Minutes of the DeKalb County
Regional Planning Commission

1. Roll Call -- Mr. Pritchard acknowledged the members present and noted the absence of Mr. Rasmussen from DeKalb.

2. Approval of Agenda -- Mr. Nicklas moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Ms. Aldis, and the motion passed unanimously.

3. Approval of Minutes -- Mr. Bellah moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Pardridge, and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Miller began by offering congratulations to the municipalities for their work and progress on the completion of the comprehensive plans. Six communities have fully completed their plans and most will be at completion by the end of November, 2003 (with the exception of the City of DeKalb). He went on to point out that his attached memorandum dated October 14, 2003 was written for Commission members to distribute it to their village boards and city councils to let them know, in a summary fashion, the scope of the work the RPC has overseen in the past year. He further commented that the County had scheduled a public hearing for the County Unified Comprehensive Plan and Unified Future Land Use map for October 30, 2003, with the goal of adoption of the Plan by the County Board at their December, 2003 meeting. He closed by reiterating the value of comprehensive plans to the communities dealing with development pressure. Having a unified voice between the County and its municipalities makes everyone’s position stronger. He noted that this process has also made it clear to the smaller communities that there are resources available to assist them in dealing with the pressures when they happen.

Mr. Magdziarz noted that this would likely be his last meeting with the RPC and thanked the members for their hard work and cooperation throughout the comprehensive plan process. The Commission extended its thanks and appreciation for the work of Land Vision as well as for Mr. Magdziarz’s professionalism and thoroughness during the project. Mr. Bellah commented that he had received very high praise from John Lewis, Associate Vice President at Northern Illinois University on the work of the RPC and the, again, the unprecedented cooperation that was achieved. Mr. Pritchard noted that the County was also encouraging Mr. Madgziarz and Mr. Miller to consider publication of the work done during this unprecedented endeavor. Mr. Miller noted that perhaps a presentation at the American Planning Association conference might occur as well. Ms. Aldis commented that she had recently attended a conference of Municipal Clerks and was pleased to discover how unique the comprehensive plan process and cooperation the County and municipalities have shared is.

5. Outline of Zoning Workshop

Mr. Miller began by noting that the memorandum in the packet dated October 10, 2003 contained an outline for a presentation that, with questions and discussion, could run approximately two hours. He noted that it could be tailored to be longer or shorter as needed by specific communities. Mr. Nicklas asked if this could be reduced to a ½ hour presentation for the RPC as a preview. Mr. Miller responded that it could. Following discussion on the potential content, the group reached a consensus to have this presentation on the agenda for the next meeting of the RPC in January, 2004. Ms. Aldis asked if there would be handouts provided to help everyone after they left the meeting. Mr. Miller responded that he could do that.

6. Municipal Development Actions

Ms. Morphey reported that there is a controversy currently brewing over a road issue north of the Buck Lake subdivision. Mr. Pritchard clarified that the subdivision, to meet the County fire safety standards, needs two egresses, but that the County can give them only one on Somonauk Road due to the spacing of existing streets on this important collector. The developer has therefore proposed a second street connection to Hiawatha Lane in the Buck Lake subdivision, and that is what the property owners are objecting to. He closed by noting that the County has few options as the need to minimize cuts into a major collector like Somonauk Road constitutes a critical issue.

Mr. Altmaier reported that Kingston had somewhere around a dozen people attend the public meeting for its Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. He noted that some of the members of the Village Board attended as well and were able to see the input process firsthand. The general discussion was very good, though they did have some people raise some late objections. The Plan and Map will now go to their Village Board after one more meeting to make some small corrections. He asked if any of the other municipalities had such a good turnout. Mr. Pardridge replied that the group that turned out in Shabbona had a lot of questions, but no real objections. Mr. Luker noted that in Hinckley they had 14 or 15 people attend and one person had even taken the time to read the document and pose specific questions. In general everyone agreed they had more questions about small details rather than overall concepts. Mr. Altmaier then asked if anyone had any objectors to the process. He noted that in Kingston there were a few people who objected to the advertising for the meetings and some questioned whether the charettes were useful. Mr. Pritchard noted that there were recent notification issues raised in Milan Township regarding a Special Use permit. Despite letters sent and signs posted, some second tier neighbors claimed that they should have received specific notice. Mr. Luker commented that he was fortunate that Hinckley had both their Trustees and their Plan Commission involved at various times in the process. This provided a broad base of involvement and exposure.

Mr. Nicklas noted that Sycamore had approved its Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan back in June. Then, in early August a developer came to the city and proposed to build out a 600 acre area called for on the Plan. He noted that this raised some anxiety in the community given the size and scope of the proposal. This was exacerbated by some not-very-thorough early press reports which implied that 1,100 homes for this acreage would be built almost immediately. The developer had actually agreed to pace the growth, not starting for approximately eight or nine years. The City Council then took approximately three months to review some of the work the Plan Commission had already completed the prior winter. This review produced some new regulations and approaches and the Plan was reaffirmed formally. The Developer who made the presentation then indicated that he wished to come before the Plan Commission in November to determine the status of his request. Mr. Nicklas noted that they too had received some objections to the process, commenting that despite the fact they held several informal meetings, charette’s and hearings, there were still some who claimed not to have heard what was going on and asking for the process to start over. Some of these individuals have formed a group and are working toward getting an advisory referendum on growth and annexation on the April ballot. He closed by noting that the City had also adopted a sliding scale of permit limits available per year based on the size of developments. For developments of 50 homes or less there would be no limit, 100 to 200 would have to wait a year, 200 to 300 would wait two years and so on up to a six year wait for developments of 500 homes or more.

Mr. Pardridge reported that the work on Route 30 is nearly complete in Shabbona. They anticipate driveways and sidewalks shortly and were able to get quite a bit of work done due to the good weather. He noted that the community appears to also be seeing the beginnings of "casino" pricing. A farm on the north edge of town was recently put on the market for $18,500 per acre and another followed at $15,000 per acre. He noted that if the properties had been placed on the market two years ago, they would not have asked half that amount. Mr. Luker commented that Hinckley is about at that price level and Mr. Nicklas noted that at some areas in Sycamore, prices of $35,000 to $40,000 per acre are not unheard of. He went on to report that Shabbona held its meeting on the Comprehensive Plan, but did not have many people in attendance and nothing was controversial.

Mr. Todd reported that the Waterman Village Board had approved the Comprehensive Plan at their meeting a week ago. The Village is still working with one developer who has submitted a concept plan and they are currently negotiating on water, sewer and road details. They had also received a call from a second developer who hopes to have a concept plan to the Village before Christmas, or shortly after the first of the year.

Mr. Allen reported that Sandwich is currently seeding the detention pond next to the Fair grounds and that has been a much needed addition. He also noted that a hotel and convention center is now proposed on the east end of town. This project was approved about a week ago and will contain 50+ rooms and a convention center capable of accommodating 300 to 500 people. He closed by noting that they have been receiving developer contacts almost daily, and land on Route 34 is currently running at $60,000+ for commercial development.

Ms. Aldis reported that Cortland adopted their interim Future Land Use Map at their recent meeting. The public hearing was cancelled however, due to a publication error. She went on to note that their road work is progressing and they hope to see everything completed by November 15^th or penalties will be assessed to the construction firms. At this point, asphalt is not yet down and Rockford Blacktop will be handling that part of the work. She closed by noting that the Robinson Farm area behind the Cortland Mobile Home Park has been approved for a subdivision.

Mr. Thompson deferred to Mr. Pritchard to report on Malta happenings, as he had a more recent conversation with the mayor. Mr. Pritchard noted that there are two issues currently in play. The first has to do with four to five developers looking at sites in the Malta area. However, their Council wishes to slow growth and look at only the first one or two with an eye to evaluating impact fees and effect on the local schools. One developer’s proposal could add 1,000 students to the school system. Mr. Pritchard commented that he had been told that the southeast corner of town has suddenly become interesting to developers, but that storm water issues may arise. He noted that Rochelle has entered into talks with Malta (as Malta is in the Rochelle watershed) to discuss a regional approach to drainage. He referred the Village to Mr. Miller for conversations about the County’s effort to coordinate regional watershed management. He closed by noting that the Village is looking for creative multi-family housing near Kishwaukee College and also at commercial development on Route 38. Mr. Miller added that the Village is also aware of the need for retain some sort of right-of-way for expansion of South Malta Road.

Mr. Luker commented that the Village of Hinckley had been contacted by a developer by the name of Ed Zale who has come to them with a proposal for 500 to 1,000 homes. The interesting thing about his proposal is that it calls for homes in an area not shown on the village’s comprehensive plan. However, the property is peripherally contiguous to the village and they will likely proceed with the plan review. He further noted that they are preparing a standardized annexation agreement and beginning to study impact fees. He commented that if anyone had a standardized agreement they would want to share, he would be happy to receive it. He then commented that he had been looking at impact fees and had reviewed a list from Sugar Grove, noting the itemization of things such as fire, warning sirens, etc. He closed by noting that the Hinckley Library Board had contacted him to ask to be a part of any impact fee discussions held for the village.

Mr. Pritchard asked if any of the other municipalities had been approached about developments outside their specified comp plans. Mr. Todd responded that they had been approached by the same individual who contacted Hinckley. Mr. Nicklas commented that when they are approached, they point to the plan limits as established. Mr. Luker commented that this developer had proposed to develop 500 acres, giving 260 back to the village in return for an agreement to relax regulations (specifically those related to density). He closed by noting that the developer would be giving the 260 acres without any roads etc. However, the developer’s rationale is that by allowing him to purchase the full 500 acres, but place the population that would have gone on the 500 acres onto 240 acres, he would be staying with the letter of the law for the comprehensive plan.

Mr. Miller cautioned that while that might be a reasonable argument, if Hinckley does not call for growth in the area the developer is proposing, it should adopt a response that this is not something the Village is interested in.

Mr. Nicklas commented that they have noted that older maps may show growth in areas that are no longer designated for growth on the current maps. This could have a radical impact on land value for certain individuals and the city can foresee some challenges coming to how the plan boundaries were established.

Mr. Thompson returned to the comment on impact fees opened earlier in the discussion. He noted that in a recent local news story, it was suggested that impact fees should be set at $15,000 per house. He cautioned that setting numbers at that level would likely price a large segment of home buyers out of the market.

Mr. Nicklas commented that Illinois has one of the most rigorous limitations on the setting of impact fees. It essentially states that fees must be directly attributable to actual costs. Therefore, a community who set their fee frivolously would likely not survive a legal challenge. Mr. Miller commented that even at the $15,000 level, many developers would not balk at the cost if the market is good for the property. Mr. Thompson asked if it would be true that setting a fee for one developer sets it for all future developer as well. Mr. Nicklas commented that separate negotiations can be legally problematic. Generally it is preferable to set a general impact fee for all new development and a developer could then negotiate to give additional dollars at their discretion. Mr. Miller commented that such an approach should likely be a part of an annexation agreement.

Mr. Ragan reported that Lee passed its Comprehensive Plan at the last Village Board meeting and is now working to bring the ordinances and regulations in line. He noted that work on the new post office continues and that the community is not upset at the recent cancellation of the FPL wind tower project. Mr. Miller noted that the work expended on the process was worthwhile in that it had given the County valuable insights for evaluating such projects in the future.

Mr. Bellah reported that Kirkland had recently taken part in the dedication of the new Potawatomi Forest Preserve just outside the city. He noted that he was very pleased with the project and pleased to see representatives of the Prairie Band Potawatomi tribe there as well. He noted that they hoped to have the road work through Kirkland completed by November 26, 2003. He had been contacted by a developer from Orland Park about land on the south side of Rt. 72 and indicated that they would not even open discussions unless the developer was willing to discuss water towers, new schools, sewer plants etc. Additionally he commented that Bob Fleury’s golf school is doing well on developing a golf course with 80 homes and a clubhouse. He also noted that Kennedy Homes are moving rapidly, but the tax rates are still extremely problematic for longer term residents.

