DeKalb County, Illinois
	Minutes of the DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission September 26, 2002

The DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission met on September 26, 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, Ben Suppleland, Frank Altmaier, Becky Morphey, Don Pardridge, Rich Gentile, Ruben Allen, Jerry Thompson, and Mark Todd, and staff members Paul Miller, Marcellus Anderson and Bill Lorence. Also in attendance was John Brady, representing Sycamore. Absent were Commission Members Mike Schafer, Les Bellah, Paul Rasmussen and Lee Luker. Audience included Mike Heiderscheidt from the Village of Waterman.

1. Roll Call -- Mr. Pritchard noted all members were present except representatives of the Villages of Lee, Hinckley, Kirkland, and the City of DeKalb.

2. Approval of Agenda -- Mr. Thompson moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Morphey. Mr. Pritchard noted one addition to the agenda, to discuss the Commission meeting dates for November and December. The amended agenda passed unanimously.

3. Approval of Minutes -- Mr. Walker moved to approve the minutes of the August 22, 2002 meeting of the Regional Planning Commission, seconded by Mr. Pardridge. Two minor corrections were noted. The motion to approve the amended minutes passed unanimously.

4. Final Commission Charter -- Mr. Pritchard noted that staff had made the corrections to the draft Regional Planning Commission Charter that had been requested at the Commission’s August meeting. No additional comments regarding the Charter were made.

5. Final Impact Fee Report -- Mr. Pritchard noted that staff had added the additional information on impact fees that had been requested at the August meeting of the Commission.

Mr. Miller stated that a new matter related to impact fees had arisen since the last discussion. He passed out copies of a letter from local attorney David Witheft, written on behalf of the DeKalb County Builders Association concerning a recent court case out of the Village of Newark. The case dealt with what impact fees could be levied by non-home rule communities. The 2nd Appellant Court has held that non-home rule communities may only require developers to donate land, or cash in lieu of land, for school grounds, based on the number of school age children generated by a new subdivision. Other impact fees, or use of cash for other than acquisition of land, is not permitted. This is an important decision, as it states that non-home rule communities cannot require impact fees for construction of new schools or school additions. Mr. Miller also passed out copies of an article written by Chicago attorney Ron Cope concerning the same case. The article point out that nothing in the Court’s decision precluded a non-home rule community from including impact fees as part of an annexation agreement. Since an annexation agreement is essentially a contract between the two entities, the municipality and the developer, if they can agree on impact fees, such fees can be included. Mr. Miller stated that the gist of this case is that it is important that non-home rule

communities that want to collect impact fees do so as part of an annexation agreement, and that such communities not annex property to be developed unless and until such impact fees have been negotiated, agreed upon, and included in the annexation agreement.

Mr. Thompson handed out copies of a summary report from the Heartland Institute, which maintains that impact fees have unforeseen consequences of driving up the cost of housing, making it more difficult for low- or moderately-priced housing to be built, and asserting that impact fees often do not serve the purpose for which they are intended.

Following discussion on the Impact Fee Report, it was agreed that the Report should be sent to all municipalities in the County for their use.

6. Status of Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO Project -- Mr. Miller reported that "kick-off" meetings have now been scheduled in each of the ten municipalities that are seeking updates to their comprehensive plans as part of the Unified Comprehensive Plan project. A list of the scheduled meetings was distributed. Mr. Miller explained that kick-off meetings had already occurred in Malta and Waterman. At the meetings, Mr. Miller and Land Vision, Inc. explain the comprehensive plan process to the municipality, and explain what the municipality has to do as it’s part. He stated that particular emphasis is placed upon the fact that the comprehensive plans that will be prepared will be unique to each community and will be able to be stand-alone documents, even though they will be blended into the Unified Comprehensive Plan. Emphasis is also placed on the fact that the plan is intended to be created by each community, based on its desires and needs, not the County’s or the consultant’s. Mr. Miller stated that some of the things required from each community include a space where the Image Preference Survey and "charrette" meetings can occur, someone from the community to act as tour guide for Land Vision to get familiar with the community, a list of key interview persons, and copies of city maps, comprehensive plans, and zoning regulations.

Mr. Thompson said that the kick-off meeting in Malta went well, and that the project was well received. He stated that the Village had identified the location, and will soon set the dates for the meetings.

Mrs. Morphey asked how the negotiations on the final contract with Land Vision had gone. Mr. Miller explained that staff had discussed the $50,000 increase with Land Vision in terms of what additional tasks were actually required, and then stated that staff felt the project was worth $175,000. Land Vision agreed, and that was the accepted price.

Mr. Todd stated that the kick-off meeting in Waterman had gone well, and that the Village has already selected dates for the Image Preference Survey and charrette meetings.

Mr. Altmaier asked if there is anything that communities can have prepared in advance of the kick-off meetings. Mr. Miller said copies of the city map, zoning ordinance and comprehensive plans would be helpful, but that other matters need to be discussed before they can be set.

