPATIBLE MATERIAL, OR THE STRUCTURE BROUGHT INTO

COMPLIANCE; AND

5. THAT NO PERMITS ARE APPROVED UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE

Ms. Velázquez explained from the 2003 photo there have been changes made without proper permits. Staff

went to the property and noted the proposed addition was already built. Staff noted the addition is

somewhat visible from the street, not just from the front through the driveway but also from the back as you

walk around the corner. Rear yard additions are not usually this visible.


The Ysleta Historic District Design Guidelines recommend the following:

A secondary building is a free standing structure near the primary building. A garage, for example, would be

considered a secondary building. Since most secondary buildings were usually built at the same time and in the

same style as the primary structure, they contribute to the architectural character of the property. Same attention



to detail should be taken while planning construction for a secondary structure as was taken for the primary

structure

Appropriate masonry for the Ysleta Historic District includes brick, stone, terra cotta, stucco finishes or synthetic

coatings, and adobe

New structures should respect the integrity of the existing buildings. Existing historic structures and streetscape

need be taken into consideration before designing new infill construction. Setbacks, proportion, rhythm, and

building elements should all be addressed

Any new construction must be compatible in size, texture, color, design, proportion and detail to adjacent buildings

and streetscapes; and must follow the specific architectural styles designated appropriate for that particular zone

New additions should be planned so that they are constructed to the rear of the property or on a “non-character

defining elevation”. According to the Standards for Rehabilitation, new additions should be designed and

constructed so that the character-defining features of buildings are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or

destroyed or in the process of rehabilitation

Additions should complement the original structure, but not necessarily attempt to duplicate or copy it. The older

structure should be identifiable from the new addition


New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize

the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,

and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment

New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in

the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Chairman Sevigny asked Ms. Velázquez to clarify her recommendation that the metal roofed porch

extension at the main façade be removed, or the metal be replaced with a compatible material, or the structure

brought into compliance. He asked if Ms. Velázquez was proposing one of those options to be

pursued or a combination of all of them.

Ms. Velázquez responded just one. She was trying to give the property owner some options. Staff

does not know how old the renovations are. Rather than say the addition has to be removed, the

property owner should be given the opportunity to try to keep it. It must meet City Code and

they have to get a permit. That is what she meant by bringing it into compliance.

Using Google Map, Chairman Sevigny noted in February 2019 there were no changes; however,

in March 2020 these changes were recorded. Between February 2019 and March 2020 the changes

did occur.

Commissioner Mercer stated he had another commitment and would have to leave the meeting.

He wanted to make sure there was a quorum before he left the meeting at 6:13 p.m.



Mr. Eddie Arriaga, representing the property owners, was present and responded to comments

and questions from Commissioners. He stated he was not aware of the front porch being built

without permits. He was notified by the property owners regarding obtaining a permit for the

workshop but they stopped construction at the current state. It stated the workshop would be

plain, no insulation, for storage and for projects around the property. The details of the workshop

are as follows: the roof has the felt paper and plywood, flat roof material, vinyl siding for the

exterior and standard stuff, nothing out of the ordinary.

FOR CLARIFICATION

For clarification, Chairman Sevigny asked if the proposed roofing material would be a mineral

rolled roofing or something to that affect.

Mr. Arriaga agreed and verified the proposed roofing material will be mineral rolled roofing.

Per the presentation photo of the plans, Chairman Sevigny noted the exterior sheathing is like a

vertical material. He asked if this vinyl be vertical or horizontal appearance.

Mr. Arriaga responded it would be vertical.

Commissioner Castle wondered what the roof slope was on the mono-slope.

Mr. Arriaga responded he was looking at ½ inch and 12.

Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Arriaga what the proposed color of the workshop roof would be.

Mr. Arriaga responded gray, like the fabricated color.

To Ms. Velázquez, Chairman Sevigny stated that color does seem to be compatible with the main

building.

Ms. Velázquez responded it’s not terribly obtrusive and it is in the back and the guidelines do say

that appropriate masonry would be brick, stone, terra cotta, stucco finishes or synthetic coatings

and adobe.

