Minutes of the DeKalb County
Regional Planning Commission

1. Roll Call -- Mr. Pritchard acknowledged the members present and noted the absence of Mr. Gentile from Genoa, Ms. Aldis from Cortland, Mr. Bellah from Kirkland and Mr. Nicklas from Sycamore.

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

3. Approval of Minutes -- Mr. Thompson moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Pardridge, and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Miller began by noting that an updated memorandum was included in the packet that reflected the number of communities who have scheduled public hearings and adoption dates. He noted that Sycamore and Kirkland had completed their Plans. He also noted that the Planning and Regulations Committee had just reviewed the County’s Unified Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map and had given approval for the staff to schedule a public hearing.

Mr. Miller then showed the Commission the new Unified Future Land Use Plan for the County, which incorporates the future land use plans of the municipalities, and discussed the ways growth patterns have changed since the adoption of the County’s Year 2000 Future Land Use Plan. He noted that if all of the growth identified on the new Plan were to be realized at the densities called for, the County population would increase from its current 89,000 to approximately 203,000. He cautioned, however, that these numbers were somewhat unrealistic in that they would only occur if all of the municipalities reached their ultimate build-out levels called for on the new comprehensive plans.

What is important, he noted, is the endorsement of the plans of the individual municipalities and the reinforcing of the message that the County itself does not encourage or expect development away from the municipalities. Equally important, he noted, is that even in the unlikely scenario that the municipalities reach their ultimate build-outs, the amount of farmland still preserved far outstrips what has been preserved by other neighboring counties to the east.

He closed by noting again that the Planning and Regulations Committee of the County Board had approved moving forward to a public hearing for the County’s Comprehensive Plan update as part of the Unified Comprehensive Plan project, tentatively scheduled for October 30, 2003, and commented that he and the Committee were very impressed with the amount of work done by the individual municipalities.

Mr. Pritchard asked if Land Vision anticipated having to make radical adjustments in the Future Transportation Plan of the County as it stands today, given the amount of development shown by the municipalities. Mr. Magdziarz commented that the exact details at that level will still need to be fleshed out , but that the plans did attempt to take the growth into account. He also noted that the County Highway Department will need to keep abreast of changes as they occur. Mr. Miller added that Mr. Lorence had worked with them to create the Future Transportation Plan. He noted that this plan really was most viable as a 20-year projection at best, but it does serve the purpose of identifying major roads that should be protected. Another advantage is in the identification of future rights-of-way, such as the Malta Road and Airport Road extensions. He concluded by noting that it is far more difficult to project 50 years of transportation than it is to project 50 years of future land use.

Mr. Miller noted that the Future Land Use Plan and the Future Transportation Plan as developed will be available for distribution to the Commission members as soon as IMO can overcome a resolution problem with the detail when the plan is reduced. Mr. Luker noted that he would be happy to receive the larger sized versions if available. Mr. Rasmussen asked if Mr. Lorence had ever done a priority plan of future road development. Mr. Miller responded that he believed anything shown was on the Highway Department’s project list already, and therefore represented what they considered priorities, but that there had been no specific priority list developed. Mr. Pardridge noted that if the casino being discussed does become reality, then it would radically alter the transportation plans and expectations as displayed currently. Mr. Miller concurred and noted that as an example of the kind of unanticipated occurrence that can effect the plan.

Mr. Pritchard noted that these were the sorts of things that Commission members should stay aware of to keep the traffic plans as current as possible. He noted that it was also important to listen to the feedback from residents in the areas as they may bring up concerns before the traffic counts alert the County. Mr. Thompson commented that he felt it would also be helpful to keep transportation an on-going agenda item for the RPC.

Mr. Magdziarz reported that he had distributed a completed version of a procedures handbook that accompanies the model Unified Development Ordinance, including procedures for zoning variation applications. He added that there is also a model annexation agreement, but cautioned that no one should use nor adopt the document without a thorough review by their Village attorney. Mr. Pritchard asked if the models used were taken from professional templates. Mr. Magdziarz responded that they were taken from various Land Vision applications. Mr. Pritchard noted this could prove to be a significant cost-saver for the smaller communities. Mr. Thompson noted that he believed the Malta staff will be very pleased to receive the handbook.

5. Year-Three RPC Agenda/Topics, Finances and Meeting Dates

Mr. Pritchard opened by noting that one of the first items to be addressed regarding the continuation of the RPC would be the meeting schedule for the upcoming year. Following a quick poll of the Commission on their preferences, a final determination of schedule was made, with the consensus being that the Commission should meet every other month after the October, 2003 meeting. Mr. Pritchard also commented that additional meetings could be called if a certain topic or issue warranted doing so.

Mr. Pritchard noted for clarification that the every-other-month schedule would begin in January, 2004. At this point, the RPC would meet in October, 2003, but then not meet again until January 2004. Ms. Morphey asked if this schedule would effect the cost previously quoted for municipality participation. Mr. Miller responded that it would not, as the hard costs are not expected to be reduced.

Discussion then moved to topics the Commission could address in the future. Mr. Altmaier recommended continuing discussion on the implementation of the Unified Development Ordinances. Mr. Miller commented that he had suggested the RPC could sponsor a workshop or seminar for municipalities or Commission members, sort of a "Zoning 101" if there was interest. Following extensive discussion on various approaches to this suggestion, the Commission determined there was great interest in both workshops held at various municipalities as well as some training time during Commission meetings themselves. Mr. Pritchard asked Mr. Miller to prepare a formal proposal for the October meeting. He agreed to do so and noted that he was hearing three distinct requests. The first was for information to Commission members, the second for general workshops and the third would be workshops tailored for specific municipalities.

Mr. Thompson noted that another conversation he would like to see the RPC have would be how to handle "Not In My Backyard" objectors to any developments proposed. Mr. Miller noted that there were several approaches that could be taken to that issue, from psychological approaches to assist people in accepting change to focusing on techniques to encourage rational debate. Mr. Altmaier requested that another topic to be addresses would be impact fees. Specifically he asked if an updated version of the County’s prior report on what the municipalities were doing with impact fees could be produced. Mr. Miller noted that could be done. Mr. Pritchard commented that he had heard of a suburb to the east having difficulties with development who responded by raising their impact fees to $30,000. Mr. Rasmussen commented that Aurora has adopted a variation on an impact fee. They have taken the approach of creating a Special Service Impact fee. This was a tax on large scale subdivisions to pay for services on more of a long-term basis rather than a one-time fee. Mr. Thompson commented that he would like to see a cost/benefit analysis also done to show what sort of advantages development brings to an area. Many other Commission members agreed they would like to see an analysis of that kind done as well. Mr. Rasmusson cautioned that analysis of this kind can often be widely skewed depending on the criteria selected and the variables applied. He added that Roger Dalhstrom and the NIU Center for Governmental Studies could provide very capable assistance. Mr. Thompson mentioned the Heartland Institute as a resource as well.

Mr. Miller noted that some of the municipalities had sent in their financial contributions for the continuation of the RPC into the upcoming year. A listing of the contributions received to date will be included with the next set of minutes sent out.

6. Municipal Development Actions

Mr. Pritchard noted that before the group began, he would ask Mr. Pardridge to speak to the issue of the possible Native American casino that is being discussed in the Shabbona area. Mr. Pritchard passed out a document he had acquired that outlined the general points for a for a casino/resort with attendant uses and development. This document had been presented to the Governor’s office by tribal advocates as early as March of this year and may contradict on some points the statements made by the Potawatomi Tribe in recent news stories.

Mr. Pardridge began with a brief report of the Route 30 progress and a note that many businesses have been greatly disrupted by the construction. Mr. Todd commented that Waterman has received assurances from IDOT that they would always have two lanes open during its upcoming construction. He hoped this might minimize the disruption for Waterman.

Mr. Pardridge continued by presenting information he had been able to glean from various sources about the Treaty with Chief Shabbona and the history of this particular tribe’s development of a large casino complex in Kansas. He noted that the traffic numbers associated with that casino were rather staggering with approximately 20,000 vehicles per day passing through to and from the casino and 24,000 expected by 2026. Mr. Pritchard noted that Sycamore Road currently carries about 23,000 vehicle per day as a comparison. Mr. Pardridge went on to note that there are many points of contention about what value in practical terms a casino brings to a region. He noted a lawsuit currently filed regarding a service station the Tribe opened on their property in Kansas. The Tribe did not take any State taxes on the fuel on the argument that they built and maintained their own roads and received no State assistance. The State was disputing this, but Mr. Pardridge noted it as an example of how the Tribal reservations stand outside the purview of the State or County. Mr. Pardridge went on to note that the residents of the area being discussed are extremely concerned about the changes to their way of life and rural community nature that could occur if this casino does materialize. There is also concern that crime could increase and that such an enterprise could take business and opportunities away from small local businesses.

