|
|
DeKalb County, Illinois |
Minutes of the
|
The
Planning and Regulations Committee and the Public Infrastructure &
Development Committee of the DeKalb County Board held a joint meeting on January
23, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administration Building, Conference
Room East. In attendance were
Committee members Robert Hutcheson, Jr., Marlene Allen, James Barr, Veronica
Casella, Thomas Smith, Howard Lyle, Cliff Simonson, Roger Steimel, John Wilson,
Tige Hoffman, Gary McLaughlin, Dennis Sands and County staff Paul Miller,
Marcellus Anderson, Gary Hanson. Audience members included Diane Strand, Doug
Dashner, Greg Millburg, Roger Hopkins, Eileen Dubin, Robert Pritchard, Bill
Lorence and Debbie King.
Mr.
Hutcheson, Chairman of the Planning and Regulations Committee, called the
meeting to order. He
noted that a majority of both Committees were present.
Discussion
Item: DeKalb County response to the
proposed Prairie Parkway
Mr.
Hutcheson introduced County Board Chairman Robert Pritchard.
Mr.
Pritchard began by thanking everyone for attending the joint meeting.
He stated that the Prairie Parkway is an important issue to our region. The State Department is looking for a transportation
corridor, an interstate highway to link I-88 on the north with I-80 on the
south. He stated that the County
must look at the political reality of whether it can it be built, and the
environmental impact for DeKalb County. IDOT
originally made three alignment proposals.
A centerline needs to be preserved to prevent future development from
precluding the ability to construct a beltway.
If this is not done now, a corridor may not be an option in Kane County
in the future. This centerline does
not commit IDOT to the project, but retains the option of the beltway being
constructed.
Mr. Pritchard also
stated that we need to look to the anticipated future and set aside money and
the right-of-way to have options for roads.
Mr. Pritchard has been trying to come out front and encourage IDOT to
look at our plan of sound growth, where the people are, and the transportation
needs and try to develop options to keep the road as far east as possible.
IDOT has met with
officials in Kane and Kendall and in DeKalb when considering the three corridor
options. He stated that DeKalb County should decide what some of the
perimeters would be. The County
would like to keep the corridor as far to the east as possible, to protect
farmland and open spaces, and to assure that there is limited access to the
corridor. Mr. Pritchard stated that
how this corridor develops is up to the local governments, and whether they have
the backbone to stand up for and enforce their land use plans.
DeKalb has enforced its land use plan in the past.
An example of this is Rt.88. It
is a 4-lane road to move people and commerce and is not a development corridor.
Mr. Pritchard asked
the board members if they were willing to make a statement to IDOT whether they
were willing to preserve the centerline for the corridor for the future.
The time line for the actual construction of the beltway is a minimum of
eight to ten years.
Mr. Hutcheson asked
Paul Miller to come to the front and identify the proposed corridor on a map in
order to orient the Committees. Mr.
Miller explained the preferred corridor would start in Grundy County at I-80
wind its way north through Kendall County, cross the Fox River, then go north
between Yorkville and Plano, into Kane County just east of Big Rock, and finally
north to I-88. This is the only
corridor that IDOT is talking about recording right now.
Mr. Miller stated
that there has been for some years talk about extending a beltway on up to I-90,
but at this point IDOT is not proposing to record a centerline for that leg of
the highway. What IDOT would do if
it records a centerline is protect that centerline.
They would do this by putting restrictions on the private property owners
that are within the corridor. If the property owners wanted to put up a new pole
building or a house addition they would need to go through IDOT first, then IDOT
would have the option of buying the property owners out.
The goal of IDOT is protecting the corridor.
Opponents to this
idea are saying that IDOT has not even done a needs-assessment.
The question they ask is, why record the centerline now?
If you record a centerline it is a done deal and this thing is going to
happen. The needs assessment is
about six years away. Why not wait
to write the needs assessment then record the centerline? Mr. Miller stated that the centerline has to be recorded now
because in six years the proposed centerline may not be available.
In six years it is likely that the area now proposed for the corridor
would have experienced so much development that it would be cost-prohibitive to
build the highway. Because we are not going to stop using cars, a highway like
this will probably be needed. If it
can’t go in the proposed area in Kane County, it would probably be pushed into
DeKalb County. As it is, one of the
proposals for going north with a beltway between I-88 and I-90 is to direct
traffic west along I-88 into DeKalb County, and then north on a new beltway to
I-90 through DeKalb County, immediately east of Sycamore and Genoa.
Mr. Miller stated
that what the two Committees are being asked to do is take a position and make a
recommendation to the County Board. The
County Board needs a voice in this decision, because the Prairie Parkway will
have a big impact on the County.
A discussion among
the members of the two Committees regarding the proposed beltway, and what
DeKalb County’s response should be, followed.
Clifford Simonson stated that he is strongly opposed to the corridor. He explained that the beltway is a proposal that considers traffic only, without looking at the bigger issues and problems that result from the urban sprawl that has taken place in the Chicago area. Of particular concern is the decreasing water supply. He cited several reports of water problems in the Chicago area and throughout the country. He noted that lack of drinking water is a problem throughout the world. Mr. Simonson explained that the pattern of growth around Chicago, of which the proposed beltway is a part, cannot be sustained, and the County should not be in favor of it.
Dennis Sands stated
that he is concerned with the fact that Kane and Kendall Counties have voiced
opposition to the beltway. He said
that DeKalb County should not come out in favor of the Prairie Parkway if they
are opposed, as we have to work with them on issues. Whatever decision the
County makes should bear this in mind.
Veronica Casella
asked who would make the decision regarding how many access points would be
permitted on the new highway? Mr.
Pritchard explained that IDOT would have the decision.
Ms. Casella’s also stated it bothers her that Kane and Kendall have not
agreed with the corridor. There may
come a time when we want them to agree with us.
If we do go against them now it may be a problem later.
Mr.
Roger Steimel stated even with limited access, the corridor would encourage
development. He is also concerned
about the erosion of property-owner rights for those in the path of the
corridor.
William
Lorence, County Engineer, explained that only an initial evaluation of the
potential impacts to the environment has been made for the proposed corridor.
A full environmental impact statement would be required. He noted that the corridor, being 400 feet wide and 33 miles
long, would cover approximately 1,500 acres, not all of which would be farmland.
Mr.
John Wilson suggested that the County should not take a formal stance on the
proposed parkway until it is clearer what Kane and Kendall Counties want to do.
IDOT is taking public comments until February 10th.
It was suggested that the Committees could request that the County Board
Chairman forward a letter to IDOT in advance of the February 10th deadline that
summarizes the comments and concerns of the Committees.
Dennis
Sands moved to table formal action on the Prairie Parkway issue, but request the
County Board Chairman to forward a letter to IDOT summarizing the concerns of
the Committees prior to February 10th. Roger
Steimel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the except of Mr.
Simonson, who voted “no.”
ADJOURNMENT
Mr.
Hutcheson moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Smith, and the motion carried
unanimously.
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED
______________________________
________________________________
Robert Hutcheson
John Wilson
Planning and Regulations Committee Chairman
Public Infrastructure and
Development Committee Chairman
| Home | Return
to top | A-Z Index | Return
to minutes |