Huntsville commission OKs limited work at 513 Randolph, continues decision on modern rear addition

At the February 2025 meeting of the Huntsville Historic Preservation Commission, members voted to approve only portions of a renovation proposed for 513 Randolph Ave., a 1905 folk‑Victorian house in the Twickenham Historic District, and continued the more controversial elements for further review.

The commission approved the demolition of the rear deck and a detached shed built in 1998, replacement of the concrete sidewalk and driveway, specified paint changes, replacement of the existing roof on the historic portion of the house and replacement of the chimney cap. The commission continued consideration of the two‑story rear addition, an attached porte cochere and a rear courtyard to the commission’s next monthly meeting so staff and the applicant can refine the design.

City preservation planner Katie Stamps summarized staff findings before the applicants spoke. She said the detached shed “was constructed in 1998 [and] is not a contributing structure within the district” and that the proposed demolition of the shed and rear deck “will not negatively impact the historic character of the structure or district.” Stamps also described the addition as “clearly distinguishable from the historic structure” and noted the commission’s guidelines encourage additions to “draw from the architectural vocabulary of the building.”

Braden Skelly, the owner and director of Skelly Design Construct and the applicant at the hearing, told the commission he and his wife plan to make the Nicholson Hines House their family home and described their design approach as seeking “a clear and respectful distinction between the old and new.” Skelly said the addition is set back from the street and that the site slopes about seven feet, which he said reduces the addition’s visibility from Randolph Avenue.

Commission discussion focused on massing, roof shape and how the new construction joins the old house. One commissioner said the rectangular, flat‑roofed addition “heavily contrasts with the delicate multi‑gabled roof line of the primary structure” and recommended the applicant revise elements to better relate to the historic form. Another commissioner said the modern approach can be appropriate but favored continuing the item so absent members and the chair could review it.

Public commenters raised both practical and design concerns. Linda Deaton asked whether removing the rear roof would expose the house to the elements; commissioners and staff clarified demolition could be staged and that protective measures would be required. Scott Shaw of Thompson Roofing and Construction suggested a sloped gambrel or mansard roof as an alternative to a flat roof to better relate to the existing pitch: “What if there was a sloped gambrel or a Mansard style roof… which would tie in the new design with the old structure as far as the roof line goes.” The applicant said a sloped roof would sharply reduce interior height in the proposed second‑floor rooms and could present egress and head‑room issues.

The motion approved at the meeting (mover and seconder not specified in the public record) authorized: demolition of the rear deck and detached shed; replacement of the concrete sidewalk and driveway; paint color changes; replacement of the existing roof on the historic portion of the house; and replacement of the existing chimney cap. The commission continued the items described as the demolition of the rear roof section of the house, construction of the two‑story rear addition with outdoor fireplace, construction of the porte cochere and construction of the courtyard to the next monthly meeting. Commissioners also indicated that the applicant may proceed with interior structural repairs such as floor and ceiling joist replacement as those are governed by building permits rather than design review.

Staff reminded the applicant that a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) must be issued before a building permit is obtained and that some changes could require resubmission if wholesale replacement is necessary. Commissioners and staff also noted that the proposed porte cochere appears to encroach on the property line and could require a variance from the Board of Zoning Adjustment; the applicant said he had not yet discussed the design with adjacent neighbors or the BZA.

The commission voted in favor of the motion; the recorded motion passed with unanimous support from members present. The applicant was encouraged to work with staff and the chair between meetings and to return next month with revised drawings that clarify the visual separation between the historic house and the addition, roof profile options, and resolution of lot‑line/variance questions.

The commission’s decision allows certain work to proceed promptly (demolition of the non‑contributing shed and rear deck, roof and chimney replacement and hardscape and paint changes) while reserving judgment on the addition’s design until more information and revised drawings are available.