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, Mr. Pardridge from Shabbona, Mr. Ragan from Lee and Mr. Altmaier from Kingston.

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

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

Mr. Madgziarz began by distributing new CD’s with the completed changes and corrections to the Model Unified Development Ordinance. This CD is dated 8-1-03 and represents the most current and correct version.

Mr. Miller then noted that a new memorandum was included in the meeting packets with the municipalities outlined in bold type who have set or completed their public hearings. He commented that he is pleased with the progress of the communities to date and asked the municipalities to continue to communicate with each other to keep the project on target for completion in November or December of 2003. He added that the County would shortly be coming to the municipalities to seek inter-governmental agreements for mutual support of one another’s new comprehensive plans once they are all completed.

5. High-Volume Roads

Mr. Lorence opened by presenting to the Commission a color-coded map of the County roadway system. He noted that along with existing roads, the map indicated roads whose usages may be changing and new roads that have been proposed. The new roads are either at the stage where rights-of-way are being obtained, or are simply projected for the future.

Mr. Pritchard asked if the proposed roads were simply roads the County Highway department was proposing or if they came from other sources. Mr. Lorence replied that many of the road designations are on the Year 2000 DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan, and that a few arose from observations of the Highway Department. He further commented that the map does not show collectors in the metro areas, as there would be too many and they would render the map illegible. He noted that the County wishes to maintain free flow of traffic on the roads shown to an uninterrupted "C" level. This will require ½ mile grids with no access for commercial, residential or industrial or subdivision uses.

Mr. Miller commented that these issues make it critical that the various communities take the time to carefully review these designations and, if they are in agreement with them, adopt policies that support and protect the access and usage. Mr. Luker asked if Land Vision could assist in making sure this is taken care of across the municipalities. Mr. Magdziarz responded they have been attentive to this already and believe the plans will show the agreements.

Ms. Aldis asked if the map being presented was "official" or if it was simply something prepared for this meeting. Mr. Lorence responded that the roads shown in solid lines and colors are official but the other designations come from many sources and does not reflect a formal county-wide consensus. He further added that though these are not yet finalized, many have been taken from the municipal comprehensive plans currently being formalized.

Mr. Pritchard commented that such formalization and agreement is what the discussion is meant to result in. He noted that the intention was to gather the information, disseminate it to the communities for comment and discussion and then set it finally when the County Comprehensive Plan is completed.

Ms. Morphey asked how the County wishes to go about formalizing this. She asked if a map would be provided that they could take to their municipalities for discussion. She went on to ask what the process would be if a municipality did not agree with some of the proposed designations. Mr. Miller responded that in the event of disagreements, the municipality should contact either Mr. Madgziarz or himself to discuss the issue.

Mr. Gentile asked if it was the intention of the County that the individual municipalities agree to maintain the integrity of whatever becomes the final County Plan even if an area were annexed and therefore no longer under County control. Mr. Lorence responded that was the intention and noted that if the annexation were around a subdivision, this was especially important (re: curb cuts, driveway access, etc).

Mr. Pritchard noted that if there were no additions or omissions for immediate discussion, then he will instruct staff to prepare copies of the map for each member to take to their Boards for discussion. Mr. Miller commented that he will ask Mr. Magdziarz to do a check against the current municipal plans prior to the distribution to assure that all is in sync. Mr. Pritchard noted that it was his understanding that the County G.I.S. could be used to produce these maps.

Mr. Allen expressed some concern that if the map showed something too new, it might cause some delays in completion of their Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Miller responded that nothing here should be so new as to cause a disruption of the process. The vast majority of road designations have been shown on previous reviews of the plans and this conversation is simply to highlight the transportation issues before the plans are finalized.

Mr. Pritchard asked if Mr. Madziarz would please comment on whether the plans to protect roads or project new roads takes into account the recent rumor regarding a casino being proposed in the Shabbona area by a Native American tribe. He noted that it might have major impact on traffic around the Shabbona area and on roads throughout the County. Mr. Magdziarz commented that he had met with the Shabbona Board the evening before and that, aside from discussing a small area of new development to the east of the village, there had been no other substantive discussions. He noted that about half of the Board seemed to support moving forward without being unduly concerned with the casino issue. However, he noted that they did not discuss potential transportation impact from such a development. Mr. Pritchard commented that this is, indeed, a major transportation issue and that the group as a whole needed to consider the impact on the County.

Mr. Miller commented that it was his understanding that the casino was a possibility and, if it were developed, would impact the County greatly. However, it appears that for many individuals involved in the issue, the implications of such a development haven’t fully sunk in yet. He reminded the Commission that at any given time, the County could be one phone call away from a development that could effect the County greatly.

Mr. Gentile asked what sort of speculative issue could be addressed by a community, where is the flexibility to deal with this sort of thing? Mr. Pritchard commented that there were two ways such an issue could be approached. First, develop a sense of whether such a use should be supported or whether strategies should be developed to fight it. Second, a community could accept the use as inevitable and then develop ways to adapt to it.

