DeKalb County, Illinois

Minutes of the DeKalb County
Regional Planning Commission

October 24, 2002

The DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission met on October 24, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administration Building, Conference Room East, in Sycamore, IL. In attendance were Commission Members Robert Pritchard, Frank Altmaier, Becky Morphey, Don Pardridge, Ruben Allen, Paul Rasmussen, Lee Luker, and Mark Todd, and staff member Marcellus Anderson and consultant Walt Magdziarz. Also in attendance were John Brady, representing Sycamore, Lori Curley representing Genoa and Mike Becker representing Kirkland. Absent were Commission Members Mike Schafer, Les Bellah, Jerry Thompson, Rich Gentile and Bill Nicklas. Audience included Mike Heiderscheidt from the Village of Waterman, Pat McCormick from the Village of Shabbona, and Eileen Dubin, member of the DeKalb County Board.

1. Roll Call -- Mr. Pritchard noted all members were present except representatives of the Villages of Lee, Malta and Cortland.

2. Approval of Agenda -- Mr. Todd moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Pardridge. The agenda passed unanimously.

3. Approval of Minutes -- Mr. Rasmussen moved to approve the minutes of the September 26, 2002 meeting of the Regional Planning Commission, seconded by Mr. Pardridge. The motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously.

Mr. Pritchard reported that one of the things that the Commission wanted to begin looking at is a Unified Development Ordinance and to look at a process whereby each meeting the Commission would spend some time reviewing a section of that document. Then, over a period of several months, the Commission would work through the document and develop the vision for the document as well as for a Unified Comprehensive Plan. Having provided this background statement, Mr. Pritchard then turned the meeting over to Walt Magdziarz, representative from Land Vision, Inc. who is the consultant for the project.

Mr. Magdziarz began by distributing copies of a Regional Plan Commission Work Program which provides a target time line. He asked the Commission to reach a consensus on the process for progression of the Unified Development Ordinance. Following that, he discussed the first section of the document, the General Provisions noting that this section shouldn’t produce much discussion as it was predominantly composed of basic information such as enabling legislation, perfunctory regulations and boiler plate language. The future sections will contain much more substantive material. One place will be with the specific zoning districts, generating considerable discussion on the creation of the districts and purpose and also getting into the permitted use tables and questions as to which are special or temporary along with the bulk regulations (set backs, height regulations, etc). Once beyond that, there are other things that could be time consuming such as parking, signs, landscaping regulations that communities may want to deal with as well as home-based businesses. Public Improvement standards will also be addressed in the process. Mr.Magdziarz also noted that the dates given on the time line are purely an estimate at this point until the process begins in earnest. Some sections may take more time, some less. He also noted that the section on specific zoning districts will likely generate the most discussion as well as the most potential for diverse approaches between communities. If the process as described to this point is acceptable to the committee, the information for review at the November/December meeting will be distributed. The representatives can then take the information back to their respective boards and communities for input prior to the next Regional Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Pritchard called for any general comments or questions from the Commission now that they have reviewed the time line and topics. Mr. Brady asked if the ending date in October is hard and fast and if the Commission may find itself having to add several additional meetings just to finish on time. Mr. Magdziarz reminded the Commission that this was just a proposed time line and that there was room for adjustment. However, Mr. Pritchard noted that there was a 15 month contract with the consultant and the time line as proposed came right up to the edges of that. Therefore, there could be some need for additional meetings, depending on the progress of the Commission in the review. Mr. Altmaier asked why some months were not shown on the time line. Mr., Magdziarz replied that some sections were given multiple months to complete because of their scope or complexity. Mr. Pritchard noted that the Commission would have to see how things are moving along and adjust meeting content as needed. Mr. Luker asked if we would be reviewing the General provisions in November, as they had just been distributed tonight and the representatives had not had an opportunity to take them back to their boards and communities. Mr. Magdziarz indicated that again, the general provisions and definitions sections were fairly straightforward so could likely be folded in with the review of the Decision Making, Administration and Enforcement section at the November meeting. Ms. Curley asked if they would be addressing Ponds, as Genoa had some issues with them as they became more popular and had no language currently to deal with them. Mr. Magdziarz indicated that nothing had been specifically addressed yet - but could certainly be addressed in the future as issues come up. He added that this was a good time to point out the flexibility in the document with respect to each communities individual needs. Many of the existing ordinances grew from model ordinances in the 1970's, then went through several years of additions, subtractions and revisions as changes in case law and other circumstances required. This document is meant to be more of a County model than the outgrowth from a Federal base. What the project group hopes to provide is a suggested format and a set of regulations that each municipality can evaluate and determine which components are best suited to their individual needs. Yet, the document will be constructed in such a way as to make it ready-to-use and very user friendly. The clarity of language is extremely important especially in those communities that do not have staff to interpret and administer the ordinances. A code that is clear, understandable and easily administered will make things much easier for the communities. There will be much reliance by the Commission on community input as to what is clear and what is not clear. He closed the discussion on section one by noting that he encouraged the Commission to be liberal with any edits, changes, recommendations or questions and to direct those to either himself or to Paul Miller. Alternatively, Commission members can bring their recommendations to the next meeting.

