Regional Planning Commission Minutes --January 28, 2010

The DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission (RPC) met on January 28, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administration Building, Conference Room East, in Sycamore, Illinois. In attendance were Commission members Frank Altmaier, Ken Andersen, Mike Becker, Bill Beverley, Rich Gentile, Derek Hiland, Dave Maroo, Becky Morphey, Bill Nicklas, Martha May, Don Pardridge, Suzanne Sedlacek, and Jerry Thompson. Staff included Paul Miller and Rebecca Von Drasek. Also in attendance was Kate Schott

1. Roll Call -- Commission members Cookie Aldis and Kathleen Curtis were noted absent.

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

3. Approval of Minutes -- Ms. Sedlacek moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Andersen, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Miller thanked the Commission members that already had sent in their annual dues. He also asked the Commission members from Hinckley and Lee to assist County staff in facilitating this payment. Mr. Maroo asked that a second invoice for the Village of Hinckley be sent.

Mr. Miller explained to the Commission that DeKalb County has been working on Phase 2 of the Countywide Stormwater Management Plan over the course of the last year. The primary feature of this phase will be the creations of “County-wide Surface Water Maps.” He outlined the projects to add county-wide two-foot contour intervals (topography), wetlands, and watershed boundaries into the County’s digital maps as part of the Phase 2 work. Mr. Miller explained that the final appearance of the contour data will be as brown lines on the GIS maps, with ten-foot increments depicted as a different color, possibly red lines. The actual elevation above sea-level will pop up as users scroll across the maps. He anticipated that this work will be finished by the end of March, 2010. The contour data will be available to the public on the County’s GIS Zoning District maps as a button which can be turned on or off. Mr. Miller informed the Commission that county staff had met with Dr. Richard Greene of Northern Illinois University on December 7, 2009 to discuss the watershed boundaries delineation project. Dr. Greene suggested that some of his students in the GIS program might be able to do the delineations of the County’s watersheds using the County’s contour data. A protocol for doing the work will be developed by Dr. Greene using existing methodologies. Mr. Miller also reported that this project would be accomplished without requiring any significant funding from the County. It is anticipated that the protocol for the mapping project will be developed before the end of January 2010 and the project should be completed within a few months. Mr. Miller also explained that staff has been in contact with Mike Richolson of the Natural Resources Conservation Service regarding obtaining GIS shape files for designated wetlands. These files, Mr. Miller explained, depict wetlands based on records of known wetlands and likely wetlands based on soil types, but do not necessarily depict delineated wetlands. Mr. Miller anticipated that the wetland inventory could become a “button” that can also be turned on and off on the comprehensive surface water maps. He explained that future projects that require a Site Development Permit on a property that includes such a designated wetland may be required to do a wetland delineation prior to moving dirt. Should a wetland be confirmed on the property, the applicant would either have to protect the wetland (including an area around it), or possibly mitigate the wetland through participation in the County’s wetland banking system. Mr. Miller concluded by encouraging DeKalb County communities to utilize this newly available information .

Mr. Beverley stated that the City of Sandwich has six-inch contour maps. Mr. Miller offered to contact Tom Horak about possibly incorporating this information with the County’s GIS.

Mr. Gentile noted that the County’s GIS system was a really great tool to perform measurements with and noted that the snap shot of information could be used as documentation on a particular piece of property.

Mr. Nicklas noted that the GIS system was a generous gift that the County offers to the municipalities and its citizenry.

Mr. Gentile suggested that the Commission have a presentation on the GIS system at the March meeting. Mr. Miller agreed that would be possible and suggested that members encourage staff from the municipalities to attend so that they could also learn more about the maps and the information available to them.

Mr. Nicklas noted that it might be timely to discuss the successes and failures that the member communities have had with enforcing and collecting on financial guarantees for public improvements that were to be part of approved subdivisions.

Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. Nicklas that many municipalities might be suffering similar issues given the economic downturn. He asked the members to share topics that are in front of their councils.

Mr. Gentile related that the City of Genoa had called on a letter of credit on one development and had been working with other developers to give incentives for completing improvements. He noted that in the instance were the letter of credit had been used, the bank that issued the letter had asked to be allowed to contract out the work. Mr. Gentile observed that the City worked with the bank and both parties benefitted. The bank saved on construction costs and the City was able to get the improvements completed.

Mr. Miller asked if some of that success was also based on the fact that the City had a letter of credit versus a bond. Mr. Nicklas responded that with bonds the bank will generally push back first. He hypothesized that national/international banks may be less likely to work with a community than local banks.

Mr. Gentile had questioned if either a bond or a letter of credit would have value if the bank itself closed.