Ms. Aldis asked how viable the rumor is. Mr. Pritchard responded that the people involved seem to feel they have all their ducks in a row to bring this to reality.

Mr. Nicklas asked how this could move forward if it is on land that is non-contiguous to a city and there is a plan in place for the County which does not call for development. Mr. Miller responded that if this develops as the result of a Native American land claim, it creates a whole new set of rules and, essentially, would move the issue to a Federal level.

Ms. Aldis commented that it seemed difficult to discuss action plans when so much of this seemed to be speculation without information. Mr. Nicklas agreed that there did not seem to be enough information at this point to discuss any firm courses of action, however it would be prudent for all the members to share information as it becomes available. Mr. Pritchard cautioned that if the County waits too long, they may find their options severely limited.

Mr. Thompson commented that perhaps the tribe involved would be open to discussion with the County. He then asked if there were other states that have dealt with similar situations. Mr. Pritchard commented that Minnesota and Wisconsin have had experience and Mr. Magdziarz noted that Hoffman Estates was currently dealing with the Ho-Chunk for a casino in the Hoffman Estates area. Mr. Nicklas thanked Mr. Pritchard for bringing this to the Commission’s attention and again called for all members to share information as it becomes available. Mr. Pritchard noted that this was a critical issue to managing County growth and transportation. It was left that the issue would be brought back for discussion at future meetings.

Mr. Pritchard noted that a memorandum had been received from IDOT requesting a representative to a technical advisory group that IDOT has put together to advise them on the development of the Prairie Parkway. Mr. Miller went on to note that the Regional Planning Commission had been specifically selected to determine a representative for the entire County, including all of the municipalities within the County. Mr. Pritchard noted that Mr. Rasmussen had indicated to him an interest in the position, and opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Nicklas commented that he felt Mr. Miller would be a good choice for the post as his position as key staff for the Commission gives him a broadly representative viewpoint.

Mr. Pritchard asked if the representatives from Somonauk or Sandwich saw any hope for developing a boundary agreement to ease tensions between the two communities. Ms. Morphey commented that she hoped such discussions could be held in the future, but that Somonauk felt a need to protect their interests in the meantime. Mr. Pritchard noted that Sycamore, DeKalb and Cortland had faced similar challenges and asked if they had any advice. Mr. Nicklas commented that while their agreements were working well, they were primarily concerned with sales tax division and commercial development and therefore might not be exactly applicable to Somonauk/Sandwich’s situation. He added that Sycamore and Genoa were currently developing an agreement.

Mr. Pritchard asked if there were anything any of the rest of the Commission could share or do to help the communities through this time. Mrs. Morphey expressed appreciation for the offer. She further noted that one area that might be helpful was enhanced communication between the Planning and Zoning Department and the municipalities with respect to developers. Discussion ensued with Ms. Morphey indicating that a developer’s conversation with the County Planning and Zoning Department was one of the reasons that Somonauk chose to annex 700 acres of land, an action that exacerbated the tension between Somonauk and Sandwich. She noted that if the developer had followed the advice he had allegedly been given, that is, to talk with Sandwich about annexation, the result would have severely impacted future growth for Somonauk. It was agreed that this will be discussed further by the parties involved to clarify if there were communication breakdowns that might have been prevented.

Mr. Pritchard noted that in other business, there is also talk of an expansion of the County Jail and commented that there will be discussion at the next County Board meeting whether to expand, not expand, or move the facility to a wholly new location. He noted that the expansion could have a hefty price tag and that a referendum of some type would be needed to accomplish it. He noted that Commission members would want to keep an eye on the issue as it had county-wide ramifications.

Mr. Luker reported that he had recently had a very positive experience with a developer that had approached Hinckley. He noted that being able to take out a draft Comprehensive Plan and show them exactly where the Village stood was extremely helpful in working with them. He added that they have received requests for copies of the maps and guidelines. Mr. Pritchard commented that Land Vision was having the maps placed into the County G.I.S. for ease of distribution. Mr. Magdziarz commented that all but four have been turned over to the County IMO. Mr. Pritchard commented that the website has been proving extremely helpful to bank personnel and others.

Mr. Nicklas asked if the Commission would consider discussing meeting every other month rather than monthly absent any urgent issues that may arise. Discussion followed with a determination that the Commission would meet next month as scheduled and would discuss an altered meeting schedule for the coming year. Mr. Miller commented that there needs to be discussion as well on what the Commission would be doing for the coming year. Mr. Luker asked when the invoices would be sent to the municipalities for their portion of the RPC costs. Mr. Miller noted that he will take care of getting those invoices out. Mr. Nicklas noted that a topic he would like to discuss for the coming year would be how to improve communication regarding municipal activities to the general public. Meetings and utilizing the local media does not seem as effective as they could be. It was agreed that this is a good topic to have further conversation on.

8. Adjournment – The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be on September 25, 2003. Mr. Luker moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Nicklas, and the motion carried unanimously.