Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Agenda - 2024-03-25Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Agenda Monday, March 25, 2024, 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 People interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation (a)kitchener.ca. Please refer to the delegation section on the agenda below for in-person registration and electronic participation deadlines. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. The meeting live -stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair: Councillor P. Singh Vice -Chair: Councillor D. Chapman Pages 1. Commencement 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www.kitchener.ca/conflict to submit your written form. 3. Consent Items The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance with the recommendation contained in each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed as under this section. 3.1 Limiting Distance Agreement with Owner of 630 Benninger Dr, and the 3 Corporation of the City of Kitchener Pursuant to Section 9.10.14.2.(4) Division B of the Building Code, DSD -2024-112 4. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. All Delegations where possible are encouraged to register prior to the start of the meeting. For Delegates who are attending in-person, registration is permitted up to the start of the meeting. Delegates who are interested in attending virtually must register by 4:00 p.m. on March 25, 2024, in order to participate electronically. 4.1 None at this time. 5. Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act (advertised) This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act. If a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City of Kitchener before the proposed applications are considered, the person or public body may not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal and may not be added as a party to a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal. 5.1 Official Plan Amendment Application 60 m 8 OPA23/020/K/KA, Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA23/035/K/KA, Enabling Four Units, DSD -2024-066 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.) Note: Any recommendation arising from this matter will be considered at a Special Council meeting later this date. 6. Discussion Items 6.1 Kitchener Growth Management Annual 20 m 282 Monitoring Report 2023, DSD -2024-130 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.) 7. Information Items 7.1 Quarterly Planning Report, DSD -2024-121 8. Adjournment Marilyn Mills Committee Coordinator 314 Page 2 of 343 Staff Report l IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: March 25, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Michael Seiling, Director of Building, 519-741-2200 ext. 7669 PREPARED BY: Leslie Collins, Municipal Building Official, 519-741-2200 ext. 7575 WARD(S) INVOLVED: 5 DATE OF REPORT: March 5, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-112 SUBJECT: Limiting distance agreement with owner of 630 Benninger Dr, and the corporation of the City of Kitchener pursuant to section 9.10.14.2.(4) Division B of the Building Code. RECOMMENDATION: That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute a limiting distance agreement with the registered owner(s) of Block 132, Registered Plan 58M-642, known as 630 Benninger Dr, pursuant to Section 9.10.14.2.(4) of the Building Code: said agreement is to permit 5 blocks of stacked townhouses with a limiting distance for the exposed building face being measured to a point beyond the property line on to the adjacent property, Block 134 Registered Plan 58M-642, known as 16 Nathalie St (City of Kitchener stormwater management pond), to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is for a limiting distance agreement with the City that will have an easement placed on the stormwater management pond property. BACKGROUND: The Building Code limits the number of unprotected openings (i.e. windows and doors) in exterior walls to reduce the potential for fire spreading to adjacent buildings, existing or proposed. However, Div. B, Sec. 9.10.14.2.(4) of the Building Code does permit an increase in the limiting distance for the number of unprotected openings if an agreement has been entered into with the municipality and the adjacent property owner to establish the point to which the limiting distance for an exposing building face shall be measured beyond the property line. REPORT: The builder of the subject property has applied for building permits to construct five - three storey stacked townhouses. The developer of this site would like to increase the openings beyond what is permitted by the Building Code. The request for increased unprotected openings is along the southwest elevations that face the stormwater pond owned by the City of Kitchener. The increased unprotected openings requires the setback of 4.1 metres, where a setback of 1.76 to 2.33 metres is proposed. The developer would like the city to allow for 31.5% to 52.85% of unprotected openings *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 3 of 343 on this wall face. The current limiting distance would only allow for 9.3% to 12.6% unprotected openings. An additional limiting distance of 1.77 metres to 2.34 metres onto the adjacent property would permit the proposed building to be constructed with 31.5% to 52.85% unprotected openings. Building staff have reviewed this request and have no concerns with the additional openings within a distance of 1.77 metres to 2.34 metres from the property line onto the adjacent property. The adjacent lands being used to achieve the required limiting distance is being used as a stormwater management pond for the subdivision and owner by the City of Kitchener. There are no buildings on this site currently. The Director of Sanitary & Stormwater Utility was consulted during the site plan review process and confirmed that there is no current plans for any development in the area of the proposed easement. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Onpoint map showing stormwater management pond Attachment B — Site Grading plan Page 4 of 343 Attachmento0 stormwatermanagement g e ent o e n 1CdA " un V l' 111),y ,"0., r+ 9 p yru a=u ��!u p • , r• „ ®R I�r � a Page 5 of 343 Attachment B — Site Grading plan Page 6 of 343 Page 7 of 343 l IKgc.;i' r� R Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: March 25, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning and Housing Policy/City Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Katie Anderl, Project Manager (Planning), 519-741-2200 ext. 7987 Gaurang Khandelwal, Planner (Policy), 519-741-2200 ext. 7611 Arwa Alzoor, Planner (Development), 519-741-2200 ext.7847 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: March 12, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-066 SUBJECT: Enabling Four Units OPA23/020/K/KA & ZBA23/035/K/KA RECOMMENDATION: That City -Initiated Official Plan Amendment OPA23/020/K/KA, for the purpose of permitting up to 4 dwelling units on lots which permit a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street -townhouse dwelling, be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -2024-066 as Attachment `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; and, That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA23/035/K/KA to amend Zoning By-law 85-1, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" attached to Report DSD -2024-066 as Attachment `B1'; and further, That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA23/035/K/KA to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" attached to Report DSD -2024-066 as Attachment `132'. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend changes to the City's Official Plan, Zoning By-law 85-1 and Zoning By-law 2019-051 to enable up to four residential units on a lot which currently permits a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street - townhouse dwelling. • On October 16, 2023, City Council directed staff to propose a zoning by-law amendment to permit 'as -of -right' permissions for up to four (4) residential units on a property where zoning permits single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwelling units on sufficient lot sizes by the end of March 2024. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 8 of 343 • The recommended amendments enable up to 4 additional units on approximately 41,450 lots as -of -right, representing 68% of all residential lots in Kitchener through more permissive zoning rules. • This report also includes an overview of next steps to support uptake and implementation. • Community engagement included a variety of in-person and virtual opportunities including an online engagement page on Engage Kitchener, a virtual community meeting, public open houses in three different locations, consultation with the development industry through Kitchener Development Liaison Committee, and a development industry workshop totaling nearly 2,000 individual interactions. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report recommends Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments that will enable up to four dwelling units on residential lots which currently permit single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and street -townhouse dwellings. Four units could include four units in a principal dwelling, three units in a principal dwelling and one unit in an additional dwelling (detached) or two units in a principal dwelling and two units in an additional dwelling (detached) as depicted on Figure 1. 4 UNITS IN PRINCIPAL 3 UNITS IN PRINCIPAL 2 UNITS IN PRINCIPAL AND 1 UNIT IN DETACHED AND 2 UNITS IN DETACHED Figure 1. Options of Four Dwelling Units on a Lot The Enabling Four Units project helps to implement Kitchener's Municipal Housing Pledge through gentle intensification of the `missing little' which is a subset of missing middle housing including detached additional dwelling units and small multi-plexes which can be integrated in existing and new neighbourhood contexts. The proposed zoning regulations enable more units on more lots by: T increasing the number of units allowed on a lot from three (3) to four (4), and decreasing lot size and parking requirements from current regulations for 3 units, with variation based on geography. The Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments recommended in this report represent a bold yet balanced approach which works with existing zoning regulations, lotting and built form of neighbourhoods, while allowing for increases in density in areas with existing infrastructure, services and community facilities. Page 9 of 343 BACKGROUND: The City's Strategic Plan, Official Plan, and Housing for All Strategy recognize the importance of using a broad range of tools to advance critical housing objectives. The Enabling Four Units project is a key action of the City's Housing Accelerator Fund application and enabling additional units in existing low-density neighbourhoods will assist the City in fast -tracking 1,200 additional housing units over the next three years. On October 16, 2023, City Council directed staff to propose a zoning by-law amendment to permit `as -of -right' permissions for up to four (4) residential units on a property where zoning permits single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwelling units on sufficient lot sizes. This initiative is one of many considered, directed, and supported by Council since their endorsement of Kitchener's Housing Pledge in March 2023. Kitchener's Municipal Housing Pledge includes 11 strategies and actions to support the building of 35,000 more homes by 2031. The Enabling Four Units project advances work on the following Municipal Housing Pledge commitments: • Item 1 - Updates to Kitchener's Official Plan and Zoning By-law to further enable an increased supply of missing middle housing; • Item 5 - Continued advancement of work on updates to land use and zoning within Major Transit Station Areas; • Item 7 - Continued work to implement the recommendations and action items from Kitchener's Housing for All Strategy, specifically including those that enable an increased housing supply or streamlining development approvals; and, • Item 8 - Continued collaboration with the Waterloo Region Home Builders Association and Kitchener Development Liaison Committee, and others, to identify labour shortages and costs, material costs, infrastructure timing, economic market conditions, and land supply and housing capacity. The proposed amendments also align and act on direction from Regional Official Plan Amendment number 6 (ROPA 6). This amendment was approved by Regional Council in August 2022 and by the Province on April 11, 2023. ROPA 6 includes polices that seek to increase housing choice, support the construction of a range and mix of housing, and support intensification within the Urban Area through gentle density and missing middle housing options. It defines missing middle housing as "multiple unit housing including, but not limited to multiplexes, stacked townhouses, apartments, and other low-rise housing options." The Enabling Four Units project implements recommendations of the Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing Feasibility Study (MM+AH Study) completed in April 2023. This study looked at ways to improve housing affordability, provide more diversity in the housing types being built, and increase overall housing supply. The Enabling Four Units recommendations align with key recommendations of the study by reducing parking requirements, increasing density allowances and continued process improvements through the development approval process. Finally, this project builds on zoning bylaw amendments associated with Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act changes to the Planning Act which required municipalities to permit three (3) units as -of -right on lots with single detached dwellings, semi-detached Page 10 of 343 dwellings and street fronting townhouse dwelling units. In June 2023, City Council approved zoning amendments that allowed three (3) units as -of -right on over 28,500 lots. This project expands upon these permissions as detailed in the following report. REPORT: Kitchener has a long-standing history of managing growth through the Growth Management Strategy and Growth Management Plan, enabling housing supply through the Official Plan (i.e., directing growth to intensification areas like the Urban Growth Center and nodes as well as allowing a range of housing types in low-rise residential areas throughout Kitchener) coupled with forward -thinking zoning. For example, since the mid- 1990s Kitchener has enabled 2 dwelling units (i.e., duplexes) on most residentially zoned properties, and 3 dwelling units (triplexes) and backyard homes have been permitted on many lots since 2021. This report makes recommendations to enable up to four dwelling units on lots which currently permit single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and street townhouse dwellings, to allow more housing in new and existing residential areas. This report is structured to include the following sections: • Why Four Units? - provides a brief overview of the focus of this project • Financial Feasibility - summarizes MM+AH Study four -unit related findings • Impact of Current & Proposed Zoning Rules — explores statistics about what is currently permitted and potential impact of what is proposed • Four Units in Other Cities - summarizes the approach of other municipalities • Proposed Official Plan Amendment - provides an overview of the amendments proposed to Kitchener's Official Plan • Proposed Zoning By-law Amendments - details proposed zoning amendments • Planning Analysis — analyses the proposed amendments with the current planning framework • What We Heard - summarizes feedback from community, industry, staff and agencies, and our approach to addressing concerns • Next Steps — describes subsequent work to support implementation Why Four Units? Kitchener is growing rapidly. To meet growing housing needs, growth is required in all segments of the housing spectrum, from single detached dwellings to high-rise multiple dwellings. This report considers enabling additional housing for the "missing little". The MM+AH Study identified the "missing little" as an important housing typology, within the housing continuum. As part of the Official Plan's urban structure, the majority of lots in Kitchener are in Community Areas which are primarily low density and low rise, providing a significant opportunity to add more dwelling units. The "missing little" includes small- scale, infill housing that can be effectively integrated into neighbourhood contexts by allowing more units to the primary dwelling often referred to as triplexes or fourplexes or in additional dwelling units (ADUs) such as backyard homes (see Figure 2). Page 11 of 343 Figure 2. `Missing Middle' and `Missing Little' Housing Types Other small multiples including multiplexes with more than 4 units and various forms of cluster townhouses are also important housing types within the community and are outside the "missing little" building typology. Detailed consideration and zoning for larger missing middle dwelling types was outside the scope of this project and will be evaluated prior to establishing new enabling policies and associated zoning regulations. Concurrent and future work which considers medium density and mid -rise housing forms include the Official Plan Review and Growing Together. The proposed regulations consider the typical low-rise residential lot sizes and configurations, and the typical existing built form which exists on a majority of standard lots in Kitchener. There will be unique situations which require site specific consideration through planning processes, including minor variances. Where variances are proposed, staff consider site and development characteristics to make recommendations to the Committee of Adjustment. Staff will also monitor common variances to determine whether variances which are frequently requested and typically supported can be recommended for general change through annual Zoning By-law updates. Financial Feasibility A key element of the MM+AH Study was to help describe the reasons for recent development patterns. Professional land economists on the consultant team tested the financial viability of the full range of housing types from single detached to high rise, the implications of ownership versus rental, and suburban versus central locations. The study noted barriers for building missing middle and affordable housing, which are less financially feasible than other housing types, including: • many missing middle forms are challenged by their poor financial attractiveness compared to other housing types and other lower -risk investment opportunities (i.e., 10 -year government bonds); • the analysis showed that while there were 5 profitable rental types (i.e., suburban towns, 8-plex, low-rise in both central and suburban neighbourhoods, and ADUs), all but the ADUs generated too small a profit to be viable; and, • parking costs are extremely impactful on development viability. Key recommendations of the study addressed through this report include reducing parking requirements, increasing density allowances, and continuing process improvements through the development approval process. Page 12 of 343 Impact of current and proposed zoning rules Kitchener has approximately 62,000 lots with 110,000 dwelling units in total. About 96% of the lots have a single detached, semi-detached, or street townhouse dwelling as the principal dwelling type and about 90% of the lots have only one (1) dwelling unit. Considering existing zoning regulations (minimum lot size and lot width only), approximately 28,575 lots (46% of the lots in Kitchener) are currently eligible for a total of 3 units on a lot. Figure 3 illustrates the total number of lots of each dwelling type. Single detached dwellings represent about 80% of the residential lots in Kitchener and represent the greatest opportunity for additional dwelling units. Street townhouses and semi-detached dwellings together consist of about 16% of lots. Further analysis by dwelling type and lot area and width is provided in Attachment F. Street town 4,407, Semis, 5,381, 9% Other dwelling types, 2,313,4% Figure 3. Total number of lots in Kitchener by type of dwelling Table 1 provides the number of building permits issued for additional dwelling units in the last five years from 2019 to 2023 in Kitchener. The uptake of additional dwelling units in Kitchener has been incremental, with triplexes and detached ADUs having relatively low but growing numbers. Table 1. Building permits issued for Additional Dwelling Units in Kitchener, 2019-2023 Year Duplex Triplex ADU (Detached) 2019 212 6 - 2020 286 13 - 2021 383 10 5 2022 547 10 15 2023 688 29 27 Total 2116 68 47 Page 13 of 343 With the proposed zoning changes, it is estimated that approximately 41,450 lots in Kitchener will become eligible (accounting for minimum lot size and lot width only) for up to 4 units as -of -right, representing 68% of all residential lots in Kitchener. An overall comparison of the increase in number of units which will be eligible is provided in Table 2. Nearly 80% of lots containing single detached dwellings will be eligible (approximately 11,937 more lots than today), and approximately 658 additional lots containing a semi- detached dwelling and 281 lots containing street -townhouses will be eligible. It should be noted that lots estimated to be eligible for up to 4 units may be subject to other development constraints (as discussed later in this report) that may impact the uptake of additional units. It is anticipated that the uptake will continue to be gradual, however, the City will make efforts to reduce barriers through the subsequent implementation strategy to support an increase in uptake. Table 2. Comparison of Lots with Additional Units Enabled Four Units in Other Cities Many municipalities in Canada and internationally are facing housing shortages and have taken the initiative to enable multiplex housing in low rise residential areas. Toronto, Mississauga, and London have already implemented zoning changes to permit up to 4 units on a lot. Some other municipalities in Ontario such as Waterloo, Guelph and Burlington are working towards enabling 4 units on a lot. A detailed comparative analysis of the regulations in place in Toronto, Mississauga, London, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Portland is included in Attachment E and a summary of the approach to key regulations is provided in Table 3. Table 3. A summary of 4 -unit permissions approved by other municipalities Zoning rules Lots with Single Lots with Semi- Lots with Street Lot units on a lot. Most permit up to 4 units in the principal Detached Detached Townhouse Total Dwellings Dwellings Dwellings Number of lots with up to 3 units permitted based 28,237 (56%) 207(4%) 131 (3%) 28,575 (48%) on current regulations Number of lots with up to 4 units permitted based 40,174 (80%) 865(16%) 412(9%) 41,451 (69%) on proposed regulations Additional lots that 11,937 658 281 12,876 permit up to 4 units Four Units in Other Cities Many municipalities in Canada and internationally are facing housing shortages and have taken the initiative to enable multiplex housing in low rise residential areas. Toronto, Mississauga, and London have already implemented zoning changes to permit up to 4 units on a lot. Some other municipalities in Ontario such as Waterloo, Guelph and Burlington are working towards enabling 4 units on a lot. A detailed comparative analysis of the regulations in place in Toronto, Mississauga, London, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Portland is included in Attachment E and a summary of the approach to key regulations is provided in Table 3. Table 3. A summary of 4 -unit permissions approved by other municipalities Zoning rules Other municipalities' approach 4 Unit Configuration on a Other cities have enabled different configurations of 4 Lot units on a lot. Most permit up to 4 units in the principal building. Other options include 3 units in the principal building and one in the detached building, or 2 units in both the principal building and the detached building. Page 14 of 343 Minimum Lot Width Minimum lot width is largely based on the underlying zone and principal dwelling type. Although minimum lot width requirements vary, it is generally in the 10 -metre range. Minimum Lot Area Some cities require a minimum lot area to achieve a functional site of around 300 square meters. Some other municipalities do not specify a minimum lot area but rely on the underlying zone minimum. 4 Units in Principal Building With the intention to maintain the neighborhood character, most municipalities have enabled 4 units in the principal dwelling with the addition or conversion regulated through built form standards (coverage, height, setbacks). Most municipalities exempt 4 -unit buildings from a floor space ratio (FSR) regulation. Some also provide bonusing in terms of additional coverage or FSR to accommodate additional units. 