Laserfiche WebLink
<br />report had been submitted within the last two years. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher said this proposal failed to meet the needs of the neighbors related to the issue of viewing <br />into backyards. Dormers had not been adequately addressed. The proposed language allowed for two <br />side dormers on the back half of the property, each ten feet wide, with no limit on glazing or balconies. <br />This created a situation where people perch and look over into neighbor's backyards. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless stated that the code contained mandatory second floor <br />language. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. <br />side dormers, and that the <br />and one-half feet from the floor <br /> <br />balconies in <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless' correction. The <br /> <br />options, including landscaping was <br /> <br />available to <br /> <br />Mr. <br /> <br />use during the discussion. <br /> <br />The <br /> <br />and code issues related to balconies. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan opined Commission was attempting to intensify living in an area. v,,'hen <br />people chose to live in they chose not to have 100 percent privacy. The commission was <br />attempting to find a that would allow people to use their homes and enjoy the outdoor spaces. <br />While creating some screening, it was not possible to guarantee total privacy. Comer lots were <br />particularly problematic. He proposed having a discussion about how balconies were created rather than <br />completely taking away that option. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher said the code was designed to protect privacy, thus it was appropriate to deal with privacy <br /> <br />MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br /> <br />September 26, 2005 <br /> <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />