Minutes of the DeKalb County
Regional Planning Commission

1. Roll Call – Mr. Nicklas called for the roll, and all members were present or represented except Mr. Rasmussen from DeKalb and Mr. Thompson from Malta.

2. Approval of Agenda – Mr. Nicklas indicated that he would like to amend the agenda to add item 7A, Discussion regarding the DeKalb County Courthouse Centennial Committee. Ms. Aldis moved to approved the amended agenda, seconded by Mr. Bellah, and the motion carried unanimously.

3. Approval of Minutes – Ms. Aldis moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Altmaier, and the motion carried unanimously.

Next Informational Seminar Topic –

Mr. Miller began by reminding the Commission that at its March 25, 2004 meeting, they had discussed the possibilities for the next informational seminar they might sponsor. Among the various topics that were mentioned, staff now recommends that the general issue of annexation, including annexation agreements, impact fees, developer agreements, associated zoning, etc., seems the most current and of greatest interest. Mr. Miller noted that a seminar focusing on annexation, similar to the "Zoning 101" Seminar that was held on March 6, 2004, could be set up with relatively little difficulty, following the same format previously used. The seminar could be held on a Saturday at the County buildings between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Depending on the outcome of discussion by the Commission, the seminar could feature two parts: the first would be instructional, covering the processes and the "dos and don’ts;" the second part could be an exercise where participants apply the information to a mock development scenario. Staff could provide the background for audience members that would take the part of developers, plan commissioners, village board/city council members, adjoining property owners, and key municipal staff.

Mr. Miller closed by noting that he recently had conversations with Ron Cope, attorney with the firm of Michael, Best and Friedrich and the editor of professional publications on land use law in Illinois. Mr. Cope has agreed to participate in an annexation/development seminar gratis. He commented that Mr. Cope was a familiar face within the County and had often worked with the County on litigation as well as some of the cities and villages on land use matters. Mr. Allen commented that he was extremely impressed with Mr. Cope and felt he would bring quite a breadth of knowledge and expertise to a seminar.

Mr. Altmaier asked why the staff had recommended annexation as a next topic for consideration. Mr. Miller responded that it seemed most timely as several municipalities have recently commented that they are being bombarded with developer inquiries and are frequently feeling unprepared for or uncertain to the task. Mr. Altmaier asked what the scope of the seminar would be. Mr. Miller responded that the intention would be to make the seminar more broad scope than just the issue of annexation. He noted that he envisioned a program that would take the process from first contact with a developer through to the receipt and approval of a preliminary plan (zoning, impact fees, etc.). Mr. Altmaier asked if there would be handouts available at the seminar as well as on the website following the session. Mr. Miller indicated that would be done.

Mr. Luker commented that this would certainly have the added advantage of having the full County speaking with the same voice. He commented that several developers do seem to try to take advantage of the municipalities who may not seem as confident in their processes.

Mr. Miller commented that the developers are certainly very well-versed in what they are doing and what they want from the communities they approach. A particularly frequent tactic they utilize will be to try to rush a community to agree to their terms by threatening to remove the project if they don’t receive immediate responses.

Mr. Nicklas asked for input as to a good time for setting the next seminar. Mr. Miller responded that he had felt that perhaps the group would want to wait until sometime next October. He felt that competing with vacations and other Summer commitments might reduce attendance and reduce the effectiveness of the seminar.

Mr. Pardridge and Ms. Morphey commented that they felt strongly that the press of developers necessitated scheduling this earlier to prevent communities making errors in the meantime. Mr. Nicklas commented that there had been a time when developers followed a rather predictable schedule of making their contacts in the Fall in anticipation of the next spring building season. However, he noted that schedule appears to have changed radically and contacts are now a year-round process. Mr. Miller noted that a seminar could be put together as early as June. Mr. Pardridge commented that he would certainly support and encourage the selection of a date in June.

Following extensive further discussion about acceptable dates, it was determined that Mr. Miller would first speak with Mr. Cope about his availability and them forward two or three choices of dates to the Commission members for consensus.

5. Growth Management Tools –

Mr. Miller reported that at the March 26, 2004 RPC meeting, the Commission members agreed to give some thought as to which of the various "growth management tools" previously discussed, they would like staff to research further and provide them more information on. It was agreed that the decision on which tool or tools would be the focus of more work would be made at this evening’s meeting. He then reiterated the list of items that are under consideration for further research and discussion:

He closed by noting that he has also updated some of the "impact fee" information that had been originally generated in 2002. Mr. Pardridge commented that he had additional information and corrections for the information on Shabbona. Other municipalities noted additional changes and Mr. Miller invited them to call or email him with any updates they felt appropriate.

Mr. Pardridge opened the discussion with a recommendation that they consider grading/stormwater management. He noted that this was particularly topical following the recent rain situation. He noted that even areas that do not have widespread water issues may still have isolated areas that generate an inordinate amount of complaint and problems.

