Denying the appeal that requests an overturn of the approved Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to the park, including the dam, lake, and bicycle trail.

At the July 28, 2026 meeting, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) approved a requested Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for major alterations to Silver Lake Park. The HPC agenda packet, including Community Development's recommendation to approve, is attached here. It provides details of the approved project, which includes altering portions of the lake, including the area of the dam, and extending the trail in that same vicinity.

An appeal has been submitted requesting that Council overturn the Certificate of Appropriateness, approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The applicants of the appeal are "Friends of Silver Lake," David Morrill and Greg Munson, both of whom own properties adjacent to the park. As stated in their application, the basis of their appeal is: 

1. The procedure for the HPC approval stated in the UDC was not followed. The HPC members did not receive the public's comments during their meeting as required prior to making their decision.  
2. The limited information provided to the HPC and the restriction on public comment resulted in a decision that did not fully consider the effect of the work on the eligibility of Silver Lake for the National Register of Historic Places. 

The Unified Development Code (UDC) indicates: 

• The basis for an appeal may be any alleged error of an official or public body in making a decision, including failure to make a decision within the prescribed time limit. A decision means any decision, order, requirement, or interpretation which the official or body has the power or duty to make under this UDC. (Section 60.500.030Fb.2), and
• The basis for the appeal including, as applicable, the state or federal law, or specific provisions of this UDC or the Rochester Code of Ordinances that was violated or not applied. (Section 60.500.030FC.2.c)

The applicant's first stated point/basis of appeal alleges an error in the process of issuing the COA, that the procedure as outlined in the UDC was not followed. This is not true. Sections of the UDC that provide the requirements of the process are attached. Table 500.01-1 is a summary of procedures. On page 281 of the UDC, the table indicates that the HPC is the review and decision-making body for a COA for major alterations. Footnote (3) refers to an additional note about the process on page 283. The note indicates that a "Public Meeting rather than Public Hearing is required". Section 60.500.050B of the UDC provides more details of the process the HPC must follow in considering a request for COA for major alterations. Subsection 3b indicates that, in "the provisions of Section 60.500.030E.3.b, Decisions to be Made by Designated Authority, shall also apply, except that a public meeting rather than a public hearing shall be required..." Section 60.500.030E.3.b affirms that the process outlined in Table 500.01-1 is used. At the July 28, 2026 HPC meeting, an open public comment opportunity was provided. A slide projected in the meeting room at that time indicated the open comment period is the only time during that meeting when public comments were accepted. No public hearings were scheduled for that meeting. This is consistent with the procedures outlined in the UDC.

The applicant's second stated point/basis for appeal indicates that the decision to approve the COA did not fully consider the effect of the proposed project on the eligibility of Silver Lake for designation on the National Register of Historic Places. Eligibility of a property for National Register listing has no relevancy or relationship with a locally issued COA. A COA is approval to alter a property that has been designated under local law, ours governed in UDC Section 60.200.040C. The National Register of Historic Places is a federal program overseen by the National Park Service (within the Department of the Interior). It was authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The City of Rochester has no official role in determining eligibility or designation of properties on the National Register. 

With the alteration of the dam requiring an Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) permit, the project is considered a "federal undertaking". These projects, federally regulated under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, require Federal Agencies (in this case the ACE) to communicate with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). This State/Federal level review does consider National Register eligibility. This review was completed earlier this year, and the SHPO determined "...the proposed undertaking will result in no adverse effect on historic properties" and "...will not affect this property's ability to convey its historic significance." Both reviews consider how a project will impact an historic property but involve different agencies and levels of government and are derived from and governed by different laws. 

The HPC followed the recommendation made by the Community Development team and approved the COA based on the findings of fact cited in the agenda packet at their July 28, 2026, meeting. The HPC followed the procedures stated in the UDC and allowed for public comment during the open comment period, as no public hearing is required in the review of a COA. The Community Development team recommends the City Council affirm the decision of the HPC and allow the COA to stand.

Section 60.500.030.F.2, Subsection b of the UDC, allows "an affected party aggrieved by a decision" to file an appeal of a decision made under the UDC, and Subsection c.2.b further clarifies that adjacent landowners qualify. Table 500.01-1, Section 60.500.050B, and Section 60.500.030E in the UDC govern the process for HPC’s review and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). 

• March 27, 2019 - Polco Survey launched and Open House at Silver Lake Station on potential park, dam, and lake projects by the Rochester Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments.
• August 19, 2019, Council Meeting - Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with WHKS for the completion of the Concept Design of Silver Lake pedestrian improvements, Silver Lake Dam modification, and sediment removal - Project No. J4889 approved.
• November 2, 2019, Council Meeting - 2020 Legislative Priorities, which included Silver Lake Dam Modifications and Improvements - Project No. J7889 approved.
• October 24, 2020 - November 25, 2020 - Virtual Open House and Polco Survey for draft Concept Design.
• November 30, 2020, Study Session - Concept Design for Silver Lake pedestrian improvements, Silver Lake Dam modification, and sediment removal - Project No. J4889.
• December 14, 2020, Council Meeting - Concept Design for Silver Lake pedestrian improvements, Silver Lake Dam modification, and sediment removal - Project No. J4889 approved.
• January 4, 2021, Council Meeting - 2021 Legislative Priorities, which included Silver Lake Dam Modifications and Improvements - Project No. J7889 approved.
• April 5, 2021, Council Meeting - Negative Declaration Decision Environmental Assessment Worksheet Project No. J4889 approved.
• October 4, 2021, Council Meeting - 2022 Legislative Priorities, which included Silver Lake Dam Modifications and Improvements - Project No. J7889 approved.
• April 6, 2022 - Public meeting held at the DSIC building.
• September 27, 2022 - HPC Public Hearing and recommendation for historic landmark designation.
• June 5, 2023 - Council public hearing and designation of Silver Lake Park (north portion) as a historic landmark, and a Public Informational meeting held at RCTC Heinz Center.
• June 10, 2024 - Public Informational meeting held virtually.
• June 17, 2024 - Council approved moving forward with 60% of the project design.

Silver Lake Sediment Removal and Revitalization is included in the 2024-2029 Flood Control Capital Improvement Program.