 |
Democracy on the Front Lines
City Administrator’s Blog
Walter Denton
October 17, 2007
There has been a lot of media coverage regarding the proposed McEagle development in Shiloh. This development really doesn’t have anything to do with O’Fallon but I have gotten several calls and inquiries asking my opinion. I don’t know any more about the proposal than what I have read in the newspaper, so I am not qualified to make an opinion on the value of the project. However, I can discuss some of the general issues being considered by the residents and officials of Shiloh.
Some have asked why the mayor of Shiloh won’t just say “no” to the project. As I have tried to explain in this blog, there are issues of property rights that allow developers to propose projects. Since McEagle owns (or has control) over the property, they have the right to go through the process to have their project considered by the Village Board of Trustees. The project may or may not be approved, but the mayor cannot prevent McEagle from going through the process.
Others have questioned the size of the development. It is undoubtedly larger than other projects we have seen in the region, but size itself is not inherently bad. From an urban planning perspective, it is often better to see large tracts of land developed by the same company because then there will be consistency between design, land uses, and other conceptual themes. In contrast, it can be a bigger problem when there are many small, unrelated developments that do not go together and provide no consistent design.
That said, it is only a benefit to develop such a large piece of property when the project is in line with the community’s standards and expectations. This is where the proposal is getting a lot of attention. Is Shiloh ready for a mixed use development with commercial, multi-family, condominiums, and single family? McEagle’s plan is more dense than standard subdivisions and its mixture of multi-family, condos, and senior living facility is unusual for the Metro East. What will the effect of the density have on traffic, property values, and school enrollments?
It is my understanding that the proposal does not comply with Shiloh’s Comprehensive Plan, so there already is a conflict with City policy. The Comprehensive Plan provides guidance on land uses and, while not unheard of, it is a big deal to change the Comprehensive Plan to allow for a different land use. Shiloh will have to modify its Plan if it wants to approve the project in its current form. If McEagle was proposing 586 acres of single family homes, I doubt there would be as much controversy.
However, the Tamarack Golf Course and Three Springs Park add two more degrees of difficulty to the project. Tamarack is a landmark in placeShiloh and many people would like to see it saved. In fact, the Village of Shiloh and City of O’Fallon attempted to purchase the golf course two years ago but were unsuccessful in securing the funding. The removal of the golf course is difficult for some residents to accept and McEagle has attempted to counter that by proposing a large park in the middle of the development (although not as large as the golf course).
The problem is they are also proposing to remove the Three Springs Park on Frank Scott Parkway. So McEagle is removing a golf course and regional park and replacing them with one new park. Removing Three Springs Park makes economic sense because that land is much more valuable as commercial retail property that would be profitable to both McEagle and Shiloh. The question for residents and village officials to consider is whether Shiloh is getting equivalent value with the new park. Is there the same amount (or more) of usable green space? Is the new park accessible to Shiloh residents? Will the park feature the kinds of amenities needed for residents?
As I said, I don’t have any inside knowledge on the project and I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. However, the Village of Shiloh will have to consider these questions in the same way that development proposals are deliberated in the City of O’Fallon. In the end, the decision will be whether the project is appropriate for that site.
| |