Mr. Pritchard commented that he strongly urged the municipalities to wrap up their work on the comprehensive plans and the ordinance revisions now that developers are here en masse. He cautioned that a community that does not have ordinances and regulations that support the vision created by the comprehensive plans will not achieve that vision. He also asked the municipalities to stay attentive to transportation issues as the plans move to completion.

He went on to report that he had an opportunity to speak to a representative of the Potawatomi tribe during the Forest Preserve dedication. He noted that it appeared the tribe was getting impatient waiting for the State to talk to them and move forward on establishing the gaming license they need. He felt the tribe might be as close as 30 to 60 days from filing suit Federally to resolve their issues.

Mr. Pritchard then asked the Commission members their feelings on the County moving quickly to hold public hearings on the casino issue to give the public time to be educated about and to speak on their concerns about the project. Mr. Nicklas commented that despite the fact that such primarily educational meetings would require a great deal of staff preparation and time, they could have great value. He noted again that the media may not present the most balanced and knowledgeable presentation of the facts of the issue. He closed by noting that the early discussions should probably stay informal until more specific details are known.

Mr. Pritchard commented that the only stumbling point to opening broad public discussions would be if any of the parties wished to keep certain aspects of the negotiations confidential. This could raise a level of distrust in the public that could be difficult to overcome. If items are kept confidential, even the possibility of broad discussions could disrupt progress.

Ms. Aldis asked what court system the tribe primarily operates from with respect to the gaming license. Mr. Pritchard replied that they could get a Class 2 (bingo) license Federally, but to get a Class 3 license (allowing more profitable forms of gambling) the State must be in agreement. Mr. Nicklas added that since this is all based on legislative action, many types of alternative agreements could be crafted by the legislative delegations resulting in any number of options, including locating the casino elsewhere in a land swap arrangement.

Mr. Thompson commented that there are several bits of information floating through the community and it was unfortunate that there was a tendency in the general public to doubt the veracity of all public officials. He noted that this distrust would not be resolved whether hearings were held or not. He commented that the only hope would be to hold as much discussion as openly as possible, to dispel the impressions that the public had no opportunity to speak to their concerns.

Following additional discussion, it was generally agreed that getting as much accurate information into the hands of the public would have the additional advantage of widely broadcasting to the State and the tribe the needs the community will have if this project moves forward.

Mr. Pritchard then moved to the topic of the proposed County Jail referendum. He noted that the Board moved to proceed to a referendum and continue the planning. He asked the RPC members for their assistance in identifying opportunities for the Sheriff or others to speak to the issue. He added that it would be helpful to identify service groups/organizations or villages boards or commissions that would have speaking opportunities and asked the Commission members to refer any contact names or numbers to his office for follow-up.

He commented that the referendum would entail a ½ percent increase in County sales tax to finance the expansion. If the referendum is approved, the hope would be to complete actual construction by 2006. He further commented that this sales tax approach allows the County to reach across a broad market of an estimated 115,000 individuals rather than relying solely on the 45,000 property tax payers. The current proposal carries both a capitol element and an operating cost element, so the tax will not sunset. Mr. Thompson commented that he had concerns about the tax continuing past the point of the actual building construction. Mr. Pritchard provided an explanation of sales tax as a supplementary source of income for the County as opposed to property taxes. Mr. Luker asked if this were part of a proposal to move public safety off the property tax rolls and solely onto sales tax. Mr. Pritchard responded that it was not.

Mr. Nicklas commented that it is important to keep the focus on the alternatives to agreeing to the ½ percent increase. The County could be placed in the position of dealing with unavoidable growth without the resources to handle it. He noted that the realities need to be addressed clearly as an educational process prior to the referendum and supported Sheriff Scott and others speaking to the communities.

7. Adjournment – The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be on January 22, 2004. Mr. Bellah moved to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Morphey, and the motion carried unanimously.