Owner seeks windows, decks and single 2,800‑sq.-ft. apartment in informal review of 4 North Sandusky Street

An informal review July 23 before the Delaware City Historic Preservation Commission examined proposed renovations at 4 North Sandusky Street that would add windows and rear decks and convert the upper floors into a single 2,800‑square‑foot apartment.

Diane Gunther, development planner with the City of Delaware Planning Department, opened the item as HPC 2025‑2592 and described the project as an informal review of proposed renovations, noting that the commission would not take formal action at the meeting.

The applicant, Steven P. Hartman (appearing with Judy Hartman), described the plan to rehabilitate the second and third floors as a single mixed‑use residential unit. "Our interest is in repurposing this building for apartment, 1 apartment, 2,800 square feet," Hartman said. He said parking limitations were a primary reason he and his wife prefer one large unit rather than multiple small apartments.

Hartman and city staff said the building has a layered history: 4 North Sandusky was constructed in 1882 in an Italianate style; neighboring 5 East William dates to about 1920. Gunther said an earlier brick building on the site dated to 1950 and that a wood‑frame railway station was demolished in 1949. The property is in the B‑2 Central Business District; 5 East William fronting William Street sits in the transitional subdistrict, Gunther said.

The proposal includes installing additional side‑street windows for light and ventilation (the applicant said up to four new windows were under consideration, and elsewhere illustrated up to six), converting one window on each upper floor into a door to access rear decks, and constructing two stacked rear decks roughly 10 feet deep and 20 feet wide. Gunther said the decks would be set behind the rear building line of 2 North Sandusky to reduce visibility from public view.

Commission members raised preservation and design questions. Several commissioners said they would favor symmetrical window placement if new openings are approved; one commissioner said version 2 of the proposed window details — with stone lintels and sills — looked most appropriate for the Italianate period. Commissioners also discussed the existing ghost signs on the south elevation and whether the new openings would damage those historic paint traces. Gunther reminded the panel that the city's architectural standards generally support reinstating historic windows but caution against introducing new architectural elements; the standards also allow modern materials to be used in adaptive reuse where appropriate.

Hartman described existing conditions behind the plywood covering two side‑street openings and told commissioners he has performed tuckpointing and other repairs to stabilize the wall. He said the plywood is deteriorating and that he does not intend to remove it before the project proceeds. He also offered the side wall for potential community uses such as banners or a rotating display.

There was no formal vote on the proposal. Commissioners expressed general support for the concept and suggested the applicant file a formal Certificate of Appropriateness application with detailed drawings and egress/fire‑safety plans. "I think you should file your application," one commissioner said; Gunther and Hartman said they would return with the formal application and refined plans.

The commission received a presentation and a lengthy applicant statement but did not take action because this was an informal review. Staff noted the project aligns with the city's stated goals for adaptive reuse of upper floors in the comp plan, but any final approvals will require submission of a COA application and compliance with building and fire codes.

The commission's comments emphasized: symmetry and material details for new openings; minimizing impacts to ghost signs; the need to show how decks will be screened from public view; and demonstrating code‑compliant egress for any future dwelling units.

The applicant said interior plans will be roughed‑in to allow future subdivision if needed, but that parking constraints make multiple small units impractical now. Hartman said the intent is a durable rehabilitation: "We're doing it for the future. So we're not gonna go nickel and dime it to get something done just because we're not doing it to make the money."