Mr. Nicklas commented that since they would be tackling annexation and development in the upcoming seminar, perhaps they should consider impact fees as a directly related topic. He noted that they may also wish to concurrently consider alternative growth management techniques like pacing permits.

Mr. Miller commented that perhaps the Commission would want to consider reviewing a boilerplate annexation agreement with a series of bulleted narrative options. He noted that one area that might be highlighted would be the complexities of what can and cannot be done in Home Rule and non-Home Rule communities.

Ms. May, representing Lee, commented that she would like very much to see further information about the issue of Home Rule election and the options it opens or removes for municipalities. Several municipalities then discussed generally issued they have dealt with regarding school district fees.

Mr. Nicklas volunteered to provide a draft annexation agreement shell that Mr. Miller can prepare for future discussion. Mr. Luker commented that they had received a boilerplate version from Land Vision, Inc. but found it very difficult to use. Mr. Heidersheidt commented that they had a draft agreement given to Waterman from Kennedy Homes during their recent annexation discussions and felt it provided a very useful framework.

Mr. Miller commented that it is critical that municipalities who receive such drafts from developers spend time being very careful to assure that they retain full control of the content. Mr. Nicklas noted that Sycamore has had a great deal of success with their shell agreement. He noted further that this agreement is often given to developers to fill-in-the-blanks. This also makes it clear to developers what the municipality will and will not find acceptable.

Mr. Miller commented that while an annexation agreement can contain whatever the parties agree on, a municipality cannot agree to waive certain zoning ordinance standards, especially where public hearings are called for. Absent specific allowances written into the code allowing for the ordinances to be waived, a community cannot simply choose to ignore its own duly adopted provision of their zoning or subdivision regulations.

Mr. Luker asked to return to the question of receiving additional information on Home Rule and its impact on a municipality. Mr. Nicklas noted that many communities have wrestled with the advantages and potential disadvantages to electing Home Rule. Mr. Miller provided a rudimentary definition for the Commission noting that a Home Rule community is one in which its citizens have elected by a referendum to have more autonomy to set their own rules. This grants them certain authorities, according to the Courts, to write their own regulations. Non-Home Rule communities are required to abide by the regulations governing municipalities as set forth in the State statutes. One example is in the establishment of impact fees. Home Rule communities can simply elect to charge them, subject to the rules for impact fees, but a non-Home Rule community cannot due unless State law specifically allows the fee. He closed by noting that Counties can elect to be Home Rule as well, though only one (Cook County) exists currently in the State.

Mr. Luker asked if a Home Rule community is penalized in any way by the loss of income from the State. Mr. Miller commented that he is not certain if that is true. Mr. Nicklas commented that it was his understanding that the basic net appropriations are not lost, but the Home Rule community can also impose additional taxes and fees. Ms. May asked if this only applied to communities of a certain size.

Mr. Nicklas commented that perhaps this is another topic for the staff to prepare additional information for the Commission as well. Mr. Miller responded that perhaps this could be done following the annexation agreement talk. Mr. Luker noted that some legal advice would be very beneficial.

Mr. Gentile asked if information about build-out schedules and permit pacing would be a part of the annexation agreement talk. Mr. Nicklas commented that he would include a very detailed ordinance that is referenced in his boilerplate. He closed by noting that there is a two phase approach in Sycamore, one for the new subdivisions and one for those subdivisions that were already in the pipeline at the time the ordinance was approved.

Mr. Gentile then asked if anyone had done any studies or looked at the issue of staffing based on development. Mr. Nicklas responded that he utilizes a fiscal study spreadsheet that focuses on city services and school impacts

Mr. Miller began by commenting that The Illinois Chapter of the American Planning Association recently awarded the DeKalb County Unified Comprehensive Plan the planning award for 2003. The award, which is given annually to the project that is determined to best displays originality, transferability, quality and implementation, was announced at the annual meeting of the Illinois Chapter at Starved Rock State Park on May 21, 2004. In attendance at the award banquet representing the Regional Planning Commission were Paul Rasmussen, Dennis Sands, Roger Steimel and Paul Miller.

He commented that this award is recognition from the main professional planning association in the State that the Unified Comprehensive Plan project conducted through the DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission is unique and noteworthy as a potential model for other planning jurisdictions throughout Illinois. He added that members of the Commission, and the County and municipalities that make up the Commission, should be proud of the Unified Comprehensive Plan and the recognition afforded it by planning professionals in the APA.

