Historic District Commission approves Center Avenue design for 12 one‑bedroom units

The Bay City Historic District Commission on March 12 approved a certificate of appropriateness for a proposed new-construction project on Center Avenue that would create 12 one‑bedroom residences, the applicant said.

Sean Panosic, representing Panosic Property Solutions, told the commission the design has been revised to address earlier concerns, including narrower, taller windows and changes to dormers and porch treatment. “We feel the structure will help the housing shortage, creating 12 new residences,” Panosic said.

The commission’s decision cited the applicant’s recently submitted materials and found the work will comply with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards 1–4, 9 and 10) and the city’s historic preservation district regulations, according to the motion recorded during the meeting. The transcript does not record a numerical vote tally for the case; the motion was approved as recorded in the meeting minutes.

Why it matters: The lot is in Bay City’s historic district and the design replaces a vacant parcel on Center Avenue. Neighbors said the choice of materials, massing and the absence of a traditional raised porch affect the character of the street, while the applicant argued the changes both reference historic forms and respond to site constraints.

Key details from the application and discussion - Project: new three‑story building on Center Avenue to provide 12 one-bedroom residential units (applicant-provided figure). - Windows: original plan had 36-by-60-inch windows; updated plans changed to 32 inches wide by 72 inches tall to create a “tall, skinny” profile. - Porch: applicant removed a previously proposed prominent front porch because the building sits on a concrete slab and cannot be excavated due to past site contamination; the front roof/porch projection will extend about 2 feet beyond the front wall. - Dormers/roof: third-level windows were taken out of the mansard and given a gable-type pitch to match trim on lower levels. - Setback: applicant said the front wall (to the principal entrance) now sits about 14 feet from the sidewalk (previously about 12 feet). - Materials: proposed black architectural shingles; LP Smart Siding (described as a double lap, flat-profile siding); window muntins described as “in-between” (not exterior applied). - Height and interior dimensions: applicant/architect noted 9-foot interior floor heights and a cross-section labeled approximately 33 feet, 2 inches overall height in the packet. - Site amenities: applicant said a dumpster enclosure has been added to the site plan approved by the planning commission; vehicle parking adjustments were discussed.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns Neighbors who live adjacent to the site urged the commission to favor traditional, “stately” designs and questioned whether the new building would fit Center Avenue’s historic character. Marianna Super, who described herself as the owner of an Italianate home next door, said the avenue is “the jewel” of the city and voiced opposition to the proposed design; Jenna Lee Renz, a nearby resident, also urged preserving the avenue’s existing character.

Commission review and finding Commission members and staff discussed whether the applicant’s revisions addressed earlier concerns about proportions, trim and massing. Staff and commissioners displayed reference images from a field guide to American home styles and pointed to specific Standards in their finding. The motion recorded at the meeting states the work as submitted complies with the cited Secretary of the Interior Standards and the city’s regulations.

What the action does and next steps The commission’s certificate of appropriateness approval allows the applicant to proceed with permits and with construction design as submitted to the historic commission; the transcript records staff and the applicant discussing follow-up with planning/building staff. The transcript does not include a numeric roll-call vote for this case; the motion language and the chair’s subsequent remarks indicate the commission approved the application as described in the applicant’s recently submitted materials.