Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Minor Permits Roundup topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Architecture board approves multiple routine exterior alterations, window and door replacements and small accessory projects

5519998 · June 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its June 26 meeting the ARB approved several routine exterior alteration applications — including door and window replacements, minor new construction, and one demolition of a non‑contributing structure — by voice vote with little discussion.

The City of Pensacola Architecture Review Board on June 26 approved a series of routine exterior‑alteration and small‑project applications by voice vote, including door and window replacements and small accessory structures.

Approved items included: replacement of a wood front door at 622 East Government Street with an impact‑rated fiberglass entry door with sidelights (applicant: Hometown Contractors Inc.); replacement of 23 wood windows at 106 South Tarragona Street with PGT 5,540 series double‑hung and picture windows in black (applicant: Hometown Contractors / homeowner Nora Ellsperman); a ThermaTru smooth fiberglass door at 1500 North Spring Street (Wayne and Shanna Coleman); new residential construction approvals for two projects by Adore Properties at vacant lots (520 North Sixth Avenue and a separate lot in the 600 block; Tim Daniel and Steven Seibold) following prior conceptual approvals and neighborhood comments about ribbon driveways and divided lights; a 12-by-20-foot shed at 411 West Brainerd Street (Shawn and Sandra Berg); and the demolition of a non‑contributing accessory structure at 318 And A Half East Belmont Street (applicant Mike Ingle), where staff and board review of historic survey records found the building was not treated as contributing in earlier district surveys.

Most of these items were approved with brief staff commentary and standard conditions; the board handled them with motions, seconds and voice votes. Where neighborhood associations provided comments (Old East Hill or North Hill), the board either incorporated suggestions into motions or requested staff/abbreviated follow‑up at permitting. No formal roll‑call tallies were recorded in the audio transcript; motions were carried by voice vote.