Chairman Sevigny noted a lot of work has already been put into this. He asked Mr. Arriaga if the

property owner would be open to painting the existing siding to match the exterior of the house.

Mr. Arriaga responded yes, they would.



Chairman Sevigny stated the primary issue is the front porch because that does greatly alter the

main façade of the house. The Historic Preservation Office offered multiple solutions to this:

1. Either the porch be removed;

2. The metal be replaced with a compatible material; or

3. The structure be brought into compliance.

Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Arriaga of the three solutions which one is the most feasible;

additionally, what were his thoughts on all three possible solutions.

Mr. Arriaga thought the property owner would want to replace the roof with a more compatible

material.

Chairman Sevigny wondered how that would fit into compliance. To Ms. Velázquez, Chairman

Sevigny stated if the roof material was changed would this addition still be out of compliance.

Ms. Velázquez responded Mr. Arriaga would still need to get a permit for that. Additionally, he

would have to ask Zoning staff if there were any setbacks that needed to be met regarding the

extension. If those conditions are met and Commissioners were fine with letting him change the

material to something else, i.e., like an asphalt shingle to match, then yes, it would be feasible that

this could all be brought into compliance once Commissioners say we prefer X material or if you

are fine with what is there now. Then he could talk with Zoning staff to ensure that could be

approved by Zoning staff as well.

Regarding the front porch, Mr. Arriaga noted there are some columns. Would those be stuccoed

or stay as is?

Chairman Sevigny responded, personally, he feels the posts can remain as is. If the roof material

would change to something more compatible, it may need to require additional structure to

support a different roofing material. That is something Commissioners would need to consider.

Commissioner Lopez thought if the material was replaced with asphalt shingles, that would be

okay, in terms of the weight, replacing the metal roof.

Regarding the chain link fence to be replaced with metal pickets, Chairman Sevigny asked Ms.

Velázquez if there was chain link fence elsewhere on this street.

Ms. Velázquez responded yes, to be fair there is chain link fencing on this street and within the

district; however, that was something staff would not recommend for the district. If

Commissioners are okay with chain link fencing, that was fine with her. She did want that noted



because no permits were pulled for this, it was not something that was brought to her attention

and not something she could tell the owner it fits or not.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton referred to the photo with the fence covering but the neighbor has to

see the chain link fence. She wondered if that was their intention. If they want a privacy fence

they would have to come back before the Commission with a different proposal. Since that area

seems to have a lot of chain link fence, she would rather have an honest chain link fence than this.

Chairman Sevigny asked Ms. Velázquez if there was something in the guidelines that covered

chain link fencing in the district.

Regarding the chain link fence, Mr. Arriaga asked which side of the property the Commissioners

were referring to.

To Mr. Arriaga, Ms. Velázquez explained, per the photos of the property from 2003, the chain link

fencing was not installed on this property. The photos do show the adjacent property having

chain link fencing but not the property in question. She checked the files and did not find a permit

for the fencing. Per the Ysleta Historic District guidelines, it states “If fencing is desired it should be

incorporated into the overall design. Construction of new fences and replacement of older existing fences

should be of compatible materials in order to compliment the building. Rock, brick, wood and wrought iron

are generally acceptable materials but each case should be decided individually. For instance, rock with

stucco, adobe with stucco or cement with stucco are appropriate materials for Pueblo style structure. Cinder

block with stucco can also be used for fencing but plastic should be avoided. Metal wrought iron may be

used with brick buildings and some adobe structure. The height of the proposed fence should complement

the structure and should not obstruct the public’s view of the building. Solid fencing and/or landscaping

on residential and commercial properties should not exceed three feet in height.”

Chairman Sevigny noted this is a non-contributing resource to the district. Chain link fencing was

not a compatible fencing material for properties of this type, post-World War II ranch houses. The

property next door still has their original chain link fence intact. That does provide some

justification for this new chain link fence. Per the presentation photo, Chairman Sevigny noted

the fence looked incomplete. There are other ways to improve privacy with a chain link fence that

do not involve a fabric. He felt the chain link fence was compatible with the property, the fabric

was not compatible and the top bar of the chain link fence needs to be installed on the front of the



property. To Mr. Arriaga, with all of that information, did he feel it was feasible to refine the fence

a little more, between improving the privacy method and also completing the design on the front

portion of the house?