Mr. Madgziarz distributed the General Provisions and definitions document. He noted that the yellow pages attached to the white section are definitions to be reviewed and used throughout the process. He pointed out that there are elements in the document that warrant specific attention. First is the recommendation that the section begin with some background information on the development of the ordinance as well as some information and background on the community as a whole. The document should also allow someone just starting out to easily access the basic ordinance information they are seeking. This is illustrated in Page 1-2, para. 1.1.4. All references in the document now are intentionally generic to ease adaptation to each individual community. All city or village references should be taken to refer to both. Municipalities are just municipalities. Page 1-6 begins to delve into land use and Zoning. This is the ground rules section of the document and explains the illustrations used as aid to understanding the concepts. References are also made to Zoning Maps and are very important to the document. This is not meant to be a document that can stand alone without a Zoning Map. Official Maps are also referenced. An Official Map is to the subdivision regulations what a zoning map is to the zoning ordinance. This map shows only public improvement, future parks, future school and park sites and the like. Also in 1.2.9, Annexed Land - explains the default zoning process that a municipality may apply if it goes through an annexation process. This default is to an agricultural zoning, but communities may elect to select other defaults. There are also sections on the interpretation of Zoning Maps in cases where the map may not be clear with respect to boundaries. Other issues, such as Disclosure by Trustee of a Land Trust (requires a land trust to disclose who the beneficiaries of the land trust are in the even t of an application for re-zoning) and Successor Rule provisions. This last item allows for continuance of determinations even if the office, agency or body has been renamed, merged or reconfigured. This says that rules apply regardless of name or responsibility changes of departments. The Private Agreements section clarifies that the requirements placed in the Unified Development Ordinance are not intended to abrogate easements, covenants or private agreements. If a private agreement is more restrictive than the Unified Development Ordinance - the private agreement stands. If the Unified Development Ordinance is more restrictive, then the Unified Development Ordinance would apply. Section 1.3 addresses the tense in which the code is written to unify the tense, voice or gender across the document to aid in the standardization of the document. The Commission is asked at this point to review the definitions, but with the understanding that these will be items that will not be reviewed in whole at once but will come into play throughout the review of the document.

Mr. Pritchard asked if the discussion could go back and preface the context within which this document exists versus each individual communities’ freedom to deviate and not necessarily comply with all of the recommended provisions. Mr. Madgziarz noted that in many cases the Commission will find that existing language is already quite identical across existing community documents. As he had said earlier, this section contains the most basic and boiler plate language of the document and therefore have the least deviation between communities. Some communities may have slight differences in the definitions sections. As we move on, sections dealing with expectations of the review process, responsibilities for administering the document will have much more room for differing approaches. In the zoning process, for example, some communities may treat this as a quasi-judicial process while others may treat the hearing officer as advisory to the board.

