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.

Will the next speaker please step forward and state your name.

My name is uh Greg Munson.

I live at 901 8th Avenue Northeast in Rochester.

First off, I'd like to thank all of the HBC Commission members uh for work in protecting the history of Rochester, doing so on a voluntary, unpaid basis, except for uh any staff that might be involved.

Some of my comments may be redundant to what you heard from Mr.

Morrill, but I believe they are important enough to be heard twice if that be the case.

I'm going to start by saying I am making comments on the Silver Lake Dam destruction and removal issue to this commission, in spite the following being stated under the open comment period uh section of the July 24th released HBC agenda on the Rochester City website.

That official comment document states this is an opportunity for the public to provide comments to the commission regarding items not on the agenda.

Uh this creates a bit of a problem since uh the Friends of Silver Lake have been anticipating for months the dam destruction and removal project uh will be brought before the HBC.

We have been in contact with numerous friends members who would like to be able to speak to the HBC against dam destruction and removal tonight, but upon being made aware of the HBC agenda language stating they would not be able to do so.

Their voices are not being heard tonight.

Oddly enough, on the same date on the 24th, uh Silver Lake Friends received an email from HBC, HPC Commission chairperson Benjamin Zastro stating because this is an alteration, this is not a public hearing item, so anyone wishing to speak will have to do so during the open public comment period.

Uh that uh conflict between those two two statements has led to problems for us that we're trying to figure out how to uh deal with.

However, using the word or looking at the word alteration related to this project always bothers me as the current dam is slated for completion, complete destruction and removal under the city proposal.

And even though the dam itself does not qualify for historic preservation due to the flood control project alterations made in the 90s, the current dam is responsible for the creation of both the now historic lake and park in the 1930s.

This commission is a group of citizens, as such, they're responsible to the citizens of Rochester, not to the staff who have decided to call uh total removal of the current dam and alteration to expedite this process.

They have also misled both the public and city council with false information regarding the dam destruction and removal proposal.

The Friends of Silver Lake believe the whole dam removal project has been totally staff-driven and does not reflect the resonance of the community's wishes, whom the Friends of Sewer Lake believe they are more in contact with than the city staff and this commission.

On behalf of the citizens of Rochester, we believe this group should do due diligence and not just do what the staff tells them to do.

Therefore, we request this commission table this movement on the issue tonight until citizens have appropriate opportunity to provide input to the commission on this issue.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Munson.

Will the next speaker please step forward and state your name?

Hi.

As you all know, my name is Barry Skolnick.

Just going to talk a bit about the issues.

As someone who was involved in the passage of the landmarking of Silver Lake Park, I was on the HPC at the time, and I wrote some of the amendments that was part of the actual document that was passed.

I believe that the lake itself was supposed to be maintained in approximately the same basic shape and design.

And the uh the Silver Lake Dam itself, since it actually did change over time and therefore was not considered historic, but was on the charter to as called a charter defining feature because it contributes to maintaining the shape did contribute to the uh maintaining the shape and design of the lake.

The dam can be changed if the lake is not substantially changed and impacted by the alteration.

That that is what the HPC must decide if the lake is changing so substantially with the new proposal that it no longer is the same basic historical configuration that it was before.

Um I also look forward in this meeting to learning what is happening with the plan to move the potential list and inventory forward.

Hopefully that will talk about tonight, as well as the progress of the awards committee, as well as Indian Heights, which I is theoretically on the agenda too.

But I hope Molly talks about the other things.

That's basically all.

Good luck, you know, in deciding what to do with uh Silver Lake and everything else.

All right.

Bye.

Thank you, Mr.

Skunnik.

Will the next speaker please step forward and state your name?

Hello, my name is Barb Hudson.

I want to talk a little bit about uh uh Indian Heights as a landmark.

Um we've been talking uh moving forward about uh landmarking uh Indian Heights Park as a cultural site, and we've been focused as a commission, you've been focused on uh looking at it as an indigenous landmark.

Um, as you know, I've been appealing to this commission since 2017 to proceed with the goal approved by the Rochester Parks and Wreck Master Plan for Indian Heights to be designated as a Rochester landmark.

As you discuss moving forward with the process, I would like you to be mindful of the following.

This park site has been an important history to the to the Dakota people, but this site has a shared history.

It has the story of why Rochester leaders named the site Indian Heights.

It has the story of mutual respect between indigenous people and European immigrants.

Rochester has a responsibility to tell Roch to tell the story to honor and memorialize the complexity of how giving, sharing, and coexisting happening happened in early Rochester.

While I very much appreciate and respect the cultural aspect of the indigenous story, namely the Dakota story of this site, I believe as Rochester as a Rochester landmark, it deserves recognition for both sides.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

Are there any other speakers wishing to speak?

Are there any other speakers wishing to speak?

Uh hearing none, I'm going to close the public open comment period.

Chair Zastro, I would like to make a motion to uh suspend the rules and to provide uh Mr.

Morell, I believe, Dave Morell, uh, an additional four minutes to speak specifically on the historic aspects of the dam removal and why the Friends of Silver Lake um are opposed to the proposed alteration.

Second.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Schable to allow an extra four minutes for Mr.

Morrill to speak specifically to the historical elements of Silver Lake and why the Friends of Silver Lake are concerned.

Did I state that properly?

Okay.

Seconded by Commissioner Poyer.

Um Commissioners, any further thought or discussion?

Uh simply that this is an important topic to the public.

Uh and the Friends of Silver Lake have been very involved with the project.

So I'd be particularly interested in their perspective on this issue.

Thank you, Commissioner Shable.

Uh, we'll now move to a voice vote.

So all those in favor of granting Mr.

Morrill an additional four minutes to address the historic concerns from the perspective of the Friends of Silver Lake, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Passes unanimous.

Mr.

Morrill, would you like your four minutes?

Thank the committee for the opportunity.

Um I didn't really prepare something for that, but I think we can we can certainly discuss it for four minutes.

Um, you know, to to understand the importance of Silver Lake, uh, Silver Lake, Silver Lake Park.

You have to go back to 1890s, probably 1897 from memory, I think.

That's when that's when the city of Rochester wasn't a city at that time, but that's when the the residents wanted a lake.

You know, they were one of few counties in the state of Minnesota that didn't have one.

The people that were here um wanted lake, they wanted it for recreational purposes, uh, you know, kind of kind of a visual uh representation of of the city.

Um WW Mail at that time offered his property up on Bear Creek.

Well, the the time the city fathers didn't agree with that.

They they had an engineer that came down, uh looked at the site and thought the location where the dam is now on the Zumbrill was a much better position.

So the whole issue kind of laid low till was about in the 1920s, I think.

Mr.

Dr.

Mayo passed away.

So the city decided, well, let's let's start again on our lake.

Um so they've been started acquiring property, um, started started their vision of a lake, and so happened.

Um, I guess bad for the economy because it was kind of depression time, but but the WPA came along and offered some funding and ability to construct the lake.

So it was it was kind of a vision of of some 30 years, 40 years of of Rochester to construct this lake.

You know, as as we progressed through the through the 40s, 50s, 60s, you know, the lake became a real symbol in my opinion of Rochester.

Um of the geese, you know, there's not many places, probably not so much now because we're controlling them, but but maybe 15, 20 years ago, there weren't many places that that Rochester was discussed where the where the Canada geese wasn't the symbol, and and that was their home.

Um you know, currently we've weave, I guess the the experts have identified several locations around the lake that that have historic significance or or a contributory items.

Um thankfully the heritage preservation committee back in I think it was 22 or um excuse me, 24, I believe that that it was made a landmark.

Um you know, one of them is they call it the overlook.

So the overlook is right next to the to the dam, kind of on the south side.

You'll see some a rock wall sticking up that's maybe four feet high.

An example of of why we think it's it's not appropriate to make the change.

That overlook was built in the 30s, and it was a place you'd come down then highway 63, you could pull off the road, you could park your car, you'd look out over the lake, and you'd see, you know, Silver Lake, calming water, the the recreation area that the city desired.

Well, the proposal that's come before you is gonna get rid of that lake, basically four acres, five acres of that space, which is really what you see from that location is going to be gone.

