Kendall Co. Plan Consortium Minutes 2007 07-19-07 Kendall County Planning Consortium
Yorkville Library
Thursday,July 19, 2007
In Attendance:
Jason Bragg-Montgomery Iry Ochsenschlager- Sugar Grove
Jim Eckert—Sugar Grove Terry Larson-Kendall County
Anne Lucietto—Yorkville Mildred McNeal-James -Montgomery
Charley Wunder-Yorkville Richard Scheffrahn-Yorkville
Edith McDonald—Oswego Sandy Adams -Yorkville
Glen Schiebel -Minooka David Deahl -Minooka
Jim Brownlee-Minooka Dan Wittenterer- Minooka
Valerie Burd-Yorkville Tom Lindblom-Yorkville
Jeff Baker-Yorkville Jerry Dudgeon-Kendall County
Tom Gilmour-Yorkville Rod Zenner- Oswego
Jeff Freeman—EEI—Sugar Grove Ron Diederich-Yorkville
Tom LeCuyer—Plano Michael Brown—Montgomery
Dean Hummell—Big Rock Al Marben—Big Rock
Lynn Dubajic—YEDC-Yorkville Chet Zmarzlmski, Plattville
Delene Drew—Newark June McCord
Judy Heim—Millbrook Margaret Knudson—Millbrook
Larry Kachel—Plainfield Cliff Oleson—Plano
Paul Sestak—Big Rock Gary Petersen—Big Rock
Mark Engen—Aurora Bill Bergeron—Aurora
Scott Gryder—Oswego Earl Corrigan—Minooka
Jerry Friel—Plattville Sherry Underhill -Newark
Beverly Horsley—Lisbon Wally Werderich—Yorkville
Tony Scott- Kendall County Record Joe Plocher—Yorkville
Elizabeth Langland—Plattville Scott Buening—Sugar Grove
Mike Hammond- Brian Schillinger—Yorkville
Brian LeClercq—Oswego Margie Bonuchi—Plainfield
Jack Jones—Yorkville Heather Gillers—Beacon News
Robyn Sutcliff—Yorkville Annette Williams—Yorkville
Yorkville Plan Commission Chairman Anne Lucietto opened the meeting at about 7:15.
She said she let everyone continue talking beyond the planned meeting start time,
because the intent of the meeting was to encourage communication between plan
commissions in Kendall County and regional planning groups. Fifty six people attended
the meeting.
She said it's important for the plan commissions to get together and communicate
because Kendall County is the second fastest growing county in the country.
Members from each of the plan commissions in each of the communities were placed in
groups to discuss issues they believe are important to their communities, she said.
Outlining the evening's agenda, Lucietto asked the groups to discuss those issues for
about a half hour. Then, the groups would come together as a whole to determine what
are the greatest issues facing the communities. In future meetings, those issues would be
discussed.
She also said she recently went to a Plano Plan Commission meeting and encouraged
others to attend Plan Commission meetings from other communities.
Lucietto then invited the groups to begin their discussions. The discussions lasted for
about 45 minutes.
The groups came together as one at about 8:10 p.m. Issues discussed in each of the small
groups were written on easel paper and posted to the walls. Lucietto said there were more
issues than she had anticipated. She then gave each plan commission member two dots to
place on the topics they felt were the top two issues affecting their communities or
regional planning group. Mayors and village presidents were not allowed to vote.
The voting was as such:
Boundary agreements 4
Landfills 6
Traffic/ congestion 8
Impact Fees no votes
River/management stream 1
IDOT issues 1
Rail/Right of Way, Major Hwy. 1
Road funding 1
Bridges no votes
Access major highways no votes
Suburbia coordination 1
Storm water no votes
Reg. & local water supply 2
Blending of communities I
School funding 5
Support service, growth to serve growing population no votes
Lack of interest of citizens 3
Comprehensive plans 1
Roads (Pr. Pkwy&Rts. 47/34/ 30) 5
Small town—control growth, school 2
Communities played against each other by developers 7
Village attorneys no votes
Demographics—commercial vs. residential vs. downtown no votes
Density 1 vote
Maintain rural flavor/historic neighborhoods 8
Lot size I
Bike paths 4
Open Space 1
Infrastructure 2
Those items with No votes were discussed in one of the small groups—but no plan
commission(voting)members chose to vote on these items.
After everyone had voted, the top issues were:
Traffic/congestion—8, roads—5, and other road issues received individual votes.
Maintaining rural flavor— 8
Communities played against each other by developers—7
Landfills—6
Lucietto said lumping the road and traffic issues together, traffic was the top concern. So,
the topic of the first meeting to be held in September will be about traffic. Lucietto said
she would work with Yorkville Community Development Director Travis Miller on
developing an agenda for that meeting. In the meantime, she encouraged those present to
bring forth any issues pertinent to that topic.
She asked the plan commission members from communities in the county to put their
meeting dates on the specified chart so that a second consortium meeting could be
planned without conflicting with regularly scheduled plan commission meetings.
A second meeting tentatively would be planned for November prior to Thanksgiving. The
focus of that meeting will be on maintaining rural flavor and preserving historic
buildings.
The third main issue dealt with developers playing communities against each other.
Lucietto said that topic would be addressed at a meeting to be held after the new year.
Getting the list of top concerns and getting communities talking to each other were the
main objectives, she said.
Other issued discussed by the small groups included: lot size; infrastructure; roads
(Prairie Parkway, Route 34, Route 30,Route 47); communities played against each other
by developers; lack of interest by citizens; bike paths; open space; small town control,
growth and schools; village attorneys; comprehensive plans; demographics—commercial
versus residential versus downtown; density;regional and local water supply; blending of
communities; sub-area coordination; stormwater; river/stream management; Illinois
Department of Transportation issues;rail/row major highway; road funding; bridges;
access to major highways; school funding; support services to support growing
population; impact fees; traffic/congestion;boundary agreements; landfill(s); maintaining
rural flavor; and preservation of historic sites.
The meeting ended at 8:30 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Dina Gipe