Mr. Arriaga responded yes, he thought so. Looking at the fabric, he was not fond of that either.

To be clear, the chain link fence was okay on the side of the property just as long as a different

method was used to create that privacy other than the fabric.

Chairman Sevigny responded that was his preliminary resolution to this. The Commission will

come to a conclusion once it’s been voted on.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton asked whatever the owner decides to do, they bring it to Ms.

Velázquez to look at before they proceed. She requested the Chairman include in the motion “That

it also ought to be looked at by the Historic Preservation Officer before proceeding with construction.”

Chairman Sevigny asked Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton if her proposed motion language included

all components: the front porch, the rear workshop and the fence or just individual components.

Vice-Chairman Hamilton thought the porch and the fence were the most important.

MOTION:

Motion made by Chairman Sevigny, seconded by Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton AND UNANIMOUSLY

CARRIED TO APPROVE THIS ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

1. THE WORKSHOP SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE PRIMARY BUILDING,

SPECIFICALLY THE EXTERIOR VINYL SHEATHING AND THE ROOF TRIM;

2. THE METAL PORCH ROOF SHALL BE REPLACED WITH A COMPATIBLE ROOFING

MATERIAL TO THE MAIN HOUSE;

3. THE CIDER SUPPORT POSTS FOR THE PORCH SHALL REMAIN AS IS;

4. THE CHAIN LINK FENCE SHALL BE IMPROVED BY INSTALLING THE TOP BAR ALONG

THE FENCE PORTION BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE SIDEWALK;

5. THE PRIVACY SCREENING SHALL BE REPLACED WITH A MORE COMPATIBLE

SOLUTION RECOMMENDATIONS SUCH AS INDIVIDUAL SLATS OR ANOTHER

METHOD; AND

6. ALL OF THESE ITEMS SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION

OFFICER FOR FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEGINNING.

NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE: Commissioner Mercer



7. Addresses of property HLC commissioners have requested that HLC staff review or

investigate and provide a report to the HLC. If no addresses are submitted in advance and

listed under this agenda item, Commissioners may announce such addresses under this

agenda item. Discussion on property announced at this meeting would take place during the

next regularly scheduled meeting. November 2, 2020 deadline for HLC members to request

for agenda items to be scheduled at the November 16, 2020 meeting. November 16, 2020

deadline for HLC members to request for agenda items to be scheduled for the December 7,

2020 meeting.

No requests from Commissioners.

8. HLC Staff Report

Update on Administrative Review Cases since last HLC meeting for the properties listed on

the attachment posted with this agenda. (See Attachment “A”.)

No comments from Commissioners.

MOTION:

Motion made by Chairman Sevigny, seconded by Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton AND

UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THESE REVIEWS AS STATED.


Other Business – Discussion and Action

9. Discussion and action on Regular meeting minutes for October 5, and October 19, 2020.

The October 5, and October 19, 2020 meeting minutes were not available for review.

10. Discussion and action on the amendments to Chapter 20.20 of the El Paso City Code.

No discussion or action was taken.

11. Discussion and action on the formation of subcommittees

Ms. Velázquez explained three Commissioners responded to her regarding the committees

they would like to join. She thanked Commissioner Lopez for his nicely written email. Ms.

Velázquez read the email into the record.



Commissioner Lopez stated, based on the last meeting, he thought the Design and Planning

subcommittees were very similar in terms of the name since the Planning Subcommittee

would deal with items such as the I-10 project and maybe some of the Commissioners’ design

considerations or some restrictions Commissioners would have for the districts for the future,

in terms of planning it. He thought naming it Foresight would be able to differentiate from

design a bit more. He asked Commissioners what their thoughts were on that.

