|
|
DeKalb County, Illinois |
Minutes of the DeKalb County
|
|
The DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission met on April 24, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administration Building, Conference Room East, in Sycamore, IL. In attendance were Commission Members Robert Pritchard, Paul Rasmussen, Bill Nicklas, Frank Altmaier, Becky Morphey, Lee Luker, Mark Todd, Ruben Allen, Don Pardridge, Dennis Ragan, Lori Curley representing the City of Genoa, and Cheryl "Cookie" Aldis representing the Town of Cortland, staff members Paul Miller and Marcellus Anderson, and planning consultant Walt Magdziarz. Audience included Mahender Vasandani of Land Vision, Inc. 1. Roll Call -- Mr. Pritchard noted members that were present or represented by their alternates, and noted the absence of Mr.Bellah from Kirkland and Mr. Thompson from Malta. 2. Approval of Agenda -- Ms. Aldis moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Nicklas, and the motion passed unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes -- Mr. Nicklas moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Pardridge, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Status of Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO Project Mr. Miller reported that, per the monthly memorandum in the Commission’s packet, work is proceeding with the municipalities regarding the updates to community comprehensive plans. The status for each community was briefly reviewed. All of the communities have completed the Image Preference Survey and charette phases of the project and most have completed consensus plans. Kirkland will be having a consensus plan meeting on May 5, 2003. Waterman is the farthest ahead on plan completion and will likely become a boiler plate for the others that follow. He noted that this evening’s meeting will consist of a review of the plans to date. He also reviewed the original purpose of the project, to get all of the municipalities and the County moving in a similar direction with respect to growth and development by combining the various comprehensive plans into a single document. Mr. Miller commented that he had been discussing this process with the evening’s guest, Mahender Vasandani from Land Vision. Mr. Vasandani has an extensive amount of experience in DuPage County and other large venues. Mr. Miller commented that his conversations with Mr. Vasandani confirmed that this project is unprecedented in Illinois, as far as the scope and content across the municipalities. 4a. Presentation/review of municipal "consensus plans"
Mr. Madgziarz opened the review of the land use plans by noting that these were works in progress. The major intent of the report was to bring the Commission members up to date on the individual municipalities land use plans as they have been developed to date. He noted that he would be reviewing each community individually and following the text of the report provided to each Commission member. The overview should provide the Commission with a clearer look at where and how much growth is expected by the individual communities. He noted that many of the communities have several similar desires and concerns. He began with Genoa and, after reviewing the consensus plan for that municipality, he called the Commission’s attention to the overall County map and the areas where communities would likely be discussing boundary and land use agreements to preserve green space. Mr. Luker noted that the map seemed to indicate no new communities in the County itself, only in the municipalities. Mr. Miller responded that was true, the County was not supportive of growth occurring away from the current municipalities. Mr. Miller noted that if the growth currently shown on the County’s existing land use plan were all realized, it would double the County’s population. Mr. Pritchard asked if Land Vision was also planning transportation for the communities to accommodate the new growth, including identifying major corridors and collectors. Mr. Miller responded that staff has consulted with County Engineer Bill Lorence throughout the process. Mr. Madgziarz proceeded to review the consensus plans for Hinckley, Kingston and Kirkland, Lee, Malta, Sandwich, Shabbona and Somonauk. Mr. Pritchard asked if Lake Holiday would be upgrading its sanitary and sewer. Mr. Allen noted that he had suggested that Sandwich, Somonauk and Lake Holiday go together on the issues and try to find a solution all of them can benefit from. Mr. Pritchard then asked if anyone was familiar with any new technologies for sewage treatment that would not require bodies of water to be close by. Mr. Madgziarz noted that there are systems that do not discharge into bodies of water, which have actually been proven and in use for more than two decades. These systems are quite attractive because no point- discharge permits are required from the EPA. Again, he noted this is readily available technology and in addition, he believed Cortland was looking into one of them. Mr. Pardridge asked how much water they required. Mr. Madgziarz noted that very little was needed as the technology mostly depended on natural aerobic processes to break down waste. This also makes the technology relatively odorless and he commented that some developments that have used this technology have built homes right up to the lagoons without incident. Mr. Madgziarz then proceeded to the reports on Sycamore and Waterman. He again reviewed many of the similarities between the issues identified by the communities that the Commission might want to note. Items included no large concentrations of multi-family housing, train stations, no cul-de-sacs, mixed use neighborhoods and the preference for grid system layouts. He noted that all of the communities have provided logical connections at their edges to support and tie in future growth. He went on to comment that this is very different than the paths taken in Kane and McHenry Counties. In those venues, development is segregated with few connections between neighborhoods. Mr. Miller raised the question of population projections based on the plans projected. Mr. Vasandani replied that Land Vision will address this to some extent. However, he pointed out that the trends of growth can change quite rapidly with economic conditions. Therefore, it is very difficult to predict when the build-outs might occur. These plans note very aggressive growth, some showing ten times the current population, while the averages are five to six. He closed by noting that even if the worst-case scenario occurred and all the growth predicted occurred, there would still be quite a significant amount of agricultural land left in the County. Mr. Miller noted that the strength of a project like this lies in the unified front that the County and the communities can present to deep-pocketed developers who may come into the County looking to create new communities. This type of approach allows the County to stand before any legal proceeding and show that this is not simply an arbitrary decision of the County, but represents an endorsement by all the communities involved. It provides a strongly defensible position showing the County clearly allowing for growth, but in specified and agreed to areas.
Mr. Rasmussen noted that in his opinion, there will be three factors driving the growth in the future. The first would be that people follow jobs. Rochelle will be creating quite a few jobs with their inter-modal center opening. This will likely drive a need for affordable and attainable housing. Another factor is the Park 88 development. A third factor he felt would have an impact is the upcoming commuter train station scheduled to open in Elburn. Mr. Madgziarz responded that indeed, housing demands are a function of employment. He went on to comment that the RTA master plan for improvements in the six counties contains a circumferential commuter route traveling from Waukegan to Elgin-Aurora and finally Gary, Indiana. This is now a viable portion of a billion dollar capitol improvement program. He closed by noting that when this intersection rail line is completed, it will represent a dramatic change to where job destination dynamics occur.
Mr. Nicklas commented that in Sycamore and likely Genoa as well, there is less of a situation of people following jobs, but rather escaping from the areas where their jobs are located (such as St. Charles, Geneva and Rockford). Taking on a 35 to 40 minute commute does not seem as unattractive to these people any longer. This, coupled with attractive land prices encourages the City to stay attentive to growth controls.
Mr. Magdziarz noted that effective growth controls can be achieved if the communities stay focused on these future land use visions and carry the principles involved into their ordinances and regulations. The model UDO land use regulations can be a critical part of this as well.
Mr. Pritchard noted that he hoped that as the individual communities develop their visions for growth, there are also discussions of the roadways between communities and how they should be developed. This will assist in maintaining a quality of life aspect without gridlock. He further noted that it is also important to look at how open space along creeks, etc. can be tied together from community to community.
Mr. Miller closed this section of the report with a comment to encourage the Commission members to share their map documents in this report with their boards, councils and plan commissions. He noted that, again, it is important to remember that these are works in progress.