So it's hard for me to understand how how making that drastic a change in our park and our lake is not uh you know a contributory towards towards the significance of the historical lake.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Morrill.

So at this point, I will close the open public comment period, and we will now call to order the July 28th, 2026 Rochester Heritage Preservation Meeting at 519.

I will now call the role.

Commissioner Bodaker is absent, excused Commissioner Connell.

Present.

Commissioner Gandhi.

Present.

Commissioner Kessler.

Present.

Commissioner Mutchler.

Here.

Commissioner Poyer.

Here.

Commissioner Schable.

Here.

Commissioner Tater is absent.

Excused.

Commissioner Wasmer.

Present.

And Chair's Astro is present.

The order of the agenda was included in our packets and should be on the screen.

Are there any corrections or objections to the order of the agenda as presented in your packets?

Are there any corrections or objections to the order of the agenda as presented in your packets?

Hearing none, the order of the agenda is approved by unanimous consent.

Moving on to agenda item four, the consent agenda.

Item 4A, the minutes from the June 23rd meeting, which were available on the city website and the link that was included in our packet.

Are there any corrections or objections to the minutes as linked and included in the agenda packet?

Commissioners, are there any corrections or objections to the minutes as included in the agenda packet?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved by unanimous consent.

This brings us to agenda item 55A, Certificate of Appropriateness, 510 9th Avenue Southwest window replacements.

Coordinator Patterson Lungren, you have it from here.

Thank you, Chairs Astro.

Okay, so this is a certificate of appropriateness.

And as we have been doing lately, we um have this image in on the screen for you to look at.

Um this is from uh the table in the unified development code, which talks about a certificate of appropriateness for major alterations um per the section 6500 five zero B.

Um and as it explains in this this chart, um, the different roles that we play in making this decision about a major alteration, a certificate of appropriateness for major alteration.

Um, you can see that community development has the role to provide a recommendation to you.

Um, and that the decision is um the heritage preservation commission's decision, unless there's an appeal to your decision.

So um this is where the footnote comes in, and it says that um this decision is made by you after um and at a public meeting rather than a public hearing being required.

So um there are some other sections of the code that refer to um uh public meeting where public comments are accepted.

Um, and so this is um how we operate and um the process that we use for a certificate of appropriateness for major alterations.

Um the first certificate of appropriateness that we're going to look at tonight is for 510 Southwest Ninth Avenue.

And uh this is a home, privately held home in the Pill Hill Historic District.

Um the uh request for COA is to um uh change out all of the windows, um, remove the existing windows and replace them with new window inserts.

Um, and all except for uh the third floor window, which you can actually see in this photo.

It's kind of a thin um tall window up at the third floor.

Um, but all other windows in the home are being um proposed for um for replacement.

So 1927 tutor revival.

We've actually had some really similar uh requests in the past few months come in for window replacements again of two to revival homes.

Um this home, as the other ones have um the windows are character defining features.

Um the the windows are double-hung sash windows with uh typically either a two or three over one pattern.

Um and um uh those windows are mostly all the way around the house except for that that top one on the third floor.

Um so the proposal is the request is for uh approval of the certificate of appropriateness to alter the windows.

Um existing are the double hung existing, um, the double hung existing windows, um, which would be be replaced by double hung windows.

So on the phone on the uh image right now on your screen, you're seeing on the left-hand side the photo of the existing windows from the exterior, and then you're seeing the new proposed windows um on the right-hand photo.

Uh, and you can see that the the grid pattern of the new windows follows that historic muntain and mullyon um pattern.

Um so staff is making a recommendation to approve this certificate of appropriateness for major alterations.

Um, and I've got the language on your screen.

Um, I did add here um modified it slightly from what was in your packet.

I added the address.

I dropped that when I drafted your staff report.

Um, but then I've also indicated that um the window insert repl replacements would uh be minimal changes to the property, um, minimal changes in materials, feature spaces, and spatial relationships, and therefore it meets both the adopted design guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation.

So that is my recommendation.

And um, I'm available for questions.

Thank you, coordinator Patterson Lundgren.

Commissioners, are there any questions for staff?

Commissioner Schable.

This question on the grid pattern.

It looks like in the photo you have the vertical bars, but there's not that same horizontal bar.

Would you think that that's something that's significant or places outside of its historic context?

So actually, I think let me just kind of read this photo for you.

If we look at the existing window, um, I think, are you looking at this bar right here?

Yes.

Okay, so I believe that that is a storm window.

Typically, that's what that's gonna be on this style of windows.

Um in the past, we had an application where they were replacing a double hung window with a casement window.

And so they were actually going to lose that bar.

Um that it's it's a separate piece of the window.

Um, because they're replacing the double hung with double hung, they have that um that horizontal piece actually as part of the window mechanism.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

Commissioners, any other questions for staff?

Hearing none, I would invite a motion.

Uh Commissioner Poyer.

Make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness at 510 9th Avenue Southwest for window insert replacements as proposed with minimal changes in materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

It meets adopted design guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.

I second it.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Poyer, seconded by Commissioner Gandhi as stated on the screen.

Uh Commissioner Poyer, any further thoughts?

Uh no, I think this is just another uh routine uh replacement of windows in the Pill Hill Historic District.

And uh I support staff recommendation.

Exactly, Sam.

I support it too.

Commissioners, any further thoughts?

So the motion before us is to approve the certificate of appropriateness at 510 9th Avenue Southwest for window insert replacements as proposed with minimal changes in materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

It meets the adopted design guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation.

At this point, we'll move to a vote.

Uh, we'll do a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Any abstentions?

Passes unanimous.

Moving on to agenda item 5B, Certificate of Appropriateness, Silver Lake Park and Dam alterations.

Coordinator Patterson Lungard, back to you.

Okay.

Um, so uh second certificate of appropriateness, Silver Lake Park, and this is modifications or alterations to um to the historic landmark, which is outlined in yellow on the aerial photo on your screen.

Um the property was designated um in 2023 under criteria one and criteria eight.

And I did include the entire designation study um as well as the historic inventory that um helped to support the information of the designation study in your packet.

So you have that material um and we can get into that in more depth if you need to.

The period of significance is 1973 to 1941.

And that was one of the kind of primary factors in its designation under criteria one.

Note that this is not the entire Silver Lake Park.

And that is going to come into play here as I talk about this review process, what's already been reviewed.

And also when we talk about an alteration to uh designated property, we're talking about and we're looking at the alteration to the property as a whole as it was designated.

So we are looking at an alteration to this property as it's outlined in yellow.

Proposed alterations are to the dam, the lake, and the trail extension.

As with the other certificate of appropriateness that we just reviewed, we have the um uh the process that we go through.

Again, um the certificate of appropriateness is determined by the HPC based on recommendation by city staff by community development, um, and uh only determined and considered by city council, um, which would be a public hearing if there's an appeal to your decision tonight.

This property and this project has already undergone a review.

Um, it was done under the federal level of review under the federal level of government.

You know that our process is a local review process governed by the Unified Development Code or UDC.

Um, but because of the nature of this project, it's considered what's called a federal undertaking.

So the requirement for a permit by the Army Corps of Engineers is what qualifies it as a federal undertaking.

And oftentimes that process for reviewing historic properties is called the Section 106 review process that comes from Section 106 of the 1966 National Preservation Act.

So many of many of the things that we do and the processes that we use kind of come originally from that act.

Okay.

But these are two separate things.

Okay.

So state historic preservation office and the letter, which I included in your packet, separate process.

Um, we're going to talk a little bit about that because I think that it's helpful to understand what they looked at and the findings that they've provided to the city for this project and to the Army Corps of Engineer, who actually is the one who oversaw that process, so that you have that information as you're considering the Secretary of Interior Standards and the design guidelines that we use.

So the um kind of back to the certificate of appropriateness here.

Um the project um project as identified with in the Army Corps of Engineer permit.

Um basically includes five different aspects.

Um, the modification to the dam area, and we're gonna get into that a little bit certainly more detail because that does entail a few different things.

Um, some modifications to the east shore, and that's um shown as number two on your screen.

I'll just kind of use my cursor here.

I think that um uh the bicycle trail on the north side of the lake, and then um both dredging and the sewer line or the sewer siphon are also aspects of this larger project.

