Minutes of the DeKalb County
Regional Planning Commission

1. Roll Call -- Mr. Steimel noted members that were present or represented by their alternates, and noted also that representatives from DeKalb and Genoa were absent.

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. Bellah 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. Mr. Miller stated that each of the municipalities were in the process of updating their individual plans, and that Waterman, Hinckley and Sandwich are reviewing the text portion of their comprehensive plans. Mr. Miller stated that the backbone of the comprehensive plan texts are the goals and objectives that are established for each community. Mr. Miller stated that the Unified Comprehensive Plan will acknowledge in the text the unity of the communities involved. Mr. Miller stated that Land Vision will give the background of the communities, demographics and future land use. Mr. Miller advised the Commission to share this information with their community leaders so that regulations will support this unified plan. He stated that the goal remains for the County and each of the municipalities to enter into inter-governmental agreements which pledge mutual support for one another’s comprehensive plans.

4a. Muncipal processes

Mr. Steimel opened the discussion for individual communities to update the members on their progress. Mr. Altmeier stated that Kingston has scheduled the Planning Commission to review the revised plan on June 9^th.

Mr. Nicklas stated that the City of Sycamore has reviewed their text and map exhibits and

expects the Council to approve these plans on June 2^nd when they meet. Mr. Nicklas stated that their plans had been prepared in house, and shared a copy of the new land use plan for Sycamore with the Commission. He also presented a revised map on an easel for all to refer to as he reviewed the proposed growth directions around the city limits, most of this development located in the northeast quarter. Mr. Nicklas stated that there are 4,800 acres of agricultural land within 1 ½ miles of the Sycamore city limits. He pointed out that Mr. Lorence, as a member of the Sycamore Plan Commission, was involved in the setting the future pattern of growth for the new plan. Mr. Nicklas commented that the impact fees in Sycamore have gone up by 50%, from $1,000 to $3,000, which is due at the time of final plat. He stated that an interim ordinance may be passed to restrict the number of permits per development, per year, and indicated that he felt Sycamore could handle 150-200 new residential units per year. Mr. Nicklas stated that Sycamore held a charette with a full house, and said that the consensus was the pace of growth was more important than the volume.

Mr. Steimel stated he was impressed with the phasing aspect of the Sycamore plans for future growth. He commented that the school issue would be an important part of this planning to watch, as families are moving into student housing and older homes.

Mrs. Aldis stated that Cortland has a color map printed and is looking to have the text portion complete by July.

Mr. Steimel stated that the boundaries between DeKalb and Cortland have become a challenge.

Mr.Nicklas stated that the city limits of DeKalb and Sycamore are contiguous and added that Cortland would soon be next. He pointed out that the plans included a green buffer between Genoa and Sycamore to aid in the country feel of that location.

Mr. Miller pointed out that counties to the east have developed to the point where it becomes impossible to determine where one community ends and the next begins, causing loss of sense of a community. He supported the green buffer between communities as an important consideration for planning.

Mr. Pardridge stated that the Shabbona Village Board has reviewed the consensus plan and the outcome was favorable. On June 2, a second meeting is to be held to include new officials, such as the mayor, clerk and two new trustees.

Mr. Heiderscheidt representing Waterman stated that the board of trustees had adopted their future land use map which reflects considerable residential development.

Mr. Rueben stated that Sandwich has almost completed the comprehensive plan, however, the plan has been tabled due to the amount of city business at this time. Mr. Miller stated that he and Mr. Magziarz would like to see the project move onward and to see it complete by the end of FY 2003.

Mr. Magziarz said that he had received compliments from a couple of communities and received the communication that several more communities should have plans ready by summer.

4b. Review/ comments on "how-to" guide for UDO

Mr. Miller pointed out that a "how to guide" for the model U.D.O. had been prepared by Land Vision. Mr. Miller referred to the punchlist items for annexations, special uses, permit issuance, rezonings, etc. He indicated that this topic would also be on the June agenda.

Mr. Magziarz stated that when he was developing code language from the municipal side, his approach was to give them to his secretary to read. If she understood the regulations, then the average person would also. That was the approach he took in drafting the how-to guide.