4 Units on Lots with an Approach varies among cities. Key observations: Additional Detached _ size of the detached building is restricted to be Dwelling subordinate to the principal building and mostly regulated through lot coverage, proportion of the principal building, up to a maximum specified size, or a proportion of the rear yard area - building height is restricted in relation to the principal building, and in most cases limited to around 6 to 6.8 m, allowing a 2 -storey building - for a one -storey building, setbacks from side and rear lot lines are mostly 0.6 m with no openings allowed on the fagade towards the lot line - for a 2 -storey building, setbacks from side and rear lot lines vary from 0.9 m to 1.5 m - some have implemented a minimum separation between the principal and the additional detached dwelling which varies from 3 m to 6.1 m Parking Most municipalities have moved away from parking minimums, particularly for additional units. Parking regulations still apply where parking is provided. Kitchener's approach to enabling 4 units and the proposed regulations considers other municipalities' approach in relation to aspects such as configuration of 4 units, minimum lot width and lot size for 4 units on a lot, and parking reductions. However, the proposed regulations through this work are a `made in Kitchener, made for Kitchener' solution that is both forward thinking and considerate of Kitchener's existing lot fabric and the zoning permissions already in place. The proposed changes are responsible and will provide for an increased housing supply while respecting neighbourhood characteristics that are important to residents. Page 15 of 343 Proposed Official Plan Amendments In June 2023, the City amended the Official Plan to incorporate changes resulting from Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act. This Bill was enacted in response to the housing supply crisis and the province's ambitious target to build 1.5 million homes within the next 10 years, and made changes to the Planning Act that, among other matters, broadened as -of - right permissions for up to three units on a property for single detached dwellings, semi- detached dwellings and street -fronting townhouses. These changes were incorporated into the Official Plan through Official Plan Amendment #29 and included new housing policy 4.C.1.23 which enabled up to two additional dwelling units (attached) or one additional dwelling unit (attached) and one additional dwelling unit (detached) in association with a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, or street -townhouse dwelling. The proposed Amendment to the 2014 Official Plan deletes policy 4.C.1.23 which currently permits up to 3 units on a lot and specifies how the units may be arranged within buildings (refer to Attachment A to this report). In replacement, the proposed policy will permit up to 4 units on a lot and continues to enable these units to be further regulated by the zoning by-law which will specify lot sizes, setback requirements, parking, and other matters. As articulated in the Planning Discussion that follows, staff is of the opinion that that proposed Official Plan Amendment is consistent with and conforms to the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement (2020), the Places to Grow Act (2005) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) and the Regional Official Plan (2010, including ROPA #6), and represents good planning. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendments The proposed Zoning By-law Amendments make changes in four key regulation topics that will enable up to four units 'as -of -right' on significantly more lots than are currently eligible. Changes are proposed for both By-law 85-1 and By-law 2019-051 and result in consistent requirements between the by-laws. These four key regulation topics include: • Parking • Lot width and area • Regulations for additional dwelling units (detached) • Built form and site layout Parking: Parking was identified through the MM+AH study and through consultation with builders to be one of the major drivers in cost and a barrier to providing additional dwelling units, both in terms of land requirements and construction costs. Planning and Transportation Services staff recommend that parking requirements be reduced for additional dwelling units (attached and detached) dependant on geography. Table 4 summarizes the total number of required parking spaces for four units. Page 16 of 343 Table 4. Summary of proposed parking requirements for four units on a lot Location First unit Additional units Total Within 800 m of an ION station 0 to 1, depending on the zone 0 0 to 1 space Central neighbourhood area 1 1 2 All other areas 1 2 3 In addition to parking reductions, the proposed approach to parking includes the following as further detailed in this section: • Parking will continue to be permitted in tandem with maximum driveway widths in the front yard to remain unchanged. To add more flexibility to parking arrangements, the required setback to the first parking space is proposed to be reduced to allow side-by-side required parking in the driveway. • With no maximum parking limitation, rear yard parking may continue to be designed in a parking lot format with 4 or more vehicles per existing rules for parking layout. To support three parking spaces in the back, a less restrictive requirement is introduced that balances a maximum width with landscaped amenity area. • A new bicycle parking format is proposed for 3 and 4 units that supports active transportation while providing flexibility for storage options. Reduced parking requirements — The approach to parking rates recognizes that residents living within 800 metres of a Major Transit Station and within the Central Neighbourhood Area may not require dedicated parking spaces for all additional dwelling units because the area is well served by light rail, frequent bus transit, and cycling infrastructure, and is also very walkable. On the other hand, suburban areas of the city are more highly dependent on private vehicle ownership as transit is less accessible, and distances to destinations results in walking and cycling being less viable options. It is noted that as densities in neighbourhoods increase, demand for transit will grow transit services and the completion or upgrade of streets and active transportation networks will support active transportation options. Staff recommend that: • no parking be required for an additional dwelling unit on any lands within 800 metres of a Light Rail Transit Station. The affected area is shown in Appendix E to By-law 2019-051 and illustrated in Figure 4. The proposed parking rate will result in 0 or 1 spaces for the lot (0 spaces for any additional unit, plus 0 or 1 spaces for the principal dwelling depending on the zoning category). Page 17 of 343 Figure 4 - Properties within 800 metres of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station • a rate of 0.3 parking spaces for an additional dwelling unit in the Central Neighbourhood Area as defined in Appendix C to By-law 2019-051 and illustrated in Figure 5. The proposed parking rate will result in 2 spaces for the lot (1 parking space for any number of additional units plus 1 space for the principal dwelling). Figure 5. Central Neighbourhood Area • A parking rate of 0.6 spaces per additional dwelling unit in all other areas of the city. The proposed parking rate will result in a maximum of 3 spaces being required for the lot (up to 2 parking spaces for additional dwelling units, plus 1 space for the principal dwelling). Page 18 of 343 Note that parking calculations always round up to the nearest whole number (0.3 rounds up to 1, 1.2 rounds up to 2). Further, in all cases, a property owner may provide additional parking in accordance with the zoning by-law regulations for driveways and parking lots. Where parking is provided staff have also considered alternatives to traditional parking in driveways and private garages which make more efficient use of space including rear yard parking areas, reductions in setbacks to parking and mechanical parking systems. Driveway widening, — Staff recommend that the current permissions for driveway widths remain unchanged. Driveway widths are generally limited to about 50% of the lot width in suburban areas, and 40% of lot width in the Central Neighbourhood Area. These regulations were studied and implemented through the recent Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law, to achieve a balance between parking demands, an attractive streetscape and community characteristics. Limiting driveway widths helps to ensure that a proportion of the front yard can be dedicated to green space, which is important to facilitate infiltration of stormwater, as well as providing space for trees and landscaping which contribute to an attractive streetscape. Wider driveways also reduce the space for street trees, on -street parking, boulevard snow storage, and infrastructure such as hydro transformers and hydrants. Through community consultation, staff heard that protection of the urban forest and community characteristics, as well as availability of on -street parking are priorities for residents. Reductions to street line parking setback— Staff recommend reducing the minimum setback from the street line to the first required parking space from 6.0 metres to 0.5 metres (the 6.0 metres setback to a garage will remain). Today, required parking spaces are generally required to be setback 6.0 metres, except where parking is permitted in tandem. This means that while a tandem parking arrangement may be closer to the street, a non -tandem required parking space must be set back 6 metres. This requirement is frequently the subject of minor variances. The proposed change would apply to parking on all driveways, irrespective of the number of units, and will support a more efficient use of lands by allowing vehicles to be parked generally side-by-side in the driveway, often in front of the garage. Further, staff recommend amending regulations for driveway visibility triangles, so that vehicles parked on driveways are not considered an obstruction to visibility. Transportation Services staff are supportive of this change and recognize that vehicles regularly park in driveways close to the street, which may encroach into the visibility triangle of a neighbouring property. Rear Yard Parking — Where 3 or 4 units are provided on a lot, staff propose that parking regulations permit parking in rear yards. This can be desirable as it minimizes the need for driveway widenings and reduces vehicle clutter in front yards. The recommended zoning regulations would permit a driveway to be a maximum width of 8.0 metres in a rear yard, which could accommodate 3 parking spaces. Four or more parking spaces in a rear yard is defined as a parking lot, and the existing rules for small parking lots would apply including visual barriers, a minimum aisle width and minimum setbacks. The recommended additional permission for rear yard parking is balanced with proposed zoning rules requiring a minimum rear yard landscaped area of 30%, to provide for private amenity space, snow storage, and landscaping. Page 19 of 343 Mechanical Parking Systems — Mechanical parking systems were explored through this study to determine the appropriateness of integrating them into zoning regulations. Staff do not recommend that a mechanical parking lift or stacking system be considered for required parking for several reasons. First, it is difficult to ensure the ongoing maintenance and operational viability for the parking space to remain accessible to owners and tenants permanently. Stacking systems also present unique safety challenges that require training to ensure proper use and safe operation. Rather than integrating mechanical parking systems into the bylaw, staff took the approach of reduced parking requirements to provide flexibility to property owners. Such systems may be installed within a private garage to provide parking beyond the minimum zoning requirement. Staff do not recommend that this additional space be counted towards required parking. Bicycle Parking - To support parking reductions and active transportation, staff recommend that bicycle parking be provided for all lots with 3 or 4 dwelling units. A new class of bicycle parking is also recommended which will require secure and weather protected bicycle storage areas, but without the specific criteria for access aisles, overhead clearance and locking mechanisms which are required for commercial developments and multiple dwellings, where more extensive bicycle storage rooms or lockers may be required. Bicycle parking for additional dwelling units could be provided in an alcove within the unit, in a shed, or in a private garage. Lot Width and Area: Through this report, staff recommends reducing minimum lot size requirements from today's regulations, except where the base zone requires larger lot sizes in which case the base zone rules will continue to prevail (e.g. RES -1 and RES -2 zones and corner lots). Currently, a minimum lot width of 13.1 metres and a minimum lot area of 395 square metres are required for a lot containing 2 additional dwelling units (attached) or any lot with an additional dwelling unit (detached). The exception is where the zoning category requires more, in which case the lot size of the base zone prevails. This currently makes about 46% of lots in Kitchener eligible for additional units. These regulations were developed when additional dwelling units (detached) were first introduced in 2021 and were carried forward to regulations for 2 additional dwelling units (attached) in 2023 in response to Bill 23 changes to the Planning Act. The recommendations are informed by a lot size and built form analysis that takes into consideration setbacks, driveway widths, and building coverage. The minimum lot size requirements are largely driven by the amount of parking which may be required, maximum permitted lot coverages, minimum recommended landscape areas and recommended minimum separation distances between principal dwellings and detached additional dwellings. Based on the analysis, staff recommend minimum lot size rules based on geographic location summarized in Table 5. Page 20 of 343 Table 5. Summary of required minimum lot width and area for four units on a lot Location 1 ADU (attached) 2 or 3 ADUs Detached (attached) Additional Dwelling (1 or 2 units) Within 800 m of Base zone rules Base zone rules Base zone rules an LRT station apply apply apply Central Base zone rules Base zone rules Base zone rules Neighbourhood apply apply apply Area All other areas Base zone rules 10.5 m min. lot 10.5 m min. lot apply width, 360m2 min. lot width, 360m2 min. lot area' area' Except where the base zone requires larger lot sizes in which case the base zone rules will continue to prevail (e.g. RES -1 and RES -2 zones, and corner lots) A single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwelling with one additional dwelling unit (attached) continues to be permitted in accordance with the base zone rules regardless of lot size. This is consistent with the current approach and applies across the city. Within 800 metres of a Light Rail Transit Station and in the Central Neighbourhood Area, the base zone rules for lot size are proposed to apply to additional dwelling units (attached or detached) as the proposed total number of required parking spaces is lower and less lot width and area are required to accommodate parking and driveways, therefore providing additional opportunity to accommodate units on smaller lots. Staff is of the opinion that in the Central Neighbourhood Area and within 800 metres of an LRT station, additional dwellings attached and additional dwellings detached can be accommodated on any size lot, subject to the regulations for setbacks, building separation, landscaping, as less parking is required to be accommodated. Outside of the Central Neighbourhood Area and farther from LRT stations, staff recommend a minimum lot width of 10.5 m and a minimum lot area of 360 m2 for detached additional dwellings and where there are three or four units on a lot. New subdivisions, in particular, tend to have the most restrictive building orientation, with narrow lots where the principal dwelling is built to the required yards. Parking areas are often limited to a private garage in front of the dwelling, and driveway widths have already been maximized. Such areas are less well served by transit and are less walkable, generating a higher demand for off-street parking, and therefore more parking must be accommodated on-site. The proposed regulations were developed based on a lot analysis (refer to Figure 6) considering a typical suburban lot which has maximized useable space. The proposed minimum lot width of 10.5 m allows a single car garage, and a double car driveway to accommodate for the 3 required parking spaces. Alternatively, the lot width can Page 21 of 343 accommodate a 2.6 -metre -wide single car driveway located between the principal dwelling and the interior side lot line, to accommodate parking on the driveway in tandem, or leading to a parking area in the rear yard. Staff is of the opinion that a minimum lot area of 360 m2 is sufficient to accommodate an additional dwelling (detached) or where there are 2 or 3 additional units (attached) to provide for parking in the rear yard or an additional dwelling (detached) in the rear yard, together with private amenity space for residents. The diagrams demonstrate that the required site functions, setbacks and separations work on a lot of the recommended minimum area. Staff recommend that these regulations apply equally to semi-detached dwellings and street -townhouse dwellings as these will also require, in most cases, double car width driveways, landscaping, and distance separations, and 1.1 m unobstructed walkways. The recommended lot sizes are generally consistent with other municipalities that regulate lot size, and are a useful metric to property owners and investors seeking to understand whether additional units may be feasible in consideration of other regulations. Figure 6. Lot analysis for a suburban built form with detached and attached ADUs S O _ A­1y40­ lotareaof 360m2 ADU Ntached ADU Attached �_ Mu Min Lot AreamZ %FA) 4f'47 ........ E �` Wov' F'EWo Lot depth(m) 4A 2J....... 342.9 P is i iTrvEs'€—'� MmLdewldd,Cm} w.e 1 Min Front Yard setbck(my A5 4S Y . ,....... g5 Ew � Garcagu„4ronY aTd (m.i b ...... b ... 1 ✓ aow ISLE ¢Tlwrl 7 Min Real Yard Setback (m� 7.5 5 �/ E' ur r�awnnNna LOT .. Bvlldin .Area A754f 48% ..... nW15 #GriVl nnry io ­ERAGE TU ..... Max Building Hei ht m . Ldt Cove IMI INf uIeMA T (� .. MEET UM 1 172.71 al / '"�Y'MMruO GL➢'AItIA'Y'ILYW I ( y I S I, 1. ......................................... Maxaot storeps 3 ...............3 A detached Maxslxe 13% 0'% AUU detached Arora m2 45.'77 PD ( Z. c;OVE'RaUE' ARI A wu 1 TA �A M S FPARATICIN eET,1VIfiFhAENT' FY ll➢A4:',uC 11C411-1GN - LM 4:1L t I.L. F Fk -MAW. ��qq2 H 'l411µ N W M k 4i 711 1 W pl[ fY 'T&E'Vl LICM�M4.lT I 1DFl.YTFE I�fA+AYUST 111” T1111 SIDE ? BEEN T111 111E 1 bwAn vv ,1 ,mVtw7 mzrn 4ao1 �r 1 W6 'S1U0 mlm ! 00 ....< .._ ver / � [},{5 •Y� � 5='11 -11 1, , g26.71 ...-11 1 -141 —in(YWr VA11C /�(I' LAWn.,CAN14J 1 00 e Gl6](f 'n- - �. 47U(7 r1r i 00 nl n 5 Op aY y41 C1p I'o'i �I pfd"a7 !•1'1 11Tt1 ____ 11 T' '7 10500 Knrtn 10500 rmnn Mln Lut A ea of 'it - 11 a d L )t WIh1h Yf 1f7,5 M'ni LUt Area f 3110 m2 axttl LtSt Wdih of 10,5 rn "":4Y5f7"4Y�eta lied'I -------------- ........... A. tifg.dO In all cases, other zoning regulations such as minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage, minimum landscaping requirements, regulations related to the additional dwelling (detached), and a 1.1 m unobstructed walkway to principal entrances (for emergency Page 22 of 343 access purposes) will also apply and may restrict some lots from particular dwelling forms or site layouts. The proposed lot size will enable additional units on approximately 12,875 more lots than today. Buildings will continue to be subject to other zoning regulations including maximum lot coverage and setbacks, as well as the Ontario Building Code, which may further restrict building sizes and separation distances between buildings. It is important to note that despite a lot meeting minimum lot size requirements, it may not be feasible for all unit configurations to fit on all lots. Grading conditions and individual site constraints such as easements, retaining walls, infiltrations galleries, or public utilities in rear or side yards may further restrict the ability to develop additional units. ulations for Additional Dwellina Units (Detached): Additional dwelling units (detached) or backyard homes provide another option for property owners wishing to increase the number of dwellings on a lot. This type of dwelling has been allowed since 2021, permitting 1 storey buildings with 1 unit on lots having a minimum lot area of 395 m2 and a minimum lot width of 13.1 m. Staff have undertaken a review of the regulations for additional dwelling units (detached) and recommend changes in a few key areas to help support this housing option: • Minimum building separation • Permissions for 2 units in a detached dwelling • Increasing building height • Exterior side yard permissions Minimum building separation — As discussed in previous sections, staff recommend reductions to lot size and parking to enable additional dwellings on more lots. As built form on a lot becomes denser, achieving a minimum separation between principal dwellings and detached tiny homes may become more difficult — however it is important that space is provided for private amenity areas. As such, staff recommends a minimum separation distance between a principal dwelling and a detached additional dwelling. This space ensures that there can be windows and doors on facing elevations of buildings, and private amenity space is provided in the rear yard. In addition to the building separation, a 30% rear yard landscape area is recommended, which ensures that the combination of buildings, driveways and parking continues to allow for adequate green and amenity spaces. Permissions for 2 units in a detached dwelling - Staff also recommend permitting up to two dwelling units in an additional dwelling (detached). Such units could be located side-by- side, back-to-back or one above the other. An additional dwelling (detached) whether it contains one or two dwelling units will be permitted to have a maximum building footprint of 80 square metres and cannot exceed 15% of the lot area. Increasing building height - Staff recommend permitting a height of 6.0 metres for an additional dwelling (detached) where the principal dwelling has a height greater than 9.1 metres whereas today's maximum height is 4.5 metres. This provides additional flexibility Page 23 of 343 to provide one larger unit, two units, or dwelling unit(s) above parking. This will allow a raised bungalow, or a 1.5 storey design where a second floor is incorporated into the roofline, and will provide for a design that incorporates a garage. An increase in height would only be permitted where the principal dwelling is 9.1 metres in height (2 storeys) to Figure 7. Examples of additional dwellings (detached) that could be built with a 6 m height (sources: www.familyhomeplans.com and www.architecturaldesigns.com) ensure that the additional dwelling (detached) remains subordinate to the principal dwelling, and fits into the neighbourhood context. Examples of detached additional dwellings with a 6 -metre height are depicted in Figure 7. Where an increased height is permitted, staff recommend a setback of 0.9 metres which will provide additional space for maintenance of eaves and walls. Exterior side yard permissions - Staff further recommend that an additional unit (detached) be permitted to locate in an exterior side yard, provided it is setback in accordance with the regulations for the principal dwelling. This will help to make more efficient use of land, especially where there is a wide exterior side yard. Staff is of the opinion that it is appropriate for an additional dwelling (detached) to be designed to front the street however it should not be severed from the principal dwelling. Built Form and Site Layout: Through an evaluation of built form and site layout considerations, staff are recommending the followings changes to zoning regulations that are proposed to apply to three or four unit scenarios: • Increasing the number of doors permitted on a street line fagade • Adding a front and rear yard minimum landscaped area requirement • Adding an unobstructed walkway requirement for attached units Number of Doors on a Street Line Fagade - As a result of Bill 23 Planning Act changes, the City no longer can require site plan approval and therefore review building elevations for matters of design. Some zoning regulations were established for small multiples in 2023 to regulate openings on front elevations. Zoning currently limits the number of pedestrian entrances to one for each street line fagade. The purpose of this regulation was to avoid elevations where several doors all faced the street, resulting in a less desirable street facing fagade, and to ensure that dwellings with additional units blended Page 24 of 343 into streets which were predominately single detached dwellings. However, staff have heard through consultation that this regulation has presented issues to builders from an interior layout perspective. Staff is of the opinion that to support additional units within the principal dwelling, it is appropriate to allow up to two pedestrian doors to face each street, and to allow more doors, provided they are perpendicular to the street (e.g. located