DeKalb County, Illinois

Minutes of the DeKalb County
Regional Planning Commission

March 27, 2003

The DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission met on March 27, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the DeKalb County Legislative Center Gathertorium, in Sycamore, IL. In attendance were Commission Members Paul Rasmussen, Bill Nicklas, Les Bellah, Frank Altmaier, Becky Morphey, Jerry Thompson, Lee Luker, Dennis Ragan, Lori Curley representing the City of Genoa, Roger Steimel representing DeKalb County, and Cheryl "Cookie" Aldis representing the Town of Cortland, staff members Paul Miller and Marcellus Anderson, and planning consultant Walt Magdziarz. Audience included Loretta Muller.

1. Roll Call -- Mr. Rasmussen noted members that were present or represented by their alternates, and noted the absence of Mr. Pardridge from Shabbona, Mr. Todd from Waterman and Mr. Allen from Sandwich.

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

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

4. Reappointment of Commission Members

Mr. Miller noted that letters had been sent out to five municipalities noting that they needed to reappoint members and alternates to the RPC whose terms were expiring this year. Letters were also sent to the existing representatives informing them that their terms were expiring and alerting them that the municipalities had been contacted. The new terms will be three years in length. Responses are to be sent to Robert Pritchard, Chair of the RPC by no later than April 8, 2003 so the appointments can be finalized at the April 16, 2003 County Board meeting. Ms. Curley of Genoa noted that there may also be a reappointment for the remainder of Mr. Rich Gentile’s term and that the City would contact Mr. Pritchard with the reappointment information. Mr. Nicklas stated that he too would be reappointed and that Sycamore would be forwarding the nomination.

5a. Status of Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO Project – Municipal Processes

Mr. Miller reported that, per the memorandum in the Commission’s packet, work is proceeding with the municipalities and the status for each community was listed. He went on to note that he and Mr. Magdziarz also continue to meet biweekly to review progress and also to work with the communities directly to keep the Unified Comprehensive Plan projectc moving forward. The goal with respect to the comprehensive plan portions is to be able to present to the RPC by the next meeting each of the communities’ consensus plans. They hope to make a similar presentation to the County Board in preparation for the phase where the individual municipal comprehensive plans are wrapped into an overall County plan.

RPC Meeting Minutes March 28, 2003

Mr. Bellah reported that Kirkland had their charette recently with a turnout of between 20 and 25 people. Mr. Miller noted that he had not put an update on what DeKalb was doing with their Growth Summit processes, but perhaps Mr. Rasmussen could bring the Commission up to date on that later in the meeting. Mr. Luker asked when Mr. Miller and Mr. Magdziarz were looking to have all the plans and documents for the project finalized. Mr. Magdziarz responded that the plan was to complete all work by the end of the year. He pointed out that certain communities were moving more quickly than others and reiterated that he and Mr. Miller work to keep the communities on task and moving forward. Mr. Luker noted that his concern related to deadlines for public hearings. He also noted that upcoming elections might cause some unforseen delays.

Mr. Thompson asked if there would be any way that the local developers and builders could be brought into the discussions. He noted that the Commission had discussed seeking their input at one time, but that he hadn’t heard anything further. He went on to say that he felt this could be very valuable input and asked if there would be a point when they could be given copies of the comprehensive plans and UDO for their responses/suggestions. Mr. Miller responded that the developers, as all members of the communities, were certainly welcome to attend any of the meetings held in the process. But he expressed some concern about whether it would be prudent to actually extend a specific invitation to the development community, as opposed to any other organization or group that might be interested. Mr. Thompson commented that perhaps, since they would be so intimately affected by the outcome, they may have suggestions that could be of mutual benefit. Mr. Nicklas noted that the DeKalb County Building Development Association was an organization that had been involved in work in Sycamore and presumed to speak for the builders, developers, real estate and banking interests in the County. His experiences with their input into Sycamore’s plan development showed they could be reasonable individuals who could work in a good, collaborative way. He suggested that perhaps they would be a logical group to share a working draft of the Commission’s work with or to invite to an upcoming meeting where the comprehensive plans are reviewed. Mr. Rasmussen supported the statement that this was a good, reasonable group to work with and noted that DeKalb had involved them in some discussions as well.

Mr. Magdziarz noted that it may be important to remember that the aim of the project is not to develop uniform standards and that each municipality will have to review the plan and decide what elements can work in their specific instances and which will not. Given this, he questioned whether showing the development community the base UDO document would have much value since the individual community versions may be quite different. Mr. Miller noted that perhaps the best place for their responses then would be the public hearings. Mr. Thompson countered that he felt that might be too late in the process for good dialogue to occur. Mr. Miller went on to say that again, the entire process is open to all individuals who wish to be involved in the process and he commented that his personal feeling was that the more input the better for all involved. Mr. Thompson noted that his concerns lie in the fact that the development community will be so greatly impacted by the outcome of the process

and again, he felt that receiving their input could only serve to improve the ultimate outcome. Mr. Rasmussen echoed Mr. Thompson’s comment about the UDO being a document driven by the existence of the development community and noted that he could see value in seeking some input. Mr. Thompson noted that at least offering them a draft UDO document and asking for written input would go a long way to lessening protests by the community that they were not allowed to be involved.

5b. Status of Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO Project - Review Comments on draft UDO Chapter 6

There being no further discussion, Mr. Miller then asked to introduce concept that he and Mr. Magdziarz had been discussing as they were approaching the end of the document review process. A common call from the municipalities was the need for something to clearly explain the various processes that must be followed for the various development actions that may be requested. In response, Mr. Miller and Mr. Magdziarz are proposing the concept of an accompanying document that would be more of a hands-on workbook to assist in the administration/implementation of the UDO. In the interests of developing such a document, he asked the Commission if they would consider refocusing their efforts during the monthly meetings away from a line-by-line review of the text and more toward the development of the workbook for implementation. He noted that Commission members could forward UDO text recommendations, suggestions or questions directly to Mr. Miller or Mr. Magdziarz at times other than the regularly scheduled meetings.

Mr. Luker noted that a workbook or guide of this kind would be extremely useful to the smaller communities without full time staff. Mr. Thompson indicated his strong agreement. Mr. Nicklas noted it would be very useful to do this in concert with the personalization of each community’s comprehensive plans. Mr. Magdziarz noted that at the community meetings, there was a very strong call for a real working tool and not an esoteric document. This would be a manual for self-administration.

Mr. Luker moved to have the Commission charge Mr. Miller and Mr. Magdziarz to begin work to develop the "how-to" handbook document, seconded by Ms. Aldis, and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Rasmussen commended Mr. Magdziarz on the very clear and comprehensible illustrations in the draft UDO. Mr. Magdziarz noted that there were still no lot development standards included in the text as they are still in process, but that they will be included in the near future. Mr. Luker asked if it would be possible to also ask for an estimate of costs on upgrading ordinances and a schedule on how to best go about that. Mr. Miller responded that he and Mr. Magdziarz will be working in a plan to work with each municipality on their implementation and ordinance changes.

Review of municipal & county planning/development activities

Mr. Steimel began by commending the RPC on the work they have been doing and noted its importance to the County’s future development. Mr. Miller added that while there has been no further developments related to the recent wind farm project, another topic had recently come up that deserved noting. A request recently came before the Planning and Regulations Committee regarding a church proposal in Sandwich Township. The proposal was denied at the committee level and will be going to the full County Board in April.

Ms. Aldis reported that IDOT will be starting work on Somonauk Road on approximately April 7^th. The process will involve the removal of underground storage tanks. A road improvement project will come later. She went on to note that they had recently passed an Impact Fee ordinance. There are currently two subdivisions sent to their Board. The first was denied and the second is pending a final decision. The subdivision pending is located on the south east side of Somonauk road, adjacent to the Cortland Mobile Home Park. The zoning and annexation are not an issue, but the project itself is. Mr. Miller added that the owner of the vacant lot immediately east of the pub has approached the County about constructing self-storage units on the property. Mr. Nicklas commented that he felt that while the impact fee discussion in Cortland contained some contentious moments, the Board showed good determination and came to a good, reasoned outcome. Ms. Aldis added that it was a rough process, but that they had tried to make the process as fair as possible and arrived at the best result possible given the challenges on both sides of the issue.

Mr. Luker noted that they heard they were off the restricted list with their sewer plant. Additionally, they have been inundated with contacts from developers, and Kennedy Homes wishes to open discussions regarding a development on land they are holding a contract on.

Mr. Nicklas reported that work continues by the Sycamore City Council on the comprehensive plan update. The town has had their charette and Image Preference Survey. He noted that the Image Preference Survey was not as useful as they had hoped due to a very one-sided constituency who attended. However, the town will be seeking to move more toward a balance and are very close to a preliminary future land use map. The City is very concerned about development in the north east quadrant and so will also soon complete a sub-area plan. By the next meeting of the RPC should have a completed land use plan. He closed by commenting that by June, they hope to have a sub-regional plan completed with the text completely shortly after that as well.

Ms. Curley noted that IDOT will not be doing the intersection of Rt. 23 and Rt. 72 until next year. However, they will be resurfacing the detour roads involved starting this year. Genoa Road is also due to be open sometime between June and August. She closed by noting that the Plan Commission is holding a review this evening on the UDO and Comprehensive Plan. She noted that they were looking for more clarity on development on the eastern portion of the City.

Mr. Nicklas noted that he wanted to mention something that Sycamore is doing that he wanted to bring to the Commission’s attention. As they have been progressing on their plan, they are attempting to look beyond just where they might be five years from now and toward identifying an ultimate end. Their current plan is showing a green belt that represents what should be the outer limits of development. This was identified via an exercise that looked at utilities, extension points, etc as well as the question of how far from the downtown center could the city go and still feel they were in Sycamore. The City currently has boundary agreements with Cortland and DeKalb, and is in process of an agreement with Genoa. He then asked if there would be some advantage to the County agreeing to identify green spaces that would prevent towns from growing together. Mr. Miller commented that issues like this are why the RPC was originally created - to coordinate the efforts of the municipalities with respect to the development of their comprehensive plans. Those comprehensive plans are then used to build the comprehensive plan for the County and lead to a series of intergovernmental agreements that would protect the County and the municipalities and provide a strong unified front in the event of legal challenges from aggressive developers. Mr. Steimel noted his strong agreement with that process. Mr. Nicklas noted that it is important to hold these discussions soon as the development potential is moving quickly and tools to help pace the growth and prevent it from running too rapidly will be very useful.