Mr. Beverley related that the City of Sandwich also had an unfinished development and that the developer had not been maintaining the lot. He noted that the City had raised the maintenance rates and would bill property owners failing to maintain properties. He also noted that a local landscaper had suggested de-rutting and planting low maintenance (native plants) while properties were in limbo.

Mr. Miller recapped that the unsold condition or interim status of the properties were another issue facing communities.

Ms. Sedlacek reported that one issue the Village of Wateman was working through was their Planning Commission’s revisions to the Village’s subdivision ordinance. She noted that the Village Board had requested a summary of justification for each revision and that the budget was being cut for the Planning Commission. Ms. Sedlacek relayed that this in turn caused the Chairman of the Planning Commission to resign. Ms. Sedlacek further explained that the Planning Commission was attempting to tighten the ordinance while development had slowed. She provided some examples from the experience Waterman had with the Kennedy Homes development as the reason the Planning Commission was attempting to revise the subdivision ordinance.

Mr. Nicklas suggested that the funding may be less of an impediment to the Waterman’s Planning Commission than the politics of the situation.

Ms. May asked how much investigation had gone into Kennedy Homes before they were allowed to build in Waterman. Mr. Pardridge noted that at the time Kennedy Homes was a very large national home builder. Ms. May questioned the quality of the product. Mr. Pardridge responded that it was hard to generalize. Ms. Sedlacek observed that many of the buyers wanted a larger home that they could also afford.

Mr. Thompson stated that Malta has had luck working with the bank owners of a Malta development. He pointed out that the bank is based in Wisconsin, and that once notified it paid to have the property cleaned up. Mr. Thompson also noted that the bank was being billed for snow removal and miscellaneous maintenance, and he hoped they would continue to pay those invoices. Mr. Thompson felt that the Malta example was one of a small community rolling up its collective sleeves and tackling an issue.

Mr. Nicklas noted that even in good times a community should negotiate the amount of the public guarantees and requirements for developments.

Mr. Andersen suggested that local builders should be involved in any discussion the RPC may sponsor related to finishing subdivisions or encouraging development. He asserted that there are many tools that the communities could use to attract further developments. Mr. Andersen noted as an example some property owners may be willing to farm a vacant lot but sometimes regulations prevent this type of use.

Mr. Pardridge asked if the Regional Planning Commission was the right forum for that type of discussion. Mr. Nicklas suggested that first the municipalities should have a handle on the fiscal exposure that the developments place on them. Then he suggested opening up the discussion to include not only the development community but also the banking industry representatives. Mr. Nicklas observed that he had not met a banker who wants to be a developer.

Mr. Thompson noted that Malta had a good relationship with their developer’s bank.

Mr. Maroo offered that from the banker’s prospective a clear and complete ownership of a property had to be established before any work can be done. This often takes a long time, during which time the bank cannot take responsibility for the property.

Mr. Beverley also asked about property taxes and the method by which they are generated. He noted that this is an issue he is asked about frequently.

Mr. Miller noted that there were some detectable trends in the conversation . He offered to gather the information and converse with Mr. Nicklas and Mr. Gentile before the next meeting to format a discussion around these issues.

Ms. May asked if all the developments listed on the “Current Developments Projects” worksheet were still taking place. Mr. Pardridge responded that they were open projects that may or may not be moving forward. Mr. Nicklas also explained that the pace had slowed but that the member communities continue to update the projects.

8. Next Meeting Date -- The Commission agreed that the next RPC meeting would be March 25, 2010 at 7:00 pm in the Conference Room East.

Mr. Altmaier reminded staff about handouts for the next meeting regarding the GIS system and property tax information.

9. Adjournment -- Mr. Pardridge motioned to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Sedlacek, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Nicklas agreed that a group may attempt to use the RPC to create greater interest in their agenda, he suggested in the future that the Commissioners consider if the content is consistent with the original goals of the Commission. He went on to ask if the annual due structure was sufficient for the County, to which Mr. Miller responded that it was sufficient. Mr. Nicklas also noted that the Charter required a monthly meeting, but noted that it was sometimes difficult to create a meaningful agenda for the Commission. Mr. Miller noted that the Commission was meeting generally every other month.

Mr. Nicklas moved to amend the Charter to reflect that the Commission intended to meet every other month, seconded by Ms. Sedlacek, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Miller agreed to draft prospective language for the amendment.