4b. Review/comments on sample "how-to" guide for UDO
Mr. Miller opened by asking if the members had looked at the structure of the "how-to" guide example contained in the packet, and whether the members preferred this structure or more of a flow chart structure. The consensus of the group was that both approaches should be used. Mr. Madgziarz noted that future versions of the document will also contain very specific citations from the UDO. Discussion followed stressing that this document needed to be created as much like an "owners manual" to the model UDO as possible, and especially for the smaller communities that do not have staff to administer these processes. Mr. Pritchard asked if the County was breaking new ground with this or whether something like this had been developed elsewhere. Mr. Miller responded that in other Counties, there is generally staff hired and trained for the administration. Mr. Luker noted that it would be a great tool to use with newly elected officials to bring them up to speed on the highly complex issues as painlessly as possible. Ms. Aldis noted that it was critical to provide the information to prevent the elected bodies from becoming rubber stamps. It is critical that officials have an understanding in order to properly exercise their over-site authority. This is especially critical if consultants are utilized. Ms. Aldis raised a question related to the transportation aspect of the discussion. She inquired as to how the process is proceeding with the Metropolitan Planning Organization that was recently required by Federal mandate. Mr. Rasmussen reviewed the two parts of the MPO process, the Technical committee and the Policy committee. He noted that many representatives from the County are on the Technical committee. The City of DeKalb and the County have representatives on the Policy committee. He noted that the basic principle was to accomplish just what was being discussed tonight, having an overall view to transportation issues, rather than having individual communities making their own decisions. Mr. Miller noted that nature trail issues are also being discussed in that body. The conversation closed with a general discussion of how best to maintain connections to trails and open spaces while concurrently keeping clear the responsibilities for upkeep along waterways and greenways. 4c. Discussion; work program for updating municipal development regulations
Mr. Madgziarz noted that as project has proceeded, a frequent question is how the individual municipalities are to know how much of the UDO to adopt and in what form to be best suited to their needs. Mr. Miller noted that this type of consultation is beyond the scope of the Land Vision contract for the Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO project. The "how-to" guide will help to facilitate this, and Land Vision has agreed to do that. However, if further assistance is needed, the individual communities will need to make individual contracts with Land Vision, another consultant, or with County staff to do this work. The costs would have to be discussed between the individual municipalities whomever they choose to assist them. Mr. Miller commented that the communities should likely accept these costs, as the County has provided the funding for the bulk of the project. Mr. Luker noted that momentum is good at this time and so it should be possible to demonstrate the necessity of the costs to the communities. Mr. Miller noted that this is a very important part of this process as this will create the specific tools to make the work of the land use visions possible. He closed by noting that he and Mr. Madgziarz will be frequently stressing the importance of adopting the UDO and of having this individual community review and offered to speak with any Boards or Plan Commissions at the Commission members request. Regional Stormwater Management
Mr. Pritchard opened the discussion by noting that a recent rezoning request in Sandwich uncovered the fact that water problems can transcend a property owners ability to utilize their land. This led to a larger discussion of water management across the County. Problems with individual approaches to detention areas have illustrated the need to look at the overall flow of the water and for a more regional approach. This has led to a recognition that the RPC may be the best body to begin discussions on the issue. Mr. Miller added that this is a common problem in development discussions. Many communities adopt a site specific approach to stormwater management, building scattered detention ponds with little logical connection to each other or to the drainage in the area as a whole. A wiser approach to stormwater management is to look to watersheds and manage based on a recognition of the fact that water does not respect jurisdictional boundaries or property lines. Mr. Luker asked who issues regulations now? Mr. Miller responded that it is done by individual towns and villages, augmented by rules from the Federal government related to wetlands (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and floodplains (Federal Emergency Management Agency). There are also drainage districts. Mr. Luker asked if there are other legal approaches that can be taken. Mr. Miller responded that several counties have county-wide stormwater management ordinances. Another option is using the intergovernmental agreement and the auspices of the RPC and having everyone adopt the same stormwater management regulations applying to new development. These regulations could recognize the watersheds of the county and define how each individual community would be involved. Mr. Luker asked how communities will fund this. Mr. Miller noted that there were several ways to deal with this, but the conversations are just beginning. Mr. Altmaier asked if there were any particular areas with especially grave water concerns. It was the consensus of the group that everyone has water problems of one sort or another and many of the participants expressed a willingness to continue the conversation. Ms. Aldis asked if drainage districts would be involved in this. Mr. Pritchard responded that it would have to, but they only cover barely 40% of the County. However, their input as partners in resolving the issues would be important. Mr. Pritchard closed by noting that one of the greatest challenges will likely be funding, but the issue must be dealt with. The RPC will continue to pursue discussion. Adjournment – The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be on May 22, 2003. Mr. Luker moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Pardridge, and the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Pritchard KJR:kjr |
| Home | Return
to top | A-Z Index | Return
to minutes |