Development News for Itasca, Illinois

Corner Side Yard Fence Variation Approved for 501 Bonnie Bray Ave with Landscaping Condition

The Planning Commission considered a request for a corner side yard fence variation at 501 Bonnie Bray Avenue. The property is a corner lot, and the applicant proposed extending their backyard fence to provide more usable space and enhance safety due to the busy intersection of George Street and Bonnie Bray Avenue. The proposed fence is a four-foot privacy fence with a one-foot open lattice top. Staff noted that while this style has been approved before, they typically recommend open-style fences for corner lots to improve visibility. The applicant discussed concerns about their two high-energy children and dog, and the busy street. The neighbor to the east, who also has a fence, was consulted and seemed agreeable, though their fence is set farther back. The commission discussed adding a condition for additional landscaping to soften the fence's appearance. The variation was approved with the condition of adding landscaping.

Lot Coverage Variation for 404 South Prospect Ave Continued Amidst Neighbor Concerns

The Planning Commission reviewed a request for a lot coverage variation for the property at 404 South Prospect Avenue. The original request, which included a driveway encroachment and lot coverage overage, was denied and sent back for re-review. The applicant has since removed the driveway encroachment but is still requesting a variation for lot coverage. Two options were presented, with the lesser option resulting in 53.42% coverage and the other around 54%. The current coverage is 56.5%, which is more than the original variance request. The commission discussed the possibility of making the patio permeable to comply with new ordinances that allow for 5% overage if permeable pavers are used. The case was continued to the next meeting to allow the applicant to work with staff on calculations and explore solutions, including potentially converting the patio to permeable pavers and adding a dry well. A neighbor also testified, alleging that water and chemicals from the property are flowing onto her land, causing erosion and damage, contradicting the applicant's claims of no flooding.