On a related note, Mr. Miller reported that the Metropolitan Planning Council, a nonprofit planning advocacy organization that focuses on Chicago and the surrounding collar counties, recently put out requests for nominations for its annual Burnham Award for Excellence in Planning. This prestigious award is given to the project that has exhibited superior quality in process and results. Mr. Miller noted to the Commission that he had nominated the Unified Comprehensive Plan for consideration, as he believed it exemplifies the kind of cooperative, regional approach to planning that the Council has been advocating for a number of years. Since the submission, he has since informed that, while the Plan received a very positive review by the Council, it was not selected for this years award. The Council encouraged the Regional Planning Commission to nominate the Unified Comprehensive Plan again in one or two years, after there has been more time to evaluate its effectiveness and validity.

Mr. Nicklas commended Mr. Miller for his efforts in putting the Plan forward and working with the awarding bodies.

Ms. Aldis asked what sort of evidence the Metropolitan Planning Council would want to see to determine effectiveness. Mr. Miller responded that they will want to see evidence that the municipalities did not shelve the plan but rather stuck to it (aside from necessary emendations) as new development arises. He noted that it would be his intention in two or three years to gather data from the communities about their adherence to the plans established and then prepare a re-submission.

Mr. Heidersheidt commented that it would be good to get this story into the local news outlets. Mr. Miller responded that his office has prepared a release and picture and hoped they could arrange for inclusion in some upcoming issue of the Chronicle or Midweek.

The discussion closed with several of the communities wondering if Land Vision Inc will ever be providing their promised final plan copies. Mr. Miller agreed to contact Land Vision and address the issue as well as expressing the County’s unhappiness with the length of time it has taken to resolve this point.

7. Municipal Development Projects –

Mr. Steimel began by noting that he had been very pleased to be one of the individuals traveling to Starved Rock to receive the APA Award for the Comprehensive Plan. He noted many complimentary comments received that day. Additionally, he noted that the Planning and Regulations Committee of the County Board is currently in the process of reviewing possible zoning changes to bring them into alignment with the new Unified Comprehensive Plan. He commented that the Committee had also recently elected to support a recommendation of approval for the new John Deere site. The County is very pleased to keep this business, so vital to the agricultural community, in DeKalb County. He closed by noting that with the recent extraordinary rainfall totals, many new water issues have come to light especially in areas of new development. He urged the municipalities to address any problems related to that new construction quickly and thoroughly and noted that stormwater infrastructure should be the first priority before any new building begins. He advised the municipalities to be very aggressive with developers in addressing these issues.

Mr. Pardridge agreed that storm water management must be a priority issue. He commented that it becomes very obvious that homes built 20 or so years ago did not address these issues and have suffered as a result. He then commented that Shabbona has been working on an annexation agreement and have completed the requisite public hearings. He noted that the Village is taking the process slowly and carefully. He closed by noting that it has been very interesting to watch the evolution of the impact fees when compared to studies on expenses done several years back. Mr. Nicklas commented that on the CD copy of the Unified Development Ordinance there is some interesting information related to stormwater provisions. He noted that the standards included in Article 6 impose a higher level of run-off restrictions on developers and might be useful to communities wrestling with water issues. Mr. Pardridge asked if there was any good topographical information available in the County to assist with future flow predictions and necessary restrictions. Mr. Luker commented that the best source of such information would be City or County Engineers.

Mr. Bellah reported that due to extensive efforts over the past few years, he had received no water complaints for Kirkland during the last few rain events. He noted that they had been in discussion with an Orland Park developer regarding an 1,135 acre proposal, but the project may now be dead due to a disagreement over the flexibility of property tax multipliers. He commented that the Village had taken on a new law firm, Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Busch, and were extremely happy with the representative, Scott Puma, that they have been assigned. Mr. Bellah then closed by inviting the Commission members to events being held the Sunday before Memorial Day at the Kirkland Veteran’s Memorial. Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Bellah would be staying with the RPC following his retirement as Village mayor. Mr. Bellah replied that he certainly intended to ask the Village Board to allow him to continue in this capacity. Mr. Miller, along with the other Commission members, complimented Mr. Bellah on his work with the group to date and expressed their delight with his intention to continue his service.

Ms. Morphey reported that Somonauk has a subdivision ready to roll which will be closing on 38 lots within the next week. She noted that the Village has been contacted by several developers including Montelbano and Insignia. Work begins this summer or fall on the new water tower for the Village and they have contracted the firm Harley-Smith to do the work.

Mr. Heidersheidt noted that Waterman is currently working with Land Vision Inc. on the update of their UDO and will have an upcoming ordinance going before their Board which contains a PUD classification. They will also be holding a vote at their upcoming meeting on two proposed annexations. The outcomes looked favorable for the proposals at earlier meetings, however, he noted that a resident has been attempting to drum up opposition to the proposals in the local press. Hr. Heidersheidt further commented that the Route 30 project is in full swing and noted that they had quite a lively time of it when the contractor recently punctured a gas main effecting several houses and causing a small evacuation.