on the side wall of a porch). Further, staff is of the opinion that dwellings with more than one unit are desirable in all neighbourhoods, and it is not necessary to camouflage this fact. Front and Rear Yard Landscape Requirements - Staff recommend minimum front and rear yard landscape requirements be added to all lots containing 3 or 4 dwelling units. As density increases, the proportion of the lot covered by buildings and parking may also increase and it is important to ensure that greenspace, landscaping and private amenity spaces are preserved. Staff recommend that 20% of the front yard, between the building and street line, be reserved for landscaping (excluding walkways, patios, and other hard surfaces). This ensures space for stormwater infiltration, trees and vegetation, and contributes to a positive streetscape experience. Staff further recommend that 30% of the rear yard, between the principal dwelling and the rear lot line be reserved for landscaping including both green spaces and private amenity spaces (such as patios, decks, playgrounds etc.). Rear yard landscape can include hard surface amenity areas but excludes buildings such as sheds and additional dwelling units (detached), and parking. Through the analysis, staff is of the opinion that the targeted front and rear yard landscape requirement will provide more functional landscaped area because it excludes the side yards which are typically narrow with limited amenity function. Unobstructed Walkway - Increases in the number of dwelling units may make it more difficult for emergency services staff to access the principal entrances of units in an emergency. Regulations for additional dwelling units (detached) require a 1.1 metre unobstructed walkway to each principal entrance of the backyard home. In consultation with building and fire staff, it is recommended that this requirement is added to additional dwelling units (attached) where there are three or four dwellings on a lot, and the units do not have their primary entrance facing a street (i.e., if doors are accessed from an interior side or rear yard). This will ensure that there is a dedicated and clear path of travel to these units for emergency services staff. A new definition is also recommended to be added for unobstructed walkway to help provide clarity for implementation. Other Proposed Zoning Changes: Together with the above noted changes, staff are also recommending: • minor changes to definitions, and introduction of new definitions resulting from the proposed changes. • clarification regarding the types of home businesses permitted in dwellings with additional dwelling units. • multiple dwellings with a maximum of 4 units is deleted from the RES -4 land use, as the new regulations allow up to 4 units on a lot with a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street -townhouse dwelling, and are subject to more permissive regulations. Page 25 of 343 A detailed overview of proposed Zoning By-law Amendments and rationale may be found in Attachments C1 and C2. As discussed in the Planning Analysis below staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendments to Zoning By-law 85-1 and Zoning By-law 2019- 051 are consistent with and conform to the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement (2020), the Places to Grow Act (2005) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) and the Regional Official Plan (2010, including ROPA #6), the Official Plan and represent good planning. Plannina Analvsis The Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments proposed through this report have regard for matters of Provincial interest under the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform with, or do not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan and the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, and represent good planning. Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25. Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendments have regard for the matters of Provincial interest outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act. By directing growth, development, and intensification within built-up areas with appropriate regulations, the proposed amendments: • Protect ecological systems, agricultural resources, and conserve and manage natural resources, • Have regard for the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water, • Have regard for the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems, and the minimization of waste as growth is directed to areas where the infrastructure required to accommodate the additional growth already exists, minimizing the need to add new infrastructure. • Have regard for the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and of the City of Kitchener by enabling growth that makes efficient use of existing infrastructure and reducing the need for capital investments in growth where infrastructure does not currently exist. In doing so, the proposed amendments also have regard for the orderly development of safe and healthy communities. • Have regard for the adequate provision of a full range of housing opportunities through the implementation of zoning regulations that enable the `missing little' building typologies on more lands. • Promote development that is designed to be sustainable, climate resilient and supportive of public transit and active transportation. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is proposing an integrated province -wide land use planning policy document, potentially replacing the Provincial Policy Statement Page 26 of 343 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, with a singular Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) which is in draft form and not in effect at the time this report was prepared. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that a decision of the council of a municipality shall be consistent with the policy statements that are in effect on the date of the decision and shall conform with the provincial plans that are in effect on that date or shall not conflict with them, as the case may be. The PPS promotes the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit - supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost- effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. Efficient development and land use patterns are promoted, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health, and safety. Additionally, healthy, livable and safe communities are supported through efficient development patterns, planning for a full range and mix of housing, commercial, employment, institutional and community infrastructure. Policy 1.1.1 speaks to the ways in which healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained, including: promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term; accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types; and promoting the integration of land use planning, growth management, and transit -supportive development. Further, healthy, liveable, and safe communities are also sustained by intensification and infrastructure planning that achieves cost-effective development patterns, optimizes transit investments, and minimizes land consumption and servicing costs. Policy 1.1.3.3 promotes transit -supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated considering existing building stock or areas and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs. Policy 1.1.3.4 promotes development standards that facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety. Policy 1.4.3 promotes providing an appropriate range and mix of housing, supports all types of housing options and residential intensification (in accordance with 1.1.3.3), promotes densities for new housing that efficiently uses land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, which supports the use of active transportation and public transit, and supports development standards which minimize the cost of housing and which promotes compact form while maintaining public health and safety. Page 27 of 343 Policies of section 2.6 speak to protection of cultural heritage resources. The proposed amendments will enable additional dwelling units on existing residential lands. This enables additional housing choice within established residential areas and makes efficient use of existing lands and building stock, infrastructure and services. The recommended geography -based parking reductions support more efficient use of land and support the use of public transit and active transportation options. Existing cultural heritage protection measures, including individual and district designations under the Ontario Heritage Act continue to apply, and regulations and by-laws which may require heritage permits continue to apply. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan) The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. The Growth Plan recognizes that many communities are facing issues of housing affordability, which are being driven primarily by sustained population growth and factors such as a lack of housing supply with record low vacancy rates. To address this challenge, policies of the Growth Plan provide direction to plan for a range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. The Growth Plan places strong emphasis on optimizing the use of the existing urban land supply and supports an intensification -first approach to development and city -building, one which focuses on making better use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities, and less on continuously expanding the urban area. The Growth Plan requires that municipalities achieve minimum density requirements to meet growth forecasts. Planned growth is directed to settlement areas, and as outlined in section 2.2.1 c) to delineated built up areas, locations with existing or planning transit and public services facilities (such as police and fire protection, schools, community centres, parks, etc.). City-wide and geography specific density targets are provided by the Region of Waterloo. Housing Policies in section 2.2.6.1(a) state that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities which shall be implemented through zoning by-laws. The proposed amendments will help to achieve intensification and density targets to achieve the Growth Plan population forecasts. Section 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will feature a diverse mix of land uses; improve social equity and overall quality of life for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; expand convenient access to a range of transportation options, including options for active transportation and public service facilities; provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm; Page 28 of 343 and, mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability. Policy 2.2.2.3 states that "all municipalities will develop a strategy to achieve the minimum intensification target and intensification throughout delineated built-up areas, which will: a) identify strategic growth areas to support achievement of the intensification target and recognize them as a key focus for development; b) identify the appropriate type and scale of development in strategic growth areas and transition of built form to adjacent areas; c) encourage intensification generally throughout the delineated built up area; d) ensure lands are zoned and development is designed in a manner that supports the achievement of complete communities; e) prioritize planning and investment in infrastructure and public service facilities that will support intensification; and f) be implemented through official plan policies and designations, updated zoning and other supporting documents." Policy 2.2.6.1 (a) states that municipalities will "support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents." Further, Policy 2.2.6.1 b) and e) require municipalities to implement policy 2.2.6.1 a) though official plan policies and zoning by-laws. Policy 2.2.6.2 requires municipalities to support the achievement of complete communities by planning for and accommodating growth in order to achieve intensification targets, by considering a range and mix of housing options and densities, and planning to diversify overall housing stock. Policy 2.2.7 states that "New development taking place in designated greenfield areas will be planned, designated, zoned and designed in a manner that: a) supports the achievement of complete communities; b) supports active transportation; and c) encourages the integration and sustained viability of transit services." The proposed amendments support gentle intensification in both the Built -Up Area and Designated Greenfield Area. The proposed amendments support a more compact built form and enable a more diverse mix of housing options, thereby supporting the development of complete communities. The proposed amendments will help make efficient use of land, infrastructure, parks, roads, trails, and transit. Planning staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Growth Plan. Page 29 of 343 Regional Official Plan, 2010 (ROP) Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. Through ROP Amendment 6 the Region has set a minimum target that 60% of new growth will occur within the delineated Built -Up Area. The ROP promotes an intensification -first approach to development that focuses on making better use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities, and on protecting the region's valuable water, agricultural and natural heritage systems. Policies 2.8.1.1 supports intensification within the Urban Area through gentle density and missing middle housing options. Policy 2.C.2 directs municipalities to develop official plan policies and implementing zoning by-laws that, among other matters, promotes a more compact built form that enables a modal shift to most trips being made by walking, cycling and rolling, contributing to the creation of 15 -minute neighbourhoods, provides a diverse mix and range of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing. Policy 2.D.5 requires area municipalities to establish policies in their official plans and implementing zoning by-laws to permit missing middle housing on residential lots located within an Urban Area. Policy 3.A.2 requires area municipalities, in collaboration with the Region, to plan for a diverse range and mix of housing options with an overall target of a minimum of 30% of new ownership and rental housing being affordable to low- and moderate -income households. The range and mix of housing options provided will vary in terms of form, tenure, density, and number of bedrooms to accommodate the needs of all sizes, incomes, and ages of households. Policy 3.A.20 states "The Region encourages the area municipalities to apply alternative development standards as -of -right to help streamline the development of affordable housing provided health, safety, servicing, and other reasonable standards or criteria can be met. Examples of such alternative development standards may include, but are not limited to, reduced parking standards, setbacks and road allowances." The Region acknowledges that while strategic growth areas (such as Major Transit Station Areas) will play the primary role in achieving the intensification targets, intensification will also occur more broadly within existing neighbourhoods through gentle density. The ROP envisions this transition to occur gradually over time as new opportunities arise for infill, redevelopment, additional residential units, new missing middle housing options, development of vacant and/or underutilized lots, and the expansion or conversion of existing buildings. Regional policies require the City to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. The proposed amendments enable missing middle housing, with as -of -right reductions to parking throughout the urban area. Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed amendments (Attachment `H'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the application conforms to the Regional Official Plan. Page 30 of 343 Kitchener Official Plan (2014) The City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. Complete Community The vision articulated in the Official Plan is to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community contributing to an exceptional quality of life. A complete community creates and provides access to a mix of land uses including a full range and mix of housing. Planning for a complete community will aid in reducing the cost of infrastructure and servicing, encourage the use of public transit and active modes of transportation, promote social interaction, and foster a sense of community. The proposed amendments enable additional housing options within the community. Housing Policies: Housing Policies of the Official Plan seek to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure, and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of the Kitchener community through all stages of life. Objectives speak to the preference for a land use pattern that accommodates a range of housing types across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods. The City encourages intensification and redevelopment including adaptive re -use and infill including additional dwelling units attached and detached in order to respond to changing housing needs and as a cost- effective means to reduce infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of existing community infrastructure. Policy 4.C.1.9 requires that residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods be designed to respect existing character. Community character refers to pockets of the urban fabric with distinctive physical attributes and includes scale of the built environment and development patterns which can be regulated through zoning. Other components of community character such as architectural vernacular cannot be regulated by zoning. Policy 4.C.1.12 indicates that the City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods. In accordance with policy 4.C.1.13., the City will work with the development industry and other community members to identify and encourage innovative housing types and designs in the city where such innovation would be compatible with surrounding land uses, support the development of complete communities, provide accessible and affordable housing to residents, be transit -supportive and/or transit -oriented. The proposed regulations are more flexible and provide opportunities for creativity in providing more dwelling units in a compact and efficient way that will support transit, affordability, variety and choice, while also being compatible with existing neighbourhoods. Policy 4.C.1.23 for additional dwelling units attached and detached is proposed to be amended to permit up to 4 dwellings on a lot. Page 31 of 343 Proposed changes to zoning regulations continue to align with policy 4.C.1.23 for additional dwellings (detached). In accordance with this policy the additional dwelling (detached) should be subordinate to the main dwelling on the lot; integrated into its surroundings with negligible visual impact to the streetscape; compatible in design and scale with the built form on the lot and the surrounding residential neighbourhood in terms of massing, height and visual appearance; the site layout should consider other requirements including servicing, pedestrian and vehicular access, stormwater management, grading and drainage, tree preservation, and provision of amenity areas, landscaped buffers and visual screening; and up to one parking space may be required for each additional dwelling unit. The proposed zoning regulations permit additional dwelling units attached and detached, subject to regulations for setback, height, and parking. Regulations require and protect front yard and rear yard landscaped areas, provide for a built form, including height and setbacks, that aligns with existing built form. Driveway widths continue to be limited to preserve boulevard trees and on -street parking. Rear yard parking lots must be setback and screened from neighbouring dwellings. Backyard homes will continue to be subordinate to the principal dwelling, while allowing for modest increases in height that will allow additional flexibility and floor space. Natural and Human -Made Hazards Official Plan policies direct development away from areas with natural or human -made hazards including flooding hazards, and human -made hazards. Polices and zoning regulations which restrict residential uses in certain areas will continue to apply and may restrict additional dwelling units on affected lands or may require additional study or mitigation. Natural Heritage and Environmental Management Policies of the Official Plan protect and conserve the natural heritage system. Policies, associated processes and implementing zoning regulations which protect the Natural Heritage System are not impacted by the proposed regulations and development will not be permitted in such areas. Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Waste Reduction Policies of the Official Plan support development which conserves energy, reduces waste, and minimize adverse impact to air quality. Permitting additional dwelling units promotes a compact urban from, maximizes the use of existing infrastructure, supports the adaptive reuse of buildings, and the reduction in parking promotes the use of transit, walking and cycling, supporting reduced levels of private automobile ownership and associated emissions. Urban Design Neighbourhood design policies of the Official Plan promote development and redevelopment in existing neighbourhoods that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, which achieves walkability, variety, placemaking, conservation, connectivity, is transit supportive and safe. The proposed regulations permit additional Page 32 of 343 dwelling units attached and detached, subject to regulations for setback, height, and parking. Regulations require and protect front yard and rear yard landscaped areas, provide for a built form, including height and setbacks, that aligns with established neighbourhood regulations intended to preserve streetscape characteristics. Parking in front yards continues to be limited to current standards to help preserve boulevard trees front yard landscaped areas and on -street parking. Rear yard parking lots must be setback and screened from neighbouring dwellings. Backyard homes will continue to be subordinate to the principal dwelling, while allowing for modest increases in height that will allow additional flexibility and floor space. Staff is of the opinion that additional dwelling units in existing neighbourhoods are compatible with existing residential development. Cultural Heritaae Resources Policies of the Official Plan seek to conserve the City's cultural heritage resources using provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act and other legislation. Cultural heritage resources within Kitchener include identified Cultural Heritage Landscapes, as well as designated Heritage Conservation Districts and individually designated properties. Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical alterations to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications and determine if proposed changes will affect identified heritage attributes or the cultural heritage value or significance of a property. This process will apply equally to development or redevelopment for additional dwelling units as it would for any other development proposal, whether that be renovations to an existing building, or construction of an addition or an accessory structure. The demolition of designated heritage buildings is not supported by the City. If a property is not designated but is within a Cultural Heritage Landscape, a Heritage Permit Application is not required but additional heritage studies or consideration in design and impact may be requested. Transoortation The City's Official Plan contains policies to develop, support, and maintain a complete, convenient, accessible, and integrated transportation system that incorporates active transportation, public transit, and accommodates vehicular traffic. Regarding alternate modes of transportation, objectives of the Official Plan include promoting land use planning and development that is integrated and conducive to the efficient and effective operation of public transit and encourages increased ridership of the public transit system. The City shall promote and encourage walking and cycling as safe and convenient modes of transportation. The proposed amendments seek to reduce parking requirements in certain geographies which have good access to public transit (including bus, i -express bus and light rail transit), have good access to on and off-street cycling networks, the micro - mobility system (e.g., Neuron e -scooters), and are walkable. Proposed regulations associated with parking are discussed in the preceding sections of this report. Servicing and Utilities The objectives of the Official Plan are to provide infrastructure, municipal services and utilities in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner to meet the City's current and projected needs; to maximize the use of existing municipal services and utilities before Page 33 of 343 consideration is given to extending and/or developing new municipal services; and, to promote cost-effective development patterns and standards to assist in minimizing servicing costs. Permitting additional units in existing built-up areas help to make efficient use of existing infrastructure including sanitary sewer, water services, storm water infrastructure, and utilities including hydro, gas and communications infrastructure. As site development intensifies, individual property owners will be required to make arrangements with service providers, including the City of Kitchener, to ensure that site services are appropriately sized for the increase in units. Where upsizing of services is required, this will be a cost to the developer, but should be considered an investment in the property, which will permit additional density. Utility providers including Enova and Kitchener Utilities have provided input to the proposed changes that will enable additional density. Staff expect that uptake and construction of additional units will be gradual, and it is unlikely that all lots on a street will convert from 1 -unit dwellings to 4 -unit dwellings concurrently. This will allow time for ongoing assessment and monitoring of infrastructure to understand when and where improvements may be required. It is reasonable to assume that over time, existing excess system capacity will be used up and improvements may be required. The City is currently preparing an Integrated Sanitary Master Plan. This plan is reviewing existing conditions and evaluating planned growth and servicing needs and is expected to be completed by Q2 of 2024. The Master Plan will identify recommended projects to address current and future sanitary servicing needs of the community based on the existing condition of sanitary infrastructure as well as current and future capacity needs. Recommended projects will be prioritized based on factors including infrastructure life expectancy, as well as other criteria. Areas of constraint may be identified through this work, and it is possible that further recommendations which limit development, including but not limited to development of additional dwelling units, may be necessary in certain areas, until infrastructure can be rehabilitated or replaced to increase existing capacity. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments are consistent with and conform to the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement (2020), the Places to Grow Act (2005) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), the Regional Official Plan (2010) and the Kitchener Official Plan (2014) and represent good planning. What We Heard from the Communit Through community engagement, staff heard from a range of community members, including property owners, residents (including renters), builders, designers, and investors. A summary of community engagement is provided in this report while more detailed information on the community engagement strategy and feedback are included in Attachments G1 to G4. The community engagement strategy included variety of online and in-person opportunities for community members to provide input, as summarized in Figure 8. Overall, the team recorded nearly 2,000 individual interactions ranging from visits to the Page 34 of 343 Engage Kitchener project page, to attendance at one of the in-person open houses, and one-on-one discussions with staff on the phone or at city hall. Engage Kitchener Enabling Four Units webpage 1383 viiisit;s, 141subscribers and 33 surveys cornpllleted b 'Virtual Community Meeting JianUar 172024)• 30�airtici anus and 135 view's of the recordiin II p g Thiree (3) Iplublllic Open (Houses totalmng approximately 150 attendees: • Jamlary 231, 2024„ at the Kitchener 1 Market, • Jamiary 3�, 0 4u at the Stainllley (Park CornmunVAy Centre, and �a��ll�tih • Jamiary 31� n d4:u at the (Forest IHeighits CoMMUnity Centre Whitten Comments • 40 ema Ills Development IlndustTy Workshop (JanUary 31, 20 24) 0 Iparticipanits '��iu�f �III�III�11� "r Kitchener IDevelopment IlLiaiiison Commiiittee on Jlanm_mary 1 g1, 2.:Q.2.4 and February 23, 2024 • 11 participants Figure 8. A Summary of engagement opportunities. In evaluating feedback, staff observed that many community members support gentle density on existing residential lots. We heard this is an important way to help respond to the housing crisis. Community members identified the following benefits of allowing additional dwelling units: • Enabling more housing in neighbourhoods; • Supporting financial feasibility of home ownership; • Supporting multi -generational housing; • Environmental responsibility — making use of existing infrastructure, services and transit; • Shifting transportation modes away from personal vehicle ownership; and, • Creating neighbourhoods with densities that will support stores and businesses. Staff also heard a range of concerns. Some community members believe that enabling 4 units does not go far enough, while others have concerns that allowing additional density will have an impact on the elements of neighbourhoods that they value. Page 35 of 343 A summary of the concerns we heard from the community along with a commentary on how staff addressed or considered these concerns is provided in Table 6. Table 6. Summary of Community Member Concerns and Staff Responses Concerns by theme Staff response Parking. Concerns about how Staff propose a geography -based approach to support parking will be accommodated reduction in parking minimums as detailed in the zoning on-site and challenges with section of this report. Staff recognize that some respect to increased demand homeowners and developers may opt to provide more for on -street parking. parking on-site than required. In such cases, parking will be subject to regulations including those for parking lots and maximum driveway widths. On -street parking is intended to be for short-term use and not permanent storage of personal vehicles. On -street parking in Kitchener is enforceable under the City of Kitchener Traffic and Parking By-law and the Region of Waterloo Traffic and Parking By-law. On -street parking is permitted up to 3 consecutive hours during the day unless there is a sign posted that says otherwise. Overnight parking exemption is required in the winter. In the long-term, Kitchener could consider an on -street parking permit system to offer long-term parking storage on -street. On -street parking permit system generally services specific residential areas where driveways and/or garages are not common and on -street parking is the only reasonable option. At this time, staff do not recommend pursuing this option, due to the costs to residents, staff time to administer and reduced access for short-term parking needs. Trees and amenity space. The proposed zoning regulations seek to achieve a Concerns were identified about balance between enabling increased housing supply and impacts to the urban forest, protecting and preserving landscaped areas, private reductions to landscaped green amenity space and street trees, and specifically include: space, and lack of private amenity space. minimum landscaped areas, setbacks to buildings and parking lots, and maintaining maximum driveway widths to accommodate amenity areas and space for tree planting both on private lots and within boulevards; • proposing minimum separation distances between principal buildings and detached additional dwellings Page 36 of 343 Page 37 of 343 to accommodate outdoor amenity areas in rear yards; and, • minimum lot sizes and lot widths were evaluated to ensure that lots are sufficiently sized to support density increases while still providing adequate greenspace. Additional comments with respect to the urban forest is provided in the following section of this report. Impacts to neighbouring Staff recommends a 6 -metre height for detached properties. Concerns with additional dwellings to allow a raised bungalow style overlook and shadows on dwelling or a 1.5 storey design where a second floor is neighbour's yards from incorporated into the roofline for flexibility to provide one detached additional dwellings large unit, two units, or dwelling unit(s) above parking because of added height and spaces. An increased height is proposed only where the being too close to property principal dwelling is 9.1 metres in height (2 storeys) to lines. ensure that the additional dwelling (detached) remains subordinate to the principal dwelling, and fits into the context of the neighbourhood. The additional 1.5 metres in height will not have a substantial impact on shadowing of neighbouring properties. Where a detached additional dwelling is 4.5 metres high or less, a 0.6 metre setback continues to apply. A higher detached additional dwelling is subject to a 0.9 metre setback, which will help to reduce the impact of shadows. Overlook was also raised as a concern by property owners. Openings in detached additional dwellings are regulated by the Ontario Building Code which restricts the percentage of openings on facades close to other buildings and to property lines. A building located less than 1.2 metres is not permitted to have unprotected openings, and as the building is set farther back the number of openings may increase. These Building Code restrictions limit opportunity for windows and overlook into neighbouring yards and private spaces. Site functionality. Concerns Staff recognizes the need and value of functional were raised that as densities properties and how it may impact quality of life for and the number of units residents. The proposed zoning balances the site increased, lots would no longer functionality elements with the intent of allowing gentle be functional and able to density through additional units on more properties across provide for parking, living Kitchener. The proposed zoning considers parking minimums, impacts on tree canopy, landscaped and Page 37 of 343 space, outdoor spaces, amenity area, and walkway accesses. The proposed services, etc. zoning regulations work together to ensure that lots will be large enough to accommodate additional density together with other necessary site functions, while also considering the public realm, streetscape and environment. Some lots will be too small to accommodate certain built forms and where regulations cannot be met, increases in the number of units may not always be possible. Further, staff conducted an analysis to assess site functionality elements where up to 4 units may be permitted. As a result, staff has proposed a minimum lot area of 360 m2 and a minimum lot width of 10.5 m in suburban neighbourhoods to further facilitate site functionality in these neighbourhoods due to the higher parking requirement (3 spaces). Streetscape. Community Staff has not proposed changes to the fundamental members raised concerns zoning regulations that respect neighbourhood about impact to existing characteristics and streetscape such as minimum lot characteristics of area, lot width, lot coverage, height of principal dwelling, neighbourhood and setbacks, driveway and garage widths. The proposed streetscape. amendments seek to strike a balance between accommodating new housing units and maintaining those elements of a neighbourhood that can be regulated through zoning regulations such as setbacks, height and lot size. Short-term rentals. There were The intention of the proposed changes is to enable concerns that the additional additional dwelling units in more residential dwelling units may be used for neighbourhoods. Additional dwelling units may be a short term rental purposes and source of additional income for property owners, whether may not help tackle the housing used for traditional rental or short-term rental. Short term crisis. rentals are not regulated within the current Zoning By-law framework and the City is undertaking a separate body of work to assess and regulate short-term rental housing. Minor variances. Concerns that The proposed zoning regulations will enable more despite the proposed zoning dwelling units on more lots and are designed to be flexible regulations, there will continue to allow for creativity in design, while setting boundaries to be applications for minor for matters which are important to protect. The variances. recommended zoning may not work for all lots and all circumstances, and variances remain a Planning Act tool to consider small adjustments to zoning where tests can be met. Staff will continue to monitor requested variances and will consider further updates to the zoning by-law where variances are frequently requested and supported. Page 38 of 343 Develoament industry feedback We also heard from those involved with development of these units as property owners, investors, builders, designers, and contractors. The following are the key themes raised by those in the development industry and staff's response. Lot width and Lot area. The current minimum lot width and minimum lot area requirements for additional dwelling units was requested to be reduced to make it easier to develop additional units on more lots. Staff evaluated the request to reduce lot width and lot area requirements and have proposed a geographical approach to expand where additional dwelling units could be developed. Today 2 additional units or a detached dwelling unit requires a minimum lot width of 13.1 m and an area of 395 m2, or the zone minimum if it is greater. Staff are proposing to only require the base zone minimum for lots within 800 metres of an LRT station or which are located within the Central Neighbourhood Area. Outside of 800 metres from an LRT station or the Central Neighbourhood Area, a minimum lot width of 10.5 m and lot area of 360 m2 (or the zone minimum, if greater) is recommended for lots containing 2 or 3 additional units, or a detached additional dwelling. Further discussion is included in preceding sections of this report. Parking. The removal of parking regulations and bicycle parking requirements for additional dwelling units can make it easier to develop additional units removing cost and spatial barriers. Staff evaluated parking requirements and, to strike a balance, have proposed a geographical approach to parking regulations with reduced parking rates as detailed in this report. While bicycle parking is proposed, the new bicycle parking class reduces design and cost barriers. Staff's recommendation is intended to recognize the importance of addressing parking demand while supporting additional units and active transportation. Building height. An increase in the allowable height for detached additional dwellings to 7.5 m was requested to accommodate units over garages and two-storey dwellings. Staff evaluated the request to increase the building height for detached additional dwellings from 4.5 m to 7.5 m. A proposed 6.0 m height limit (to mid -point of the roof) is recommended where the principal dwelling is higher than 9.1 metres. This limit allows for raised basements, a unit over parking integrated into the roofline or two units with the upper storey integrated into the roofline. This approach is intended to allow some additional height, where prevailing built form is generally higher, while limiting privacy and shadow concerns and providing flexibility. Application process. The development industry expressed concerns about processes and timelines for application review. In response, staff will evaluate ways to streamline the zoning review and building permit processes. The proposed zoning changes also enable more units on more lots without necessitating minor variance applications to expedite timelines. This report further outlines next steps to support uptake of these units after a Council decision has been made. Page 39 of 343 Based on input from the development industry workshop and the comprehensive planning analysis conducted, as well as feedback from the public, staff has carefully considered various regulatory adjustments aimed at facilitating the development of additional dwelling units while addressing community concerns. What We Heard from Staff and Agencies The consultation with staff and agencies was a collaborative process. It included an email circulation with the opportunity to provide feedback and comments, a post -circulation meeting, and small, focused group meetings. The post -circulation meeting provided an overview of the project and an opportunity to gather initial feedback and comments. Following this, focused group meetings were strategically organized around topic areas including zoning compliance, development planning, heritage planning, policy planning, building and emergency services, servicing and utilities, environment and urban forestry, transit and transportation planning, and bylaw enforcement. Written comments were received from agencies including Bell, Grand River Conservation Authority, Waterloo Catholic District School Board, Waterloo Region District School Board, Fire Services, Kitchener Utilities (gas, water, sanitary and stormwater services), Engineering Division, Sanitary and Stormwater Utility, Building Division, Parks Design and Development and the Region of Waterloo. The written comments received from staff and agencies have been included in Attachment `H'. Comments received from staff and agencies have been taken into consideration and reflected in the proposed changes as discussed throughout this report. There are, however, some comments that are relevant information for implementing additional dwelling units, some that are out of the scope of this project, and some which may be addressed through other bodies of work. These are discussed below. Infrastructure. Services and Facilities Caaacity As Kitchener grows in population, there will be an increase in demand for community infrastructure (road, water, gas, hydro, sanitary and stormwater), community services (police, fire, transit, etc.), and community facilities (schools, community centres, parks, hospitals, etc.). It is challenging to predict locations where additional units will be added, and how quickly uptake will occur. Based on past experience, staff expect that uptake will gradual and dispersed. To effectively plan for community infrastructure, services, and facilities, it is important to monitor the locational uptake of additional dwelling units closely. On-site Utilities The utility providers allow one set of services for a lot. It is at the cost of developers and home owners to make upgrades (for example, to waterlines and electrical panels) for capacity, extend and connect services to the additional dwellings detached, and provide separate utility meters. It is important for property owners to know that there may be a need to upgrade on-site utilities for capacity and that it is critical to engage utility providers early in the development process to understand the extent of additional costs that may be incurred. Page 40 of 343 Development Fees for 4 Units Under the Development Charges Act, the Planning Act, and the Education Act, the Region of Waterloo, the City of Kitchener, and the School Boards collect fees associated with residential development for the development of various services, facilities, and infrastructure. The provision of a 4th unit is currently not exempt from City and Regional development charges or education development charges. However, the City's Parkland Dedication Policy does exempt additional dwelling units (including a 4th unit) from parkland dedication fees. These fees (development charges, education development charges, and parkland dedication) can add significant cost to projects and impact the financial feasibility of development, however are important to ensure that the Region, City and School Boards can provide new and/or enhanced services, facilities, and infrastructure. Property Standards and By-law Enforcement Planning has consulted with By-law Enforcement staff regarding zoning compliance and other property standards considerations. The City will continue to enforce by-law regulations on a complaint basis, including matters associated with illegal driveway widenings and complaints associated with on -street parking, which are often of concern to residents. Storage of waste (garbage, compost and recycling) is also frequently identified as an area of concern to enforcement staff. As a result of provincial changes to the Planning Act, Site Plan Control is no longer available as a tool to enforce aspects of site function including garbage storage. Staff is of the opinion that waste management cannot be effectively regulated through the Zoning By-law, however by-law enforcement staff are exploring revisions to the Property Standards By-law. Contemplated updates will enhance current provisions for garbage storage on properties with additional dwelling units and where there are multiple dwellings with 10 units or fewer, to ensure that garage is stored in a safe, secure and sanitary way. Recommendations resulting from this review apply more broadly than the scope of this report, will be provided as part of a separate report in Q2 of 2024. Urban Forest Canopy Kitchener's 2023-2026 Strategic Plan notes strategic goals, goal statements and actions to achieve the community's shared vision for the future of Kitchener. Implementing the tree canopy target plan is an action noted in the Strategic Plan. Although a key corporate and Council priority, provision of additional housing and residential intensification through enabling 4 units may directly impact component trees of the urban forest, and compromise achieving the urban tree canopy targets in some areas of the city. City staff is in the process of evaluating and updating its tree conservation processes through a separate body of work. This work is considering further regulating the impact and damage to trees under these and other circumstances. It is important for property owners to note that the provision of additional dwelling units, particularly detached dwellings, may impact trees shared between neighbours and/or trees on adjacent properties. When development impacts shared/boundary trees or those on adjacent private properties, it is a civil matter and the City does not get involved. In addition, certain properties may be the subject of approved tree preservation plans and Page 41 of 343 obligations to maintain trees registered on title through subdivision, site plan, or other development agreements. Further, although driveway widenings are regulated through zoning bylaw regulations, driveway apron/boulevard widening beyond the property lines or cutting the curb is subject to a City permit that considers impact on existing City trees. However, where there are no existing City trees, this may lead to loss of adequate soil volumes for planting trees on City property in the future. In addition to City policies and by-laws such as the Tree Conservation Bylaw, other legislation, or regulations such as the Ontario Endangered Species Act, the Regional Woodland Conservation Bylaw etc. may also be applicable. Next Steps The recommendations contained in this report create a regulatory framework that will enable more dwelling units on more lots in Kitchener. While the zoning may permit additional units, the City is reliant on homeowners and developers to build these additional units. With the support of the Housing Accelerator Fund, staff will prepare tools to make it easier to work through that approval process which can seem daunting for some homeowners and developers. Next steps in 2024 include: • identifying a core team of staff across divisions who will take the lead on coordinating with customers from inquiry to final inspection to good neighbour property use (e.g., waste storage, parking, etc.); • collectively, the team will identify how the approvals and inspections processes can be streamlined to remove barriers and simplify from a customer experience perspective; • update the City's website with tools and resources to ensure that it is easy to locate and understand information on building and operating four units; and, • on-going monitoring of uptake, functioning of new zoning rules, the approvals process and timelines, and bylaw complaints to look for ways to continue to support four -unit developments in our neighbourhoods. Conclusions The proposed Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments aim to enable four units as a form of gentle density in neighbourhoods across Kitchener. The proposed zoning rules seek to balance site functionality and flexibility in built form while mitigating potential impacts on the community. While as -of -right permissions will enable four units on more than 41,000 residential lots in Kitchener, staff are of the opinion that growth will be gradual within neighbourhoods which will allow time to monitor impacts and determine strategies for mitigation (e.g., monitoring service capacity or adjusting zoning rules). Additionally, staff will support uptake among builders and property owners through a comprehensive implementation strategy to remove barriers and simplify processes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendments align with Provincial, Regional and City planning policy frameworks and represent good planning while supporting local, provincial and federal housing targets. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. Page 42 of 343 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the committee meeting. A notice of Community Engagement was placed the Waterloo Region Record on January 5, 2024 and January 12, 2024. Further, a notice of Statutory Public Meeting was in the Waterloo Region Record on March 1, 2024. CONSULT — Community engagement included: o Enabling Four Units online engagement page on Engage Kitchener launched December 2023; o A Virtual Community Meeting on January 17, 2024; o Three (3) public Open Houses on January 20, 2024 at the Kitchener Market, January 23, 2024 at the Stanley Park Community Centre, and January 31, 2024 at the Forest Heights Community Centre; o One-on-one discussions by phone, in-person at the city hall service center, and via email; o Consultation with the Kitchener Development Liaison Committee on January 19, 2024 and February 23, 2024; and, o A Development Industry Workshop on January 31, 2024. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Municipal Act, 2001 • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • A Place to Grow, 2020 • Regional Official Plan and Regional Official Plan Amendment 6 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 • Housing for All — City of Kitchener Housing Strategy (DSD -20-214) • City of Kitchener Municipal Housing Pledge (DSD -2023-063) • Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing (DSD -2023-160) • Implementation of Bill 13, Bill 109 and Bill 23 (DSD -2023-239) • Missing Middle Housing Motion to Support Housing Affordability (October 16, 2023) REVIEWED BY: Janine Oosterveld, Manager, Customer Experience & Project Management Darren Kropf, Manager, Active Transportation and Development APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Page 43 of 343 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A— Proposed Official Plan Amendment (2014 Official Plan) Attachment 131 — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 2019-051 Attachment B2 — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 85-1 Attachment C1 — Amendment to Zoning B -law 2019-051 with Rationale Attachment C2 — Amendment to Zoning By-law 85-1 with Rationale Attachment D — Newspaper Notice Attachment E — Municipal Scan Attachment F — Lot Size and Built Form Analysis Attachment G1 — Engagement and Public Comments Attachment G2 — Survey Responses Attachment G3 — Email Correspondence Attachment G4 — What We Heard (Open Houses and Development Industry Workshop) Attachment H — Agency Comments Page 44 of 343 AMENDMENT NO. ## TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN (2014) OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER Page 45 of 343 AMENDMENT NO. ## TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN (2014) OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER INDEX SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of March 25, 2024 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee — March 25, 2024 APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — March 25, 2024 Page 46 of 343 AMENDMENT NO. ## TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN (2014) OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 — TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. to the Official Plan of the City of Kitchener. This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive. SECTION 2 — PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to incorporate certain modifications to the text of the Official Plan to enable up to four dwelling units to be located on lands which currently permit a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street townhouse dwelling. SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT In order to provide additional housing options, the City of Kitchener is seeking to permit up to four dwelling units on parcels of land which currently permit a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street townhouse dwelling. The proposed change deletes policy 4.C.1.23 which currently permits up to 3 units on a lot, and which specifies how the units must be arranged within buildings. The proposed policy replaces the existing policy and will permit up to 4 units and continues to enable these units to be further regulated by the zoning by-law which will specify lots sizes, setback requirements, parking, and other matters. The additional dwelling units could include four units in a principal dwelling, three units in a principal dwelling and one unit in an additional dwelling (detached) or two units in a principal dwelling and two units in an additional dwelling (detached), and may include a new purpose built principal dwelling with up to 4 dwelling units. As articulated in the Planning Discussion contained in report DSD -2024-066, staff is of the opinion that that proposed Official Plan Amendment is consistent with and conforms to the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement (2020), the Places to Grow Act (2005) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) and the Regional Official Plan (2010, including ROPA #6), and represents good planning. SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: Part C, Section 4.C.1 is amended by deleting "Policy 4.C.1.23" in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "4.C.1.23 The City may permit up to three additional dwelling units, attached and/or detached, on a lot which contains a single detached dwelling, a semi-detached dwelling or a street -townhouse dwelling as the principal use, unless otherwise limited by the policies of this Plan, and in accordance with the City's Zoning By-law, in order to provide additional housing options to Kitchener homeowners and residents. Additional dwelling units will be permitted as follows: Page 47 of 343 a) The addition of up to three additional dwelling units (attached), within a single detached dwelling, a semi- detached dwelling or a street -townhouse dwelling; b) The addition of up to two additional dwelling units (attached) within a single detached dwelling, a semi-detached dwelling or a street -townhouse dwelling and one additional dwelling unit (detached); and c) The addition of up to one additional dwelling unit (attached) within a single detached dwelling, a semi-detached dwelling or a street -townhouse dwelling and two additional dwelling units (detached). Additional dwelling units (attached) and additional dwelling units (detached) may be further regulated by the City's Zoning By-law. " 4 Page 48 of 343 APPENDIX Notice ofthe Meeting ofPlanning and Strategic|nitioUveo Committee of March 25, 2024 Mill M1. OURIT ~ Have Your Voice Heard'. Date: March 25,2024 Locabon: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West orVirtual Zoom Meeting Go to kitchener.ca/meetings and select.� 0 Current agendas and reports (posted 10 days before meefing) Appear as a delegation * Watch a meeting To learn more about thiS project, including informabon on your appeal rights, vis�t: (D 00 Plan ningApplications or contact: A (,'I d'i � I o n a ["larkn"Ig e_( I' I 1� I "I Katie AnderL Project Manager The City of Kitchener will consider City -initiated applications OPA23/020/K/KA and ZB,A23/035/KA to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. 'These amendments will permit up to 4 dwelling units on lots which permit a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street townhouse dwelling, subject to regulations for lot sizes, parkinp, landscaping and built form, Page 49 of 343 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of March 25, 2024 Page 50 of 343 APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — March 25, 2024 Page 51 of 343 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener — Enabling Four Units) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 2019-051; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: Section 3 of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the following new definitions in proper alphabetical order: "Bicycle Parking Stall, Class C — means a weather protected area with controlled access in which a bicycle may be parked, including but not limited to a private garage, an accessory building, a bicycle locker, or an indoor storage alcove. Building Footprint — means the horizontal area of a building, as seen in plan, measured from the outside of all exterior walls and supporting columns. Dwelling (Detached), Additional — means the use of a building containing one or two additional dwelling unit(s) (detached) on the same lot as a single detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling, or a street townhouse dwelling (as the principal use). An additional dwelling (detached) is not an accessory building. Unobstructed Walkway - means a path of travel providing access to the principal entrance of an additional dwelling unit (attached) or additional dwelling unit (detached) and shall be unencumbered by obstructions including but not limited to: stairs, decks and porches (except those which form part of the path of travel to the principal entrance); parking spaces; driveways; chimney breasts; window wells; balconies; secure outdoor areas associated with pools; mechanical, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning equipment and utility meters; and amenity structures such as playgrounds, garden trellises, pergolas. An unobstructed walkway may be shared between more than one dwelling unit on a lot." 2. Section 3 of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough in the following definitions: Page 52 of 343 Dwelling — means a building containing one or more dwelling units and can include a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, street townhouse dwelling, additional dwelling unit (attaehed), additional dwelling unA (detached), cluster townhouse dwelling, multiple dwelling, small residential care facility, or large residential care facility. Dwelling, Multiple — means the use of a building containing five few or more dwelling units, or a building containing two or more dwelling units where there are a minimum of 5 dwelling units located on a lot, and can include a stacked townhouse dwelling and a back- to-back townhouse dwelling. A multiple dwelling is not a street townhouse dwelling, mixed use building; or cluster townhouse dwelling, iPgle detached dWe erg With a"49Ra' (es). Dwelling Unit (Detached), Additional — means the use of a building where a separate self-contained dwelling unit is located in a �'�taGhedan additional dwelling (detached) dwelling unit, OF StFeet tGWRhause dwelling unit. AR additiGRal dwelliRg HRit (detaehe" Rot aR aooesswy building." Subsection 4.5 of By-law 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey: a) "No buildings, structures, motor vehicles, food cart, signs, landscaping, or other impediments shall obstruct visibility within a corner visibility triangle, corner visibility area or driveway visibility triangle. An obstruction to visibility shall not include objects 0.9 metres or less in height from the ground, or objects higher than 5 metres in height from the ground. This provision does not apply to the location of fences constructed in accordance with and regulated by Chapter 630 (Fences) of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code, or motor vehicles parked in a parking space on a driveway. b) A corner visibility area shall be required in MIX zones. One leg of both triangles shall measure 6 metres and the other leg of both triangle shall measure 3 metres. Subsection a) shall not apply to existing buildings or new construction which replaces an existing building with the same building footprint within the corner visibility area. c) A corner visibility area shall be required in SGA zones. One leg of both triangles shall measure 5 metres and the other leg of both triangle shall measure 3 metres. Subsection 3 a) shall not apply to existing buildings or new construction which replaces an existing building with the same building footprint within the corner visibility area. d) A corner visibility triangle shall be required in all zones except SGA zones and MIX zones and shall be measured at 7 metres from the point of intersection of the street lines. Page 53 of 343 e) A driveway visibility triangle shall be required in all zones except SGA zones and MIX zones and shall be measured from the point of intersection of a street lot line and the edge of a driveway a distance of 3 metres from the street lot line and 4.5 metres from the edge of the driveway." 4. The second title of Table 4-2 of By-law 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "Permitted home occupation use in a dwelling unit within a single detached dwelling with a -n additional dwelling unit(s) (attached) or additional dwelling unit(s) (detached), semi- detached dwelling unit with a additional dwelling unit(s) (attached) or additional dwelling unit(s) (detached), street townhouse dwelling with an additional dwelling unit(s) (attached) or additional dwelling unit(s) (detached), cluster townhouse dwelling, or multiple dwelling (9)(10),,, 5. Subsection 4.12 of By-law 2019-051 is amended by inserting subsection c) thereto: "c) A maximum of four (4) dwelling units are permitted on a lot which contains a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling unit or street townhouse dwelling unit, subject to the regulations contained herein. The maximum number of units shall include the principal dwelling unit, additional dwelling unit(s) (attached) and additional dwelling unit(s) (detached)." 6. Subsection 4.12.1 of By-law 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "4.12.1 One Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) One additional dwelling unit (attached) may be permitted in association with a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling unit or street townhouse dwelling unit in accordance with the regulations specified by the zone category in which an additional dwelling unit (attached) is permitted, and the dwelling type in which the additional dwelling unit (attached) is located and OR additiGR subject to and as amended by the following: a) one additional dwelling unit (attached) shall only be located in the same building as a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, or street townhouse dwelling; b) an additional dwelling unit (attached) shall be connected to full municipal services; Unless otherwise provided for in this By-law, in any zone where a single detached dwelling with one additional dwelling unit (attached) is permitted, a new dwelling with two dwelling units shall also be permitted and considered a single detached dwelling with an additional dwelling unit (attached) in accordance with regulations specified by the zone category and in this section." Page 54 of 343 7. Subsection 4.12.2 of By-law Number 2019-051 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "4.12.2 Two or Three Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) Two (2) or Three (3) additional dwelling units (attached) may be permitted in association with a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling unit or street townhouse dwelling unit in accordance with the regulations specified by the zone category in which additional dwelling unit(s) (attached) are permitted, and the dwelling type in which the additional dwelling unit(s) (attached) are located and subject to and as amended by the following: a) additional dwelling unit(s) (attached) shall only be located in the same building as a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, or street townhouse dwelling; b) additional dwelling units) (attached) shall be connected to full municipal services; c) a minimum of one pedestrian entrance to the principal building is required to face a street line; d) a maximum of two pedestrian entrances shall be permitted to face each street line, except where more pedestrian entrances are existing; e) an unobstructed walkway that is a minimum 1.1 metres in width, shall be provided from a street to the principal entrance of each new additional dwelling unit (attached), where the principal entrance is not located on a street line fagade. f) where a lot is located farther than 800 metres from a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station as shown on Appendix E, and outside the Central Neighbourhood Area as shown on Appendix C — Central Neighbourhood Area the minimum lot area shall be 360 square metres or in accordance with Table 7-2, 7-3 or 7-4, as may be applicable for the principal dwelling type in which the additional dwelling unit (attached) is located, whichever is greater; g) where a lot is located farther than 800 metres from a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station as shown on Appendix E, and outside the Central Neighbourhood Area as shown on Appendix C — Central Neighbourhood Area the minimum lot width shall be 10.5 metres or in accordance with Table 7-2, 7-3 or 7-4, as may be applicable for the principal dwelling type in which the additional dwelling unit (attached) is located, whichever is greater; h) the minimum front yard landscaped area shall be 20%, excluding surface walkways, patios, decks, playgrounds or pathways; i) the minimum rear yard landscaped area shall be 30%; j) Unless otherwise provided for in this By-law, in any zone where a single detached dwelling with two (2) or three (3) additional dwelling units (attached) are permitted, a Page 55 of 343 new dwelling with three (3) or four (4) dwelling units shall also be permitted and considered a single detached dwelling with additional dwelling units (attached) in accordance with regulations specified by the zone category and in this section." 8. Subsection 4.12.3 of By-law Number 2019-051 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "4.12.3 Additional Dwelling (Detached) An additional dwelling (detached) with one (1) or two (2) additional dwelling units (detached) may be permitted in association with a single detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling unit or street townhouse dwelling unit in accordance with the regulations specified by the zone category in which an additional dwelling unit (detached) is permitted, and as amended by the following: a) for the purposes of Section 4.12.3, the area that is designed to be a separate lot for a street townhouse dwelling or semi-detached dwelling shall be considered to be a lot as calculated by extending a straight line along the demising wall between dwelling units to the front and rear property lines; b) an additional dwelling (detached) shall only be permitted on the same lot as a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street townhouse dwelling; c) an additional dwelling (detached) shall not be severed from the lot containing the single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling unit or street townhouse dwelling unit; d) additional dwelling units (detached) shall be connected to full municipal services; e) the building footprint of the additional dwelling (detached) shall not exceed 80 square metres, and shall comply with the maximum lot coverage included in Table 7-2, 7-3 or 7-4; f) where a lot is located farther than 800 metres from a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station as shown on Appendix E, and outside the Central Neighbourhood Area as shown on Appendix C — Central Neighbourhood Area the minimum lot area shall be 360 square metres or in accordance with Table 7-2, 7-3 or 7-4 as may be applicable for the principal dwelling type with which the additional dwelling unit (detached) is associated, whichever is greater; g) where a lot is located farther than 800 metres from a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station as shown on Appendix E, and outside the Central Neighbourhood Area as shown on Appendix C — Central Neighbourhood Area the minimum lot width shall be 10.5 metres in accordance with Table 7-2, 7-3 or 7-4, as may be applicable for the principal dwelling type with which the additional dwelling unit (detached) is associated, whichever is greater; h) the maximum building height for an additional dwelling (detached) shall be: Page 56 of 343 1) 4.5 metres for a hip, gable, shed, or gambrel roof, measured to the mid point between the eaves and the peak of the roof, excluding the eaves of any projections; i) for a shed roof the lower exterior wall shall face a rear lot line or the nearest side lot line, except where the lot line is a street line or lane; ii) 4.5 metres for a mansard roof, measured to the deck line; iii) 3 metres for a flat roof, measured to the peak of the roof. I) despite subsection h), the maximum building height for an additional dwelling (detached) where the principal dwelling has a building height equal to or greater than 9.1 metres shall be: 1) 6.0 metres for a hip, gable, shed, or gambrel roof, measured to the midpoint between the eaves and the peak of the roof, excluding the eaves of any projections; I) for a shed roof the lower exterior wall shall face a rear lot line or the nearest side lot line, except where the lot line is a street line or lane; ii) 6.0 metres for a mansard roof, measured to the deck line; iii) 4.5 metres for a flat roof, measured to the peak of the roof. Measurement cal' Building Height for Addl tional Dwelling Unit (Detached) beak of roof peak of roof eek �f rv'f II M' deck Oane peak of roof '7 P'Toes E uuI�SMMrog F1 i eaves height Highest olevation of the finished IF LAT HIP' or MANSARD GAMBRIElL SHIED grced,n OF CABLE ROOF I ROOF ROOF j) an additional dwelling (detached) which has a maximum building height of 4.5 metres shall have a minimum setback of 0.6 metres from a rear lot line and interior side lot line; k) an additional dwelling (detached) which exceeds a building height of 4.5 metres shall have a minimum setback of 0.9 metres from a rear lot line and interior side lot line; and notwithstanding the foregoing, where an interior side lot line or rear lot line abuts a lane the minimum setback shall be 0.6 metres; 1) an additional dwelling (detached) shall not be located in the front yard of the principal dwelling, and shall not be located in the area created by extending 5 metres from and parallel to any wall of rear fagade of the principal dwelling. Illustration 4-2: Minimum Separation of Principal Dwelling and Additional Dwelling (detached) Page 57 of 343 ADDITIONAL DWELLING IIMTACHIEDI 5.010 DWELLING STREET ADDITIONAL DWELLING (DETA CHEO 5.010 5.rA.M fi i DWELLING __j STREET AREA CREATED BY IEXT ENDING S' I'WIETIFk,ES FROM AND PARALLEL i TO, ANY WALL O F REAR IFACADE 01F TFIIE PRINCIPAL DWELLING m) an additional dwelling (detached) may be located in an exterior side yard of the principal dwelling, and must be setback in accordance with the required exterior side yard setback of the principal dwelling in the applicable zone; n) an unobstructed walkway that is a minimum 1.1 metres in width, shall be provided from a street to the principal entrance of each additional dwelling unit (detached); o) For a lot containing three (3) or four (4) dwelling units, the minimum front yard landscaped area shall be 20%, excluding surface walkways, patios, decks, playgrounds or pathways; p) For a lot containing three (3) or four (4) dwelling units, the minimum rear yard landscaped area shall be 30%." 9. Subsection 4.12.3.1 of By-law 2019-051 shall be deleted in its entirety. Page 58 of 343 10. Section 4.12.4 of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "4.12.4 Pow Five to Ten Dwelling Units on a Lot €euF (4) Five (5) to ten (10) dwelling units on a lot without any non-residential use except permitted home occupation uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations specified by the zone category for the dwelling(s) and shall have: a) a minimum of 20% street line fagade opening which includes at least one (1) pedestrian entrance to the principal building; b) a minimum 20% of the front yard landscaped, excluding surface walkways, patios, decks, playgrounds or pathways; C) a minimum driveway width of 2.6 metres; d) despite section 4.12.4 c), where a driveway is immediately adjacent to any building or structure on a lot, the driveway including any curbing shall be a minimum 3.0 metres wide." 11. Section 5.3 e) of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "e) Where a parking lot is provided for a development that does not require site plan approval pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act, the following regulations shall apply: i) The parking lot shall be setback a minimum of 1.5 metres from side lot line and rear lot line. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a parking lot may be located as close to an interior side lot line as the driveway which provides access to the parking lot, and only for the interior side lot line on the same side of the lot as the driveway; ate, ii) The minimum drive aisle width shall be 6 metres; and. iii) Parking spaces and drive aisles shall not be located within the front yard or an exterior side yard. In no case shall any parking spaces be located within 3 metres of the front lot line, exterior side lot line or a street line. iv) where a driveway is immediately adjacent to any building or structure on a lot, the driveway including any curbing shall be a minimum 3.0 metres wide." Page 59 of 343 12. Section 5.3.3 of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: a) "On a lot containing a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, street townhouse dwelling, additional dwelling unit(s) (attached), additional dwelling unit(s) (detached), small residential care facility, lodging house having less than 9 residents, or home occupation: i) Parking spaces located within a building shall be tesafed setback a minimum distance of 6 metres from a street line; ii) Despite S bSeetieR it where two or mere parking oeoees are required, ene nnrLine Space me i lenste OR the dFiyewa y Within 6 metres of the front let lime er exterior side let lime and me i he a tandem eerLine SpaGe- Up to three required parking spaces may be tandem parking spaces; apd, Illustration 5-1: One Tandem Illustration 5-2: One Tandem Parking Space — Option A Parking Space — Option B DWELLING STREET iii) One parking space located on a driveway shall be setback a minimum distance of 0.5 metres from a street line Despite SubseetiOR on) wheFe three parki e FeElHiFed OR a let a a*ino spaGe y IeGate OR the dFiye..,ay within 6 metres of the front lot line OF eAerier side lot line and three pa*ing spaees may he tandem pa*ing spae • and iv) Not more than one parking space for a home occupation may be located in a rear yard, except in the case of a corner lot, a through lot, or a lot abutting a lane; Page 60 of 343 V) where three (3) or more dwelling units are located on a lot, parking may be located in a parking lot in accordance with the regulations of sections 5.3, 5.3.1, and 5.3.3 b) i); and vi) where three (3) or more dwelling units are located on a lot, and despite regulations in Table 5-2 and 5-3, a driveway located in the rear yard may be permitted to have a maximum width of up to 8 metres." 