Minutes of the DeKalb County
Regional Planning Commission

Mr. Miller began by reporting that work on the Unified Comprehensive Plan project had been continuing diligently since the last report. Ms. Aldis noted that Cortland has begun work on updating their comprehensive plan, but is not requesting assistance from the County consultants at this time. Mr. Miller noted that the current situation, with all communities in the County in the process of a concurrent update/review of their plans, is an unprecedented accomplishment. Additional items of note included the fact that Lee has tentatively scheduled a consensus plan review for March 17, 2003. The current overall plan is to be able to present to the Commission as a whole, all of the individual consensus plans and an overall County consensus plan, by the April, 2003 meeting. Mr. Gentile noted that it was likely that his community would not be ready to formally adopt their consensus plan in time for the April meeting. Mr. Miller said that was expected, and what staff was hoping the show the Commission was where communities are by the April meeting. Mr. Pritchard commented that in his recent meeting with people from the Prairie Pathway project, that one of the ways they will be determining need for transportation corridors is to review comprehensive plans, his point being that the finalization of these plans will have importance on a number of fronts.

Mr. Magdziarz noted that the Village of Waterman has a scheduled public hearing for their land use plan. They are eager to get this completed. Land Vision has recommended that to speed the process, they consider adopting the general map in the interim and then approve details later. He noted that this is not considered the optimum way to handle this, but does assist communities that are under pressure to make development decisions while they are updating their comprehensive plans. It appears that Waterman will be doing this.

Mr. Magdziarz opened by handing out a flow chart on the review process contained in the draft Unified Development Ordinance. The flow chart is for the Commission’s information as they review the chapters to follow.

He noted that he and Mr. Miller have been discussing how best to handle revisions made during this meeting-by-meeting review process. He asked the Commission what their thoughts were on how best to receive back the changes that came out of the discussions, as a separate document or in a lined-out edit of the text. Mr. Pardridge noted that while he would recommend just receiving back just the changes, but would also like to see them highlighted. Mr. Magdziarz noted that the best way to address both needs would be to use a strike-out format that would highlight the changes, but show the original text as well. He asked then how often the Commission would want to see the changes, immediately following the meeting or as a full document at the end of the process. Mr. Pardridge asked how close they were to the end of the document. Mr. Magdziarz noted that while chapter six is the final chapter, it is rather large and will be reviewed in sections. Mr. Pardridge asked that there be one revision given, but Ms. Aldis commented that it might make it difficult to review future content without seeing what had been altered previously. Mr. Pardridge agreed that could be a difficulty. Mr. Miller asked if the Commission really wanted to have a strike-out version where the edited text would still be visible, as it could be difficult to read. Mr. Pardridge stated that he would prefer just the changes for clarity. Mr. Pritchard added that he would like to see just those pages with changes provided, rather than a full new document. There was a consensus agreement of the group that would be the preference.

Mr. Magdziarz then noted that there had been a question from Chapter Four about dates and time lines for decisions to be made. Principally, the issue revolved around the consequences of missed deadlines and his conversations indicated that there was a general feeling that a missed deadline inferred automatic approval. He recommended that text be added wherever there is a specified time frame to say the time frame would stand "unless there is mutual agreement to extend the time frame". Mr. Pritchard asked what would happen if an applicant did not agree to extend the time frame. Mr. Miller replied that one response would be to indicate to the applicant that they could either to agree to the extension or face denial. Mr. Magdziarz added that the typical situation might be a lack of information, generally the responsibility of the applicant to decide. Mr. Gentile asked what would be the situation if the delay was related to a lack of staff or a meeting quorum. He asked if there was any way to remove these time frames. Mr. Magdziarz responded that one approach might just be to leave this up to each community to adopt time frames or not. Mr. Miller added that another option might be to leave the time frames in place, but add language that states "unless extended by the Village Board".

Mr. Thompson commented that he felt it was important to have some sort of deadlines to keep the processes from being strung out interminably. The potential costs to the villages and the applicants could be extremely high. He closed by noting that the option to have extension by mutual agreement sounded reasonable. Mr. Magdziarz noted that it is indeed advantageous to have some sort of set deadlines, but that the best way to achieve flexibility would be to allow for extensions for proper reasons. Mr. Altmaier asked if there were any way to make the deadlines applicable only to the applicant and leave the municipality free of the constraints. Mr. Miller responded that applicants have a right to due process, that applicants have a right to expect a response in a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Pritchard asked if there would be an advantage to passing the costs of an applicant to the utilization of outside services to handle the processing. Mr. Gentile responded that they do use that approach, but that using outside services adds time as well. He added that his request would be to have the least amount of rigidity in the process as possible to allow the municipalities as much flexibility as possible. Discussion followed as to whether a 60 day or a 90 day standard would be preferable in general. It was noted that some of the time lines noted in the document went as low as 15 days. It was the consensus of the Commission was to have the longest time possible while still allowing the applicants appropriate due process. The revised draft will reflect longer time frames.