Mr. Rasmussen noted that he had some experience with this in Beloit with a Ho-Chunk tribe. He recommended speaking to the assistant city manager for more current experience and advice. He did note, however, that comparisons may not be exact as a casino here would have far more competition with existing casinos in Aurora, Elgin, Joliet and Chicago. He noted that many residents feared the Aurora casino at first, but that the managing group (Sands) had made efforts to contain any difficulties and even provided six or so additional police to Aurora at their expense. Mr. Miller commented that he had been having conversations with officials in Sauk County, Wisconsin who had also dealt with a Ho-Chunk casino. That administrator strongly advised that the only place for local governement to have a meaningful role in the development would be at the Governor’s Office when the gaming license is being negotiated. Discussion followed on how best to approach the Governor’s Office and request such involvement. Mr. Thompson noted that it would be critical for the County to keep information flowing as well.

Mr. Miller commented that they had received information from several sources that indicated the Potawatomi wanted to work with the communities and build good relations. He added that the Tribe had an excellent website available as well. Mr. Pritchard commented that some recent documents seemed to call the sincerity of the Potawatomi statements into question. Mr. Pardridge closed his report with the statement that the area is simply not ready to deal with something of this scope.

Ms. Morphey commented that Somonauk is currently looking at a preliminary plat for a proposed 48-house subdivision.

Mr. Luker commented that the Hinckley Planning Commission is up and running. The Village is also receiving quite a few contacts from developers and have also been contacted by 84 Lumber. It appears that 84 is shopping a package around to several Villages after having abruptly left Kirkland.

Mr. Thompson reported that Malta was beginning the preliminary action on the annexation of the Eagle Homes project. At this point, Eagle has submitted sketches of what it will do with roughly 50 acres and the plan includes rights-of-way for road coverage top where the property ends. There is also a proposal to build apartments geared for the Kishwaukee students which would replace previous proposed apartments to the west and south of the tracts. The Planning Commission did not meet last month, so he was not sure where the Village was with the Comprehensive Plan process. He also noted that Mayor McCabe would be sending Mr. Miller an email regarding the Village’s response to the highway map shared at the previous meeting.

Mr. Altmaier noted that Kingston is relatively quite, but that there was discussion of subdividing a small industrial park and that the owner does have some tenants in mind. There are also building permits in place that will fill in a small gap in their residential area and the Casey’s has officially opened on Route 72.

Mr. Rasmussen began with an explanation of where DeKalb stands currently with the Comprehensive Plan and their recent Growth Summit. At the most recent City Council meeting, a decision was made to meet on October 13, 2003 to present the Growth Summit recommendations to the City Council and to discuss how these should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Following this meeting, they will meet with the school district the following week and then finally, near the end of October they want a meeting with the Planning Commission. After all of these meetings and discussions, the Comprehensive Plan will need to have sections rewritten.

Mr. Allen reported that things were going well in Sandwich and they had a very successful Fair with 201,000 attending. The City had an Economic Development Booth at the Fair and they were able to obtain 12 good leads from those who stopped by and additional discussions have continued since then. He commented that they are extremely pleased with their current Economic Development Director. Another item of note is that the sewer plant is about 98% complete. Mr. Pritchard asked if there had been any movement on the proposed road extension through Park District property. Mr. Allen responded that the Park District is still refusing to allow them to cross through their property to build the extension. He asked for any assistance that any Commission member or the County could offer.

Mr. Todd reported that Waterman had its first formal meeting with one of two developers looking to develop residential and commercial areas east of the Village. A concept plan has been discussed and they will be holding a second meeting on October 9^th with the same developer. Later that same week or so, the other developer will be bringing in their concept plan for discussion. The first development involves about 150 acres and the second 125 to 140 acres. Both are predominately single family residential. He noted that they are also close to completing their new well and started work on another well and will also be expanding their sewer treatment facilities.

Mr. Ragan commented that they had some notice problems with their Comprehensive Plan Hearing, but are sorting them out. They are also close to opening a new Post Office.

Mr. Pritchard noted that in addition to the Comprehensive Plan, another item of impact to the Commission members would be the on-going discussions of the jail. There will be a public hearing on October 6, 2003 by the Committee and the information received there will then be brought back to the County Board for further determinations. He commented that it is important to consider that this is a County jail, and houses individuals from all of the municipalities, therefore it is critical the all the municipalities be concerned with this.

On an unrelated matter, Mr. Rasmussen commented that the DeKalb Chamber of Commerce and Northern Illinois University has collaborated on a small television spot aired during the recent Maryland game. Following the game, the Chamber website received over 100,000 hits. They feel this was extremely good for the area overall.

7. Adjournment – The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be on October 23, 2003. Mr. Todd moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Thompson, and the motion carried unanimously.