Mr. Ragan noted that Lee has received its consensus plan back and will be moving to the next step. They will be meeting with Land Vision on April 7, 2003 for assistance in that next part of the process.

Mr. Thompson noted that Malta has also received its consensus plan and the Village Board has agreed to take a detailed look at the plan. Recently, a developer from Anthony Homes proposing a 145 acre west side development, the TIF attorney and the Village Board met in a public meeting and discussed adjustment of the land devoted to park space within the development. There were also discussions of the number of apartment units. A decision on whether or not to move forward should be made by April 9^th. Mr. Rasmussen noted that he lives in an Anthony Homes development and one issue that seems to come up in their projects has to do with very rigid lot sizes and some homeowners wishing to build three car garages. The garages are allowed, but without a resulting adjustment of the lot size, the homes become much too close to each other. He noted that this may be something Malta would want to be aware of before any final determinations are made.

Mr. Bellah noted that on Monday night the Village Board will be voting on a recommendation by the Planning Commission to accept a subdivision proposal so that will be starting soon. There will be street work beginning on April 14, 2003 and will last until November with 46 trees to be cut down on Main Street. Mr. Nicklas asked if they would be doing concrete or asphalt, and Mr. Bellah responded that he understood it would be concrete, but that there were cost issues still being discussed. Also Kennedy Homes had been pursuing more space for development, but at this point they cannot allow any additional expansion without an expanded sewer system. He closed by noting that on March 3, 2003 he welcomed a new granddaughter.

Mr. Altmaier noted that demolition began on the future Casey’s site and they have been approached about a possible annexation to the west. They have had their Image Preference Survey and are looking forward to their charette.

Mr. Rasmussen noted that they had a comprehensive plan moving forward, but then a large subdivision came in that raised a number of issues and debate. While the subdivision looked on the surface to be doing good things regarding energy efficiency and overall community plan, it appeared to be allowing more children than the school systems could absorb. The discussions that ensued resulted in a Growth Summit being called by the Mayor. A great deal of interesting research has come out of the process and has illustrated some distorted perceptions by the residents. For example, despite much concern about rampant unchecked growth occurring, the growth rate has only been about 1% per year. Schools have shown a 2% rate, resulting (they believe) from larger young, ethnic families moving into the older neighborhoods, as well as certain apartments to the west of Annie Glidden being attractive to the families as well. However, the most important point related to Equalized Assessed Value. Currently DeKalb is 59% residential, 34% industrial and 7% commercial. The Mayor has recently determined that the City must move toward a 50%/50% balance of residential and industrial/commercial in order to keep tax rates stable. He noted that another concern is that Rochelle is poised to grow and the resulting jobs will create housing demands that may impact DeKalb. They also currently show about 3,000 trucks generated through Panduit and 3M. Any aggressive industrial growth could raise that number to around 7,000. Mr. Nicklas asked if DeKalb had come any closer to being able to define and articulate what they want to look like and how they see themselves. Mr. Rasmussen noted that the City was still extremely conflicted in this respect, having only recently (within the past 2 years) come to accept itself as a college town. He went on to add that in all his previous experiences, the towns he dealt with had a clear view of who they wanted to be. DeKalb, however, continues to be fragmented in its self-image. Mr. Nicklas asked how DeKalb was addressing the question, noting that he had never seen it addressed in a public venue. Mr. Rasmussen responded that the City had recently hired NIU to conduct a survey of a random group of DeKalb citizens to see if some pattern could be developed. Because this will be handled scientifically, it should shed some light on real feelings about growth and identity. Ms. Aldis commented that in their preliminary calls, she had been contacted in error because Cortland residents may have phone numbers that would appear to be DeKalb based. Mr. Rasmussen replied that he would address that with NIU. He closed by noting that the Commission might want to consider, at some point, a field trip to see a subdivision in Grey’s Lake that had taken aggressive steps to encourage farming areas within what would have been more traditional subdivisions. He praised their use of restricted covenants, communal facilities and constant attention to pulling farm and residential interests together.

Ms. Morphey reported that Somonauk has recently signed off the final plat on their small townhouse subdivision. They have also met with IDOT on Prairie Pathway issues and recommended that they consider meeting with the RPC if they will be moving into DeKalb County. She further reported that they are working with the schools on finances due to referendum outcomes in nearby districts may cause an influx into Somonauk. She closed by noting that they charette was scheduled for Saturday March 30, 2003.

Adjournment – The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be on April 24, 2003. Mr. Bellah moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Nicklas, and the motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Rasmussen
Vice-Chairman, DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission

KJR:kjr