Mr. Heiderscheidt asked if there was a electronic version. Mr. Magziarz stated there was and he would forward a CD. Mr. Magziarz recapped that they are still in the conceptual stage but are getting pretty close.

Mr. Thompson stated that his community is very excited about the RPC helping with development review. Mr. Miller stated that he worked with the Malta Village Board on the review of the proposed West Lake Village subdivision. Mr. Miller added that he received a lot of positive feedback from the Board.

Mr. Altmeier asked if there would be model application forms. Mr. Magziarz stated that there would be boilerplate application forms which could be modified to suit any community.

Mr. Bellah stated that he was looking for a very basic guide demonstrating the review and approval process from beginning to end. Mr. Magziarz stated that such fundamentals are essential and would be included.

Mr. Thompson stated that he has an inquiry for a possible annexation along Rt. 38, west of Malta, comprising of 120 acres along the highway, south of Kishwaukee College to the railroad tracks.

Mr. Pardridge said that Shabbona has a long way to go with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Miller reiterated that County staff is willing to attend a sit down meeting with the Village Board to assist as necessary.

Mr. Bellah commented that even a 15 minute overview may help with the understanding of a unified plan. Mr. Magziarz stated that it would be a worthwhile venture to give each of the municipalities an overview to help the momentum of the project as a whole.

Mr. Miller explained that the Regional Planning Commission’s main project so far has been the creation of a Unified Comprehensive Plan. The Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO project is on schedule, and is expected to wrap up near the end of 2003. The end of this project raises the question of where does the Regional Planning Commission go from there? The possibilities for the organization run the gamut, from disbanding at the conclusion of the Unified Comprehensive Plan project, to continuing indefinitely as a forum to communicate, cooperate and coordinate on issues of regional importance and impact. Mr. Miller stated the RPC has been a great asset to cooperating and coordinating on issues of regional importance. He cited future projects that the RPC could have a hand in planning if it were still intact, such as the Prairie Parkway, a future second landfill, or large residential developments being proposed in unincorporated DeKalb County. Mr. Miller noted that the County has funded the RPC to date, paying for staff time, copies and milage, and providing a meeting room and secretary. He stated that, if the RPC is to continue beyond the Unified Comprehensive Plan project, the municipalities involved will need to provide funds to cover the on-going costs. He submitted to the Commission that, over the first year, the cost of staff, mileage and copies had been approximately $5,000. Using a 3% multiplier, the next year would require $5,150. If all of the participating municipalities continue to be part of the RPC, the cost could be split evenly, amounting to $400 or $500 per community. Mr. Miller stated the decision to continue could be made from year to year. He encouraged the Commission members to return to their municipalities and discuss the pros and cons with their mayors and boards to assess the value of the RPC. Mr. Miller stated feedback from the communities on the future of the RPC would be on the meeting agenda for June.

Mr. Steimel stated that the County Board is pleased with the progress of the updated comprehensive plans and UDO, and appreciate the energy and enthusiasm of both Mr. Miller and Mr. Magziarz.

Mr. Pardridge stated that Shabbona is a very small community and would like to have a few of his board members attend an RPC meeting to obtain a clearer vision and to form a consensus.

Mr. Nicklas stated that Sycamore is very interested in the continuance of the RPC and has already found the acquaintance of the other Commissioners to be very valuable.

Mr. Heiderscheidt thought that meeting every other month would be more cost effective. Mr. Miller added that may be a possibility in the future.

Mrs. Aldis asked how the comprehensive plans fit the MPO that is now under way. There followed a discussion about the MPO process. Mr. Miller added that the primary issues the MPO will face have been included in the comprehensive plans for the RPC. Mr. Miller reflected that Mrs. Aldis had some very valid points and if he represented a community that he would want to be part of a regional plan. Mr. Lorence added that there must be public input on the MPO plans. He added that the RPC was the way to do this in his opinion.

Mr. Steimel stated that the discussion just held clearly shows the value of the RPC as a forum for communications between the communities.

Moved by Mr. Bellah, seconded by Mr. Nicklas, it was carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting.