Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting - July 29, 2026
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting - July 29, 2026
The Heritage Preservation Commission met on July 29, 2026, to consider two certificates of appropriateness. The Commission approved window replacements at 510 SW 9th Avenue and approved alterations to Silver Lake Park and Dam after hearing public comments and deliberation. Public comments included opposition to the Silver Lake project and a call to table action.
Consent Calendar
- Approved the minutes of the June 23, 2026, Heritage Preservation Commission meeting by unanimous consent.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Dave Morrill, representing Friends of Silver Lake, requested that the Commission table action on item 5B (Silver Lake Park & Dam alterations), arguing the process for a major alteration was not followed and that changes to a landmark park deserved more discussion. He later received an additional four minutes (by unanimous vote to suspend rules) to speak on historic aspects of Silver Lake, emphasizing the 1930s overlook and the reduction of the lake area by 4–5 acres.
- Greg Munson echoed concerns, stating that the city staff had misled the public and that the open comment period language conflicted with the chair’s instructions, limiting citizens’ ability to speak. He urged the Commission to table the item.
- Barry Skolnick, a former HPC member, noted that the dam, though not historic itself, is a character-defining feature that maintains the lake’s shape. He asked the Commission to decide if the proposed alteration substantially changes the lake’s historic configuration.
- Barb Hudson spoke about Indian Heights, urging the Commission to consider both Dakota and European immigrant histories when designating the park as a landmark.
Discussion Items
5.A - Certificate of Appropriateness: Window Replacement at 510 SW 9th Avenue
- Staff presented a request to replace all windows (except a third-floor window) in a 1927 Tudor Revival home in the Pill Hill Historic District with new double-hung inserts matching the existing grid pattern. Staff recommended approval, finding minimal changes in materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards and local design guidelines. The Commission approved the motion unanimously.
5.B - Certificate of Appropriateness: Silver Lake Park & Dam Alterations
- Staff presented the project, which includes replacing the current dam with a rock-arch rapids structure (reducing the lake area by about 5 acres), modifying the east shoreline (adding about 1 acre of lake area), and extending the bicycle trail. The project had undergone a federal Section 106 review with the State Historic Preservation Office, which issued a no-adverse-effect determination. Staff recommended approval, finding the project meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards and local design principles.
- The Commission suspended rules to allow Deputy Public Works Director Aaron Luckstein and Project Manager Matt Crawford to answer technical questions. They clarified: lake elevation would be slightly reduced (from 974.1 to 973.5 ft) but still above the original 1937 level; the new dam improves fish passage (13 miles of new habitat), water quality (aeration and cooling), and public safety (passive, low-maintenance design); maintenance costs are lower than repairing the aging concrete dam; and the project preserves the lake’s historic character and viewshed, while adding recreational access. Commissioners acknowledged the significant change to the lake footprint but cited restoration of original shoreline, removal of the concrete dam structure, improved accessibility, and overall compatibility with historic use.
- After deliberation, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness.
7.A - Other Business: Updates
- Staff reported on Indian Heights: a meeting was held with Valerie Gomeres (Greater Rochester Area Dakota Supporters) regarding the Dakota perspective, and the park department has issued an RFP for oral history and signage. No progress on a landmark designation study yet.
- The awards committee update was postponed to the next meeting due to Commissioner Boeddeker’s absence.
- Commissioner Wassmer provided a history fact about Silver Lake, noting its origins in Rochester’s milling era and the 1937 dedication.
Key Outcomes
- Approved minutes of June 23, 2026 (unanimous consent).
- Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for window replacement at 510 SW 9th Avenue (motion by Anthony Poirier, second by Veena Gandhi; vote 7-0).
- Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Silver Lake Park & Dam alterations (motion by Aleida Koestler, second by Melissa Mutchler; vote 7-0).
- Next meeting will include updates on Indian Heights, the awards committee, and a proposal from Commissioner Kessler.
Meeting Transcript
Welcome everybody to the July 28th Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. Before we call to order, we start each meeting with a 15-minute public open comment period. This is an opportunity for the public to comment to the commission regarding items that do not have a public hearing on today's agenda. Items 5A and 5B certificate of appropriateness while not a public hearing. You can speak at this time if you wish to speak to those items. Each speaker has up to four minutes. The commission will not discuss or respond to any comments made. Are we good? Okay. We'll not respond to any comments made during this time. Please be concise and mindful of your time during your remarks so that everyone wishing to speak has the opportunity to do so. Will the first speaker please step forward and clearly state your name into the microphone? Hi, good afternoon. My name is Dave Morrill. Um I live at 1414 Street, Northeast Rochester. I do have a question before I start my four minutes. So the printed agenda says the open comment period is to provide comments to the commission regarding items not on the agenda. And I see you've just modified that to items that are not a public hearing. So is what which items are speaking to. So you may speak right now for the open public comment period. Uh and you may speak to items 5A and 5B. Okay. Well, that issue is one of the topics that I'll I'll be sharing with you, I guess. Um but I'm wondering, does that mean I I've already used a minute up getting uh yes okay. All right. All right. Well, I'm here tonight on behalf of the friends of Silver Lake. Um we're here to request that the uh committee uh table any action on item five B. Um we think that uh again the process uh required um for for a major uh certain appropriateness has not been followed. And we also think that um changes to our landmark park um large changes to our landmark park deserve much more discussion um than I guess a four-minute discussion today. Um so just just to maybe set a tone that the friends have been working on or with or the project since 2015. Um 2015 there was a survey done determined that it's time to clean out the lake. Part of an agreement with the city and the federal government. Um we were in support of that. We wanted to, you know, have better water quality, um, kind of restore our lake to to what we uh what we were used to. Um suddenly that that project got changed by 2018. Now we had been added dam modifications, removing five acres of the lake area, adding fish passages, rock piles, constructing path, and so forth. So somewhat similar, although over the last nine, ten years things have changed. We've had numerous meetings gone to the council. We also had an informational meeting hosted by the mayor back in 2022 that we thought uh kind of proved our point. We had an overflow meeting with uh of attendees that that seemed to support our position on not modifying the lake and the park. So since I've only got a minute left, I want to touch on the uh on the issues about the meeting. Um the table in the in the uh Unified Development Code states that for a major alteration that this meeting is the determination for you to decide yay or nay on on the on the appropriateness of it. However, there's a footnote on that, number three that goes to the bottom of the table that says a public meeting rather than a public hearing is required. That public meeting is further described in uh 65 or 60.500 uh procedures for certificate of appropriateness. That meeting. Thank you, Mr. Morrill. Your time is up. All right.
openpublica.com