Now we look at projects um for certificates of appropriateness, they break down between major alteration and minor alterations.

Um, and we've had this discussion within the last few months about what you know what qualifies as a major or minor alteration.

Things um maintenance items are minor alterations.

So um dredging, which has occurred over time on this property, um, really from pretty early on in in the history of the property on the of the lake, um, that's considered a maintenance item.

If this was just a dredging, even if there was a permit required, um, it this would be a minor alteration.

Um I would say that the sewer line also is a minor alteration.

So certificate, if that if those were the only two things, I would say this would be something that staff would look at and make a decision on.

Those would be minor alterations.

Um, however, I wanted you to be aware of those projects, and we certainly can talk more about that if you have questions.

Um, neither of those projects has a lasting impact on sort of the visual um aspect of the park and kind of experiencing the park from the land at least.

So um minor alterations.

So we're really going to focus in on items one, two, and three, the dam alteration, and that entire dam alteration area, the east shore and the bicycle trail.

So the dam alteration area.

Okay.

So currently the dam is located here.

It will be replaced with a structure that expands out across the length of this area.

This area, and let me just circle it here.

This area right here is about five acres in size, about five and a half acres in size.

So you'll still have water running through here.

You'll still have a dam structure.

Pointing out.

And instead of one large waterfall, you're going to have several cascading waterfalls.

This allows for a fish channel for fish to migrate up and through through this waterway where the current dam structure does not.

And this style has become sort of more I'm going to say popular or more acceptable because it does allow for that migration of aquatic animals.

So part of this alteration is to remove the lake from it's approximately two acres in size right here, this green area.

For the park, the site.

Who is the applicant on this project?

If I can't answer it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Poyer has a question.

Thank you, Chair Zastro.

So the lake is being reduced by five and a half acres.

Is that correct?

Am I understanding that correctly?

In this area.

Yep.

Okay.

There's some modifications to the other area that we're talking about.

Okay.

So why why are we?

Is there a reason why we're doing that?

Why we're planting over some of this areas and reducing the size of the lake section.

Yes.

So it's because it's changing the style of the dam, right?

So instead of that one waterfall with kind of a monolithic wall that holds the water back, you're you're so you're sort of funneling it down, right?

So that might have to get smaller as we get closer.

Correct.

To the end.

Okay.

I don't understand the portion about the fish because isn't what we do here for the fish irrelevant without removing all the other flood control structures that are on both sides of the dam up and down the Zumbro.

I mean, the fish aren't going to magically reappear in this narrow area when they're um barricaded in other areas, right?

So let's um if we can let's kind of put a pin in that.

I will add I will give you my answer.

Um my answer is that the other flood control um mechanisms, I believe are different than this one.

Um, and so I I don't think that's an issue, but um that's fine.

But yeah, let's put let's make a list of questions that that we have for the applicant.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Mochler.

Um, so um Mr.

Morrill talked about the overlook.

Um, how would this affect that overlook?

Sure.

Yep.

So um, and and we do have an image um in the packet that'll be on the screen here in a little bit too, where we can look a little bit closer at that.

So the overlook is in this area right here.

Um, it was originally designed as a pull off, um, which was really typical for the WPA era um design to have these auto pull-offs um uh as part of you know, as part of these sort of recreational areas.

Um there's nothing that would obstruct the view across here.

So you are removing part of the lake, you're altering or you're altering the lake, right?

You're altering the park, but um, you still have that view across the water and into the park.

That's that's how it would change.

Would it affect the rock structure at all then?

No, no, that's being preserved.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any further questions?

Um, I have one to touch on really quickly.

Um and you mentioned this at the beginning with with the showing the the table from the UDC, that this is an open meeting and that you know we are essentially in compliance with that chart.

I think there's the concern that was raised was just with the template, and I think you've addressed this in the past that the city software operates off of a lot of templates.

So when they mention the language at the top of the agenda or what was maybe shown, I believe, on on the initial slide, slide two, I think that that language is template language, correct?

But that this is an open meeting and that the way we've done it is in compliance with that table.

Can you just confirm that?

Yes, absolutely.

Absolutely, yes.

Okay.

That's all I have.

Okay.

Um so one of the things that's proposed as part of this project um is to salvage one of the what's called a tainter gate.

Um, and this is part of the mechanism of the dam.

And um part of this would help people to understand, you know, that there was a different style dam here.

There was a mechanical dam that was here.

And this uh piece would be something that would help people um kind of orient themselves to that and understand the changes that have taken um place over time.

We haven't gotten as specific to um come up with with language of what um interpretive language for people.

Um, and when I use the term interpretive language, think like you would be in a museum where you're looking at an artifact and you're reading something to understand what the purpose and the significance of that artifact is.

Um my thought and our conversation in this has always been that um that there would be some interpretive language um to help people see how the dam has changed over time, how this space has changed over time.

Um and it's really an opportunity to talk about um the construction of the dam, the construction of the lake and the park, and then um how it was later changed with this part of it being um re-naturalized to some extent, um, and talk about the environmental implications of those actions as well.

So um this is part of the plan.

Um this is as far as it's been developed to this point in time, but um I think that this is something that um is important for you to understand that this is part of the project.

So that's the dam area.

Um now we're gonna talk about the east shore of the lake.

And the proposal is um to modify the shoreline.

Um, and I'm gonna talk more about this um because this area has been modified over time a couple of different times.

Uh currently the shoreline comes around here.

Um it would be bumped in.

This is about um, I think this is about an acre in size um that would be um turned into lake.

This area here would provide uh kind of a an overlook of the lake.

Right now, this area um sometimes is referred to the snow dump area or um the snow settlement pond.

Um, and I'm gonna talk a little bit about the history of this area.

Um again, the change to this is about an acre, nine point nine six acres of land um uh that would become part of the lake.

Um, and then the rest of it would be planted with grasses.

Um just to make sure you're orienting yourself here, and I can go back to the larger map too, but uh over here is the fire station, the old fire station.

Um here's 7th Street Bridge.

South of this or below this image is the uh skateboard park across 7th Street, um, and then further to the east or off the photo to the um lower right hand side is the pool.

Okay.

So this section, this first uh lagoon is part of the dredging plan.

Um so this area may get dredged out, um, but nothing else will change with the lagoons.

Um, nothing will change with the stone bridges.

All of those things will be preserved.

Any questions on this image?

This commissioner Kessler.

Um, so I live right near this area, and one of the things that I always notice is this area in particular is always fenced off.

Is there part of the proposal to remove that fencing to make this part of the park?

Yes.

So this area again was addressed in the park plan that was adopted in 20, like I said, 2022 or 2023.

Um, and there is a plan to make this more usable to the general public.

Um, in under this project, it's just going to be planted.

The next steps are going to be taken by the park department as budget allows.

All right.

So we're losing about five acres roughly near the dam, but it looks like we'd be potentially gaining about four acres here.

So in all we're losing about a net acre of Silver Lake.

Um, you're yeah, so you're gaining about an acre back of flat water.

Okay, right.

Um, thank you.

I'm just gonna take on to that question because I I think what Commissioner Kessler was asking there was how how many acres are we gaining once that fence is removed and this the whole area becomes removed?

Yes.

We're getting land essentially to the public as well.

Um, yeah, I mean, technically it's part of the park, and you can get back there if you use the bridges from the other side.

So I mean, it is open, but it's really not very usable.

So um that's right, that's uh just under four acres in size in this um in this area, right?

What we're referring to as the east uh uh shore area, right?

So this is just under four acres, I believe.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions.

Just curious if um if this is developed and planted, which would seemingly be a nice uh addition to space, but um, would there be an alternate site for snow like dumping so that it didn't just get wrecked with more salt?

Right.

Yes, that's going to be re relocated to a different question.

But I thought I would no, that's a good question.

It's thank you, Commissioner Wassermer.

Any further questions?

Okay, coordinator Petterson Lungar and go ahead.

Um, so the third aspect that I wanted to talk to you about tonight.

Um, again, breaking this into sort of three different areas of the park.

Um, this is back towards the uh alteration of the dam, that area.

Um, but it extends further into the park.

And this is the proposed new bicycle trail.

Um, this would extend to the bicycle trail, which is on uh the other side of Broadway.