13. Section 5.4 a) of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: a) "For all residential uses other than large residential care facilities, multiple dwellings GentaiRing ^ eF Fnere dwelling units, and mixed use buildings, a required parking space shall have direct access from a street or lane via a driveway." 14. Section 5.5 of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended by inserting subsection f) thereto: f) "Notwithstanding subsection c) and e), Class C Bicycle Parking Stalls are not required to provide overhead clearance, and are not required to abut an access aisle." 15. Table 5-5 of By-law Number 2019-051 for Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) and Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough, and to add footnote (5) thereto: Table 5-5: Regulations for Minimum and Maximum Parking Requirements Additional Lands within 800 Lands farther than Lands farther than 800 Dwelling Unit Minimum metres of a Light 800 metres of a Light metres from a Light (Attached) parking n/a n/a 1 per e1we" ng upit (5) and Additional Station as shown on Station as shown on Dwelling Unit spaces: Detached 5) Parking spaces and bicycle parking stalls for additional dwelling unit(s) (attached) and/or additional dwelling unit(s) (detached) shall be provided at a minimum rate as specified within Table 5-5-1. Table 5-5-1: Regulations for Minimum Parking Requirements for Lots containing Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) and/or Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached) Page 61 of 343 Lands within 800 Lands farther than Lands farther than 800 metres of a Light 800 metres of a Light metres from a Light Trail Transit (LRT) Rail Transit (LRT) Rail Transit (LRT) Station as shown on Station as shown on Page 61 of 343 16. Table 7-1 of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "Table 7-1: Permitted Uses within the Residential Zones Use RES -1 RES -2 RES -3 Station (Appendix E) Appendix E, and within the Central Neighbourhood Area (Appendix C Appendix E, and outside the Central Neighbourhood Area (Appendix C Additional Minimumn No minimum 0.3 per dwelling unit 0.6 per dwelling unit Dwelling parking ✓ Unit spaces: ✓ ✓ ✓ (Attached) Minimum 0.5 per dwelling unit 0.5 per dwelling unit 0.5 per dwelling unit and Class C without a private without a private without a private Additional Bicycle garage, where there garage, where there garage, where there Dwelling Parking are a minimum of 3 are a minimum of 3 are a minimum of 3 Unit Stalls: dwelling units on a dwelling units on a dwelling units on a lot. (Detached) lot. lot. 16. Table 7-1 of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "Table 7-1: Permitted Uses within the Residential Zones Use RES -1 RES -2 RES -3 RES -4 RES -5 RES -6 RES -7 Residential Uses Single Detached Dwelling ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Additional Dwelling Units (Attached)(1) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Additional Dwelling Units (Detached)(2) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Semi -Detached Dwelling ✓ ✓ ✓ Townhouse Dwelling — Street ✓(3) ✓(4) Townhouse Dwelling — Cluster (7) ✓(4) ✓ Multiple Dwelling (7) .�{3} ✓ ✓ J Lodging House ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Continuing Care Community ✓ ✓ ✓ Hospice ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Residential Care Facility, Small ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ J Residential Care Facility, Large ✓ ✓ J Non -Residential Uses Artisan's Establishment (5) ✓ J Community Facility (5) ✓ J Convenience Retail (5) ✓ ✓ Day Care Facility (5) ✓ ✓ Financial Establishment (5) ✓ Health Office (5) J Page 62 of 343 Home Occupation (6) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Office (5) ✓ ✓ Personal Services (5) ✓ Studio (5) ✓ ✓ 17. "Additional Regulations for Permitted Uses Table 7-1" of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "Additional Regulations for Permitted Uses Table 7-1 (1) Shall be permitted in accordance with 4.12.1 and 4.12.2. (2) Shall be permitted in accordance with 4.12.3. (3) The maximum number of dwelling units in a dwelling shall be 4. (4) The maximum number of dwelling units in a dwelling shall be 8. (5) Permitted non-residential uses must be located within a multiple dwelling (despite the definition of multiple dwelling in Section 3) and are limited in size in accordance with the regulations in Table 7-6. (6) Shall be permitted in accordance with 4.7. (7) 45 to 10 dwelling units on a lot provided without any non-residential use except permitted home occupation uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations in Table 7-5 or Table 7-6 as applicable and Section 4.12.4." 18. "Additional Regulations for Permitted Uses Table 7-2" of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "Additional Regulations for Single Detached Dwellings Table 7-2 (1) The minimum lot area shall be 0.4 hectares on lots without full municipal services. (2) The minimum lot width shall be 30.0 metres on lots without full municipal services. (3) For lands identified in Appendix D — Established Neighbourhoods Area, the minimum and maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6. (4) A combined total of 55 percent for all buildings and structures on the lot. Accessory buildings or structures, whether attached or detached, and additional dwellings tis (detached) shall not exceed 15 percent. (5) The regulations within Table 7-2 shall not apply to an existing single detached dwelling on an existing lot with or without one existing additional dwelling unit (attached). (6) For lands identified in Appendix C — Central Neighborhoods, the maximum building height shall be in accordance with Section 7.5." Page 63 of 343 19. "Additional Regulations for Permitted Uses Table 7-3" of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "Additional Regulations for Semi -Detached Dwelling Unit Table 7-3 (1) For lands identified in Appendix D — Established Neighbourhoods Area, the minimum and maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6. (2) A combined total of 55 percent for all buildings and structures on the lot. Accessory buildings or structures, whether attached or detached, and additional dwellings (detached) shall not exceed 15 percent. (3) The regulations within Table 7-3 shall not apply to an existing semi-detached dwelling on an existing lot with or without one existing additional dwelling unit (attached). (4) For land identified in Appendix C — Central Neighborhoods, the maximum building height shall be in accordance with Section 7.5." 20. "Additional Regulations for Permitted Uses Table 7-4" of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "Additional Regulations for Street Townhouse Dwelling Units Table 7-4 (1) For lands identified in Appendix D — Established Neighbourhoods Area, the minimum and maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6. (2) Each dwelling unit shall have an unobstructed access at grade or ground floor level, having a minimum width of 0.9 metres, from the front yard to the rear yard of the lot either by: a) direct access on the lot without passing through any portion of the dwelling unit; or, b) direct access through the dwelling unit without passing through a living or family room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, or recreation room or any hallway that is not separated by a door to any such room; or, c) access over adjacent lands which, if the lands are not owned by the City or the Region, is secured by a registered easement. (3) A combined total of 55 percent for all buildings and structures on the lot. Accessory buildings or structures, whether attached or detached, and additional dwellings tis (detached) shall not exceed 15 percent. (4) The regulations within Table 7-4 shall not apply to an existing street townhouse dwelling on an existing lot with or without one existing additional dwelling unit (attached). (5) For lands identified in Appendix C — Central Neighborhoods, the maximum building height shall be in accordance with Section 7.5." 21. Table 7-6 of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: Page 64 of 343 Table 7-6: For Multiple Dwellings and Non -Residential Uses Regulation RES -1 RES -2 RES -3 Q`,�=4-W RES -5 (6) RES -6 (6) RES -7 (6) Minimum Lot Area 42 495m2 Minimum Lot Width 19.OmM 30.Om 30.Om Minimum Front Yard or Exterior Yard 4.5m (&) 4.5m (8) 3.Om 3.Om Setback Minimum Interior Side 3.Om 3.Om 4.5m 4.5m (5) Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard 7m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m (5) Setback Minimum Landscaped 2"0 20% 20% 20% Area Minimum Floor Space 0.6(2)(7) 2.0(2)(7) Ratio Maximum Floor g� 0.6 2.0(2) 4.0(2) Space Ratio Minimum building 11.0 m 14.0 m height Maximum Building Wig) 11.0m (9) 25.Om (5) Height Maximum number of -3 3 8 storeys Minimum number of 5 5 dwellingunits Maximum number of 4 dwellingunits Private Patio Area 3 3 3 Maximum Gross Floor Area of 600m2(4) 600m2(4) Individual Non - Residential Use 22. "Additional Regulations for Multiple Dwellings and Non -Residential Uses Table 7-6" of By- law Number 2019-051 is amended to delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "Additional Regulations for Multiple Dwellings and Non -Residential Uses Table 7-6 (1) A muXple dwelling with 4 dweiliRg tAROtS shall have a MOROFRUM let K4dffi Gf 15.0 (2) Combined total Floor Space Ratio of all uses on the lot. (3) For multiple dwellings, each dwelling unit located at ground floor level shall have a patio area adjacent to the dwelling unit with direct access to such dwelling unit. (4) The total gross floor area of all non-residential uses shall not exceed 25% of the total gross floor area on a lot. (5) The maximum building height shall be 25 metres within 15 metres of a lot with a (RES -6) Medium Rise Residential Six Zone. (6) The regulations within Table 7-6 shall not apply to an existing multiple dwelling on an existing lot. Page 65 of 343 (7) Individual buildings will not be required to achieve the minimum floor space ratio where there is an approved Urban Design Brief that includes a Master Site Plan that demonstrates the overall development can achieve the minimum floor space ratio. (8) For lands identified in Appendix D — Established Neighbourhoods Area, the minimum and maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6. (9) For lands identified in Appendix C — Central Neighborhoods, the maximum building height shall be in accordance with Section 7.5." 23. Site Specific Provision (312) of Section 19 of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey to subsection b): "b) the minimum front yard setback shall be 4.5 metres and no part of any building used to accommodate off-street parking shall be located closer than 5.7 metres to the front lot line, and the minimum setback to one parking space located on a driveway shall be 0.2 metres." 24. Site Specific Provision (313) of Section 19 of By-law Number 2019-051 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey: `Within the lands zoned RES -5 and shown as affected by this provision on Zoning Grid Schedules 210, 249, and 250 of Appendix A, the following shall apply: For single detached dwelling: a) the minimum corner lot width shall be 12 metres; b) the minimum front yard setback shall be 4.5 metres and no part of any building used to accommodate off-street parking shall be located closer than 5.7 metres to the front lot line, and the minimum setback to one parking space located on a driveway shall be 0.2 metres; c) the minimum interior side yard setback shall be 0.6 metres on one side, 1.2 metres on the other, and in the case of a corner lot the 1.2 metres setback shall be applied to the exterior side yard; d) the minimum exterior side yard setback shall be 3 metres; e) the minimum rear yard setback shall be 7 metres; f) the maximum building height shall be 11.5 metres; and, g) encroachments may be permitted for stairs and access ramps, provided the minimum setback to the encroachment is 1 metre from the exterior side lot line. For street townhouse dwelling: a) the minimum lot width shall be 6 metres; b) the minimum corner lot width shall be 9.5 metres; c) the minimum front yard setback shall be 4.5 metres and no part of any building used to accommodate off-street parking shall be located closer than 5.7 metres to the front lot line, and the minimum setback to one parking space located on a driveway shall be 0.2 metres; Page 66 of 343 d) the minimum interior side yard setback shall be 0.6 metres (end units); e) the minimum exterior side yard setback shall be 3 metres; f) the minimum rear yard setback shall be 7 metres; g) the maximum lot coverage shall be 60%, of which the habitable portion of the dwelling shall not exceed 50% and the accessory buildings, whether attached or detached, shall not exceed 15%; g) the maximum lot coverage shall be 60%, of which the habitable portion of the dwelling shall not exceed 50% and the accessory buildings, whether attached or detached, shall not exceed 15%; h) the maximum building height shall be 11.5 metres; i) encroachments may be permitted for stairs and access ramps, provided the minimum setback to the encroachment is 1 metre from the exterior side lot line." 25. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No._ (Enabling Four Units) comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of , 2024. Mayor Clerk Page 67 of 343 PROPOSED BY — LAW , 2024 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: Section 4.2 of By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by adding the following new definitions in proper alphabetical order: ""Additional Dwelling (Detached)" means a detached building containing one or two additional dwelling unit(s) (detached) on the same lot as a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, or street townhouse dwelling (as the principal use). An additional dwelling (detached) is not an accessory building." ""Building Footprint" means the horizontal area of a building, as seen in plan, measured from the outside of all exterior walls and supporting columns." 2. Section 4.2 of By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended to add the portions of the below text in the definition of "Multiple Dwelling" that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text in the definition of "Multiple Dwelling" with a strikethrough: "Multiple Dwelling" means a building containing few five (5) or more dwelling units but shall not include a street townhouse dwelling or semi-detached dwelling." 3. Section 4.2 of By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended to add the portions of the below text in the definition of "Semi -Detached House" that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text in the definition of "Multiple Dwelling" with a strikethrough: "Semi -Detached House" means that part of a semi-detached dwelling on one side of the common wall, which may contain eneup to four (4) dwelling units." 4. Section 4.2 of By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended to add the portions of the below text in the definition of "Townhouse" that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text in the definition of "Multiple Dwelling" with a strikethrough: "Townhouse" means that part of a cluster townhouse dwelling or street townhouse dwelling divided laterally but not internally by common walls or an end Page 68 of 343 wall-;. A townhouse located within a street townhouse dwelling whieh may contain E)Re-OF tWO up to four (4) dwelling units." 5. Section 4.2 of By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by adding the following new definition in proper alphabetical order: ""Unobstructed Walkway" means a path of travel providing access to the principal entrance of an additional dwelling unit (attached) or additional dwelling unit (detached), and shall be unencumbered by obstructions including but not limited to: stairs, decks and porches (except those which form part of the path of travel to the principal entrance); parking spaces; driveways; chimney breasts; window wells; balconies; secure outdoor areas associated with pools; mechanical, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning equipment and utility meters; or amenity structures such as playgrounds, garden trellises, and pergolas. An unobstructed walkway may be shared between more than one dwelling unit on a lot." 6. Section 5.3 of By-law Number 85-1 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey: "Except in D-1 and D-2 Zones, no obstruction to visibility, whether from buildings, motor vehicles, landscaping or other impediments shall be permitted within a corner visibility triangle or any driveway visibility triangle; provided however, this shall not include objects 0.9 metres or less in height from grade. This regulation does not apply to the location of fences constructed in accordance with and regulated by Chapter 630 (Fences) of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code, or motor vehicles parked in a parking space on a driveway. The purpose being to allow complete view of oncoming motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic by other such traffic entering the intersection or street." 7. Section 5.13.3 of By-law Number 85-1 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey: ".3 Home Businesses permitted in Duplex Dwellings, Multiple Dwellings, Semi Detached Houses containing two dwelling units and Street Townhouse Dwellings, or on any lot containing an Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) or an Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached): Academic Instruction Artisan's Establishment (not including retail or instruction) Office" 8. Section 5.13.4 of By-law Number 85-1 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey: ".4 Regulations for Home Businesses in Duplex Dwellings, Multiple Dwellings, Semi Detached Houses containing two dwelling units and Street Townhouse Dwellings, or on any lot containing an Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached) or Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached): Page 69 of 343 a) The home business shall only be conducted by the person or persons resident in the dwelling unit. b) The home business shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building. c) No outdoor storage shall be permitted. d) No storage or display of goods shall be visible from the street. e) The home business shall not attract customers, clients or employees directly to the lot containing the home business, except for academic instruction to one customer or client at a time. f) Only one home business shall be permitted for each dwelling unit and the gross floor area of such use shall not exceed 15.0 square metres. g) The building containing the home business shall comply with all applicable regulations for the dwelling type in the zone in which it is located. h) The home business shall not create noise, vibration, fumes, odour, dust, glare or radiation which is evident outside of the building. i) No combustion engine shall be used in the process of conducting any home business." 9. Section 5.22, 5.22.1, 5.22.1.1 and 5.22.2 of By-law Number 85-1 are hereby deleted and replaced with the following: "5.22 ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT(S) (ATTACHED) AND ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT(S) (DETACHED) a) a maximum of four (4) Dwelling Units are permitted on a lot which contains a Single Detached Dwelling, Semi -Detached House or a Townhouse located within a Street Townhouse Dwelling. The maximum number of units shall include the principal dwelling unit, Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) and Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached); b) for the purposes of subsection 5.22 a) the area that is designed to be a separate lot for Semi -Detached House or a Townhouse located within a Street Townhouse Dwelling shall be considered to be a lot as calculated by extending a straight line along the demising wall between Dwelling Units to the front and rear property lines; c) Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) and Additional Dwelling Units (Detached) shall be connected to full municipal services; d) Unless otherwise provided for in this By-law, on any lot where a Single Detached Dwelling, Semi -Detached Dwelling or Street Townhouse Dwelling is not permitted by a zone, however is permitted by a Special Use Provision, Page 70 of 343 Additional Dwelling Units(s) (Attached) and Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached) shall also be permitted; e) Unless otherwise provided for in this bylaw, where a Special Regulation Provision permits a Duplex Dwelling to be counted as one Dwelling Unit, a Single Detached Dwelling, with any permitted combination of Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) and Additional Dwelling Units (Detached) shall also be counted as one Dwelling Unit; f) an Unobstructed Walkway that is a minimum 1.1 metres in width, shall be provided from a street to the principal entrance of each new Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) where the principal entrance is not located on a Street Line Fapade, and each Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached). The Unobstructed Walkway shall not be located within a required Parking Space; g) where three (3) or more units are located on a lot, 2 bicycle parking stalls shall be provided. Bicycle parking shall be located in a weather protected area with controlled access, and may include a private garage, an accessory structure, a bicycle locker, or an indoor storage alcove; and h) Unless otherwise provided for in this By-law, in any zone where a Single Detached Dwelling with Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) is permitted, a new dwelling with up to four Dwelling Units shall also be permitted and considered a Single Detached Dwelling with Additional Dwelling Units (Attached). 5.22.1 ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT (DETACHED) One Additional Dwelling (Detached) with one (1) or two (2) Additional Dwelling Units (Detached) shall only be permitted in association with a Single Detached Dwelling, Duplex Dwelling, Semi -Detached House, Semi -Detached Duplex House, or Street Townhouse Dwelling, in accordance with the regulations specified by the zone category in which an Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) is permitted, and as amended by the following: a) an Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) shall not be severed from the lot containing the Single Detached Dwelling, Duplex Dwelling, Semi -Detached House, Semi -Detached Duplex House, Townhouse located within a Street Townhouse Dwelling; b) the building footprint of the Additional Dwelling (Detached) shall not exceed or 80 square metres; c) the maximum combined lot coverage of accessory buildings and an Additional Dwelling (Detached) shall be 15 percent; d) where a lot is located farther than 800 metres from a Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station as shown on Appendix I, and outside the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area as shown on Appendix H, the minimum lot area shall be 360 square metres, or in accordance with the Page 71 of 343 regulations of the zone as may be applicable for the principal dwelling type within which the Additional Dwelling (Detached) is associated, whichever is greater. e) where a lot is located farther than 800 metres from a Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station as shown on Appendix I, and outside the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area as shown on Appendix H, the minimum lot width shall be 10.5 metres, or in accordance with the regulations of the zone as may be applicable for the principal dwelling type within which the Additional Dwelling (Detached) is associated, whichever is greater; f) the maximum building height for an Additional Dwelling (Detached) shall be: a. 4.5 metres for a hip, gable, shed, or gambrel roof, measured to the midpoint between the eaves and the peak of the roof, excluding the eaves of any projections; i) for a shed roof the lower exterior wall shall face a rear lot line or the nearest side lot line, except where the lot line is a street line or lane; b. 4.5 metres for a mansard roof, measured to the deck line; c. 3 metres for a flat roof, measured to the peak of the roof; g) despite subsection h), the maximum building height for an Additional Dwelling (Detached) where the principal dwelling has a height equal to or greater than 9.1 metres shall be: a. 6.0 metres for a hip, gable, shed, or gambrel roof, measured to the midpoint between the eaves and the peak of the roof, excluding the eaves of any projections; i) for a shed roof the lower exterior wall shall face a rear lot line or the nearest side lot line, except where the lot line is a street line or lane; b. 6.0 metres for a mansard roof, measured to the deck line; c. 4.5 metres for a flat roof, measured to the peak of the roof; Measurement Of Building Height for Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) freak„f rano peak of roof peak n4 '.0'r� dark hree � Ifaeak cDf roof Building heigyhP, I11igPota N e:levaPi+,k&9 '... — of the fim hed FIAT HIP ar MANSARD GAMBREL SHED ground (ROOF GASLL ROOFR00IF ROOF ROOF h) an Additional Dwelling (Detached) which has a maximum height of 4.5 metres shall have a minimum setback of 0.6 metres from a rear lot line and interior side lot line; i) an Additional Dwelling (Detached) which exceeds a height of 4.5 metres shall have a minimum setback of 0.9 metres from a rear lot line and interior Page 72 of 343 side lot line. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where an interior side or rear lot line abuts a lane the minimum setback shall be 0.6 metres, and there shall be no restrictions on facade openings for the facade facing the lane; j) an Additional Dwelling (Detached) shall not be located in the front yard of the principal dwelling; and shall not be located in the area created by extending 5 metres from and parallel to any wall of rear facade of the principal dwelling; Illustration 4-2: Minimum Separation of Principal Dwelling and Additional Dwelling (detached) AREA CREATED ,, AND PARALLEL TO ANY ar DE OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING k) an Additional Dwelling (Detached) may be located in an exterior side yard of the principal dwelling, subject to the required exterior side yard setback required for the dwelling in the applicable zone; 1) For a lot containing Three (3) or Four (4) Dwelling Units, the minimum front yard landscaped area shall be 20%, excluding surface walkways, patios, decks, playgrounds or pathways; and m) the minimum rear yard landscaped area shall be 30%; Page 73 of 343 5.22.2 ONE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT (ATTACHED) One Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) may be permitted in association with a Single Detached Dwelling, a Semi -Detached House or a Townhouse located in a Street Townhouse Dwelling in accordance with the regulations specified by the zone category and applying to principal dwelling type in which the Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) is located, and in addition to and as amended by the following: a) Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) shall only be located in the same building as a Single Detached Dwelling, Semi -Detached Dwelling, or Street Townhouse Dwelling; 5.22.2.1 ONE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT (ATTACHED) AND DUPLEXES A Duplex Dwelling shall be considered as a Single Detached Dwelling with one Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) and a Semi -Detached Duplex House shall be considered as a Semi -Detached House with one Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached). 2 New Duplex Dwellings or Semi -Detached Duplex House may be permitted in accordance with regulations set out in sections 5.22 and 5.22.2 one Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached). 5.22.3 TWO OR THREE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS (ATTACHED) Two (2) or three (3) Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) may be permitted in association with a Single Detached Dwelling, a Semi -Detached House or a Townhouse located in a Street Townhouse Dwelling in accordance with the regulations specified by the zone category and applying to Single Detached Dwelling, Semi -Detached House, or Street Townhouse Dwelling in which the Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) are located and in addition to and as amended by the following: a) Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) shall only be located in the same building as a Single Detached Dwelling, Semi -Detached Dwelling, or Street Townhouse Dwelling; b) a minimum of one pedestrian entrance to the principal building is required to face a street line; c) a maximum of two pedestrian entrances shall be permitted to face each street line, except where more pedestrian entrances are existing; d) where a lot is located farther than 800 metres from a Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station as shown on Appendix I, and outside the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area as shown on Appendix H, the minimum lot area shall be 360 square metres, or in accordance with the regulations of the zone as may be applicable for the principal dwelling Page 74 of 343 type within which the Additional Dwelling (Attached) is associated, whichever is greater. e) where a lot is located farther than 800 metres from a Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station as shown on Appendix I, and outside the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area as shown on Appendix H, the minimum lot width shall be 10.5 metres, or in accordance with the regulations of the zone as may be applicable for the principal dwelling type within which the Additional Dwelling (Detached) is associated, whichever is greater; f) For a lot containing Three (3) or Four (4) dwelling units, the minimum front yard landscaped area shall be 20%, excluding surface walkways, patios, decks, playgrounds or pathways; g) the minimum rear yard landscaped area shall be 30%; 5.22.3.1 TWO OR THREE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS (ATTACHED) AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS An existing Multiple Dwelling with Three (3) or Four (4) Dwelling Units shall be considered as a Single Detached Dwelling with Additional Dwelling Units (Attached). 10. Section 5.33 of By-law Number 85-1 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "5.33 €GMK Five to Ten Dwelling Units on a Lot Fm66ir (4) Five (5) to ten (10) Dwelling Units on a lot without any non-residential use except permitted home business uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations specified by the zone category for the Dwelling(s) and shall have: a) a minimum of 20% street line fagade opening which includes at least one (1) pedestrian entrance to the principal building; b) a minimum 20% of the front yard landscaped, excluding surface walkways, patios, decks, playgrounds or pathways; C) a minimum driveway width of 2.6 metres; d) despite section 5.33 c), where a driveway is immediately adjacent to any building or structure on a lot, the driveway including any curbing shall be a minimum 3.0 metres wide." 11. Subsection 6.1.1.1 b) of By-law Number 85-1 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "b) Single Detached Dwellings with or without Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) or Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached), Semi -Detached Page 75 of 343 Dwellings with or without Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) or Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached), and Duplex Dwellings with or without ewe Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) or an Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached); Residential Care Facility having less than 9 residents; and a Lodging House having less than 9 residents On a lot containing a Single Detached Dwelling with or without Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) or Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached), Semi -Detached Dwellind with or without Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) or Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached), and Duplex Dwellings with or without one Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) or a -R Additional Dwelling Unit(s)-(Detached), Semi - Detached Dwelling with or without Additional Dwelling Unit(s), or Duplex Dwelling with or without one Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) or an Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached); Residential Care Facility having less than 9 residents; or a Lodging House having less than 9 residents: (Amended: By-law 2021-040, S.9) i) The following provisions shall apply to off-street parking spaces: The G# MetFeS fFE)M the street !one. a) Parking spaces located within a building shall be setback a minimum distance of 6 metres from a street line; b) One off-street parking space required for such dwellings shall be located a minimum distance of 0.5 metres from the street line. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where a special regulation permits a portion of a building which accommodates off-street parking to be setback 5.7 metres from the front lot line, one parking space located on a driveway shall be located a minimum distance of 0.2 metres from the street line; and c) Up to three required parking spaces may be arranged in tandem." 12. Subsection 6.1.1.1 c) of By-law Number 85-1 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "c) Street Townhouse Dwellings with or without an Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) or Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached) On a lot containing a Street Townhouse Dwelling with or without an Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) or Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached): i) The following provisions shall apply to off-street parking spaces: Th�f street pa*iRg req aired fn -.r � 7IAi�imgsholl Pet�eler.ate -1 �Aii#hip the 1VT ZfPY 'Qi1T� fQ'GQ CGQ�PfCI"f1Tr-[TRr Page 76 of 343 a) Parking spaces located within a building shall be setback a minimum distance of 6 metres from a street line; b) One off-street parking space required for such dwellings shall be located a minimum distance of 0.5 metres from the street line. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where a special regulation permits a portion of a building which accommodates off-street parking to be setback 5.7 metres from the front lot line, one parking space located on a driveway shall be located a minimum distance of 0.2 metres from the street line; and c) Up to three required parking spaces may be arranged in tandem. ii) The following provisions shall apply to driveways and driveway widenings: a) A driveway shall be located leading directly from a street or lane to a parking space located a minimum distance of 6.0 metres from the street line and shall have a minimum width of 2.6 metres. b) A driveway may be widened to a maximum of 65% of the lot width or 6 metres, whichever is the lesser. C) A driveway and widening thereof may be used for the parking of vehicles provided that a parking space on the driveway or the widening meets the minimum length requirements of Section 6.1.1.2 d). (Amended: By-law 2018-125, S.13) iii) Notwithstanding clause ii) above, on a corner lot an access driveway shall not be located closer than 9 metres to the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot. For the purpose of this subsection iii), where one or more parking spaces are provided with a setback of less than 12 metres, the driveway including any widening shall be deemed to be at least the same width as the parking spaces, for a minimum distance of 12 metres from the parking space, measured perpendicular to the end of the parking space closest to the street. iv) In the case of a Street Townhouse Dwelling containing Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Attached) or Additional Dwelling Unit(s) (Detached), each additional required parking space may be arranged in tandem behind the first required space. V) Within a front yard, side yard or side yard abutting a street, motor vehicles shall only be parked on a driveway conforming with Section 6.1.1.1. Page 77 of 343 vi) The driveway shall be comprised of a material that is consistent throughout the driveway and that is distinguishable from all other ground cover or surfacing, including landscaping or walkways, within the front yard, side yard or side yard abutting a street." 13. Subsection 6.1.1.2 h) of By-law Number 85-1 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey: "h) Where a parking lot is provided for a development that does not require site plan approval pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act, the following regulations shall apply: i) the parking lot shall be setback a minimum of 1.5 metres from side lot line and rear lot line. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a parking lot may be located as close to an interior side lot line as the driveway which provides access to the parking lot, and only for the interior side lot line on the same side of the lot as the driveway; and, ii) the minimum drive aisle width shall be 6 metres." 14. Subsection 6.1.2 a) of By-law Number 85-1 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: Column 1 Column 2 Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) a) 0 for each dwelling unit where the lot is located within 800 metres of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station as shown on Appendix I; b) 0.3 for each dwelling unit where the lot is located farther than 800 metres of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station as shown on Appendix I, and located within the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area as shown on Appendix H; and c) 0.6 for each dwelling unit where the lot is located farther than 800 metres of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station as shown on Appendix I, and outside the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area as shown on Appendix H; Additional Dwelling 1 f^r ^ ^h dwell;^n , n;+ OF 0 where the let ,s Ir.^^ Unit (Detached) within 800 F.,..tFes of a Light Ran! T.-.,nsit (LRT) station a ohGWR ^n Apr eRGIiv 1. a) 0 for each dwelling unit where the lot is located within 800 metres of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station as shown on Appendix I; b) 0.3 for each dwelling unit where the lot is located farther than 800 metres of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station as shown on Appendix I, and located within Page 78 of 343 the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area as shown on Appendix H; and c) 0.6 for each dwelling unit where the lot is located farther than 800 metres of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station as shown on Appendix I, and outside the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area as shown on Appendix H; 15. Section 6.7.2 is amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "2. The provisions outlined in subsection 6.7.1 above shall not apply to any off- street parking facility constructed or redeveloped that is used exclusively for one of the following: a) Parking for buses. b) Parking for delivery vehicles. c) Parking for law enforcement vehicles. d) Parking for medical transportation vehicles, such as ambulances. e) Parking used as a parking lot for impounded vehicles. f) Any residential use withless tha,Tfour (4) or fewer dwelling units on a lot." 16. Section 19.1 of By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by inserting "Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached)" and "Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached)" into the existing list of permitted uses thereto in proper alphabetical order. 17. Section 19 of By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by inserting the following new regulations thereto in proper numerical order: 19.6 For Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) In accordance with regulations set out in Sections 5.22, 5.22.2 and 5.22.3 of this By-law. 19.7 For Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) In accordance with regulations set out in Sections 5.22 and 5.22.1 of this By-law. 19.8 For Lots with Five to Ten Dwelling Units Five (5) to Ten (10) dwelling units on a lot provided without any non-residential use except permitted home business uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations in this Section as applicable and Section 5.33." 18. Sections 31.3.6, 32.3.9, 33.3.5, 35.4, 36.2.3, 37.2.2, 38.2.3, 39.2.5, 40.2.7, 41.2.7, 42.2.12, 43.2.8, 44.3.14, 45.3.14, 46.4, 47.2.7, 47A.3.4, 53.2.7, 54.2.7, 55.2.7 of By- law Number 85-1 are hereby amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: Page 79 of 343 "For Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) In accordance with regulations set out in Sections 5.22 and 5.22.1 of this By-law." 19. Sections 31.3.7, 32.3.10, 33.3.6, 35.5, 36.2.4, 37.2.4, 38.2.6, 39.2.8, 40.2.10, 41.2.11, 42.2.13, 43.2.9, 44.3.15, 45.3.15, 46.5, 47.2.8, 47A.3.5, 53.2.8, 54.2.8, 55.2.8 of By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "For Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) GRe Ardrditienol I)W811ing I Init (attoshed) may be permitted in osserraRGe regi latiens set e6 it in 9GGtiGR 5 22 '1 of this By law Twe AddotmeRal Dwelling Units (AttaGhed) Fnay be permitted on aGGGFdanGe With regi iletiens set 96it in SeGtleR 5 ` 2 2 of this By L..., In accordance with regulations set out in Sections 5.22, 5.22.2 and 5.22.3 of this By-law. " 20. Sections 32.3.11, 33.3.7, 40.2.11, 41.2.12, 42.2.14, 43.2.10, 44.3.16, 45.3.16, 46.6, 47.2.9, 47A.3.6, 53.2.9, 54.2.9, 55.2.9 of By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended to add the portions of the below text that are highlighted in grey, and delete portions of the below text with a strikethrough: "For Lots with Fou r Five to Ten Dwelling Units 4 te-10 5 to 10 dwelling units on a lot provided without any non-residential use except permitted home occupation uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations in this Section as applicable and Section 5.33." 21. Section 39.2A of By-law Number 85-1 is hereby deleted in its entirety. 22. Section 129 of "Appendix C — Special Use Provisions for Specific Lands" of By-law Number 85-1 is hereby deleted in its entirety. 23. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of 12023. Mayor Clerk Page 80 of 343 OJ f6 C O 41 m L 3 ai Ln O (n r -I O N T co dD C O N O N C C� G C OJ E Q r -I U C a) E L u 41 41Q 00 ¢r v U Y bA C E � O N C D O v U _ ° 01l to o Q C _ L > C v 3 st °- va t i r0 >_ ° 0 0 3 O > v- u H y ° 0 a v v'; s o 0 v Y> aci Q L N - O v 0 > C O L 9 ° 3 0 N 41 O O C,> C O O- N £ N N N ° Y N C O✓ -O - v v 3 y-6 L maw Y c o ocu a o m uy O - vous .3 a oc u von Nu s ra rp LE c a 'O c 3 c m c c Y £ C l6 p Y Q C N O C O 3 N Q -6 O O O m O N rb vC U ° N U C M -6 w.° Q v .� °° v .'_' N c N 'C O N CF- .0 t+ .0 w N w £ u E y +� v' m `o t n= v oma' v° w u v Z azU z E 3 3 z u 3 ° N L O mto O E c 0y N" .n•N H U u N OO co E Qv i m YU v v — -o _, r6a .N L 71 O ° v m £ E v o o v v ° Q@ > H oa u do m o f +,� m a o c cco c v f6 uI.S on � £ v m m ocu o 'a a m a Q > do > °? o ° o_ '° x 3 v £ v ro u v `c° v o o a =' ou o °i rco vE -° E 3 :° 3 "O yo v u° _ m v u 9 *' uw o° ° o v v c m -° co u a v a 'y p E o„ c ¢ -c E v 0 3oca v w 3 c M - _ y v$ .� v ,Q �n .E o c v as E 3 3 c o u c�-c-o v '� a ¢ m u u Lou v Q v o v v v N o c U o .o v '£ 'E v 'c 3 ac m -=a F r m � o m o s o L m 3 3 3 Y 0 .N E N a a 3 ,o o y ° _o c ro c o N a= 3° ro 3Lv. m i c c o o° v o > o v v m 0 > o m '� L' ou v ° ;° o a ti4 > 'm M. � r°o °c° Z v 9,� = ,n O a v p cu) L O m v v v c '° ° c Yv .. = u '^ £ 1 c c v co E c L c ra v _° : 3 -o o '> 9 c O s ro v� 3 v 'E '--' m v 3 ° °c c v E m Q° ° o m o E c p - `o u £ o .. 04 0 C L N N N o t' v a +L+ f0 a y -° = c v L N O O C J C L c o o u wo > Y o- E° �° v o c c v o o rco L c Q 3 v v v Y o> a 3 v a o c.7 0 o eu 8 z E c '� t u c oo °A v= 3 N A o£ v Q '. :o c 1 :° i w m ro s m v .' v u o � s E v° c E 3 v L c Q c 3� .E > '= o v `° u v ra c 9 v u 3 £ a~ ' 3 L T° ° c O- Y c c L v 0 0 c 2 1 m- v C c O m m ° , v° 9 L N y O Q T L N u m i c i+ N b0 O U C Q ._ a+ 'c o= T L v o — >, N 9 E E u v c x 0£ 3 ra 2£3: 'c u u> °- °' o@ 17 > m y m e c o T ro v '6 c ro -6 a; a v L L ma u- L u N£ ° ° I rr L a W W Y o`u M d£ O o v v v M o= t= M O 3 °c° v r M C m e m m oa L to £ L >' T a, 0 3 3 E .T, ra O m s+ z= v o p V` L o Y •� T >� v Y - .oc_u •� u' a io w 3 '� v v v m o o v o> o v Y,� _._T, u u a z° @£ rn'm�� u°1i0� vroom ,� ° v01i� ° ���!^ r-°ao'�^a� �> ° ou C = v ou c v C E a C n3 3 w `6 £ v° -O £ u m v v °Ou E .1L @ t' O 'E m vi 45 YO C > r v = a L ruo Q o v a c v O82E-° v au v > -O > = c a 3 0 °� £ v r° m o f o N O N O O v 3 t o u w° o@ o c3 No c 4 L'vc =o vo�o a , �c O O N 30 w -p c 'c �., N c ° F L m o v a'-6 C v O Q) . v O v ll0 N '3 N mA C E O E v Ln 0 m O = _ 9 c= _ _ v Z v c ° 0 u is -o =� u v> L W W.3 _ N Nate+ ° C 6 "6 Y w p Y p w o - C � N N -a v� O U O o� o@ 3 v v r L L n c E o nn 'c o y 3° ¢ v v o -° a M Q L i 3 K v� .� oo c ai- °c° ou cor 3�-a O O O C _ °-v '°-O= c c �- C= m op cin �'j v _ D O U Q C U L C W N W �j v l7 C N vE, I N° ra c -° 'O -O w -O i '� E Y M M I -° N b0 M CO A b0 N -6 M bD N .� a+ p Y Y p - t �j w W N rp a+ N d 3 N C >� N 3 y L U 71 3 >> N �v 3 N r6 41 cO _O U a rnZ .no-° carpo rno Z Z Z rnv� ro >L 00 0� o y o c a c o — ° a u m o Y 'x 3 'c rca y c v@ o c E c N L O Y L Y O _ O UC Q J a L) m L °O v Q O 0 ? n Q@ 3 V ° @ U O c 0 u -6 v z o v a v, v z 3 ......... O a+N... �......... .... a ......... ........ L...... ........ .........@ ... O C a c O Y a a v y v o Y uQ c3°mac aysW vYa� v"Lo v vocn-3ay °33 c t@ = u = ono c u " ._ do -o o "u a c -o Y m > -a @ c v cc 3 14 -vo — 'co v cr v Y 0 c u n u o -0 n bo E c @ C On �n C +: m E c � L@ a O L c v E w 3 Y c ° v 'v fO L. u nco c y w m 3 v 3 3 3> 3 0 m v � 0 u o @ > 3 0 3 L o v o :� 3 c 0 3 v t v t 3 y s ,a`, °on c 0 o u E a v o o c o@ o c v v a o N c6 .° L N H C° w N v C° C N= 9 ° ° m v l7 3 v o c v v v v 3 ° o '^ m E a N v .�- u 3 y v Z `—° o u o— ° v :� E rca S T N c y N ad '^ 3 °' °c° o c E 3 9 v 3 w m o° m @ E a «. E 0 n v v T a@ �° c o v v d o o 3 3 a O s -o a -v° L-' � .� v .� v 3 v u 3 r;ua m v v v w_ L S 3 Z '� ♦+ S a ° °° bn a tYa O @ w `° G a a O. c Y c +Y' O a N@ c N w0 S C c C r c b c0 — O T a+ w Y m E o n Z v n 3 @ a 3 3` = w .� - +' `v' „co, c °E' .° ° o a m y u- -O O 4 W O ticn '@ L a C a L bcp N O bo v T a tc0 E C bn '@6 a _O v Y c@ .� O: 3 a —_ �° 3 �+ L -6 —_ C@ C L 9 3° a N — O C O W Q— U O 3 _ O L T@� b4 O @ 0 a .1 C O O C v @ O v +@+ v a ++ 'O tlU 3 Q a Y F c o` E m v °—c° "c 0 3 �° ° o o c "cv v v s v= v v Y o v v N 0o@a oa -6 3 -@ °45 u L0 E 3 o cm at L C ¢pW F3 =a O c O u uO OZ O 3@ o@ m v v y o nn o C 0 m n a@ a -0 -0 c a c 0, 3 v c a c 3 v v v c c N c N �++ 3 E u cin �, �n F -0 @ E �n v@ o u �n v O Q. @ 0 3 a+ ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... .. m n L °cn u0 a= c Ln :- Owto o @ oL— `� c v 3 3 v v 0 .. = !° a U .fl- 3 a N o o v 3 c 0 Y A v v 'c 3 `o on S u c o v_° 0 0 m o v 2 3 N o v @ v v o° c bD co N o c Y o 3 a o 3 a t w o Q o *'yvY �cLo �E u°off tsv�s.�so� s>m > N o @ c N V1 U — O i+ T Y@ bn E- 00 O ° a a 3 Ul m e ° m a OJ N o Eo° _ o o O Qo v v o Q a3u W uo NoCta Tmv Y f0� OJ c c 3 u o L .v o o c a c v Q u _ ° LL E�-o N o Q T o a to Q 'WO Yc O Ca' w Q a m L 16 m 3 v rn o N Y m o a '° a v 'o -0 3 o v@ 41 °c r c E c� c c c 0 3 v ° a�'� N 0 u y o N v— a z v n' a 'a @' c a `6 o v 'a v T C7 v w S@ p u@ U' Q cCO 0 E o rca 3 ,O Q c 3 3 ° Nra '> O u Niy a v c u i+ O U =) O O Qc N O o o o c°+v rl~ a Q vrOob IT 0 . N 00 N rn m a co 00 N rn a o m p m v �, E v ° a 'ac° v o m 3 s Y c° 3 oJo m O°- E ° ou Y@ ¢ v M m c o = io m y u m ,LE Js p Lv j :"6o cN ° O i 0 W p �' ° O h m C o ov41 Ca E fl- = v .@ v° o f E f6 L 3 N ° cao O L U m v E aJ v o 01 w .-I m Y 0 v c OC y Q �0 U a E N m f6 3 ba O E 3 ac v v c v° ° v v ocn m y v C m E N Q v u O 3= a° w yO N w m }' i 'v6 O N O` m Q L C O m O C a Q v C O. y m in O. ba tya m J v a m> C m N=> E -° f0 m v `o 3 c - -a ao E m m i v .� a v m¢ Y v J u E o° 'v L J 0° c L -0 3 0 0 .-, 9 E o m c m 16 w w a Q Q o Q C z 3 C 3 L O N it Q m m L EO p CL 0 3 0 C L O Y—.E- L baa a C m J N ++ X uC -a° U F— L aJ .a m o m v u c v m o z Y X o > -° 3 N rm�o O 'C C O v O v in N C a L a v r a¢ E¢ o« E v v v v c v n c c 3 c -a72 °H°t oca H o o c oa m ai 'L' ro N o O W= v o E C tyo O Y x'm O O_ .. OJ m O V a y c N J E m tD E °o �''' n .-I O O E °o v 2 o v o m cn c v E o s 3 v E v v > ° v E ti .� o L v v J s ao f— v J o m s E n c a o m ¢ E C v r 3 N E 3 v Y v s° '� ,� N E v ° o -m ro on io o > El —y'c3>- L° o m iNo p d L av p amwc3 amQ ou ; E tu E A u _ u v J m v m U J v .. v E io a c ,J oa u o° 3 c 0 E r o J m 'E a 7 y v Y i v a c -° m 'a u Y L c> o v '� y Y o =a oa to v v a m J °N' _ o ¢ :° ° ¢ E :° w m v m m a ° £ a a N �,.; o - �.; o :° o E x m o°a v owc o a c v 3 j J v t OJ m �°,�° O X L^ .0 O x L V 'C E m 1-0 L L V' Z Y m t6 m a o m O E E O LO o m, N J m n J C A N 'C O -.' O 3 u 0 C Q� O N O. ci N N C X E v C, C O O v 0 b0 N O oa a n O^ ap a M= O o m ++ v C .-4:r E C a+ J .Ym_. m -o — -a 3 v° R o z a c'a o z �i a L -O ._ 3L.� aL.. �mn G v ¢ E o m L C > m I° u +- 3 u v J a v 3 u m m u GO Ln c 3 > a o N v 3 E v =' y Y m U O 4 N m v N C p 3' v os s y N -a° o ±2 a 3 m c � = N +`• -6 - - f0 na .? o - o _ m Co dD 4 ' o°a3 °ave y v -° a_ v m J� m caao •C Q C s O ° m— C y J NC cc O O C y t° c o a v v N0 c ° aui Q ++ o Y L m L Y E ° O Tw 3 0 0 9 N 0 N v o � a v °M � Q tla 6 E 9 ? L 3 p ^ '� _ 3 to p @ 0 u -cc v- — b0 i v E 3 M -F- O Cc o v o 'E v 3° -° v Im N �c ac > v 0 �.