Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pensacola ARB gives conceptual approval for adaptive‑reuse at 520 North Alcony Street
Summary
The Architectural Review Board granted conceptual approval for a two‑story, four‑unit adaptive‑reuse project that preserves the masonry historic facades at 520 North Alcony Street while placing a contrasting modern two‑story addition behind them.
William Brantley of S and P Architecture presented conceptual plans Dec. 18 for 520 North Alcony Street that retain the building’s historic masonry facades while adding a two‑story structure behind them to create four residential units and a shared courtyard.
The board received detail on the project’s layout and materials. Brantley said the preserved portions of the existing masonry would become “deep porches” for each unit and that the original window and door openings would be reimagined as operable shutters; the upper‑level parapet would act as a terrace railing. Brantley described the scheme as “an opportunity to preserve a historic and currently underutilized structure in Old East Hill and to add some residences to the neighborhood.” (William Brantley, S and P Architecture)
Staff confirmed the facade is a contributing structure and noted earlier photos in the file dated to the 1990s; records predating 1982 were not located in the submitted materials. Board members discussed the building’s history (including a past fire that removed a large portion of the rear warehouse) and asked staff to look for additional historic documentation.
Several board members praised the concept and scale, saying the modern addition recedes to highlight the historic frontage and that the porch and terrace treatments strengthen the street presence. The neighborhood organization Old East Hill submitted written comments: it offered general support for adaptive reuse and maintenance of the facade but expressed opposition to broad use of metal cladding along East Jackson Street and raised parking concerns. Staff noted parking questions are outside ARB purview.
Board members requested additional detail on operable shutters and cautioned about any elements that could project into the pedestrian path. After discussion, a board member moved to approve the conceptual application as submitted; a second was received and the motion passed unanimously.
The approval was for conceptual review. The applicant and staff will return with final drawings and additional details on shutters, screening and construction drawings as required by the review process.