Um, the modifications to the dam would allow for the trail to come underneath the bridge.

Currently, the way this is set up, um, there's no opportunity for this.

There's not the room to do this.

And this is one of the reasons why this project is being proposed, so that we can um provide better access to the entire lake and the park um via bicycle.

Um, and also um to have a trail system within the park so that bicyclists do not have to um go up on 14th street, which is currently what's required.

You have to go out of the park to come back around to get back in.

There's no connection there.

Uh so the trail um would be between 10 to 12 feet um and would skirt along the shoreline um approximately a third mile or about 17% of the shoreline.

Um would then connect up to um the north or east overlook area, which is right up here.

So it come up and around and connect to that trail system.

Any questions about the design of this?

Commissioner Poyer.

Yes, thank you, Chair Sastro.

So the bridge there is not that's proposed future project, right?

Correct.

So that's not part of what's gonna happen now, but we're hoping to do that in the future.

Right.

Is everything else on the shoreline?

Is that part of this project now?

Yes, it is.

And um, the pillar for the bridge actually is part of this project because it's part of the Army Corps of Engineer project.

So working within that waterway and the permit that's required of the core to do that, um, the pillar would be installed and the bridge itself would come later.

Okay.

Yeah, I just note that uh, you know, for years, people since I know I've been in HBC have been talking to me about this project, and the people that do support it seem to be focused a lot on that bridge.

Sure.

So just important that they know that that that's not coming yet at this point.

I think and if I may, just to clarify.

Absolutely.

Yes, thank you for clarifying that.

Um one thing to keep in mind is that the current route, um, and I don't get out there as much as I used to, but I used to ride this quite a bit.

The current route takes you up along the path, and you're able to use Broadway um and Broadway Avenue Bridge.

Um certainly as you're headed north, you're on the correct side of the road, you know, as you're as you're coming up with your bicycle.

Um, and this what this will allow, sorry, I lost my cursor here.

Where did it go?

Um, what this will allow is for you to come down back into the park, right?

Even without the bridge there.

So it does improve that connection.

So the bridge just helps you avoid the bridge.

The Broadway bridge.

Yeah, yeah.

The bridge, the pedestrian bridge helps you avoid the Broadway bridge, but you still don't have to go to 14th Street, even if we don't propose it to go down.

Okay.

So it's gonna improve accessibility even without the new pedestrian bridge in the first phase.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um this is the um the rendering.

Really quickly, I think we Commissioner Mushler, you have a question.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, thank you.

Um, so the reason that the for my understanding is the bridge is being um the uh the dam is being proposed a different kind of styles because kind of the maintenance um of it.

And um you said that it was previously changed in the 90s for the flood project.

Um, how would the maintenance of this one um would it be able to be sustainable and kind of go into a little bit of the the current dam, I guess, um why it can't be sustained or abbreviated version because it's probably been mentioned many times.

Yeah, so that is one of the reasons is the um is the maintenance of the current dam.

But some of the other reasons have to do with, and as I addressed in the packet, um, you know, one of the things that came out before this project was actually even was conceptually designed was the need to have that bicycle route completed through the park um and to improve the accessibility and the safety of access um into the park and around the lake.

So that is also one of the reasons why this proposal um has come forward in this way and has been developed in this way is to provide the better bicycle accessibility.

I'm getting a message on my computer and my screen has just shifted.

So I apologize.

Let me make sure that I can get back to my presentation.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, so that's the trail.

Um, again, uh illustration rendering of the proposed project area um gives you one view of um in particular this dam um area where it will be altered um if approved.

So here you have that pillar right in the center of um where the pedestrian bridge will go.

Um this shows I think probably a high water level here with um water coming down through the fish channel and then through the pools.

Um this area over here um is what would be modified um from just that flat lake to uh to ground, right?

To the parkland.

Um any questions about this image or things you're seeing here that you want clarification on as we're here.

Well, I'll start with one.

Um I believe it was in the state letter from Shippo that they mentioned that the lake level would actually rise with this about a foot or two, I think.

And so you mentioned this being a high water view.

Can you kind of speak to the the water levels here with this?

You know, I'm gonna actually let one of my teammates from public works talk a little bit more about the changes in lake elevation.

One of the things I do want to say, um, and as I indicated in my report is that um Silver Lake is part of a river.

So you have fluctuations in water elevation, right?

Even a natural river, you're gonna have those fluctuations.

Um I mean, you could have that with a lake, but even more so with a river.

Um it's also, of course, part of the um uh the the storm water management, right?

So we so we manage the water that goes through there as well.

So you have a lot of fluctuation.

I think in terms of sort of what that looks like, um, let's put that on our list to ask the the folks from public works to give us a little more information about.

Okay.

Um, Commissioner Gandhi has a question.

Yeah, I'm just curious.

Um, I'm not even sure if it falls in under our preview, but um, you know, reduction of uh lake of uh will that affect any activities?

Um, you know, I from top of my head I can think of through just a rowing club who uses this regularly.

Will it affect them at all?

Yeah, actually, um the modifications to the east shore part of where that idea came from was to make sure that with these um alterations to the lake and the park that they had enough surface of lake to row on for um for their activities.

So I'll point that out here in some future images that we're getting to um so that you can see how that um how they're being accommodated.

And that also um that was uh um determined in the park planning process.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um, so now I'm gonna talk a little bit about the changes that have occurred to um to the park and to the lake.

Um remember that you're looking at um, we'll get to the Secretary of Interior Standards where it talks about you know how much change is occurring, how much um, you know, what level of alteration are we looking at?

So I'm gonna just talk about sort of the history of how things have changed over time.

So um our period of significance is 1937 to 1941, and that's the period of uh construction of the park.

Um, we know that prior to that there was no lake.

This was an area in the river, um, probably a lot of kind of muddy marshland.

Um, and um, as one of our our public speakers mentioned, um, you know, the uh the idea was to have a lake, and this was an area that had been identified um even earlier than the 1920s for that.

Um, in the 1940s, um, and let me too say that um that this list comes out of the inventory that was done by New History as they prepared the documentation um for the history of the park that we used um in making the determination on on landmarking.

So this is where um this information comes from.

The 1940s, um, private walls were allowed to be constructed um on the north side of the lake um for those homeowners.

Um and um, and so that's when that uh that activity happened.

Land on the east side of the park was added in the 1940s.

And this is the area around the Lutheran Church where um softball fields have been for quite a while.

1949 is kind of a big year.

Um, Silver Lake Power Plant comes into being, it's constructed.

Um, and then we start to think about kind of its relationship uh to um to the water and to the lake.

Um by the end of like the 1950s or 60s, they're actually using the water from the lake and from the river as cooling um for that plant.

So 1950s, more major changes.

Um, this is when uh 7th Street Bridge is constructed.

Um in the 1950s and 60s, you've got the land to the south added, the park grows by quite a bit.

Um, this is the area of you know, kind of the baby boom, people are having larger families, that neighborhood is growing, and um the the nature of the park um is is added to, right?

It's no longer just this area where um it's kind of the trails or the the roads um for kind of uh experiencing just this sort of tranquil lake.

Now we've also added um the ball fields and the swimming pool.

Um, and um, and those features are added to both this part of the park, um, but primarily, of course, to the south of 7th Street.

Um, 1970s is when we have our first appearance of trails, at least that we're aware of, um, at least the bicycle trails, and that comes in um in 1979, according to that um historic document from New History.

1980s, we've got some filling in of low area near the east shelter.

That's the the rock shelter, um, which was uh built in 1941.

That's the one that is considered, you know, part of the era of significance, the period of significance, um, one of the character defining features, but we've got changes that are occurring around that, um, filling in some low areas.

Um, we've also got expansion of the trail system.

Um, and um, again, you know, just there's going to be consistent changes, um, just kind of in spot checking newspapers, uh, additional trails, um, a lot of playground equipment is getting either updated, added, moved around.

Um, now in the 1990s, this actually becomes part of the flood protection system when the Army Corps comes in and does the flood walls.

This is when the dam is altered a great deal.

And we've got some photos that I'll show you of that area.

So the new dam is put in, um, trails are being rebuilt, reconstructed, um, modified.

And then in the 2000s, we are getting um changes along the shoreline.