Mr. Pardridge asked for clarification that all of this is within the realm of new developments. Mr. Madgziarz responded that this is the development of a model ordinance to address new and existing. Mr. Luker asked if Mr. Madgziarz was doing a comprehensive review of the zoning ordinances he was receiving from each participating community to bring their ordinance in line with the unified document or whether that service could be purchased by the communities individually. Mr. Madgziarz indicated that this was one of the assignments of the public policy review portion of the Comprehensive Plan and noted that while he would point out to a community any area that might be woefully behind the times, it wasn’t his intent to dictate what set of standards or regulations would need to be adopted. They would instead provide consultation on what might be considered. He noted again that the intent is to create a document that a community could choose to adopt in part or in whole. Mr. Luker noted that his concern was for communities that have no dedicated staff and have had to rely on their best efforts to create the documents. Having some professional input would be very valuable in feeling assured that they had a good ordinance. Mr. Pardridge noted that the Building Inspectors would need to clearly understand what was expected. Mr. Luker noted that while that was true, in his case they had just had the building inspector rewrite their ordinance and the resulting document gave an excessive amount of control to the building inspector, so again, an independent review would be welcome. Mr. Altmaier noted that many building inspectors are shared between communities and aren’t really familiar with or cognizant of the individual codes, but rather rely on general rules of thumb. Mr. Luker noted that for many individual communities the need for this all to be clear and easily administrated will be vital. Mr. Madgziarz observed that in his conversation that issue of process was easily the most pressing need identified. Mr. Altmaier strongly supported that statement and indicated that any guidelines would be useful. Mr. Madgziarz indicated that he would request Mr. Miller to provide copies of the process portion of the document to the board before the next meeting.

Mr. Pritchard asked what Mr. Madgziarz was requesting be done at the next RPC meeting. Mr. Madgziarz reiterated that he would like the Commission members to review the sections handed out this evening and to make any edits, corrections, questions or concerns as needed. Mr. Pritchard asked if there were any additional questions from the Board. Mr. Altmaier asked if the County will ultimately be adopting this model document. Mr. Pritchard replied that this was a document intended for use by everyone. The Regional Planning Commission will make a final recommendation to close the review process and then all communities and the County can decide what they would want to adopt. The plan is to have the Unified Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance completed at the same time.

Mr. Pritchard recognized a question from the audience at this time. Eileen Dubin asked what role Mr. Madgziarz was playing in developing the plan and how he was working with each individual community. Mr. Madgziarx responded that the development of the Unified Comprehensive Plan was at a stage where they were working with each community, through meetings, Image Preference Surveys and the like. Then, as each community forged its document, those pieces would be brought to the structure of the Unified Plan through the Commission. Ms. Dubin asked when the communities then communicate with each other. Mr. Madgziarz replied that much of the dialogue across communities will happen in this body, the Regional Planning Commission. At this point, Mr. Pritchard called for the distribution of the next document section for review prior to November. This would be the Decision-Making, Administration and Enforcement Responsibilities section. Mr. Luker asked if it would be possible to have future sections copied on both sides to minimize the size of the document to handle. Mr. Madgziarz noted that he had opted not to do that to make it easier to copy the document for distribution as well as to make it easier to make edits without bleed-through. Mr. Madgziarz closed the discussion by reinforcing that as the project progresses, each community participating has complete autonomy in determining administration and enforcement responsibilities. Each may be different or even materially different. As to non-conformities, there is no intention to dictate or force any community a methodology for elimination of those non-conformities.

Mr. Pritchard then asked if the Commission thought it would be helpful to have a binder for the materials. There was general agreement and Mr. Pritchard indicated that arrangements would be made to have those available by the next meeting. He then asked if there was anything further to be said on the status of the plan. Mr. Madgziarz replied that there is an update document in the packet and there has also been an Image Preference Survey scheduled for Malta, Genoa and Hinckley and Sandwich. The last kick off meetings will be next Monday with Shabbona and Kingston. Had Community Tours with all communities that have completed the Charrettes and Image Preference Surveys. Most communities have also provided the lists of key stake-holders to be interviewed. Some communities still need some dates determined. Mr. Madgziara noted that the Project Group had not fully comprehended the impact of the holidays on the schedules they had initially planned. More of the Charrettes and the Image surveys are being scheduled after the first of the year than had been anticipated and that may cause some delays in the overall schedule. Mr. Pritchard noted that many interviews could, however, be done before the holidays and Mr. Magdziarz agreed.

Mr. Pritchard then asked for any final comments from the Commission members whose communties had their meetings or surveys.