5. Initiation of County Unified Comprehensive Plan Update

Mr. Miller began the discussion by highlighting that DeKalb County adopted the Unified Comprehensive Plan at the end of 2003. He explained that the Plan incorporated the future land use plans of the municipalities within DeKalb County (with the exception of Maple Park), creating a planning document that represented a collective vision for the future of the region. Since its adoption, there have been changes in land uses through annexation and development. There have also been changes in elected officials, who are authorized to represent the desires of their constituents with respect to how their communities should look and grow. Mr. Miller noted that several municipalities have adopted amendments to their comprehensive plans since 2003. He argued that in order to remain effective as a guide for land use and development, comprehensive plans must occasionally be updated as conditions on the ground change and as new decision-makers lend their energy to the process of growth. This holds for the Unified Comprehensive Plan as well. The Planning and Zoning Committee of the DeKalb County Board has endorsed the idea of updating the DeKalb County Unified Comprehensive Plan in 2009, with an eye toward adoption by the County Board by January of 2010. Lastly, he suggested that the current economic downturn affords an opportunity for consideration of future growth without the pressure of actual development proposals pending before the decision-makers. Mr. Miller then outlined the process by which the County intended to update the Comprehensive Plan:

1. Gather all of the current municipal future land use plans and integrate them into the County GIS system to create a new unified future land use plan. The GIS system already has the current municipal boundaries (NOTE: This task has already been completed);

2. Update demographic data from available sources;

3. Make any desirable changes to goals, objectives and future land use categories;

4. Conduct three open houses, one each in the north, central and south portions of the County, to solicit public input on the goals, objectives, land use policies and future land use plan, and use the input to finalize these elements of the updated plan;

5. Conduct one public hearing on the updated Unified Comprehensive Plan;

6. Send the updated Plan to the County Board for adoption in January of 2010.

He concluded by asking if Genoa might host the open house in the north, Sycamore or DeKalb in the central, and Sandwich or Somonauk in the south. He also asked for feedback from Commission members on the proposed update outline.

Mr. Gentile noted that the City of Genoa would be sending out a newsletter in April and could include information about the Countys northern open house if the date and time are known. He asked if the Future Land Use Map could be overlaid on an aerial. Mr. Miller thought that this might be a possibility, and said he could explore the issue with the Countys Information Management Department.

Mr. Nicklas noted that the County Seat would be available and suggested that the open houses be held in the evening starting in late May, early June.

Mr. Altmaier asked when the County would need the information if the open houses were to be held in late May, early June. Mr. Miller agreed that sooner the information was provided to the County the better.

Mr. Nicklas also reminded the Commissioners that if they had inter-governmental agreements that will be effected by changes they may make to their plans that they should attempt to contact interested parties such as the Farm Bureau. He then explained that the inter-governmental agreement between the City of Genoa and the City of Sycamore was altered when the City of Sycamore recently revised its Comprehensive Plan, reducing the area planned for non-agricultural development.

Mr. Gentile asked if the Countys public hearing for the Unified Comprehensive plan could work in conjunction as the required public hearing for municipal updates. Mr. Miller stated that the municipalities would have to hold individual hearings for their specific modifications. He also demonstrated that the County plan only shows the current municipal boundaries in gray, so any details within the corporate limits would need to be depicted on each municipalitys plan.

Mr. Becker also reminded the Commission that the elections were to be held in April, and therefore Communities may have new officials. He suggested that it may be difficult to turn around an update by late May, early June.

Mr. Miller concluded by encouraging Commission Members to discuss updating their plans to reflect the new goals and objectives of the community and to explain the benefits of coordinating such an update with the County process.

6. Discussion of Next Informational Seminar Topic

Mr. Miller explained that the Regional Planning Commission has sponsored informational seminars several times in the past. He emphasized that these seminars were intended to provide elected and appointed officials with information needed to make better land use decisions. He noted that these informational seminars have generally been well-received and well-attended and that Participants have indicated that the information was timely and useful. Mr. Miller informed the Commission that the Sustainable Water Action Team (SWAT) had recently presented to staff and Chairman Gentile with a possible information seminar topic on sustainable development and alternative stormwater management techniques. He provided the Commission with a handout outlining previously held stormwater workshops that SWAT had organized.

Mr. Gentile agreed that the smart growth measures (i.e. conservation design and green practices) SWAT was suggesting required plan commissioners willing to ask for these types of improvements. He added that with education many of the plan commissioners understand the standards and are more apt to ask for less traditional design requirements.

Ms. Aldis also noted that an informational seminar would give municipal plan commissioners a reason to meet in the current economic downturn.

Ms. Sedlacek noted that the Village of Watermans Planning Commission was already meeting to consider some revisions to their ordinance to incorporate smart growth measures.

Ms. Aldis asked if the SWAT group presentation would only be open to public officials (elected and appointed). Mr. Miller noted that this was SWATs preference to meet with decision-makers to discuss these types of design standards without the influence from outside interests.

Mr. Gentile asked that the SWAT group individualize their presentation, to include local improvements that meet these smart growth standards.

Ms. Sedlacek agreed and noted that one example might be one of the recent developments in Maple Park.

Mr. Gentile asked the Commissioners to look for existing examples in the County and provide the examples to him. He would then photograph and collate the information to provide to SWAT. He asked the Committee to collect these prior to the April RPC Meeting.

Mr. Miller suggested that at the April RPC meeting the Committee nail down a date and topic for the seminar.

Mr. Gentile suggested that the SWAT group briefly present at the next RPC meeting, so that the Commission can discuss the seminars topic.

7. DeKalb County Continuum of Care Information

Kelly Chrisse, an intern with the City of DeKalb, made a presentation to the Commission on the Continuum of Care ten-year program to address homelessness. Ms. Chrisse explained that DeKalb County Continuum of Car (DeKalb CoC) originally formed as a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandate, and seeks to break the cycle of homelessness in the County by assisting homeless individuals and families move into permanent housing and become self-sufficient. Ms. Chrisse then passed out a memo regarding the Point-In-Time Count of Unsheltered Homeless Persons, which was scheduled for January 30, 2009. She explained that the purpose of the count was to identify people in need within the County, and she asked that Commissioners share this information with individuals within their jurisdictions to assist the DeKalb CoC in identifying and counting those in need.

Mr. Miller asked if the DeKalb CoC was in contact with the Mary Ramp, DeKalb County Health Department. Ms. Chrisse stated that the agencies work together.

Mr. Nicklas suggested that the Commissioners may want to speak with their respective police departments, as this is one department within each community who may have contact with homeless individuals.

Ms. Sedlacek noted that the January timing for the Point-In-Time Count was awkward considering the weather. Ms. Aldis noted that the program was nationwide.

Mr. Andersen also asked if the DeKalb CoC was working with the Health and Human Services Committee of the DeKalb County Board, and Ms. Chrisse stated that the were working with that Committee as well.

Ms. Chrisse thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak on behalf of DeKalb Continuum of Care and encouraged Commissioners to contact her with the names and contact information of any individuals or organizations that are involved in working with the homeless in their communities.

8. Member Re-appointments

Mr. Miller noted that the following municipalities would need to forward in writing to County Board Chairman Ruth Anne Tobias the names of a representative to the Regional Planning Commission and an alternate. The names of the member representative and an alternate need to be received no later than March 2, 2009, so that the County Board Chairman can make appoints at the March 18, 2009 meeting of the County Board.

Municipality Appointed

Town of Cortland Cheryl Cookie Aldis

Village of Hinckley Dan Godhardt

Village of Lee Jerry Olson

City of Sandwich Bill Beverly

Village of Shabbona Don Pardridge

City of Sycamore Bill Nicklas

Ms. May noted that the Village of Lee may not meet prior to the March 2, 2009 deadline. Mr. Miller asked that the Village President send a brief letter extending Mr. Olsons and Ms. Mays terms, until a formal nomination can be completed.

Mr. Beverly stated that he would be reappointed, although he noted he was on the ballot in April. Mr. Miller pointed out that Mr. Beverly could continue to serve as the representative from Sandwich even if not reelected.

9. Municipal Development Projects / Issues

Mr. Nicklas noted there were rumors regarding the possibility of federal funds, with guidelines yet to be established for shovel ready plans. Mr. Nicklas suggested members of the Commission contact their State Representatives of their prospective projects. He noted that there was specific interest for these projects in low income areas. Ms. May asked if this funding could be used for EPA mandated projects. Mr. Nicklas responded that the plans most likely to receive funding are those for which there are construction documents already in place.

Mr. Miller informed the Commissioners that the County had received a Special Use Application from FPL Energy Illinois Wind LLC and would be holding the public hearing on February 19, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the multi-purpose room of the DeKalb County Health Department at 2574 N. Annie Glidden Road. The project is proposed to consist of 151 turbines, 18 of which would be in Lee County, and another 14 of which are in the jurisdiction of the Villages of Lee and Shabbona. Shabbona has already approved the turbines proposed in its jurisdiction. Ms. May added that the Village of Lee had postponed their decision on the wind towers until the County has completed its process.

Ms. Sedlacek informed the Commission that storm sewer improvements were on-going in the Village of Waterman.

Mr. Beverley emphasized that the City of Sandwich had also had its storm sewer televised and would soon begin repairs in damaged areas of the line.

10. Next Meeting Date -- There was discussion as to when the next meeting of the RPC should occur. Mr. Gentile noted that he would not be available on the regular meeting date of March 26. It was agreed that the next RPC meeting would be April 2, 2009 at 7:00 pm in the Conference Room East.

7. Adjournment -- Ms. Aldis motioned to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Altmaier, and the motion carried unanimously.

DeKalb County, Illinois

Minutes of the
Regional Planning Commission Meeting

January 28, 2010

DeKalb County, Illinois

Minutes of the Regional Planning Commission Meeting

January 28, 2010

Minutes of the
Regional Planning Commission Meeting