In particular, that's when the native plants go in on the shoreline, kind of the nature of um the the shore area of the park changes.

We don't have just those grassy open areas that we see in some of the older pictures.

Now we've got um the natural plants to uh to mitigate and to manage stormwater um to help improve stormwater management management quality, stormwater quality into the lake.

Um there's also some other things that are happening, including a new dock, um, and uh throughout sort of this later period of time, um, the uh the rowing club is adding and modifying their area as well.

Um, so these changes are really um captured in these images uh in the new history report.

And we've got the different colors that um talk about sort of these different areas, not exactly as I had broken down.

Um, but you're seeing the changes and you're seeing the realignment of um of you know the pathways through the park.

Um and you're seeing um, you know, the additions of different features uh over the period of time.

So in particular, when we look at changes to the lake, um it could give you like a series of a lot of different images, but I'm really gonna try and focus on kind of two ends of of um of the spectrum of time so you can see how things have changed over time.

This is from the inventory, um, and the image shows 1940.

Um, so this is um just as the park was new, right?

Um, it's actually within the period of significance.

Um, of course, the biggest change here is that uh 7th Street does not cross, um, does not cross the river or even really it's part of the lake at this point.

Um, so by 2021, um, you've got that.

Um, this image actually is even a little bit old because you've got that settlement area where water typically doesn't hold in that pond area anymore.

It's pretty much um all settled in.

Um, so really to focus in on um the changes to the lake that have occurred over the period of time.

Um basically I drew the shoreline along this historic image.

And what you see is that um the proposed change occurring um on this east shore of the property um is really similar to what was there within the period of significance prior to the Seventh Street Bridge being built.

Um, so if you think back to that image that I showed you of the shore area, um, and this is where the question about um how this project will impact um the the boat club or the the rowing club um right we have modified the project would modify this to um to bring to bring it back a little bit closer um to what it was originally and this is where that extra water surface um helps them with um with their activities on the lake.

Any questions on this change?

I'll just keep going.

Um additional changes to the shore.

So uh 1978 article, um, Silver Lake Ripwrap work progresses.

Um you'll see that actually in this image there's a um a uh cement truck um and they're laying down um this material, it's actually a poured concrete type of um surface, right, to to manage the the shore area on the lake.

By 2007, and really even kind of spot checking, seeing articles about sort of managing vegetation and issues around the lake.

2007 is when this native shoreline shoreline project occurred.

So the um the vegetation, that kind of thick vegetation that we have now happened at that time.

And then the changes to the dam.

If you choose to um suspend your rules and um allow the public works folks to speak, um they can help answer kind of what what changed in elevation over time.

But the original dam, um, which this was here until the 1990s, um, you know, was much shorter and didn't have these structures.

This is looking at it from, oh, let's see, this is the north kind of northwest corner, basically Broadway is kind of at your back.

One of the things that you'll see here is that until the 1990 um dam project, um, well, and you'll see it here, at least on this early photo, um, is um kind of more of a natural area here um that would be similar to what's being brought back.

Um right now, this area, and you can't see it in this photo.

You can see it in the next, I'll move forward.

Um actually, yeah, there's a lot of concrete.

It's kind of just outside of this picture between the dam and the and the um Broadway Avenue Bridge.

There's basically a large concrete wall.

That's what would be removed.

Um, and you're seeing here kind of a more natural shoreline.

So um changes, modifications to the dam over time.

So I've given you an evaluation going through each of the Secretary of Interior Standards, um, giving you what I propose um our findings to indicate that the project would meet Secretary of Interior Standards.

And um, unless you want to talk specifically about any of them with me, um, I'll just sort of skip through these or just go through them.

Um let me know or raise your hand, maybe if you want me to stop on any of the standards and talk about any of these.

But this is reflective of what's in your packet.

So I can go back if anybody has anything.

Um, along with the Secretary of Interior Standards, we have um the foundational principles, which were adopted as part of the design guidelines.

Um, this was really intended to be another lens to look at a project, and that's why it was adopted in this way and made part of your policy document and actually even part of the the code language, right?

Is to be able to look at a project, not just with the Secretary of Interior Standards, but also these other um uh goals or principles that were adopted by the city.

Um, and three of them in particular come into play here.

Um environmental stewardship, again, mentioning the fish, the fish passage, but also it just being a more naturalized um type of dam structure um and and just a better environmental practice.

Um I was able to find some documentation, but didn't give this to you at this point in time.

This is kind of a trend that's happening is getting away from these highly structured um concrete dams and bringing um the environment back to somewhat more natural type of um setting.

It's it's just more environmentally friendly.

That's my term, my non-technical term.

So fiscal responsibility and sustainability um as was mentioned, right?

This the maintenance of the existing dam, you know, it's going to have to be repaired or even quite frankly rebuilt again as it is right now.

So something, of course, will have to happen.

It's it's a it's a part of the infrastructure.

It's something that um can't just be left alone, right?

It would have to be maintained or modified.

And this in the long run is um a lower cost and is a more sustainable um type of uh um dam type structure, right?

So it's still gonna hold the lake in.

The lake's still gonna be there.

The lake is being altered, not removed.

Um, and then public safety, both from the standpoint of that type of dam.

Um, you know, there certainly haven't been any incidents um that are recorded of somebody being caught up in that dam, but that style of dam is particular in particular um is not one that um that allows for boating passage to go through.

Um, and also again, the accessibility with um the bicycle trails and getting traffic off of those um higher uh volume streets um so that you can actually take a walk or bike around the lake um without having to cross Broadway or um you know use 14th Street.

Um so those are the um the findings that I've provided.

Um I did want to go back and talk a little bit about the findings that the state preservation office have provided um in their review of the project.

And again, this is part of the section 106.

Um so their review of the project includes you know, the statement that the proposed undertaking will result in no adverse effect on the historic properties.

Unlike us, they don't use the Secretary of Interior standards to review.

They look at adverse effect.

So they're they have the finding that it doesn't have the adverse effect on the historic property.

Part of their process also is to look at whether or not the property qualifies is eligible for national register listing.

And that's actually the first step.

Um, and they did make that finding that for the purpose of the review, the property is eligible for national register.

So even given given that fact that they consider it to be eligible, they have a no um no adverse effect finding.

And then it won't affect the property's ability to convey its historic significance.

And that's really talking about um the historic integrity of the property.

So, you know, the amount of change, the level of change that's happening to the design, the material, um, the setting, the location, all of those things, those seven points that we look at when we talk about historic integrity.

That settle second bullet point is what we're talking, is what they're saying there is that the project will not affect the property's ability to convey its historic significance.

The historic integrity is not changing to that point, right?

It's maintaining its historic integrity overall.

Um so we are making a recommendation um to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the Silver Park um Silver Lake Park alterations um as the project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for historic rehab and um many of the principles adopted from the local design guidelines.

So I will stop there and see if you want to open it up for um get some of those additional questions, more technical questions that I'm not able to answer.

So, commissioners, I would say first if we have any questions for coordinator Peterson-Lungren, we can handle those.

Um Commissioner Poyer.

Thank you.

So you talked about environmentally returning it to more of a natural state.

I know some people in town would like it, returned to its complete natural state, which would be a river.

And um the landmark status of the park would actually prevent it from doing that, correct?

All right, thank you.

Um I'm gonna read from the first of all, I'd say anybody that's that's more interested in the history of this, read the the um historical designation in the packet.

It was very well done and very informative, and that along with the Shippo letter and the application itself, I think it's really well presented.

Um from there, the park provides viewsheds from several well-traveled routes in the city.

As it curves along the river through the adjacent neighbors, the park provides open expanses of green fields and open water, interspersed with groves of trees and other vegetation.

The park is character defining and a familiar visual feature of the neighborhood northeast of downtown.

It therefore meets criterion eight for landmark designation.

And then later on, um, water feature, Silver Lake visually dominates the park landscape as it did historic, historically alterations of the lake since the end of the period of significance have included changes to the south shoreline in the area of the settling basin, installation of concrete revetment paths along the shoreline to hold erosion.

However, the lake retains its basic historic shape and design, including the lagoon area, islands in the mouth of Silver Creek at its south end.

Silver Lake is a character defining feature feature of the park.

So that means the lake itself.

So could you bring up uh slide 17?