Mr. Magdziarz began the review of Chapter Five, noting that it contains the establishment of zoning districts within the UDO. Some of the proposed districts in the document include an Agricultural District that would appear to be very much in sync with what communities are calling for during the comprehensive plan process. There is also a Countryside Residential District included. Mr. Magdziarz noted that since the creation of the document, Land Vision has determined that as a general policy the municipalities may not want to encourage well and septic systems in the County. The sentence encouraging the well and septic systems will be stricken from the definition of Countryside Residential. Large lot development should be on public water and sewer. The document also contains references to residential differentiations of low, medium and high density. Some communities have expressed a desire to have a mix, but some may not want to adopt all three distinctions.

Commercial development is divided into three different classes: neighborhood, central business and civic and highway commercial. Mr. Miller noted that only the central business and civic is specifically described as to where it is. He went on to comment that most successful, vibrant cities have a downtown central business district and do not encourage business on the fringes which will draw away residents and visitors from that area. Mr. Magdziarz noted that many of the communities they have been meeting with have expressed strong interest in protecting their central business districts. He went on to note that highway commercial districts primarily are composed of the auto related businesses designed to attract those traveling through, not really connected to neighborhoods. Most of the municipalities in the County currently contain one or two different industrial use districts. The current document recommends that be reduced to just one. This recommendation follows a review and determination that there are not really substantive differences between the divisions for those municipalities that have two or more types of uses. Mr. Magdziarz went on to note that the document also includes recommended performance standards to be certain that the contents of the district will be suitable and compatible to the community and will not create negative effects.

Other districts include a Heritage Preservation Overlay District which may contain significant or substantial geographical areas with historical significance to the community. Municipalities containing these types of areas are advised to have specific guidelines on these. Mr. Thompson questioned whether or not these types of districts can become too restrictive to owners. Mr. Magdziarz noted that much depends on the construction of the district guidelines. He commented that it was possible to develop standards to maintain the character of such districts without specifically designating maintenance, etc. Mr. Thompson noted that it would be critical to make sure that property owners in such areas are very much involved in the creation of a historical district.

Mr. Magdziarz and Mr. Miller noted that in the adoption process for any of these zoning ordinances, it is critical to have public meetings and notices as well as notifying specific property owners whose properties will be effected by changing zoning. Mr. Pardridge asked if all of the Historical District was fully an option for communities to adopt or not. Mr. Magdziarz replied that was correct. Mr. Pritchard asked what the phrase "overlay" meant in this context. Mr. Magdziarz responded that it was meant to convey that the district overlays another existing zoning district. Mr. Miller added that an overlay district generally controls if there is a conflict between the overlay and the underlying zoning.

The final designation in the document would be a Flood Plain/Conservation Overlay District. Mr. Magdziarz noted that this is intended to refer to areas that have been designated as flood plains or areas that the communities have determined have environmental issues. Mr. Miller noted that the areas can be recreational as well.

Mr. Magdziarz noted that the article on Conditions of Use is optional although he recommended that it may be useful to define performance standards for all the uses that the zoning districts create. Mr. Altmaier asked what can be done for situations that do not specifically apply. Mr. Miller noted that such situations can either be handled by grand- fathering or by applying a variation process. He added that the expectation is that if you adopt these regulations, you expect them to be enforced and any differences must be handled through the variation process. Mr. Altmaier asked about outdoor merchandising. Mr. Magdziarz noted that such options are things communities must think about and specifically approve. If it is not specifically approved, it is prohibited. Mr. Altmaier asked if it becomes a problem if there is a lot of variation between communities and how they, for instance, handle outdoor merchandising. He wondered if this harmed the UDO principles. Mr. Miller noted that on that level of detail, it really wouldn’t be harmful. The critical issues, like the zoning districts, are more important to the concept of uniform development. Mr. Magdziarz added that it was important for districts to make sure there is an internal connection between what they want individually and what codes they elect to adopt and apply.

Ms. Aldis asked if item #13 on page 5-4 related to civic purposes was actually intentional. Mr. Magdziarz noted that this item should have been deleted and would be in future corrections. He then drew the Commission’s attention to section 5.3, the permitted use table. He noted that this was intended to function as a template for each community to decide what are permitted uses and what are special uses. Mr. Miller went on to note that these are standardized and again, intended as a suggested format for each community to use to review possible issues they may need to face.

Mr. Gentile asked about Agricultural uses on page one of section 5.9. He asked whether a hardware store wanting to sell some sod and trees would be permitted under this provision that allows sod and trees on lawns in the central business district. Mr. Magdziarz responded that this would be something the community would have to specifically address as something they would either want, or not want in their district. Mr. Miller added that the critical issue was primary use. If a hardware store wanted to sell some sod and trees as a seasonal usage, they are still a hardware store. Mr. Magdziarz then noted that some communities will have language that says that if a use is not specifically permitted, it is prohibited and then will go on to allow their zoning administrators some discretion in determining what is and is not a permitted use. Mr. Brady noted that in Sycamore, such questions of "close" types of uses goes to their Planning Commission for review. This takes the burden off of having one individual responsible and does not unduly increase the time to response.

Mr. Altmaier asked if some of the categories can be merged into more catch-all categories. Mr. Brady noted that many he could see would fall currently under one his community uses, Professional Offices. Mr. Magdziarz noted that one issue to consider would be the effect of technology and changes it may cause in certain industries. It is possible a permitted usage today may be altered by technology and need to be reviewed as to whether it is still appropriate.

Mr. Magdziarz noted that the final thing to be reviewed in this section would be the performance standards. The text provided is intended to be rather exhaustive and many of the standards have been around since the creation of the model zoning ordinance. Some communities have decided to adopt more exacting standards. He pointed out that one area that deserves particular attention relates to the fire protection districts and hazardous substances standards. He recommended that these be crafted closely with each communities fire departments. Mr. Thompson asked if the standards in the document are within generally accepted limits or whether they would be considered highly restrictive. Mr. Miller responded that they were intended to be fairly standard and intended to assist communities in anticipating and responding to issues with a set of standards in place. Mr. Pardridge asked about grandfathering. Mr. Magdziarz noted that there is a great deal of latitude for communities to determine what uses are grandfathered. He went on to note that municipalities may elect to also set date certain time limits for certain approved uses to identify when they must cease to exist. He recommended that anyone considering this, discuss the ramifications with their municipal attorneys. Mr. Pardridge asked about section 5-18 wherein Planned Developments seems to always be identified as a special use. Mr. Miller clarified that this is the case and that Planned Developments could occur across zoning districts if the communities determined the development would afford them some advantage. Mr. Pritchard asked if anyone had anything further to discuss on the use table. There being no further questions, he asked Mr. Magdziarz to review the content to be reviewed at the next meeting.

Mr. Magdziarz reminded the Commission that Chapter Six will be the largest section of the document and so is being handled in small portions. The portion to be reviewed for the next meeting represents about 1/3 of the overall section. He commented that he and Mr. Miller would be working to simplify the regulations in this section as much as possible. He also noted that he would be working to develop a graphic format to describe how to develop on a lot. Finally, there will be a great deal in this section that would commonly be seen in subdivision ordinances. These will not contain a great deal of specifics as this will contain material that will need the input of city engineers and coordinators of public improvements. Mr. Thompson asked if there would be suggested specifications required for towns that may need some assistance. Mr. Magdziarz noted that there are many variations within these specifications that become discretionary to the village engineers and they will be trying to keep the document as respectful of the scope of their judgements as possible. Mr. Pritchard asked if the section could contain some sort of "things to think about" if not outright suggestions. Mr. Lorence noted from the audience that many communities use the language "specifications for roads and bridges as adopted by the Department of Transportation shall apply unless modified by regulation".

Mr. Altmaier opened by asking if any communities still need to do Image Preference Surveys. Mr. Magdziarz noted that Kirkland and Somonauk still need to do theirs. Mr. Altmaier noted that when Kingston had their IPS, there was some confusion about how those who attended where supposed to respond. They weren’t sure if there were to select images they actually wanted in their specific towns or whether they were just images that they liked. Mr. Magdziarz commented that this is addressed in the opening instructions, but they will work on clarifying that further. He went on to add that this is why it is important to discuss the scores afterward with people who took the surveys, to clarify what their responses actually meant.

Mr. Pardridge noted that his community had a good turnout, though there was some general suspicions about the intent. As to their continuing highway project, some delays seem to be occurring due to the fact that many of the Department of Transportation employees who had been working with this retired at the first of the year and the new employees are not as up to speed. IDOT seems anxious to do the project, but these changes have slowed things down.

Mr. Thompson noted that the Malta Village Planning Commission moved to the Village Board a preliminary conditional plan for a development on the west side containing about 400 homes. He noted that Mr. Miller had been working with the Village to assist them in this process. Mr. Miller added that this is a highly significant project for the Village in that it has the potential to double the Village’s population.

Mr. Ragan noted that Lee had a turnout for their charrette that represented about 4% of the Village overall.

Mr. Pritchard reported that the County Board had approved the wind farm and now the real work will begin to assure that the conditions approved are followed and the standards are met. He noted that there is also work in progress to discuss a moratorium on additional development until the impact of the project on the County can be assessed. Mr. Altmaier asked if it was true that FPL had to get all of these towers up before the end of the year to receive their subsidies. Mr. Miller replied that this appeared to be true unless there was an extension granted. However, he added that it has been FPL’s declared intention to meet this schedule regardless of the subsidy issue. Questions arose as to whether or not FPL had obtained it’s final approvals from COM ED. Mr. Miller responded that they were still negotiating as far as the County was aware.

6. Adjournment – The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be on March 27, 2003. Mr. Pritchard will be absent and Mr. Rasmussen will be the acting Chair. Mr. Brady moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Pardridge, and the motion carried.