Historic Landmark Commission tables decision on 4332 Trowbridge after owner and staff discuss siding, tile and a deteriorating garage

The City of El Paso Historic Landmark Commission on a motion tabled consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for 4332 Trowbridge Avenue after staff and the property owner discussed after-the-fact siding removal, an applied tile wainscot and a deteriorating detached garage.

Provi, a representative of the Historic Preservation Office, told the commission the item concerns an R-4-H property in the Austin Terrace Historic District and that staff’s recommendation was approval with modifications. Provi said staff want the wood shake siding replaced in kind, the accent tile removed, a plan to address deterioration of the detached garage, and that no new permits be issued until the property is brought into compliance. “The modifications are that the wood shake siding be replaced in kind, that the accent tile be removed, that a plan be made to arrest the deterioration of the detached garage. No new permits be issued until the property is brought into compliance,” Provi said.

Owner Javier Murguia told commissioners the house is a rental and he has removed failing cedar shakes to seal the building against pests and weather. “We intend to paint the house the same color,” Murguia said, describing pest infestations and structural movement in the neighborhood he said have required repeated interior repairs. Murguia proposed installing replacement siding that mimics wood to close the building envelope and described using a porcelain tile wainscot and grout to tolerate foundation movement.

Commissioners and staff pressed for alternatives that more closely match the historic appearance. They discussed brick veneer, thin brick, and wood-look vinyl siding that mimics historic shakes. Commissioners noted the tile wainscot risks damaging the underlying masonry if removed and asked the owner to attempt removal tests in some areas or propose a brick-like veneer that could be applied without full demolition. A commissioner summarized the next step: return with product data and drawings showing a siding option that resembles wood shake and masonry options that are historically compatible.

The commission voted to table the item and asked the applicant to return in about two weeks with alternate proposals and product data; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. No formal vote counts were recorded in the transcript; the commission announced the motion carried. Staff advised the owner to coordinate on administrative permits related to sidewalks and minor repairs.

The conversation also noted structural concerns in the block. Murguia and commissioners discussed foundation movement and options such as installing piers to stabilize the house; staff said foundation repairs are the owner’s responsibility and separate from the COA decision. The owner said he will bring drawings and product data for the commission to review and temporarily secure exposed areas with plywood or roofing felt while alternatives are developed.

The commission’s action is procedural: no COA was approved or denied. The owner was directed to return with alternatives that preserve the building’s historic appearance and to provide masonry and siding product information for staff and commissioners to review before the commission takes a final action.