Sure.

Okay.

So I think for me, I I think the the portions we're talking about on the south end are great.

Um I don't think anybody would speak that.

To me, this comes down to is the reduction of the lake.

I think we said by 16% of its size.

And to me, these rapids, um, I think it turns on does that change the character defining feature of that lake?

And I know for a lot of people it does.

So I I think that's that's kind of what we're deciding here today, in my view.

Um so with that, I'll yield to other questions.

Yeah, go ahead.

If I may, yeah.

So I think one of the things to keep in mind, and I'm not saying that it doesn't alter the park, it does, right?

And it and I would agree it alters the character defining feature.

Um so I think that alterations, modifications to historic properties to designated properties are allowed under the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehab, right?

So it isn't that you can't alter them, and it isn't that you can't even alter character defining features.

You can't demolish or remove them as part of the standards.

And I think that's part of the distinction.

I just want to make sure that that's what the distinction that I'm making in this recommendation.

All right.

Thank you.

Yep.

Commissioners, any further questions for coordinator Patterson Lungrid.

Uh and it was noted throughout that there are questions that may be appropriate for other uh department leaders, but we would need to suspend the rules to invite the applicant forward to answer those.

Does any commissioner wish to make a motion?

Commissioner Mutchler.

I make a motion to suspend the rules to allow for questioning to the um public works.

Okay.

Second.

We have a motion from Commissioner Mutchler, seconded by Commissioner Poyer to suspend the rules to allow public works to come forward and present or uh answer questions.

Uh, anything further to add?

Okay, we'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Any abstentions?

Okay.

At this point, if somebody from public works would like to come forward, please um for the record, just state your name and your position.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Aaron Luxtein, I'm the deputy public works director for the city of Rochester.

I'm Matt Crawford.

I'm the project manager and engineer for this project for the city.

Thank you.

Okay, commissioners.

Any questions uh for public works here?

We'll start with Commissioner Mutchler.

Um, yes, thank you for um coming so we can ask um of questions first.

Um, and could you speak to how it would change the lake levels?

I know um coordinator Patterson Luggren did a good job, but just to give a little more idea and how it affect the water quality.

I can I can start and then I'll turn it over to Matt.

Um, so one thing to note the lake elevation levels are in page three of the packet.

So I'll pull those out and then Mac and talk more details about those lake levels.

Um the initial 1937 um lake level that was established by the dam.

So at the dam location, um, was 972.88, and that's at sea level elevation.

When the dam was modified in 1991 as part of the flood control project, there was also some features that were included because the lake was used for cooling as part of the the Silver Lake Power Plant at the time.

That elevation again um at the dam went up to 974.1 elevation.

Our proposal um it would reduce that um by a small amount to 973.5 elevation, which was still higher than the 972.88, which was part of the original 1937, keeping in mind those points are at the dam.

It is a river, so the elevations change throughout the lake.

They also will fluctuate based on river flows um as as water moves through the system with precipitation.

But um, Matt can speak a little further about that if there's additional questions on those elevation changes.

Yeah, and part of it is there was twofold we had to do with this project to get DNR approval.

One, we had to maintain the FEMA flood control elevations through this area, but this was designed to carry a 200-year event through this area.

Um, and also we had to work with them to get a fish passage.

They were not allowed the normal dam style that was there ever to be built again in the state.

So we had to create one that was environmentally friendly.

So that's created the reason why it's long as it is, because the fish had to have a certain slope to get up on there, and we had to be able to pass fish at the lowest flow.

So that lowering of the lake that little bit has twofold.

It was one to make a little channel in the middle so that fish had a foot of water when it's like a drought, the lowest flow to pass still through their DNR wants it to be able to function at all the different normal water events.

Two, we had to make sure that that the FEMA flood could get through there.

It was slightly lower than what the uh 1991 elevation was, but still still higher than the historic lake.

And there's nowhere else, we're not raising anywhere.

Everything else upstream is going to be at or below the like the hundred-year FEMA elevations.

But like Aaron had mentioned, rain events and participation really fluctuate on this.

That's going to go up and down.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, go ahead.

So you had mentioned that the state would not rebuild another dam like this again in the future.

From my understanding, let's say hypothetically, this project ended up getting canceled, don't move forward.

Eventually, we know that it's going to need work.

At that point, are you suggesting that we would then be quote unquote forced into this type of dam, assuming that laws and such don't change?

I can I can answer that question.

Um, so two different things.

One, if we were to construct a brand new dam, this is not a style that they would allow.

No, you are allowed to maintain the existing structure.

So if this project did not move forward, um, RPU electric, which is the actual operator of the system, there is improvements they need to make on the system structurally and mechanical.

You can still do those types of modifications.

Now, if the dam was severely compromised, um, as we've seen in other communities with floods and things like that, um, yes, we would have to go through this process with the state to either remove the dam and return it to a river, which would create local complications, obviously, with with the historical requirements, or uh create a dam similar to the one we're proposing that would allow, you know, for the fist passage, um, the more of the rock arch rapids, environmentally friendly style dam.

Thank you.

So just making sure I've got it clear.

If we don't do this now, we are potentially gonna have to spend much more in the future to do this if we were to sustain some sort of massive damage to the dam.

And or accept that the historic landmark that we have now would change.

Correct.

There would be two potential financial components.

One is maintaining the existing dam, the mechanical features.

There's ongoing investments that need to be made on that.

So that that will continue because the dam is essential and needs to continue to be properly maintained.

And then, and we do everything we can to prevent some sort of catastrophic failure of that.

So early.

Absolutely, not suggesting you don't.

Yes, should there be a significant event if the city then would have to yes go through the process of either you know doing an alternative type of modification, completely removing it, returning it to a river, you know, all of those things.

Yes.

All right, thank you so much.

Um Commissioner Wasmer.

You stated this once before, but I just want to clarify one more time.

Uh, the whole reason um things had been done and then changed was prevention of another disastrous flood, which you've had several in Rochester.

And I think I heard you say this has been approved for a 200-year flood event through DNR.

Is that did I hear that correctly?

Um, yeah, the core designed this back in 91 to pass a 200-year storm event at that time.

Climate change has changed a little bit of flow, but it was designed for that.

That's why they modified the dam.

It had to be removed out of the way to not prevent flooding in Rochester.

Thank you for repeating that.

I appreciate it.

Commissioner Poyer.

Yeah, I just want to continue along those lines of the last two questions.

And maybe this isn't a fair question, but we talk about the catastrophic event.

Would the current dam or the proposed one be which one would be more or less likely to suffer the catastrophic event?

Is there any difference?

Okay, like that.

Well, I mean, it it's the dam is closer to the current dam is closer to the bridge.

So it was a more intense and more velocity there.

It is a concrete structure, but it was built in 1937, so it's nearly 100 years old.

Um, we've made a lot of improvements to prevent from a catastrophic failure, but most of those concrete dams, they erode somewhere, they get around it.

When that happens, is when they fail.

The rock structure we're doing still could have a chance, but that one's a different style of how the water goes over a larger area to fuses the velocities.

It will move rocks and that will slow it down.

We'll have to do repairs to the fish passage, but a complete failure is very unlikely with that type of structure compared to uh the concrete ones when having the age.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

The other, if I could add one more thing on that, that um the other uh challenging component and why we're proposing the modification, you know, to a different style of dam is the current one requires mechanical operation.

So you have mechanical features that can fail, need to be replaced.

It also requires human intervention operation of those leaf gates, tanner gates.

You have to open and close things, which can always cause problems if it's not done correctly and at the right time, you can actually have either hold water back, which can cause flooding or move water through too quickly, and that can also cause um operational issues with the dam.

So it's it's much more complex.

There's there's a more likelihood of incidents to happen versus this type of design, which allows what we call a pass it, a more um passive flow uh where water is moving through naturally without human operational intervention of that during a storm event.

That makes sense.

Commissioner Mochler.

Um, could you speak to would this affect the water quality at all at all, switching to this type of dam?

Well, I mean, for one thing, the dredging will increase improve water quality behind it once you get the sediment out of there, but with this, it helps aerate the water and the rocks and water going through the rocks can cool the water.

So downstream will be significant improvements to water quality with this type of structure versus the current one.