Chairman Sevigny thought that was a good solution to the issue that was brought up at the

last HLC meeting. Calling it the Regulatory Subcommittee or the Planning Subcommittee

might be a bit too … it would get the job done; however, the Foresight Subcommittee does

seem to have a bit more of a uniqueness to it. Chairman Sevigny felt it encapsulates the

overall task of the Subcommittee. He thought it works.

Commissioner Castle asked who would have access or see the work we do there? How often

will the public or other people within the city look at it? Is it a matter of perception that

maybe we need to put that out there for everybody or is it more internal?

Chairman Sevigny responded that was a really good point and something that has not been

discussed amongst Commissioners. With the County Historical Commission, each

Subcommittee has time dedicated to each meeting to go over any updates. He thought about

adopting a similar approach by implementing individual items for each of the subcommittees

just to provide updates so the other Commissioners and the public have a chance to be in the

know on what’s going on. So, granted, that is something that Commissioners would have to

flesh out in the by-laws but that was just something he was thinking about initially. He asked

Commissioner Castle if that covered what he was thinking about.

Commissioner Castle responded it does. It was one of those things if everybody is agreeable

that Commissioner Lopez has a great idea, no big deal. If Commissioners have to give it a

little more thought because of how it would be received by other people, then maybe at that

time we split hairs a little bit.

Chairman Sevigny stated as long as the function is there that was good by him.

Commissioners can name it however we choose but as long as the function remains relatively



the same, Commissioners are in good shape. If you think about it the cell tower would be

something the Foresight Subcommittee would be involved with especially if the SHPO gets

involved and whatnot. Basically if any larger review process is part of our HLC review

process, then the Foresight Subcommittee would be involved.

For Commissioner Esper, Chairman Sevigny noted he was not present for the last HLC

meeting. Commissioners had a pretty large discussion regarding forming these

subcommittees. Chairman Sevigny provided him a quick summary as follows:

Commissioners agreed the Public Outreach and Design Subcommittee would be the first to

be implemented and the issue with this subcommittee would be the naming because, as

Commissioner Lopez, noted it was very similar to the Design Subcommittee. So that is why

the Foresight Subcommittee is proposed. Ms. Velázquez sent an email to Commissioners

requesting a response from each Commissioner regarding which subcommittee they would

be interested in. With that said, do any of the Commissioners have any other suggestions or

questions or input on this item?

Commissioner Esper thanked the Chairman for updating him on the subject. He would be

happy to be on either and contribute. Obviously, Commissioners would need to define them

a bit more. As far as naming it, he suggested the shorter the better, the more concise the

better. He was unsure what the Foresight Subcommittee was concerning, is it enforcement

on what is being executed like after Commissioners grant a Certificate? He does not have

any minutes or background on what exactly Foresight Subcommittee means.

Commissioner Lopez remembered the Chairman had defined that at the last HLC meeting,

the difference between the Design and Planning Subcommittee.

Chairman Sevigny noted Ms. Velázquez had prepared a nice slide from the last HLC meeting.

The primary task of the Foresight Subcommittee would be to get involved with any planning

reviews. As mentioned, the I-10/Downtown project would be one example, any other Section

106 reviews from other Federal agencies would be something the Foresight Subcommittee



would be looking at. Another major one would be looking at the City Ordinance. Over the

past few years, the entire Commission has been involved with updating the ordinance. That

was great because it provided all Commissioners equal opportunity to contribute. If there

are any other tweaks that are needed or any other things that need to be addressed regarding

the Ordinance, the Foresight Subcommittee would be working with Ms. Velázquez and Mr.

Abeln to look into it further. Also, they would be working with the Public Outreach

Subcommittee to identify other areas of the city to recommend for eligibility surveys. Right

now we have the Downtown and Segundo Barrio historic districts that are well on their way

to being listed. But there are plenty of other areas that are interested. Previously, Ms.

Velázquez was looking into the Five Points District as a potential historic district. Also, they

could consider revisiting the Rio Grande and Montana Avenue historic districts because

those are Federally listed but there is no local oversight. When was the last time those historic

districts were given an opportunity to decide if they want local oversight or not?

