Historic District Commission approves exterior work, windows at 103 S. Dean St.

The Bay City Historic District Commission unanimously approved a certificate of appropriateness on April 23 for exterior repairs and alterations at 103 South Dean Street, including masonry tuckpointing, repainting, selective power washing and the installation of seven windows.

The decision came after the applicant, Dave Clements, described the project as exterior repainting after power washing, tuckpointing of masonry joints, reinstalling seven windows in original openings and filling spots where later windows or doors had been added. “My name is Dave Clements. I'm a co owner of 103 South Dean Street. We are looking to repaint the exterior of the building, Power washing it first, tuck pointing exterior masonry walls, installing 7 windows into the existing locations from when the original building was built, and to, fill in some spots that was old windows were put in or newer windows were put in,” Clements said.

Why it matters: The commission found that the work as proposed meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation cited in the motion and the city’s local preservation regulation referenced by staff, allowing the property owner to proceed with the visible exterior work in the historic district.

Commission and staff discussion focused on cleaning methods and masonry protection. City staff advised that “any power washing or cleaning, or paint removal on masonry requires historic district approval,” and said the application included a commitment to repair any masonry damage discovered during cleaning. The transcript shows no single, definitive numeric PSI standard was provided by staff; commissioners and attendees offered opinions during the meeting that lower pressures would be safer. One commissioner said, “I would assume anything under like 300 would be appropriate,” while another later said they would “never take it over 200.” The record does not establish an approved PSI threshold.

Clements also explained the proposed windows’ dimensions and the reason for smaller openings. He said the existing openings measured about 50 inches wide and roughly 60–70 inches high, and the applicant proposes 48-inch by 48-inch windows so interior ceiling height can be lower to accommodate ductwork. He added that some work on the west side — removing nonoriginal infill and installing split-face block to match existing — has already been done to stabilize areas where larger, heavier blocks had been removed.

A commissioner moved that the Historic District Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for all work described and depicted in the applicant’s work review application for HDC Case 25‑10103, citing compliance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards 1–4, 6 and 9) and section 64‑11(c) of the city’s historic preservation district regulations. The motion carried unanimously.

The commission noted follow-up steps: staff asked the applicant to follow up with city staff (Mr. Dyer in the office) about next steps and any outstanding submittals. The commission and several participants also discussed alternatives to pressurized water cleaning such as using compressed air for loose paint removal on fragile historic masonry and wood.

The commission’s approval allows the applicant to proceed with the visible exterior rehabilitation as reviewed, subject to the terms and conditions implicit in the certificate of appropriateness process and any additional staff conditions or building permits required by the city.