Mr. Pritchard asked about the status of the UDO portion of the project. Mr. Miller stated that, while the comprehensive plans would mostly take place in the municipalities, with information coming back to the Commission, the UDO would mostly take place at the Commission, with information going back to the municipalities. Staff would be setting a date soon to initiate the UDO portion of the project.

7. Possible future discussion topics -- Mr. Pritchard asked what topics or issues Commission members would be interested in undertaking in the coming months.

Mr. Gentile suggested the topic of floodplain, stormwater management and drainage district regulations. What are the laws and regulations used in the various communities, and can communities adopt tougher laws? Mr. Gentile also asked whether or not preserving future right-of-way for road expansions should be on the list. Mr. Miller stated that transportation will be an element of the Comprehensive Plans, and that transportation is an issue for the new Metropolitan Planning Organization as well. Mr. Prichard stated that Northern Illinois University is very interested in transportation planning as well, as a major road, Anne Glidden, runs through the center of campus.

Mr. Thompson suggested it might be valuable to hear from the development community as to what problems it faces in dealing with municipalities. Are there difficulties that can be resolved to the public’s benefit?

Mr. Pardridge suggested that it would also be appropriate to listen to the experiences of communities that have had problems with developers and development, especially communities outside of DeKalb. Mr. Pritchard agreed that it would be helpful to hear from some of the communities to the east, communities that have experienced significant growth, in terms of what they would do differently. Mr. Altmaier agreed with the idea. Mr. Thompson stated that it would be good to talk soon with those communities that have experienced significant growth.

Mr. Altmaier suggested it might be helpful to gather information on economic development, and what communities can do to encourage new businesses. A presentation by Roger Hopkins, Director of the DeKalb County Economic Development Corporation was suggested.

Mr. Miller suggested that it is a good idea to have experts speak to the Commission, but only if the Commission intends afterward to take some action on the subject matter. He stated that the Commission should not get into the practice of simply listening to presentations. Mr. Thompson said that speakers should be asked in advance the questions the Commission is interested in. Mr. Pritchard agreed.

Mr. Pardridge stated that any topics or information that could help the small communities deal with growth and advice them of their options would be helpful. Mr. Miller stated that part of the reason for the Regional Planning Commission is the opportunity to share staff resources; the County has professional planners who can be available to the smaller communities if they want. Mr. Gentile stated that he would be happy to talk to small communities about the administration of a UDO.

Mr. Todd suggested the proposed Prairie Parkway as a potential future discussion item; what are the possible impacts on DeKalb County and the communities within it? He stated that the railport in Rochelle is another adjacent development that could affect traffic on the roads through the County. Mr. Pardridge added that the commuter rail station in Elburn is yet another outside development that can affect the County.

Mr. Pritchard agreed that a regional approach to stormwater management is an important issue. Mr. Lorence suggested that the conversation should include the National Pollution Elimination System, which is now required and would deal with discharges into the nations waterways.

Following further discussion, it was agreed that staff should initiate contact with communities that have experienced rapid growth to possibly talk with the Commission about their experiences.

8. Review of pending development projects -- Mr. Gentile stated that his office has recently conducted a survey of the communities in the County to see if any had a policy of granting a waiver in utility fees during the Summer when swimming pools are filled. He stated that this is a common complaint. His research, which he distributed to the Commission, indicated that none of the communities had such a policy.

Mr. Brady talked about the Heron Creek development, now occurring on both sides of Peace Road, west of Route 23. On the north side will be 130 townhome lots, as well as a site for a new fire station and municipal well, and on the south will be residential estate lots. There soon will also be activity on 80 acres north of Peace Road, south of North Grove Road, on the east side of Rte. 23. Discussion was held regarding the design of retention ponds and problems with geese.

Mr. Pardridge said that there is still some interest being expressed about a possible residential development near Shabbona. Shabbona Health Care will be expanding, and the Rte. 30 project is going forward. It will be expensive for the Village to pay for the storm sewer upgrades, but the State will be paving Indian and Preserve Roads as a detour.

Mr. Lorence made a presentation to the Commission regarding a proposed Mutual Aid Agreement. The idea is to formalize the current practice of public works and road departments assisting one another with equipment in times of need. The State has set standard rates for reimbursing use of equipment and vehicles. Mr. Lorence requested a contact person from each community that could be sent a draft of the Agreement.

8.a. Meeting dates for November and December -- Mr. Pritchard noted that the normal meeting date of the fourth Thursday would conflict with Thanksgiving and the day after Christmas. After discussion it was agreed that there would be one meeting on December 5, 2002, to take the place of the regular November and December meetings.

The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be October 24, 2002. Mr. Pardridge moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Suppleland, and the motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Robert Pritchard
Chairman, DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission

PRM:prm