Mr. Allen reported that Sandwich has two large developments currently being built out, Fairwinds and Dutch Acres. He noted that another development should be coming along somewhere east and north of the Hospital. Work will also be starting in the fall on a bridge project on Route 34 east of town. He noted that the bridge will be increased to three lanes. Work will also begin about the same time on the proposed three story, 60 room hotel with a 300 person banquet facility. However, they have not yet settled on an entrance location for the facility.

Mr. Altmaier commented that there is no development work to report for Kingston. The Village has been concentrating on the review of the Unified Development Ordinance. The Planning Commission is currently working with the Village Board to bring them into the review process at the early stages so that the Board will have a strong familiarity with the work by the time they are asked to approve it.

Mr. Gentile reported that the big event for Genoa this summer will be the closure of Route 23 and Route 72 for the installation of traffic signals and turn lanes. He noted that traffic will be a problem for approximately two to three months. He noted that they are working to develop alternate routes for the trucks and cars that now routinely travel through that intersection.

Mr. Luker commented that the new sub shop had its grand opening in Hinckley. He added that they are currently working on an annexation agreement on property for a new Fire Department facility. Additionally, there is still a subdivision on the books in an area north of town and Land Partners has approached the Village regarding a 200 unit proposal north of the church.

Ms. Aldis noted that the lights through town have been completed and activated and they are currently in the process of an RFP for a traffic study between Barber Greene Road and Pleasant Street. She commented that they are hoping to obtain an extension, but she noted that would entail intergovernmental agreement as well as agreement with the effected property owners. As to development, Ms. Aldis noted that they are still working with their sanitary sewer issues and the town continues to be contacted by developers.

Ms. May noted that it was quiet currently in Lee. She noted that they are currently working on the placement of a new light by the fire station just outside of town. Additionally, she commented that the new post office continues to be unoccupied due to problems with the contractors. At this point, until they complete the work (begun last June), the postal service will not take occupancy. The Village is also currently working with Eric Peterson from Waterman to do sewer work. Ms. May closed by noting that they would like very much to eliminate the junk yard that lies partially in Dixon and partially in Lee. Dixon has not been cooperative in assisting Lee with this.

Mr Nicklas asked if Mr. Kapitan from the audience would like to give the report on DeKalb in Mr. Rasmussen’s absence. Mr. Kapitan noted that the Plan Commission just passed the Park 88 agreement to the City Council and continue to have contacts by developers interested in the area. Mr. Miller asked if there had been action taken on the recent liquor license request from a proposed grocery store. Mr. Kapitan replied that they had changed the law to reflect similar laws in the Chicago area allowing the sale of liquor at grocery stores. However, he added that the City had placed limitations on this approval to try to minimize the competitive impact on other local liquor stores. Ms. May asked if there were concerns about the proximity of the proposed store to the local high school. Mr. Kapitan replied that there were problems to be addressed, and they were continuing to work toward resolving them. Mr. Kapitan closed by noting that this year marked the 150^th anniversary of the DeKalb Municipal Band. The first band concert for this commemorative year will be held on June 8, 2004 and they will be presenting a John Philip Sousa tune that was recently discovered and had only been presented publically once before. Anecdotally, he noted that the municipal band is actually older than the municipality itself.

Mr. Nicklas commented that Sycamore, Genoa and the County are currently working on a boundary agreement and hope to have a draft to share by the next RPC meeting. He added that the regulatory framework for the City continues to be a buzz in the community and appears to be deflecting developer interest away from Sycamore and possibly towards the other municipalities. He closed by noting that the community will be doing more streetscape work on the side streets around Main Street. Mr. Altmaier asked if Sycamore was at a point where they might be ready or willing to share their progress on their UDO. Mr. Nicklas responded that he has been working with the Plan Commission and they have completed four chapters to date and by the end of the Summer they hope to have the full document ready for Council review. He noted that they have been trying to use the basic shell of the model UDO and integrating their special needs and issues. He noted that the only problem they have had to date is a difficulty working with the graphics from the model. He closed by noting that they are currently looking at the issue of integrating some design guidelines into the final document.

7a. DeKalb County Courthouse Centennial Committee –

Mr. Nicklas began by commenting that a DeKalb County Courthouse Centennial Commission had been formed to organize a celebration of the 100^th anniversary of the County Courthouse. He noted that they have selected September 26, 2004 as the official date of the celebration and he extended an invitation to all the municipalities to join in the festivities. He then commented that the Centennial Commission is in need of assistance. They are asking all surrounding communities to locate photos from the 1905 through 1910 time frame for a special series of display boards they want to create for exhibition in the Courthouse. The Commission is requesting that the photos be sent in within the next 30 days at the latest so they can arrange the displays and also allow time for making any necessary copies, etc. He noted that communities could even scan photos and forward them on if that would be easier.

Adjournment – The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be July 22, 2004. Mr. Bellah moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Pardridge, and the motion carried unanimously.