That's the big, you know, we could say uh science-wise, you know, water quality type issues for that.

Other than that, though, is like the fish can move the muscles and and upstream and mussels do a lot for water quality too in that area, and we don't have as much upstream as you do downstream because of the dam.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any further questions for public works or the city engineer?

Yep, go ahead, Commissioner Schable.

Uh thank you for being here tonight and answering our questions.

Uh I'm assuming that you're familiar with other rock rapid programs uh in other parts of the state or outside of Minnesota.

Uh with the programs that you are familiar with, you know.

Have you seen in those instances where you have this significant change to part of the river or lake that it has led to significant changes in the footprint in the area?

I know there's a concern here.

You know, you remove the dam, you leave these uh open waterway, what happens to the rest of the lake behind the rock rapids.

Uh can you give any sense of the likelihood of unanticipated consequences or other changes to the footprint based on what you've seen?

Other communities.

I could I can start and then um so yes, we have toured and evaluated similar types of projects.

Um one of the most similar ones is is actually in Iowa, where it has both uh the Rock Arch Rapids and the wave pools and things like that.

Um the benefits that um so in terms of alteration things like that.

The the great part about this is they've been very effective at preserving the lake footprint upstream and again moving water through.

The other is it um opens up opportunities for greater access to the area.

Um, so an example here, there is approximately um two acres of you know additional parkland that that would be created for access to the Rock Arch Rapids, the wave pool features um, as well as in the trail components.

So there's an expanded recreational and user opportunities that get created.

We saw that when we toured the sites.

Um there was more, you know, there was uh kayakers and and canoeers that were using the the access points.

There was people walking along the trails, recreating uh at the water's edge, things like that because of um the changes that were made while still preserve or preserving um the lake upstream.

So any further questions?

Anything else to add, Matt.

So I have one that may or may not be something you can answer.

Um, was noted I think uh in the 50s with Seventh Street coming through, and then that east shoreline, there have already been some changes long ago.

Do you have any idea?

Can can you quantify what some of those in the 50s that work, how substantially that altered the shoreline at that time?

Just trying to see if that's comparable to essentially what we're looking at now, or you know, how much water volume that would be if you happen to know that.

I I don't have an exact number.

I could give you, I mean, looking at that picture roughly though, you're talking about approximately you know, two to three acres of lake that was filled in to create the area to put the bridge across there.

So that was a significant area that was filled in over time.

I don't have the exact number on what they built at what's but that's what they did.

So roughly though, two to three acres uh, you know, during that time was altered.

Okay.

Yep.

And and one thing you you'll note that part of the um the the east shoreline will look similar to what the alterations were proposing because we worked with the DNR to specifically look to try to recreate as as closely as possible to what was uh, you know, previously historical there to convert that back into river within the progression with the uh vegetation along the shoreline and then back into usable park space.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

All right, thank you very much.

I just want to know I had two questions that were written down that were noted earlier that I I don't know that were asked at this time.

Do you want to answer those or I'll go ahead and allow it if you want to address those?

Okay.

Um so one, there was a question on the value of of the fish migration.

So recognizing that there are barriers upstream.

Um so one, um, this is a major barrier uh from there are no additional barriers between the Lake Zumbro Hydro Dam and the Silver Lake Dam.

So opening this up to fish passage now allows everything from the Lake Zummer Hydro Dam up into Silver Lake for migration, and then Silver Creek flows into Silver Lake.

So approximately 13 miles of additional um uninterrupted, you know, passages created as a part of this.

There are there is a levee at Bear Creek where Bear Creek flows in to uh the South Fork of the Zumba River.

And then there's also a small levee kind of up by the Broadway Bridge on the South Fork of the Zummer River.

Those are smaller than what the Silver Lake Dam is.

And so there's more periods of time where flows are at a level where fish can migrate across those levees.

Um there are certainly times where they are restricted from migration, but there's more opportunities for that.

Um the other thing that when when staff looked at at uh this opportunity, we did look at alterations to other levees.

It doesn't make sense to alter other levees as long as this barrier remains in place.

So this was one of the primary that if if this can be modified, it opens up the opportunity to evaluate then making some changes to those other levies to allow further migration, you know, fish migration to happen.

But if this doesn't, then it doesn't necessitate it doesn't benefit the investment um to be made with this barrier where it is.

Um thank you for that clarification.

Yep.

And then yeah, the lake level elevation, sorry, was the other question which we covered.

So okay, thank you both.

Are there any last call?

Any final questions?

Okay, thank you.

You may take your seat.

At this point, I'll ask if there are any further questions for coordinator Patterson Lungren after those questions have been answered.

Okay, hearing none, I would invite a motion.

I'd like to make a motion.

Uh I'd like us to approve the certificate certificate of appropriateness for the Silver Lake Park alterations as the project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for historic rehabilitation and many of the principles adopted in the local design guidelines.

I will second that motion.

Okay, we have the motion as stated on the screen by Commissioner Kessler, seconded by Commissioner Mutchler.

Commissioner Kessler, anything further to add?

Yeah, I had a number of people reach out to me about this personally.

Um, because there are a lot of people who are very invested in Silver Lake itself.

Um, knowing that we are going to be continuing to keep the historic integrity of the park portion um was a big question that I got from the community.

Um, and so just being able to, you know, say yes, we are gonna continue to have that park portion.

We are going to actually expand and potentially improve um the park on the east side and you know, make it more friendly for bikers, for wheelchair users, for people who are walking.

Um I am very much in support of this project and think that there's a lot of good things that can come from this.

Thank you, Commissioner Kessler.

Commissioner Mutchler.

Um, yes.

Um, so I live right over there.

Um, and I run that path all the time.

Um and it is a barrier to cross that that street right there.

I see people walking over it all the time.

Um, and I think it really would um keep it historically, but giving it a new use as um listed in the first um standard um that requires minimal change to the distinct um materials features spaces and spatial relationships um as noted by the public works, they said it would be um to a level that's not below what it originally was.

So I think it was like um 972, and it's gonna be potentially 973, depending the fluctuations.

Um, and so I think it would be um good to uh to with the approve the certificate of profitness.

Thank you, Commissioner Mutchler.

Any other commissioners wishing to speak or deliberate on the issue?

Commissioner Schable.

I was part of the commission when we reviewed the Silver Lake Park designation in the first place.

And it was extremely important to that commission to keep the lake footprint.

We had a lot of discussion about the park as a whole and the lake footprint.

How that was a character defining feature.

Yeah, now of course we're not here to designate or note what is character defining and what is or isn't, but you know, is this alteration appropriate.

When I look at the materials that were presented in the testimony that was provided, uh I do see a lot of advantages for rehabilitation.

Uh there's the restoration of the east shoreline that gives us back lake area that's in line with the original lake.

Uh we have removal of this very large concrete structure that impedes the view line across the lake.

Uh and the his many of the character-defining uh objects that are dotted throughout the park.

Those are not being removed or modified.

So we we really are focused on the footprint of the lake.

Uh I appreciate the Department of Public Works giving us uh a little more information about how lake level could change, how the rock rapids affects downstream and upstream.

Uh that was really helpful.

Now, as a whole, when I look back at the history of the park, you know, there was a great desire for the people of Rochester to have a park for them to gather and have opportunities for recreation.

And over time, more and more amenities have been added to the park, you know, some of which are which outside the the historic area.

Uh but the idea is still this is a central place for people to go to.

City of Rochester has uh made significant efforts to increase pedestrian and bike access to places across the city, and this certainly fulfills that goal.

Uh, and I think overall the property is still being used for its historic purpose.

It's a park, it's for recreation.

And this alteration improves that access, uh, restores some of the original line.

It does create a pretty significant change to a character defining feature.

But I think when you balance out those advantages, that outweighs the loss of that specific look of the lake, that specific footprint in that uh area of the park and of the lake.

So for all of those reasons, I do support the electoration.

Thank you, Commissioner Schable.

Any other commissioners?

Commissioner Poyer.

Thank you.

Um I think I said last month that it was one of the more difficult votes on the Broadway property.

I think this is also a difficult difficult one as well.

Um I really concur with with everything Commissioner Schable just said, and uh um, you know, I did get lots of feedback from the community, and the majority was against the project.