Commissioner Esper suggested leaving it up to the individual subcommittees how they want

to brand themselves. He thought it would rely on what the goals are of that subcommittee

and it would need some refinement. Once those goals and mission statements are in place it

would help define the name of the subcommittee. Even Design is a little bit broad, what is

Design in this context it would have to be very (inaudible).

Chairman Sevigny agreed with Commissioner Esper. At the last meeting, Commissioners

discussed once the subcommittee is formed then it is up to the subcommittee to write out its

by-laws. They have the power to outline what they are doing. The first step was for Ms.

Velázquez to ask Commissioners which subcommittee they would like to be on. To Ms.

Velázquez, Chairman Sevigny asked how many Commissioners had responded to her email.

Ms. Velázquez responded she received three responses from Commissioners.

Chairman Sevigny thought that was not enough for Commissioners to act on. To the

Commission, if you haven’t already responded to Ms. Velázquez’s email, please do so and if

you are not interested, say you are not interested. This is all dependent on input and

dependent on all the Commissioners working together to make this happen. If there is simply

not enough interest, then Commissioners will adapt and move on. The key thing right now

is gauging interest, right now, Chairman Sevigny felt this was enough. His recommendation

was to table this to the next meeting so then everyone would have more time to respond to

Ms. Velázquez’s email.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton was in total agreement with the Chairman because the election

would be over and Commissioners would have a better feel for what these subcommittees



would be and Commissioners would be able to speak with the City Council representatives

and see what their vision is and what they foresee as being most important.

MOTION:

Motion made by Chairman Sevigny, seconded by seconded by Commissioner Lopez AND

UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

DURING THE NEXT HLC MEETING.


After the vote, Commissioner Esper suggested Chairman Sevigny do a mini-roll call to

prevent Commissioners from talking over other Commissioners.

12. Discussion on December HLC meetings

Ms. Velázquez stated a couple of months ago she explained Commissioners had to change

their calendar somewhat because the City Council had changed its calendar. Originally, there

were two HLC meetings in December, the 7th and the 21st; however, those are out because

City Council is going to meet the next day and they prepare their agendas and go over

everything the day before. Ms. Velázquez noticed there are more Mondays in November so

Commissioners could possibly squeeze in another meeting. Because the Commissioners are

also volunteers she tries to schedule a maximum of two HLC meetings per month. She

explained there is another Monday in November, November 30th, when Commissioners

could meet because there is another HLC meeting in November on the 16th. Then we can

change the December HLC meeting dates to December 14th instead of December 7th. She

noted the week of the 21st the City usually shuts down for two weeks during the Christmas

and New Year holidays. To clarify, she is proposing one extra meeting in November on the

30th and one meeting in December on the 14th.

Chairman Sevigny stated his primary concern was if there would be a quorum in case of

people being out between Christmas and New Year.

Commissioner Castle thought because these meetings are remote there is a lot of flexibility.

He would not mind getting the call and doing the meeting. That gives Commissioners

flexibility and perhaps there would be an improved amount of participation.



Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton thought these were the only choices when you look at the

calendar.

Ms. Velázquez agreed with the Vice-Chairwoman.

Chairman Sevigny asked if any of the Commissioners were not planning on being present for

the meeting on the 30th. If you are unsure, Commissioners can discuss this further at the next

HLC meeting.

Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton apologized for being late to the meeting she was having

connection problems. She had gotten an email from Ms. Velázquez regarding Ethics training.

The Vice-Chairwoman asked Ms. Velázquez if she had decided on a day.

Ms. Velázquez replied she had just sent that email today and it is up to the Commissioners

to decide what would be best for them. She asked Commissioners if they wanted her to

narrow down a date and send an email that says this is the most likely or do Commissioners

want to send her dates and see who is available and when.

Chairman Sevigny stated the only option that works for him would be November 19th after

3:00 p.m.

Ms. Velázquez asked Commissioners to send her an email which date and time is convenient

for them.

MOTION:

Motion made by Vice-Chairwoman Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Macias AND

UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO ADJOURN TODAY’S MEETING AT 7:02 P.M.


Planning and Inspections

Documents

Transcript of Planning and Inspections