Fort Sheridan neighbors oppose 10‑home proposal at zero Patton Road; commission asks applicant to redesign

Highland Park commissioners and dozens of neighborhood residents expressed strong reservations on May 19 about a proposal to amend the Fort Sheridan master redevelopment plan and allow 10 detached single‑family homes at zero Patton Road.

Senior Planner Carl Burhop told the commission the parcel is governed by the Fort Sheridan master redevelopment plan (MRP), which envisions larger setback and buildable‑area configurations and had anticipated a larger multi‑story residential building on the site. The applicant asked the commission to amend multiple MRP setback requirements and to permit narrower building separations; staff said the proposal would require relief from north, west, south and east setback standards and that a PUD public‑benefit finding would be necessary if those deviations were granted.

Attorney Scott Borstein, representing the applicant team, described a clustered design of 10 detached homes around a private cul‑de‑sac and argued the site has sat vacant for nearly 30 years. "The site has been vacant for almost 30 years," Borstein said, urging the commission that a sensitive redevelopment would be a public benefit.

Architect Jacob Dodds and landscape architect Steve Gregory presented elevations and a planting strategy they said drew from Fort Sheridan materials and native/adaptive species. Civil engineer Alex Eppert described a proposed stormwater approach intended to reduce peak discharge compared with current conditions and noted a sanitary sewer lift station would be required to reach an available connection point.

Despite the project team's presentations, residents and homeowner representatives delivered sustained objections. Speakers stressed that the plan's density — 10 homes on a 1.33‑acre parcel — and the narrow gaps between buildings (as small as roughly 3–5 ft in places) would be out of character with Fort Sheridan; many urged the commission to insist on brick materials and preserve signature entry pillars and mature trees. "We put our faith in people like you... to protect us," said Steve Canter, a homeowner abutting the site, calling on the commission to protect the neighborhood's setbacks and open space.

Commissioners echoed those concerns. Several members said the proposal was inconsistent with the MRP's intent and the surrounding pattern of development; multiple commissioners asked the applicant to rework the plan, consider a different housing form (such as townhomes or a lower‑rise multiunit building that better matches the MRP), and provide clearer comparisons to RM1 and MRP standards. Commissioner Kevin Henry said, "This plan just does not meet those challenges in my estimation," and declined to support the proposal in its current form.

Staff noted several outstanding technical reviews — tree preservation/forestry comments, stormwater and public‑works comments, and needed final engineering approvals — and the applicant confirmed a cash payment in lieu of on‑site inclusionary units would be submitted ($370,800 as proposed in materials).

Given the volume of public comment and the extent of requested relief, the commission continued the public hearing to June 16 to give the applicant time to revise the design, provide requested comparisons and responses to staff comments, and return with materials that better address neighborhood compatibility and technical reviews.