Minutes of the DeKalb County
Regional Planning Commission

1. Roll Call -- Mr. Rasmussen acknowledged the members present and noted the absence of Mr. Pardridge from Shabbona and Mr. Thompson from Malta.

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

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

Mr. Rasmussen noted that with the recent appointment of Robert Pritchard as the State Representative from the 70^th District, the Chair’s position stands vacant. He then opened the floor for nominations for RPC Chair. Mr. Bellah nominated Mr. Sands, who graciously declined, noting that Roger Steimel will be the County representative and he will be Mr. Steimel’s alternate. He went on to note that he wanted, primarily, to express the continuing support of the County for the work of the RPC and his personal support and appreciation of the work done over the past two years. Nominations were then re-opened with Mr. Rasmussen nominating Mr. Nicklas. Mr. Nicklas accepted the nomination.

Mr. Nicklas thanked the group for their support and vote of confidence. He then noted that the Commission needed to take up the issue of member term expiration and asked Mr. Miller for an report. Mr. Miller noted that there would be five members with terms expiring in 2004 and that letters would shortly be sent to the cities/villages of those representatives asking for nominations. These nominations would then be sent to the County Board for final appointment at their April, 2004 meeting. He encouraged the existing representatives to strongly consider continuing with the Commission. Mr. Nicklas then asked if all of the participating municipalities had committed to another year of RPC membership. Mr. Miller noted that contributions had been received from all of the participating municipalities.

5. Conclusion of Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO Project

Mr. Nicklas asked for an update on the Resolutions in Support of the Unified Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Miller responded that as of this evening, he had received three signed resolutions from municipalities, and had status information on the others. He noted that the hope was to have all the resolutions in place before a Committee of the County Board in February, so the County Board could pass its own resolution of support for the municipal comprehensive plans in March.

Mr. Nicklas then asked Mr. Miller to report on the status of the Unified Development Ordinance. He began by noting that at this point the UDO is in the hands of the municipalities to do with as they will, as the total budgeted time and money for the Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO project was taken up by the creation of the comprehensive plans. However, he hastened to remind the Commission members that a Comprehensive Plan is useless without regulations and ordinances that support the Plan. Land Vision is currently working with Waterman and Somonauk to assist them in doing their review. Mr. Miller noted that County staff is, as always, also available to assist the municipalities with their review of their zoning and subdivision regulations, with an eye toward updating them so that the new comprehensive plans can become reality.

Mr. Luker asked if Land Vision had provided a final version of the model UDO on disc. Mr. Miller indicated that they had done so. Mr. Luker then asked if the County could share its revisions with the individual municipalities. Mr. Miller responded that the County is not actually revising the UDO, but rather is revising its own regulations using sections from the model UDO. He noted that the County regulations were actually quite strong now, and therefore did not require radical changes. However, there were some sections, such as the definitions portion, that were proving valuable.

Mr. Altmaier asked if Land Vision was going to send final copies of the Comprehensive Plan to the municipalities. Mr. Miller noted that they were to provide at least one to each municipality. He noted that the scope of the Land Vision contract did not include a provision for multiple copies. Mr. Ragan commented that in his discussions with Mr. Magdziarz from Land Vision, he was told that each municipality would receive 40 bound copies. Mr. Luker added that he too had been told he would receive 40 copies. Mr. Miller responded that he will contact Mr. Magdziarz and determine what exactly is being provided to the municipalities. He added that the maps are also available on the County website. The maps and comprehensive plan copies that the County is producing are being created at the County’s expense.

6. Update on Prairie Parkway Technical Advisory Committee

Mr. Miller reported that he has met with the group once and made note to the group that there were issues related to increased traffic from the Rochelle RailPort as well as the possible Casino that they needed to consider. He closed by noting that the Committee will be meeting again next Tuesday in Yorkville.

Mr. Rasmussen began by noting that DeKalb is showing a great deal of activity in their industrial areas. Warehousing appears to be increasing due to the recent legislation that reduced the time a truck can be on the road. There is also interest being expressed in some basic (non high-tech) manufacturing facilities. He added that there is also commercial development interest increasing along Annie Glidden Road with a specific focus on grocery stores. At this time, there are three groceries looking at the area and the City has received a formal plan from one store. The area of interest appears to be stretching from Rich Road to the Interstate. He noted that he had also become involved in a redistricting process for the school districts. He commented that he is currently providing technical information as they review the grammar school distributions. He closed by commenting that his greatest difficulty with the project to date has been getting the local School Board to think farther than two or three years into the future. He noted that they needed to focus on developments scheduled to be constructed five or more years out. Identification of new school sites and capacities is, he felt, the Board’s real challenge.