Mr. Luker noted that he felt there was a sense that his community was a bit overwhelmed by the scope of the project. That he feared it would be hard to get significant or continued participation and hoped that would not be a common response. Mr. Todd responded that his communities experience could not have been farther from that. He reported that the Waterman community was extremely responsive and enthusiastic and did not seem at all overwhelmed by the project. The Waterman Planning Commission has taken an extremely active role and the townspeople have turned out strongly for the meetings and activities. Ms. Curley noted that she had concern about getting community input and Board input. Mr. Todd responded felt that as the word spreads throughout the communities there would be even greater participation. Mr. Pritchard asked how Waterman had informed the citizens of the meeting.

Mr. Heiderscheidt from the audience replied that there had been a mailing and then a reminder mailing, as well as posters, portable signs and announcements made in local churches. Those combined approaches produced what Mr. Todd indicated was a significant turnout for Waterman. Mr. Pritchard thanked Mr. Madgziarz for his report.

5. Review of pending development projects – Mr. Luker reported construction has been started on a new City Hall in Hinckley that they hope to have completed by the Spring of 2003. He added that, as always, they have developers seeking land in the area. They get calls asking what is available and what development can be done. Hinckley sewer plant is still on restricted status, so there is a great deal of wariness at this point.

Ms. Curley reported that they hope to have their new Police Chief hired by the end of November. She also reports that Genoa has received its first A-3 Bond rating from Moody’s. Street repairs are continuing and the Unit 4 of Oak Creek (180 homes) is going in and, as the annexation agreement expires next year, the City will be seeking some changes.

Mr. Pardridge noted that the Rt. 30 project is continuing. He believes that Shabbona will be going ahead with an Independent Living nursing home facility soon. There is also interest in a subdivision and there will be representatives coming to their meeting Monday evening to discuss.

Mr. Allen reports that their Saviors Lutheran church voted recently to relocate and make room for a new Walgreen’s. Primus has begun work on 231 new homes in the northwest section of the area near the fairgrounds. Paul Barich has been well received judging by phone calls received this month and was attending an ICSC convention this weekend in Chicago. At this point, Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Rasmussen would join in the report and elaborate on the convention and the organization. Mr. Rasmussen reported that this is a convention where shopping mall and retail developers can speak directly to communities about future development opportunities in their areas. He noted that Kane County had a very large booth and gave every municipality in the county a space if they were willing to pay an incidental booth fee. Mr. Rasmussen went on to ask the Chair if this would be something DeKalb County may want to consider in the future. That conventions of this type are held in Las Vegas and Chicago and the Chicago costs are fairly reasonable. He believed a full booth would cost somewhere in the area of $1500 for members of the organization. Mr. Allen returned to local information by reporting that the new sewer plant had begun training employees and was about 60% complete with a target date for full completion of June 2003. Also have just dedicated the Valley West Hospital expansion with additional plans to renovate the older hospital as well.

Mr. Brady reported that Sycamore will have their Image Preference survey scheduled for November 11^th at the library. There is also continued interest in the north section of the area for residential development. Last planning commission had a workshop/discussion with a developer about 150 to 175 homes. Seems as if a week cannot go by without someone asking about farmland availability in the area.

Mr. Todd indicated that while he had nothing to report on development, he had spent the day in Springfield. He and the Village President made a report to the Department of Natural Resources for an OSLAND

Grant to fund, in part, the purchase of Lion’s Park. They hope that their request will have merit, but were told that currently the DNR has 28 million in requests and only 14 million to distribute on the grant. He closed by noting that they are still waiting on radium testing on their new well from the EPA.

Mr. Altmaier noted that Kingston will have a referendum next month for their first new full time policeman. This has resulted from an increase in population over the past few years. The difficulty is that this is a two part referendum and there has been an exhaustive educational effort to the voters to point out that both parts of the referendum must pass to gain the position. The current full time police chief and part-time officers find themselves overworked, so the need for the position is great at this time. Also noted that they will be having the Kingston kick-off meeting for the Unified Comprehensive Plan next Monday.