Um, but I didn't really find a historical preservation reason why they were opposing the project.

So that had me take a lot closer look, and and I do feel like we are changing um some of the character of the area around the dam.

But uh, you know, it's it's kind of a subjective um how much is too much, and uh and I think this doesn't quite be too much.

So we'll be supporting supporting this project.

I I do find a couple of things that kind of trouble me about it.

Um, about there's a lot of misinformation about it, and I think the staff tried to counter that with this term of modification of the dam and a whole second uh council member walls um admission to you to to stop saying that because it's we're not and and I think we're doing a better job now than we were in the past.

We do acknowledge it's being removed because um I've heard people corrected when they say removal of the dam to modification.

And the fact is that the current dam is being removed and another structure is being put in there in its place.

So that's one thing.

term of modification of the dam and whole second uh council member walls um adam to you to to to stop saying that because it's we're not and and i think we're doing a better job now than we were in the past we do acknowledge it's being removed because um i've heard people corrected when they say removal of the dam to modification and the fact is that the current dam is being removed and another structure is being put in there in its place so that's one thing the other thing that that bothers me a little bit is I wish that uh the HBC have been consulted earlier in this process um you know the city has already spent more than a million dollars I believe on it and and I don't think this body needs the the engineering details to be able to weigh in on that um back to city council member was concerned that HPC would delay the project which I think kind of um belittles uh our part of the process but uh um that's just uh I guess having said all that I will be voting to approve the project thank you anyone else wishing to speak um I'll say a few words here and I guess I'll start with so we're considering roughly four to five acres changing in the past in the 50s about two to three acres have changed so this would be the most substantial change to the lake that said I don't you know it also was a very difficult decision for me but I also don't believe that this is um too much that it's going to destroy the historic value I don't believe this is too much of an alteration that we are losing um the viewshed that that really most people will recognize and I I believe we've even scaled this back if if staff could even just nod or shake but I think the the dam it initially was proposed to be set back even further but I think a few years ago didn't it get bumped bumped up I believe so okay or no correct okay okay that's what I thought so already seeing those efforts to preserve as much of that lake and that view shed um I I think that's kind of what put me over the edge as to being able to support this I think much further and I probably couldn't have but this really I I think it it accomplishes all the current needs while still preserving the historic integrity of the lake and the park.

So I will be in support of this if there are no further thoughts we'll move to a vote and I think we'll do a voice um a roll call vote on this one commissioner Connell uh aye well and actually sorry let me read the motion before we vote so the motion before us it's on all of our screens we're gonna vote on uh the motion by Commissioner Kessler seconded by Commissioner Muchler to approve the certificate of appropriateness for Silver Lake Park alterations as the project meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and many of the principles adopted in the local design guidelines.

So with that motion before us um Commissioner Connell aye Commissioner Gandhi.

Aye Commissioner Kessler aye commissioner muchler aye commissioner poyer aye commissioner Schable aye.

And Chair Zastro votes aye passes unanimous moving on there are no public hearings agenda item seven other business 7A updates coordinator Patterson Lungren back to you.

Yes um so I've brought you updates on Indian heights um over the past couple months in terms of um where we've been in that process looking at um considering that for a local landmark or even possibly national register designation and I think it was just last month that I informed you that we did not get the grant to do the eligibility study um of the property um I had an opportunity to meet with uh Valerie Gomares who um is a member of Grads Greater Rochester area Dakota supporters um and it's who as one of the um Dakota community experts on that property in terms of um looking at it from the Dakota perspective um so I have had a chance to meet with her um the park department um is in the process of um they've put out a request for proposals they have a proposal for um collecting the oral history to do some signage um we now need to kind of reconnect between the three of us um and the consultant that put the proposal together and sort of figure out what the next steps are so um but I did want to inform you that I had a chance to meet with her I spent a lot of time um talking to her about kind of trying to get get more of her perspective and the Dakota perspective on the site over the weekend I had the chance to um attend a a session um that was given by Shelley Buck who um is the president of um and I can't say the last part so um yeah it's the falls of St.

And they are doing a project.

This is in Minneapolis, where they are actually renaturalizing part of the lock system and the falls.

And over time, what has happened, and this has been a multi-year process where different organizations and entities who manage from the Army Corps to DNR to Minneapolis Parks.

We're looking at that site and we're planning for improvements to that area for making it more and more park-like and bringing some of the natural area back to some of its original nature.

And eventually they came upon the understanding that this is actually a Dakota sacred site.

So had really good session and had the chance to hear from Shelley Buck and her perspective.

And there was something that she said that I just quickly wrote down because I think it really characterizes where I'm at right now with this.

And that is that there are two views of the same place from profoundly different points of view.

And I think what I what I want to get to, and I want to assure you that we are proceeding with looking at Indian Heights.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions regarding Indian Heights?

I do have one.

So I recently talked to a community member who worked at Crenlow for 20 or 30 years.

I don't recall, decades it was.

And I guess I just want to have you clarify.

Is the state of the Krenlow site or the future state of the Crenlow site impacting this in any way?

Future development of that site near Indian Heights.

Is that something that in any way is having some sort of um role in this designation or or and or delay of designation?

Thank you for that question.

And um actually Valerie Gmaris had mentioned to me that she had heard a rumor that there was something with the Crenlo site.

Um I need to follow through on that and see if we are not aware of that.

Community development is not aware of that.

The park department is not aware of that.

Um there is a boundary between the Crenlow private property and the park site.

Um, so even if they were pursuing something, like, you know, they they wouldn't be able to just do something on parkland, right?

To make that very clear.

Um, but also to be very clear, we are not aware of any project that they are proposing that would impact um well, not only the park property, but also their property.

I'm not aware of anything.

Okay, thank you very much.

Yep.

Um, and then any other updates if you have questions for me, um, if I'm not able to answer them tonight, if there are things that you'd like me to address in the future um at upcoming meetings, now would be the time to um to highlight those.

Um I guess at this point I will ask um, so I know Commissioner Bodaker's not here, but Commissioner Wasmer, can we expect um update regarding the awards from the committee that you were on with him?

Absolutely.

Um, as you know, he was planning to be here tonight to go over all of this, and then his meeting was changed.

Uh he's got all the information.

I don't want to present without him.

I apologize, but that was the plan for tonight.

So I know people are frustrated, but um, he had a conflict at the last minute tonight.

So thank you.

And then Commissioner Kessler, um, regarding the proposal you brought forward before.

Um, should we expect that in the coming meeting?

I'm hopeful.

Um, I'm waiting to get some feedback to finalize that.

And then once I have that final feedback, I would like to bring it back here for the commission to consider.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any other thoughts or business than before we adjourn, um, Commissioner Wasmer with a history fact, if you have one for us.

Well, as a longtime history teacher, I always have history facts.

Um, I'm gonna talk a little bit very briefly because we want to go home about a little bit of the history of Silver Lake, and it was actually based around, and I'm sure Chair Zastro knows this, um, the milling city.

feedback i would like to bring it back here for the commission to consider okay thank you commissioners any other thoughts or business then before we adjourn um commissioner wasmer with a history fact if you have one for us well as a longtime history teacher i always have history facts um i'm gonna talk a little bit very briefly because we want to go home um about a little bit of the history of silver lake and it was actually based around and i'm sure chairs astro knows this um the milling city rochester is a milling city before a med city um and there was upper town and lower town and they uh had disdain for each other one quote said um the feud between them were as bitter as the ancient feuds of the Scottish highlands and lowlands um but really the the history of silver lake comes from this milling area and the mill ponds that kind of started all this um and then I also just thought it was interesting um I Sean Kettlecamp has an amazing history of Silver Lake if anyone's interested it's fascinating um I'll just close with this when it was completed in 1937 uh there was a program handed out at the dedication with the aerial outline of the lake and the cover read in hand with nature progress marches on to destiny that that may or may not be kind of fitting um today it said with these forces in mind we dedicate silver lake and then in 1930 the post bulletin talked about how uh silver lake was the realization of what nature offers and we approve upon it improve upon it so that was kind of fitting for today's topic thank you so much commissioner wasmer with that if there's nothing else I'd invite a motion motion to adjourn motion to adjourn by commissioner poyer seconded by commissioner gandhi all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed we adjourned