Ms. Morphey reported that Somonauk has started a new subdivision with 78 homes. She noted that they have also been revising their hookup fees, impact fees, land cash and permit fees. This is occurring within an environment of several contacts from interested developers. She closed by noting that the Village is working on their adaptation of the UDO.

Mr. Todd commented that Waterman has two subdivisions under consideration and their Planning Commission has spent a great deal of time preparing for the receipt of preliminary plats. The first is due to be submitted for Commission consideration in February. Mr. Magdziarz as well as consultant Pam Blickem are working with the Village on land planning. These individuals along with the Village engineers have been given authority to begin negotiating annexation agreements. Mr. Todd noted that they were approaching the process from a very deliberate and careful standpoint. Mr. Miller commended the Village on that approach and noted that what was being done now would set the precedent for future developments. Mr. Todd further noted that in addition to new development, they were also working with existing Village businesses seeking additional land for expansion, possibly in their industrial park area. He closed by reporting that the IDOT project was also underway with bids opened last Friday. They hope to start that project as soon as weather permits.

Mr. Ragan commented that their principle project currently was a full review of their Village Ordinance books. The Village has retained a legal firm to help them to re-codify the books and review the text for inconsistencies. The same firm is being approached to handle the merger of the new Comprehensive Plan into their ordinances. He added that they may also call in Mr. Miller for assistance. In response to questions from the group, Mr. Miller clarified that these types of firms organize texts primarily, rather than do a specific content review. They focus on making sure the Ordinances are in order, but not necessarily if they are adequate. Ms. Aldis noted that when they used a similar service, they were alerted to missing sections and language. Mr. Ragan closed by noting that Lee is now three months closer to getting a Post Office.

Mr. Bellah reported that the street improvements that Kirkland has been dealing with on Rte. 72 were completed on November 24, 2003. Legislators Brad Burzynski and Ron Waite were both in attendance at completion ceremonies. The last portion of grading work will be completed by February 4, 2004. He then added that two developers from Orland Park have been in and have purchased a total of 1,200 acres for potential future use. However, there are no current plans for any immediate development. He noted that he had also been encouraging meetings between the Village Board and the local School Board. To date, they have had three joint meetings with the Village Board and progress is being made. He closed by noting that there is a revision of the zoning maps in process and that the Bob Rood subdivision is starting some work.

In Mr. Thompson’s absence, Mr. Miller reported for Malta. He noted that at the end of last year, the Village Board had approved the Prairie Springs development by Eagle Homes at the southwest corner of the Village. When this development is fully built out, it is projected to double the population of the Village. The Village is utilizing a TIF district to pay for upgrading and expansion of their sanitary sewer system and water facility. Eagle Homes now has a new petition for development at the northwest corner near the Malta Road extension. This development could result in a population increase of another 1,600 people. Mr. Miller noted that when he was recently asked for assistance with this newest development proposal, the first thing he did was to strongly caution the Village against holding a public hearing on the preliminary plan for the subdivision before an annexation agreement had been formalized. He brought to their attention that as a non-home rule community, they could potentially lose the opportunity for valuable developer exactions if they did not secure them in the annexation process. He noted that the speed with which the Prairie Springs development was completed was much too rapid and the Village should use this newest development as a more considered model for future interactions with developers. Mr. Rasmussen commented that it appears that as developers have approached the City of DeKalb and found the City currently slowing residential growth, they are immediately moving out to the outlying municipalities. He expressed concerns that, in this situation, even if the development moved away from DeKalb it would still have a future impact on the shared school system. Mr. Miller commented that developers will generally do what they are asked to do as long as the outcomes support their business purposes. The trick is for municipalities to know what to ask for before they are confronted.

Mr. Allen noted that the Sandwich sewer plant is online and completed. There is also progress on the 300 room hotel/motel located to the east of town just over the bridge. The bridge area will be expanded later this year to a four lane. Additionally, he commented that the Fairwinds subdivision is proceeding on their sewer and water lines. A medical building is also in progress in front of the Sandhurst subdivision on the northeast section of town. The developer of the Sandhurst area has also purchased additional properties to the north of the existing homes. Mr. Allen closed by noting that the City had recently completed a re-codification of their ordinances and felt they were in very good shape in that regard.

Mr. Altmaier reported that while Kingston has no immediate development activities occurring currently, their Village Board is busy revising their impact fee structure. He commented that the Village recognizes the need to find a way to juggle the many competing interests. He further noted that their Plan Commission is working along with the UDO and he asked if anyone had any additional advice on how best to proceed with the project, whether utilizing external help or asking for additional assistance from the County. At this point, he commented, the Village is somewhat bogged down though not yet at a dead-end. He closed by noting that the information he has received from Mr. Miller to date had been extremely useful. Mr. Miller noted that perhaps the topic of how to go about these reviews could be placed on the next meetings agenda.

Ms. Aldis reported that the Cortland road project is looking very good and they hope to have the streetlights coming in soon. She noted that the Town has also hired Mr. Magdziarz to assist with their UDO project as well as with annexation agreements they have in development. She noted that the Town has four annexation agreements in various stages of completion, with two approved, one to be reviewed within the next week and one still to be received. She also noted that they are also working on sewer capacity proposals. They have contacted Schafer Engineering on an irrigation-based approach. She closed by noting that the Cortland Police Department would be moving into a new location on Route 38 sometime in February. This will allow for the Clerk’s office to move to larger facilities. There is also some discussion taking place on a ballot referendum for a library increase and possible creation of a park district, but there is no date for such a referendum at this time.

Mr. Luker reported that a subdivision, Highland Estates, that had been approved by the Village of Hinckley five to six years ago had come back into play. He noted that they had applied for a final plat, as they had a preliminary plat as well as an annexation agreement. Mr. Miller asked if the Village had any sort of time limit from submission of a preliminary plat. Mr. Luker indicated that there was none applicable to this case nor was there any administrative desire to re-open the annexation agreement at this time. However, he noted that the developer had agreed to bring the final plat in line with the new Comprehensive Plan. He noted that when this subdivision is completed it will push their sewer system to maximum capacity. He also commented that the Village would be holding a referendum for a new fire station and a new Subway restaurant will soon be opening downtown. He then closed by noting that the Village is reviewing impact fees and when that is completed they will be revising their zoning maps and completing their UDO review. Mr. Miller commented that any municipality seeking to update zoning maps might want to make use of the digital maps currently maintained by the County Information Management Office. He noted that this might significantly simplify and save costs on a zoning map revision process. He closed by noting that it might be beneficial to open a conversation with Joan Berkes-Hanson, the Director of the Office.

Mr. Gentile noted that the City of Genoa Plan Commission is currently working on the UDO review, though they have been underway with a full review for the past four years. He commented that they have been able to utilize information gathered from Land Vision and the RPC. He added that the City will soon be getting an 84 Lumber and have received information on a residential development that will include industrial development. They are also working on an annexation for a seven acre industrial park on the east side. He closed by noting that the City is regularly being contacted by developers. He noted that they have found that by showing developers the date of the comprehensive plan, it provides them a very current look at the thinking of the present Council. This prevents developers assuming the Council might be willing to entertain different proposals from what the Plan indicates.

Mr. Nicklas asked the group if an item for an upcoming agenda could be growth management tools being utilized by the various municipalities. He also noted that he would like to get the groups’ input on the sliding scale that Sycamore recently approved for stepping out developments. He added that the City had recently added a new iteration tying in the developments that were approved and in the pipeline to begin. He commented that the City had a backlog of approximately 3,400 lots in the pipeline. The current approach will limit permit approval and release based on the number of units in a development. He noted that these limits might well push some development out to the outlying communities if the developers wish to start faster than the current plan allows. He closed by noting that the City is also working with the UDO. At this point, they are using the UDO structure recommendations to reorganize their current content. He noted that they are not using the models title nor acronyms, but rather are keeping their current language.

Mr. Luker proposed that the group hold a future discussion on how a municipality can be maintained without additional growth. He noted that Sycamore had set its "final" boundaries and therefore a final size. Yet how, he wondered, do you provide for services and business development?

Mr. Rasmussen noted that several communities to the east have reached their maximum build-out, yet have not stopped "growing" due to the use of tear-downs and re-development. He noted that a common mis-perception is that communities who reject all growth somehow still can manage to stay the same. Mr. Nicklas commented that this will be a good addition to the upcoming conversation on growth management.

Mr. Miller noted that the outline for the presentation has been included in the packet for this evening. He then asked the Commission members to review the document and to provide him direction on how they would like to proceed with regard to scheduling the presentation. He went on to note that members of the County Board have also expressed interest in attending.

Mr. Nicklas commented that this appears to be a very timely and useful primer for the municipalities and commended Mr. Miller for his work on creating this document and seminar. Ms. Aldis echoed his congratulations and noted that the information provided appears to be very comparable in scope and thoroughness to seminars she has attended through Elgin Community College. She closed by agreeing that this type of seminar is greatly needed.

Mr. Rasmussen commented that he intends to ask the full DeKalb Planning Commission to attend this presentation. This sentiment was echoed by several of the members with respect to their planning commissions and village boards. Mr. Altmaier noted that all too often these bodies are comprised of volunteers without this type of basic knowledge. Mr. Nicklas noted that people who are practitioners for a time gain a considerable amount of knowledge or insight. However, he noted that petitioners and members of the public need those individuals to also be able to provide explanations for the processes in basic and elementary terms.

Mr. Miller commented that the section on what a municipality should do when a developer walks in the door has generated a great deal of interest. He noted that village clerks seem especially interested in this topic. He closed by commenting that he intended to adopt a question-and-answer format for the presentation to allow the individuals attending to focus on th topics that had the greatest relevance for them. Mr. Luker noted that it will be very beneficial then to provide the outline to all attending before the day of the event so they can frame their questions. Mr. Miller replied that was his intention.

Mr. Rasmussen commented that it might be helpful to add a section on the mission of a planning commission. He added that often the members need clarification of their roles and expectations. Mr. Luker added that a clear discussion of their responsibilities is very important. Mr. Miller agreed that he often sees planning commission members confused about what their role should be with respect to representing the individual members of the public or the municipality overall.

Following discussion on the logistics of this initial presentation, it was decided that a date and space would be determined and then a cover letter and the program outline would be sent to all RPC members for distribution to anyone in their communities that they would feel appropriate to attend (planning commissions, staff, village board of appeals and village boards). Invitations will be sent to the County Board members as well. At this time, the best day and time appears to be a Saturday morning in late February or March. The cover letter will include information on who to contact to reserve a space. Mr. Nicklas noted that Sycamore will volunteer to provide refreshments for the morning and asked the members to be proactive in encouraging attendance at the presentation.

Mr. Nicklas welcomed Ms. Fauci and noted to the Commission that she had asked for a few minutes of the Commission’s time to discuss the work of the Greenways and Trails Coalition to date.

Ms. Fauci thanked the Commission for allowing her to be added to the evening’s agenda. She began by passing out a handout to the members and commented that she wanted to primarily note the acquisition of the IDNR Grant that the group had applied for. The Grant is being used to hire and pay for the services of a planner. After extensive interviews, the Coalition settled on Anne Friewald from Schreiber and Schreiber and Associates of Madison Wisconsin. Ms. Fauci expressed thanks to Mr. Miller an Mr. Rasmussen for their valuable assistance in the search and selection process. She then noted that the Coalition has decided to tackle the planning by separating the County into three Planning sections (Northern, Southern and Central). She further commented that the Coalition itself has also split into three sections to better facilitate the work. The three sections are: the Executive Committee, the Steering Committee and Advisory Resources.

She then noted that the Coalition will be hosting a major project kick-off event on February 26^th at Kishwaukee College with Ms. Friewald as the principle speaker. She noted that they hope this event will expand the already growing support they have received from the community. The plan currently calls for the trails and areas to be multiple use and they have received support from equestrians, individuals interested in fishing, hiking and bicycling and individuals with disabilities that encourage accessibility.

Mr. Nicklas asked if individuals who wish to be on certain committees should speak to someone before the meeting or just sign up on the evening of the meeting. Ms. Fauci replied that they will be hammering out those details at their next regularly scheduled meeting on February 11^th. She commented that they will be looking for individuals willing to chair the three Planning sections and certain other sub-groups.

Mr. Rasmussen noted that one of the MPO projects currently underway is the application for a $70,000 enhancement grant for the MPO area. In anticipation of the grant receipt, the MPO is conducting interviews for a transportation planner. Ms. Fauci noted that such grants have been major fund sources for bike trails and the like.

Mr. Nicklas then thanked Ms. Fauci for her presentation and encouraged the members to attend the Coalition event on the 26^th.

9. Adjournment – The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be on March 25, 2004. Mr. Luker moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, and the motion carried unanimously.