Mr. Rasmussen reported that there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the proposed Savannah Green subdivision. Consisting of 881 single-family homes, the project would be built on grid streets with highly energy efficient materials and building processes. However, the local labor unions have joined with the "no growth" contingent in mounting a very aggressive campaign to keep the development from being built. An interesting issue has arisen from the controversy. It appears that one of the Plan Commission members has been actively campaigning against the project thereby creating what could be taken to be an ethical violation by the member. Mr. Rasmussen went on to note that he had a very enlightening discussion with Paul Farmer of the American Planning Association. The Association advises that at the time a Commission’s by-laws are adopted, that the members adopt a formal Code of Ethics. Then along with the code adoption should come a requirement for a minimum of 6 hours of training, inclusive of a section on ethics. There should also be a provision for 2 hours of followup annually. The general rule of thumb is that a Commission member should not take a public stance on an issue that will be brought before them, implying there has been pre-determination of the outcome before the full case can be heard. There are also prohibitions about ex parte conversation between Commission members and individuals with interest in the issue. The Commission should view its work as a judge reviewing facts and rendering a decision on whether the issue conforms to established policies. Mr. Rasmussen indicated that they would be pursuing the ethical issues as this situation goes on. He closed his thoughts on this by noting that if the SavannahGreen project is rejected by DeKalb, that Madison Wisconsin is actively seeking to take it on. A final comment related to the upcoming Image Preference Survey to be done in DeKalb. Mr. Rasmussen noted that DeKalb is a very highly fragmented community when it comes to it’s identity. In light of that, the City will have this Image discussion with a group of identified "movers and shakers" rather than holding a general public forum. He felt this might yield a more productive outcome. Mr. Pritchard asked if Mr. Rasmussen would report again on the Ethics training question as he continues his research. Mr. Rasmussen replied that there is excellent information available on the American Planning Association website (WWW.PLANNING.ORG). The AICP also has a strong code regarding the ethical conduct of Plan Commission members.

Ms. Morphey reported that Somonauk is finishing up with their sanitary sewer project. Still waiting for a permit from the railroad and hope to have that soon. They are also working on restorations and two small subdivisions of about 32 town homes each.

Mr. Becker reports that Kirkland has committed to the Rt. 72 restoration project with the State. They are also seeking to bond their TIF district to fund the village’s portion of the costs. As for residential issues, Kennedy homes is on phase two of the Country Meadows project on the south side of town (70 homes). Bob Rood has started annexations discussions for a 105 home area near the village.

Mr. Pritchard closed with a report that there were a couple of County issues the Commission should be aware of. The first has to do with a Special Use permit requested for a Wind Farm in an area south of 30 up to about the toll road covering about 4 miles in the County in a north/south direction. He noted that this project, like the project Mr. Rasmussen reported on, has generated some disagreement between those who wish to see development for renewable energy resources and those who don’t wish to see development in general. County Board also had an issue related to a small 11 home subdivision south of Cortland on an existing 30 acre parcel. This was a test of our Planned Development Residential (PDR) zoning district. The PDR was originally intended to be used next to our existing communities, but this parcel (a recovered gravel pit) is out in an Agricultural area where the residents were concerned about how this would meld with existing farm operations. Many developers were watching the case with interest. In the end the County Board upheld the findings of the Hearing Officer and rejected the request. There may be further litigation on the case, but again the County sees this as upholding the plan developed with the input of the various involved communities. The final item to report is one that involves primarily Sycamore, DeKalb and Cortland and to some degree the County. This relates to the creation of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Federal Census numbers note that because we have exceeded 50,000 people in a compact area, a new layer of government must be formed that deals with Federal funded projects and transportation (public or mass transit). This organization is currently forming, and many feel that the Regional Planning Commission should have a voice on this to help look at long range planning and transportation needs and organization. Mr. Pritchard encouraged everyone to stay abreast of this issue and to ask questions as the process continues. Mr. Rasmussen commented that since this issue arose, the University was becoming much more willing to involve the City of DeKalb in discussions about the development of the lands around the western edge of NIU.

Mr. Pritchard asked if there were any additional comments or questions from the group. Hearing none, he reminded the committee to review their Unified Development Plan documents for discussion before the next meeting.

The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be December 5, 2002. Mr. Rasmussen moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr.Altmaier, and the motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Pritchard
Chairman, DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission

KJR/kjr