� U Lv v o v 3 6 o m a E v v m d v N 41 L m m 0 '6 CE E '3 vmi a L .m '3 m o m v �, o f u. Y3 L o a C U N J -° E v v E.E oL- u oca oca o'm E E R E v v ca o �'^ �—WV m= v' f6 i+ o u v v 3 m E �, a-+ Y m Y C O .0 N O w E Q......... b0 .........mom �,......�-° ........ m ....... `"" ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ ........ m 0 "30 L v .. a co 00 N rn a v = ° o a o +c Y c N 3 m y o o v E o v m m a v E o >' of °° 3 v _ .x o on � v L `^ � E c£ v 6 c o E m a v . v io o vv«>wv LE 0 =iLYE 3 sc >° 13 o6°+E0m vviv o E oa °c ° > ° o v on is Ln nl to a N ° v o MY p c rc N a v `� u a v E c 'u Q A O ON a O. tCo E a o '" E m v E v= Ls c a, v -E c in o EN 'O 3 N° Y ti .@ u N v °C° °° v. p M y o a a 0` -6 .3 3 "6 o w N w N 9 'J i 06 0 O N a O L° ttl9 N c o- o c a¢ v fl 9= 'E a on o Q w v m s o 3 0 o '2 acn m o�n o�n o .� E o° '� r 0 o c .� '�°c_° o v E E v E c o v 0 a v '� 2 s o o v o c° v Y c o 3 o N w w w w H tc oo n o 3 E 3 m o o Q a w u - v v 3 v L R 3 E N C C Wa^i 3 L hn nl U u f "6 nl E A i U L H C 9 C L C qu°uL ° v v v X a u Eco c° °� N `^ 0 3 rn a v raa -a o o m -a o 0 E ^ Q L¢ `c° E v .� v ° o E 0 -,Eo -o0 a M, v vo o o rn c v o Y v -a o. E c r J v Ev 0o o o > voimv.. E o v v °1 `° raa��� �a� v = o Y- NLv,Y ° mos- m Y v v > o s v L o r w 3 3 v c 3 .� o v Lon `o v a 3 .E o a Q or 'a v°. m v £ `g o v v s° o? `o_ o v y 'C N O v L N +N+ 4 Q N O XC° N� v v c °� o '� = 3 E v on ° o `° v on c u v x ro $ o- v x a CL ti4 L o= = E o z r`o o Z 3 °- 3 -o o v v E v n' E-6 o `v v E d 'c v-Fv 3 3 ° x o M_ m y o Lv o o v o 3 o' E'v o v o 3 o v 3 N L ^ a a v �" E C C C Y O R 3 N y u- 2 v u o `° 9 0 o v E 'x o o v a £ v v u v E L v E v o t x m-0x o +�+ fa a t L_ L y 'C l6 L Y C �n w bn N °O v °O E O N 4 u w a a - o .3 m E �° v° E U s v a � E Y c r v a � E =o v m .- .- 'C -- '� ,� v E ,� v Q v _ n v 0- .- v Y Q v c ro N o m„ s 3 o ra ra ° - - @ O C O N N Q O v a m u u O O O O O O -0 @ R a 0 0 L v= o. N O O C a r C_ C Q? s0+ 9 N O a nl r ow c v v m on L w o° v w o E -o s v> v v v c v> v v .� � -co = ° LE t is -1�1a s `6 'c o �n v n E o Q o v o ci i C� y p a v a0 a Q N U O fp m 3 L t° v o v a t = v^ __ C n' o ° c rca r° ¢ on ° v N '--- v v =-- C u ° ° �-v° u� -o v E 3 0Z enoz�o ^ 3 a+ ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ m v v v nl C m C N v _ nl O t o u ° o m c 3 E oD t m Y n v _ 4 v `o ° L 3 Y c - E v cc O 14 45� tf o ° 'm N a s o> o L o c - v i v A v m oai v o ° 3 v ° a o x 3.� L m O �.o v c Q -° - a a . E N o m ° Ou T � `° o a> 3 O 3 m L N w L a E 0 b v 2 L N C C L _ L v O a C E a a' N v -foo L — nJ On Y L J H a a t C O N O N U • o v N a s o' c - m o v L v tv a Lw E E c nn m v v a v` 3 o uo a `o dD '% ,ono 3 ;9 ; c v o- v Y Q o a •� n o a `° $ v a_ v° v °uu v ai E Y v s. w L, 3 c v 3 " on v 0 �' m y 9 ,� s v o L += v ra a v° v a v x o -vo L.E o- E L Q L v .E N c m> v v v Y o v E v o s E$; v° E o .� °° `° v C 4O ra c° �_ � vvo m v a v 3° on 3 c o v y a L. E v Y E oo n .� C. '� v Y a v cl c o v v E Q v a>i v `g ,N L' a v v v v a' t m a 4° .� a3 v v u- a is ° Y r 3 E Y °' ' u v 3 � c 3 u -_ c v° �n m c L :° `o ° v `rJ O v a m .� v> 3 a -0 w ry u Y a^ m a :° a« v° C"n m r ti 3 a ra -d x E v - Y y u 0 a v o v v o a a v v N '� rco *= o v° on L E o ocn a U _6 �+ ro tb iL-+ L 9— a Ol Y C O v Q C C 3 y Qo .E .� yo .E o .� '� o y c N s m o c .E a _ ri e� y° m N ti On = bn 3 bD = P =p Oan,�m.No oen vC oR0 0ci@oEov °0 �3v Evbo Lvc36 -x �3c @°3 v «.o , m o _ o C °co o M 3 u E rsa o o rca °° @ E ... o� t Y o m- v �o a y o a a o a o a o L a v c E~ on o v L v v v v n L n Q O '3 C O .0 C C N f6 N a v i '4s tt C O o +L+ Q N N C a u t L m t o@ r r-6a s `° E °° 0 E� E v v raa R E rca E v ,, ra o v o v .a .n o 0 f6 `ua c `ua - o y c Y 2 v 2 E c -a �n ar � E o j C 41 3 ra v m ra 3 °° Y- m in 'a o a, a m v- ra v a N v u _ -0 Q ....... YO 4....a u a a a 0..... W 0....0 ......... ........ ....... ........ ....... ......... ........ ....... ........ ........... C1 Y >. = N Q E O� 2 O H Q � V 00 N rn a N A L OJ O h00 -4 3 N C v 612 a c O o v a 3 v w O o o O Q o10c m/iU iii f. °�° v v E 3 v ✓f � " � aL. � � v v � v > Y oa v v s o o m u / rco m a m fl- °' rl W o a o v m a mm � [A � l6 � f6 L J 0 o o m 3 3 Y ar o C, E o Q Q Z Q a w z> H m w D O v O L — rA .c Y v u• ar c E L,� L t6 cbn N p }+ N N -O C N 0 3 a c O v a �_ to O O '00 E N C N N L O1 >✓ R O 1 "O p a bA O L Al Oiu 0 C L a Al v, O E -p WE C LOA N to C m tOO O v w� s v E 0 v a E m E `p C — 6 E O 4t R t9 0 0 E LVOT '^ U N m v a z v v c +� r ro L C C t n o 2Im ° u v m o u a N ✓ c O 3 R i0 a L N (G t0 Y nA 10 � °D ro c Q C C N OJ U N— i OA —c E a o° v a o ocA o 0 3 o Y a Y E a a o ' u o f6 f6 E c la to v rc v a c 'c rco c m Y o � i rca .c m 9 v y m f6 v f0 9 v m y o No a+ ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ ....... m L �3 Ln 0 (n 0 N f�6 T T m p to a m •E N O N c O N Y C c N E W C� C Q U C OJ E L u raQ LO 00 N rn m a v >, c o v v J Y o v o >� 3 c a c o 0 A ° a ° � v bb vci ? v C V YO C y v bn Qam L a b o ns ru •� `u a s O m o °_ .t a m +a m y - w � a v OJ Y O a 0 m > t Y C O~ a 3 0 - T jb C o blJC bD v m jb =° 3 O O J C o 0 a m? o a f v m c 22 M_ C m C tYb O C T vi N O N a1 +L+ O L CL o a m v 0 ai — _ o `o_ m E m c rcu .o 0 �, L C C a a o f6 y 3 = E 8 � a m O c X N c o y v ° v v o > n c c w c — c o ,. E °' o o N n v v m ° o v u N C N m O ° '^ v Go -6 w a a) > 2 O y O W > v a' a 'v >' v a 3 o f v -v° a E , m J ++ al E 3 v m v c v s c a E @ .4'' �_ m O Y o c Q W, E N E o c s m M o o: '� L v c= v c w 3 o u .3 C T N N 9 v m 'L.' v N L O O '6 N a !b v c m i6 O ib N bA - C" N U yr m . 41 h O L .� a O i m O L a a L °c° O v u'1 Q m a 9 W LE T 3 3 v E E m C L C w m pY N E 0 `° i Y o L v o bn a .6 9 u m v O {Z p p u aJ v O m m s c m J J L C Q u v Y v o E v 3 a o cm .. o v a u v i m .� v rb m o a m m v „c o C c S u m° > °c° - '" o n t u a Q E •o LL m L E -o =o O C — 'c iu m m y a M o N m ° LL` Y c `° v- o .E u 3 'ro m a 7 m N N w o ro v c y m J C i1 N C a) aJ bA O ++ a m C T O L '> L a 0 a Q .� Q a Ll vmi Y Y O in > m N m 'c `v " -o ° 3 a3i Y J °' a a E v `° c o> « s ib E > � L^ �° 3 J Q v u> O °ca T i s v v a m o a a v ib `b u v .1 a .� c w v ao 3 s 3 0 u r m � �o o —°� o ma 0 > m No ac u c c b° Mu i L OO LL r• J *' E E o E u m �C a s 3 ba v m m o a y v E y m x m CZ m O v O J J 3 vmi 0 C° w E O E -6 E Y O .2� >, C C p fl- C m �b u Y- m b� a) O .3 m O C1 m m m r a N a 0'E C W a mE E ; v 0 2 M o° a a a 3 C a+ D v LL o u m v: n u vi n m: Q 'u m ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ..... aj C o mal V E V 3 ` "C O` C v O. O 3 o v Ln ccb a c a v L Y v ° E o o O o.w c m° 3 L� v 3 av �Nw '3 v vo o �o f0 Ton .E c � E o R v ro v v ruo v o o s S a c c E m C O C O v N - C F N — bA N - N a N > 4 C - 0 0 m (a -O O' m J vy > 3 �-0 3n 3=o ai ° a� a °- �Lv ul . v oo a v a m > N ° 3 s x E c ?' v '^ E E Y o p m -vo o y i ro ° v s o � ro J v n° °- ° oFo d '^ C C Y m C° Y v J on m x a C .. > 1 `o a u v i m 0 E E . o m Y a m y v J 4., C OJ c 'N E L LL c L c 3 N c v +v v E 3 u a° ai o u> o -o > m L cEn o a t a u E p •x s 3 N .E N v . 3> c _ 3 "' a v °- '� ° c E m u �o m J >> v c0 2 c« c 3 3 v `o E W S a � �a N L m W O a N C N O u Nm u C N., m s 0 0 0 N a+ O :z a O C >' O C J o= +� °1 o — m= J E c= o L 3 3 oo m y > v m s m a N m C N m M o v v 00 C ,� v o_ E °' a c o Y °; Q d m n a c m a c= v °c° �' r> 3 m a v c `6 u m a o w r-6b rau ry '6 m v i .'_^ O '" rl iA ._ .0 ,6 tt1 O s "30 bCa L 3 O .0 ° L N 4 L b0 N N° °' 45 C o C M w C Y C CC_ _9 a) - m O L v C 'm m +L+ _6 L �' = F N v" O- O CL i O O 3 O O L N O a }' m Y m L m IL m E = m u a m m° J QCi J O. v'�i 3 C m° E C- sL+ Y O J p J -° J '^ o C 00 o R C L cC O v .0 N C L -_ LE L° fl. -6 t OL '-1 O aJ C C O rm+ O L, .E N a0+ al m v m° v V1 C Y E (` -O J M > OV N d L N i+ C O , -. a o m 4 u + m m ^^ a O VO m B m ..-. C^ V y Q Q H d .--. V^ Y J -,3. a+ L E J C^ EL tVn r - 00 N m a v � =o - m Y > O O O � N o n fl- '5 ami -vo Y L v E v m 0 Qc� m 3 u v ^ 3 v° E c E mY ?'-`o v v� v v a c 4 .o o `° a u E c bn m a pm p- 0 m v v m Y C E oa o To 3 0 O p T Y N °1e C- N O m O O O v E p �f) .W .= N p °. O a O N m pj4 0 Y N c� ate+ T m v cO_ C O c a c bD y 0 v v E o@ E o °- v v° m E o. N o L E v o v S o m Q E 3 =a , m a. m z a v � a f o E u o s a o C o N « ° v o v > v uv m a v O L C ° E v a bna U N bfl S N O m E a >, E `6 ai ri « E a v E E u O O c M O - -- O c - E ,� m v .E t m m _ N C lfl N O. .� a p N v v - 3 3 oY a '� s mM�m ma2 -° M M oq ° u° - uo a � ra .0 a .� m N m v u M o v ^ u E o o" o 3 o !� rz a N v v m _ s o m o v v w N 'o S" o 3 3 oEo -° by o lC vvm bo O QU ° O Mmb O N wc iQ u m E W.g J v a Fr 3 o u u a a E u v N N c w -C> M c av u m 7 '^ c° `� ; w c m m h b0 c a m c° N a o o d o oa m o r.r 1 b0 N c N E 'C L L 9 fEe X6 N N in f6 0 !� y v - c '.. v o a 3 a 3 E W v s o OJ c p R m m Y N; p z _ E -37 �> > LE '3 o C SMO 3 ^ E= �- = �LL > > z o C a+ s z a ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ........ ... c E p v c c Y o y 3 _ o O U a u' _ s 111 ° a Q v v ° v u O o c v a c o a v 0cv O bAa E E v v 8 3 m E 'E u m -o °° �' v v o a �_ o N �N v € vm� wvv m ou 3 v o o '� a c O Q v E Q O F 2!E5 9 0�0 O P w -0 U0 Ip \ jE ° 48 y ° E flv E mc°am _ °m t'3 av ao of m EE E o U> w ` Y ° O x m . E`° Lm s4' N K N m v@ O O mr, N j m u m Y@ m C Y O 0 4 �y . IA O U^ O a 3 L c N :................:.:.:a— vi o v Y" '', 3 m r .E ° C OI A ....................................................._ v m v m c L v U a 3 C O p c Q- m tl0 v 3 3 do = o cm m o c b a a n o m O o N c Q N m N m c Q -_� > Y N N of m m o m 3> 6 o a m E< a' v c O N m ¢° v E o9 bD S c v c v °_ N o Y ° v N N d C m'u v E I-- n ° U° v° m o (7 L Y z a° a U °Y' >a N v u .�.I m C L �r O m O O C p l p_ E N w o DAZ N C Q E u b0Y c v c Q 1 p 0 O !2 0c V1 u o O - D. ° O d `J m } Q YO Q C u N c 'N" ' `v +�+ u M 0 v_ v ? N a O m u a c> m u �p (� v U Y <+ d . -1;' W L'i.--. O m 0 L'i.';. r - 00 N m a a+ J T . 0 Z� 71 u m ,°'_• u a O N F L m 9 E� W V z cc, ci sn rv1 n1 ij o v L.• s E Y EE ID v Y a Q1 � E > v 0 o h"m 5 16 m —O N a� C EN! 0 O a Q =ON m Q 0 3 . E 0 0 - E 14 E a Q o 9 a -12 i Cc) b0 h0 O O N 3 a O E a 9 N L Q p� � 7 b0 E - 4 m�_vE o — 0 � 3 O C O i m s S O Y C Q u O 0 4 ._ r 4 ._ C @ V � O �3 N vn > A o 3 o O u v Q a v a v a+ a ^ c r4 v R ul N cc OL p f4 O N U S n � a z 0° O y 3 a+ J T . r{, .... Z� 71 u m ,°'_• u N C � � O O N F L m 9 E� W V z cc, ci sn rv1 n1 ij o v L.• s E Y EE Q1 � E > v 0 h"m 5 m .- N a� C EN! 0 3 . E 0 0 - E 14 E y r6 :r O W E a 9 m�_vE o — v a v 0 4 ._ r 4 ._ C @ V Oo N vn > A o 3 a a dC" v .� .-. O u v Q a O a+ a ^ N cc OL p f4 O N U S n � to L C c N Q t4 i V a Y Y E Ev y v 41 V C > 0 W E H E E u mom' v a@ E C C Q N2 a - C - W Q O i N- N U) f0 N R -0 '� N E !'I J — E yf4+ a 9 u O u v a u a a 0 3 T^ L a a C L Q cL Y o v % o E 'a C v Y O u ra M o >r t u s a m a g 41 m o @ o a o d Q ] E In U 'c 3 f6 v E o ryry Q 9 _o0 9 C-8 0 c c C m Y o a t cc O C m C Y o O o -53 Z_ OSEs c �Nb `w OCOu N .,_. N -C 1' qfi `^-' m IA ac3`o -"3 agbe _ @ o O IA _� C Nil OOm�ORjRj CO r.+ Y bA of a+ J T . r{, .... Z� 71 u m ,°'_• u m 9 E� W V z cc, ci sn rv1 n1 ij o v L.• s E o EE Q1 � E > v 0 h"m 5 m N EN! 0 3 . E 0 0 - E 14 E L 9 m�_vE o — 0 4 ._ r 4 ._ C @ V a+ c E u L u m ,°'_• u ij o v L.• s E o EE Q1 � E > v 0 E `1 � u E N EN! 0 3 . E 0 0 - E 14 E 9 m�_vE o — C @ V N c o 3 O u v Q a a+ a ^ N V�1 OL p f4 O N U S n � C C N Q t4 i V •- N Ev y v 41 V C > 0 W E H E u mom' OI C Q N2 a - C - Q O i N- N U) f0 N R -0 !'I yf4+ a 9 u O u v a u a a 0 3 T^ L a a L cL Y o v % o E 'a u ra >r t u s a m 41 Q " 3 4 2 a 2 _v 3 00 00 N m a W w ° W 3 p 3 K = N N C N C O 7 CO O LO Q W Z N N N ++ N N -O L N E L v 0 v .3 W K O C N u O i J o N W w ' m lu a o 3 N O Ct av v v v v LL.E .E In ^ :in 'j v N `m a u u E u u a E c o pq p ao o o Zd d C C 6 0 o E J L O v v c a c 9 c C E E v -° x xv °- o a N o N v ra .-I u n 4 L E E O o o N cc N .N -I W ' r L L L L N-Ul - L -f C E r"' N N V1 H H d J E� 3 ci N M V V1 N- Iz N � Q L J N a � - - C o v N 16 T ° c 0 .2a o ° m o p o 1 a N �.a y= mom,`._.$ Q2 N •--, u7 O U ^° F6 8 O O 76a m Q xo a, m m -o `o ;C N �' C Cx 'p, W Eb E u a, 0 E't N tp @ b K in ¢¢¢ y r a v a O [Y 2 'C 4 c.Y O N d O a 3 v rn W w ° 3 p Q K O N C O 7 CO Y W Z N N N ++ N N C C O. N v 0 W K O C N u O i J o N W w ' m lu a o 3 N O Ct av v v v v LL.E .E In ^ :in 'j v N rc a u u E u u a E c n v pq O N o o Zd a o u- o v o c 9 c ° � - L c E E v -° x xv °- o a N o N v ra .-I u n 4 L E E O o o N cc N .N -I W ' r L L L L N-Ul - L -f C E r"' N N V1 H H d J E� 3 ci N M V V1 N- Iz N � N 0 .2a ° m o p o 1 a N �.a y= mom,`._.$ Q2 N •--, u7 O U ^° F6 8 O O 76a m Q xo a, m m u� U� a � ;C N �' C Cx 'p, W Eb E u a, 0 E't N tp @ b K in ¢¢¢ u 2 It O [Y 2 'C 4 c.Y O N d O C W tT, 2 O EG 2 O(T rn 00 a) rn m a ° 3 p Q O N C O 7 CO Y W Z N N N ++ N N C C O. N v 0 W K O C N u O i J o N `p _ m lu a o 3 N O Ct av v v v v LL.E .E In ^ :in 'j v N N a u u E u u a E c n v pq O N o o Zd a o u- o v o c 9 c ° � - L c E E v -° x xv °- o a N o N v ra .-I u n 4 L E E O o o N cc N .N -I O F5 W^ O W L L L L N-Ul - L -f C E r"' N N V1 H H d J E� 3 ci N M V V1 N- Iz N 'a 0` u :5 -1 a., u 00 a) rn m a ° Ln Ov°io C x E V a pq O N m o 3 u J o m 0 .2a ° m o p o 1 a o 'U 'E .. p - '- J J N cp � ^ a te W W E u a, 0 E't N tp @ - u u U C -oo a o � N v OJ v o 0 v `^ a g o c o a 0 0 `° .� - u w LO Q N rc o ro m v v c ai m° c v cLi r-1 C W It O N N 3 3 N v^ N J N L O V1 t6 - .m*'vu }I mpqU.....& mEEJJ°cJ�Evoa 0! N E E E c a, y o L y F o. a s 3 R vj Vl u Y b 0 N N 6 O°^ +r+ UN,$�$i*�R 4% ti $4 �E� 2€:� && -= L L L L OJ L N N �Vf Vlrrd CJVIC E� eo E L N -6OiN 00 a) rn m a K ° `� M vE•, V v o � T O a o rco v w= s E o nE rtlp W � x E' E�E E m -o v J o Y `^ C N � O � J J N O N � v e v J O N O i 0 vi a E - s L 3 E a a no .19 Y en c E 3 a OJ � m v n o c ° o E � = o � R Q l6 O U T b mN DD t6 C a to - 4 N "I o .3 a E« C v O - a E o O � u d to p C 9 0 + O eN-I w d U uE5 N m �p N Y N E GE L ip cc3 a u L J U tlq O U N UI N C W 'C C E aL+ C f0 Q ou 42E 0 c 3 m a L ry bA N O N N a W L N E o c3 J m � H O O C o O N O O C E C l0 v OC C N v c L E - '� o m o v K ° `� M vE•, V vEs f- o � O � E a o rco v ° X E nE rtlp W � E M E E�E E m -o v J o Y `^ � L E J N E 4 s e v W v K v 0 vi N s L 3 E L o v c Y en c o E w a a � o N 10 > = ., 4t 0 .x m b mN o m v C h J C -0 "I o .3 a E« C w° CC N E m UI O d to p C 9 L U v E eN-I w d a I vi 6 ` m N O O U c x x cJ, uE5 N m �p N Y N a GE L ip cc3 a u L J U tlq O U N UI N C 91 W L C f0 Q 42E 0 c 3 m E f0 s 3 'c m y rc N v c v v C 2 O .E ° LF -a U 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 J N O J2 g N O -p -p OU L- E E O C, a v' ac o.X �_ 0 O v a C'. N L a 3 J J v E E m O O t6 E E N O -O C E C C a wEEE ,C C O E'c ' E '@ O OLLi'e Cha 4 d LL. 4LL, 4a L. Y° U 10 E i .,-o Z m E E ,� E E E Eat E E� E x E� E m E•e E a Eu�uEfi� E a E E > EI SE � _ _:5: ro � Vii `Mn' E m nfn24J E q .`Lt 2=.`e`o oES `5 '$b2 o �-zLL 5". v O 3 v u a E n n R 3 E d> C N N O C ` E A .� L O J ° ° O m Q N -O f6 y - °q E ° 0 o OE E a; a O N -,�° v v v on J in 0 Y '� v Y E c'�o v a 3 o E c E o 0 m y a 3 'x O N O R O_ .N ° N C N C Z L a N 3 0 > N Z �' L O. a O J i N a O O a N O Q i 0 U N ° °0. 0 0 v o Z a o v E v o J C v a N C a y E@ N C N O1 O N J U E° - Z N0 o m O1 D U g a - 3 3 c o c Y X Qu X c w . K a �+ � N C N C N U r i Q cc� N L J bq O O Vf i b0 Vl r6 Q _ Q L O cr -O O_ o O O C O_ -° O _ a a u c N y Y LL o LL v v o 'J v 3 c a c v a .v o° w 2 3 o v o o° mo o v T v ++ L 'C E E° H m a s u m fO E c Q o o °u c v J J v Z @ o 'x J>0 t a E E m J o f0 v o a v cc E c c a .c c o E W o E E -6 v u E v w? - J `-° v w E E E c U E o°p E° Lm a+ ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ .... ........ ......... .........� ......... ......... m W O v� L pn O Y N VI N E N O N O C 3 v 3 Y o v o o o _ Ln _ o w o E n- w Q1 ° ° " a w E r -I N f�6 co 0 dD •- v �_ C E5 y 16 v OC N c m C .Y o CC 9 C C O m G a = W � C R O C '« C c p a N p W v v a V a 3 ti }1 N C� � LL C L Z c UO n 4moi U L y m vEi vEi L Y T N ." N o m Q m a o rco v ° X E NE E 'g Q E vEi vE E m -o v J o Y `^ L E J E E 4 s E o Q6 ° 0 vi z E o N s L 3 E L o v c Y en c o E w a a a 'N e o Z T a L > = ., 4t 0 C C o _ `0 T v a �" g o m v C h J C -0 "I o .3 a E« C w° CC N E m UI O d to p C 9 L U v E eN-I m �n W q d a I vi 6 ` m N O O U c x x cJ, uE5 N m �p N Y N a GE L ip cc3 a u L J U tlq O U N UI N C N C W L C f0 Q 42E 0 c 3 m E f0 s 3 'c m y rc N v c v v C 2 O .E ° LF -a U 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 J N O J2 g N O -p -p OU L- E E O C, a v' ac o.X �_ 0 O v a C'. N L a 3 J J v E E m O O t6 E E N O -O C E C C a wEEE ,C C O O C m 4 H a~ y� �-. dl N X LLO 41 � N N N N L. Y° U 2�E � Z°m rn E W E E W« E E x E m EE E q E c E E fi E� E E y E.t E 3 ti. E m 1 E E E E LEGE E} E E a ECEmKm'E. .E u u E x. x o >`o:i E - x off.>LLS.�K `x a .--. a, O a A N O_ -2 - J c6 E L H T L Y T N ." N o m Q m a o rco v ° X E a E ° - m o= ' E v c v v E E m -o v J o Y `^ L E J E E 4 s E o Q6 ° 0 vi z E o N s L 3 E L o v c Y en c o v o N Z T a L > = ., 4t 0 C C o _ `0 T v a L J O v Vl N - - " y z E Q v o v N v E a m v C h J C -0 E `° N ° o .3 a E« C w° CC N E m UI O d to p C 9 L U v E eN-I on O L C N_ O v '3 OC N N a I vi 6 ` m N O O U c x x cJ, m ro m V N m �p N Y N a WK L ip cc3 a u L J U tlq O U N UI N C a O L C f0 Q 42E 0 c 3 m E f0 s 3 'c m N v c v v C 2 O .E ° LF -a U 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 J N O J2 g N O -p -p OU L- E E O C, a v' ac o.X �_ 0 O v a C'. N L a 3 J J v E E m O O t6 E E N O -O C E C C a wEEE ,C C O O C 'O Q U R H O ` N � H a~ y� �-. dl N X LLO 41 � N N N N L. Y° U Q ~ QtiN_mL; 09 av„L°cot° mN U L 0 o')N iT a v °IZ E p E 'Y o � i v m p c O u u t6 K � v vpi N a b° v f6 u m � m -O a v v c v E Y v o a w a c a c o o v E Y m o v v y E m o v N p v p E E o v :a E N a in > O N OCL m CL N C N >O C a >' O ° a— y Q E > ° E >a c v a m v a m'45 v E E2 v V .°c° m �' rao E2c) t v mL' £ v E w v o v v a v m o v w v v v v a v v v v v v L a=v —vv� v v�v��v svEY vEv���v EL✓ N (p O N N^ E Lf1 N E C Y e -I Y Q rl O U Y .--I Y v c�-I �n N Ql O N Y Y N O. u u 4 w v� .� a X N— v u N U 4 N w N N U U to 9 d Y N 9 Q v N a 9 L 9 �_ —C, v S N 9 Q— v�i vUi — a N lf1 N f0 T E w vUi �+ — a E N m N N o ra v '^ u .c o °' E a='v a c N 3 Y v v v E ° N o a° '° -a m E w L o c E o c c' a`i v E o 3 c c: u `v v C u N h U y v O w 4 C u v L '^ u 03 0 4 C N N E w E E E v aci *L' N E E �° 9; E y E E E w' ai I E E E° 9+ E E E p 3 3 E N 3 3 0 0 N O p E E E E E L s v ,E E E E E .E L y o E E E E E E c a c c x u o v .c c o E .c a c c u oc N °° v E E E E 'c E E 'E Ev v v v ,u, v v v E' v v v L L N Y Y N Y L OU v Y Y N 0 u 0> a N bn41 vOi M N LL rG L A aL+ u 0> a N `� m LL N L u N a Ql m N a N L p C X 3 C dl O X 3 y 0 t NE C j v O j Ln N O N E C >, Q N '� C a C N � Q a o m w .� 3 �v o- QT m �= Y i E o �= E a c' c °@ o n v o CO O m .. � a c c L ._ E C. E s •C v 1O t E i v io E u v v v E p o o m v O X o o m N c v °' v v -° °J o v v v v v v a v v v v v v � v� v n L N Vt w 00 U N U N c1 in w Q ~ Y c -I U N N to w 4 O D U N QCJ G � — a v �n v m 6 N N — a v E ro N m w N w o @ a; E �i, p- N Y N o Y N p' E �° N Y N r "6 -6 -6 v ua -O > p T L L E= a p a 9 E w° Q m m E o ra`o °- , m E O O O C> u '6 3 T N `p O O T E o o u U o m ° u v v v v v o w= v° o° o ax v c E Y E E E v °c L o E E° E Lv E E E v 0 I E E E° E E E a .° v c o v 3 E v 3 3 3 v E E E r Y N E E E.E E E L$ o E E E E E E E a c 'c 'x u o v 'cc p 'c a c 'c R Occ .c o .c cc L E ,cc E E E QY c E E E E R E E E° Y v E E E E E E E u w v> y v°" E v > v v v " v v v E v v v 41 w m m a a) m C .w m 4, 3 U1 00 3 �o m to C O N O 4+ 6, 4-1a cu C C aJ E Q N U c aJ E L u 41 414-1Q -o ° oa c - c = c > on R- - ° L" c R -O v 3 N w ry E a Y > v c a o o o75 u Y v'E R on y 3 o E > 3 v c o o°n - 0 OE O O i O- v O> 'n w w ,C c -p y° o 0 °- a ° W v m 3 0 E v o 0 o o v v c G N bD C p bq O o O OU N O 'Y w W3~ o f R v 'E s E E '° v E y o 0 o c 0 0 'C 0 ° no c . 0 EE C w L - L - C 'N w w O Y w 16 Y RC 3�v v° v9Y pY E R 5 U R R N N B a a Z u 0 Z � E 3 u 0 v a o �' n m c O v av = o a 3 o m o L u y v' E s v° °. 3 C o .= c°' -wa r 3� v�� no E > u u > R ` O Y R>° C w R w L o E c Z o - R v m v o, � c T Q ? oo bn 3 0 3 nuRo E v a' E o° -° r a LE a ii m u E c -o Y on -a R Y c o a ,_ -o _ R o .= s v -p o v -0E w 3 E c> - w c i c E 0 o 'Q ° v Y m i w L v o �o R> w R v R o> > -30 c 3 c R a o v a ocn J T '6 R L N p Ou N w — N Ol H° 'Y > N C C— R O 'C =� N l7 ++ w O p a C° Z = a L R E w w ;? `° c o m c Y `0 9 v 'E o v a Q v c v v v Q N m �.o ,� 04 o 3 ° mi oa F � -° °n m N .0 R — O O" C a R O ?� C@ L L -p Y o w O Ro- YO N p c° uwi a E 3 Y -o '� a ,�, c N ° E E E ° u R (c0 R c Y-^� °q w c '^ °- v@ v m ° ai ° 0 c s° o a 0 Y o 0 v .L, R v 3 o a v 'c o �, .`-' u v L o' � ou - co ~`> CL r -0 o' E ruo L Y m m a c >. m ani o E '� u L, 00 1 0 E b =o .0 v uw z Q b o '> o ° >' E 3 `�° c t5 0 -�� � E aui R cv ria acwi 3 >M o O m Y •. •� Oq L N O `C E O N a T V CS :> EO N O w N U N C R v L __ Si f0 L f0 E R .� R 4 c -o 3 O O°> w -O C y a: nl R o bap C !] °- - p— C E C C W E o° C C L C O 41 d w v p L R K N bL 3 tl0 L (.J O C 3 0 .0 C C bD O a+ 0p ?' .� O O a+ ° U .0 x i+ C 3 C L N i+ UC> -6 w O R w L a N W Z w .� v= o m w c C t� - LC +� -6 3 w 0 c� E �' C E t I Y R c 3 E ,u c� N` U 0 .� c p m N� ` `° .E Gl c '^ -oma 3 v O v `6 v o rco c w m>> ,-, -oma ° m Co R 3 I c p > v x o o v u a: v C C w L w N a a R C n w e w c C 0 O a o- C L '6 R a m> > C w R E y R c C O - w L C N vOi C O o >> i o L u ''I o Y o o E o c w c o>> v 3 E y o z Q 2u to w w o o x N w@ N p -0 w Z N d vi O d r Y =a 3 N`= E R °' 3 d M X N .2 p w E Y �n z •� in =- n = u in = z v v` a R in vi > + v E v > m o > ° I_1 C w L C v _ O w w 0 > - — -° .- o ° w YO C O w J O R E 0 CLO ° v 3 E' o w ov 2 w s c o y o c c u> w C - o OJ R L O w s o o o E 3 o w 3 o f o ? Awa o Z N u c L Y N o c E inn onv 3 -+w`. >'EL w a`-` c - c a 'E R .c 3 0 o L n o 0 °J R m o `o R= O w o f J c a> io O O W w m w v ? O m Ol ° L b0 i' C u> > Y N -a o L w N 00 w Y o R R� o 6 z o v> o E c = m Eo o_ E°= v ou Y o 3 N w$ E> R v a C a 0 m v "a m u w w m m �• C _ Y RO. J C v 3 pp — C N C m v E c N E o c y E v O: M N y K V1 O O �� 3 O L ., o u = LE O Y i H v 48 m W z to 3 w+ w 17 m I a I a D w 1 R 3 e w 1. w C a 6 1 m n m> E w L v 2 .a Q u I W n c c R a w c c o o o v c L -O 3 c > c a c 0 u R '� R N a: 3 -v 'o. c 0 x 0 0 +� 0 o E «. E E 0 o -0 o 0 a L F a v> m 0 y r o .� M d �..., ,.... d N ......, c�c G ,.... Gl t% O N ...., w ? 3 ,.5 ,.... ...., ,.... d ^� X w ..M N W.. -O P- O ...., N,,, ...., vo v T� ° .' 3 o ° 3@ 3 u t 3 m .� 3 a oQu u v m C _ 0 0 O 4t �^ en E O N v v 'x E 3 .+ � N .5, -O m° Q v° O. J p J C = "6 L a v> ca v v N v rco `^ -O N L O N N -° m° a J v J L _ O o O o 3 3 .'� � ❑ x E o y c E° EE C C O C v O ¢ T Q T NC O i O U ++ U C N L ¢ 0 r0 O 0 u o. m N U O bn L" N v v .'� x .v' x 0 v O v -° v 0l -° c o m -° ° 3❑ F m u- Q E J C -6 O S l6 OJ— C -6 C aO+ tua C N L - N V1 — O '6 -6 Y -6 L Y u 3 a u O N C N 3 C t6 ra ra c ❑° Q T �_ E a n! L ra u -° C o❑ L u u y J -O> ro E 0 U U C o ra «' +Y.+ L a: O — -o c N __ L y u Ql N ❑ O C `^ c❑ ,C a a o o Y fl- .� E tlq a �= f6 s -0a oL^ N f6 o N -6 T u O b0 pCp p C nl '� O J u L C N N C C O.@ O N '^ u .0 3 rp a+ c 3 N O '^ _ 0 N bn N N R -6 N u C C ❑ U nco 0 `° E E O o3 7-1 no 3 0 v ° a v c .°° —° v — 3° v o 0- 3 ,❑ a3 o v o ��� v� v 3 3v J-6-° c� � N av 3 `m ❑ ao en v E ❑ :Y N 3 ° 'o N c D = L o � o o Q�' o.❑,3c Qcm .ra0 c`v m o ° c°r°a xvv ❑N3J s . «°a 0 v y s 0 u E oC fa--° 0.. =0o�cn' o E m m I° -° o Ao 0 oo E CO WLO aJc1 L� N a -O v o' 3 0 C Ev S �^ N 3 -O N N N (O O J L 4 c u m N f0 N m — t0 — .�� 4 O (y0 N C� f0 ++ '� °� '0 0 v m y � v °' a; o¢ p X t0 �-'n v y x C Y L ._ L Ol Y ° v c c cu) L v °' —u° o ° 3 � '� a L t6 'v Q C 4! J L J� u E `" .--. N C Y 'L b0 C rp .0 +L., C U O J v' U C O '� +' C to X v = v N° Q 'Oi' O n! L O 3 u u O L -O v ro i v Y N o m o u O O 'n .O+ N ate+ -O E On .+ O ° .0 .0 -O !' C .« -O .� E = — L 3 -O m bn U fp .+ C❑ .0 J UI 3 bn — vOi t6 3 o L E 0 o v N j N Y a v f6 U N hn v S 0— No s m E a v a 0- v °>,.> aO+ v v c c a —_ ❑ E o c 0 3 o = o= v v v 3 <a _$ -° -° __ °' ,� -° .`^ 3' `v a 9; x c= v A v 3 "° `"' ''� u a Y E o tin > a on '3 m= os v tin .� x _ o o ❑ c p E p N .o O n' aro v 3 O c r 9; °�' `° a L 3 L _° w Y v c Y o c 1 v L O_ +. � O v c¢ m J v o is a v e -° � o m o v 3 o� on c o n s t v --F 3 3 2 o on a s L0 3 ''^ 3 C N N C L L N O❑ C Ou .O N C L u O m� O N O C m �+ u a +' E =p C N y C a, E nJ J OJ O J OJ u T i6 N v O L -a E,o al .� Q ° v01i 9 a °u -3° ° :° a -o ria rco ra 3 °1 3 'm E ° 3 0bo a o 0 4 Qi O u 2 C Z u. M °U Q CC O C _ °U N to Ill u '6 N m L ...., ,.... ..... ...., ..... ..... ...., ..... ...., ..... ..... ...., ..... . m n C _0 iJ m JO C N v N x m C 6 G LC o Ou L U N C N46 }I C u '@ ❑ E c v 0 c n ❑ U C L E O Q O OO 6 w T v @ C O _ �o �o o CG to ❑ cn O_ N a J U O v u o _ •C v ' o rin c O v O O L 3 � of J N — C v 3 ❑ OJ v v 3 o in C C E wp� cu o L C Ol N N _6 C .6 .. v ❑ ,�, -O � C u GJ C c -° f6 m O O c o Q— O :W C ❑ 'E ' n m 3 .E m J E o on 0 3 U- 4, C a" o v c❑ O) 3 3 o ❑ N c 4r o c E L c u m on— ° v c� c 0 0 41 C O 'O ° o C o o 0 v e M, 0 o w 0 E Eo 2 -o a! m> >z E !E m m 2 - = -0 �o m S 3� 0 .1 'E 4 bn cTa c am. v 3-0 u 0' E-2 o E .tlP T ZE: 0 0 3: E -�EW �3: 4M- o W .: 4�on o u o E E E -o c? E Z E o� c o a M > 'r o c m o o c o o -E 2 ci o o :� 2 E 7�i -'E o I - - O o E o� Ll o o w c) a o w -m w aj cw� cL o> Lo 2- 3 a m v°q_->m2,g�-I o28-.z-c -�o o a R U N o -2 m 2 E bl m wiF o c E u > O L) o > ubD E ou E o E o w o. 1w o a 48 2 , u 2 cL E 2 -0 7E V -o Z) 0 z :2, E ............................... .................. x o M -u m u :o .2 is m u w t6 C -5 u wo 4C _2 4W N a .3 — �5 = o bo o m m w !� . o — w o, o. o P w o E P E o o . i? . E -u 3: o u :6 E E ui o F- 0 E E E u c o lw w w -1 2 48 T 4' 4,� o o o o E lw . - . ;� L2 Qu o 16 i5 o 'o .o o .cl 2 oD Uo 7 o i6 o 7 2 7F. '. Q 'o 4,� W> o t7, E wL o oE co -cl 8 o -a -0 o E < 0o -L o E ?: -o o 'Fv c o - w I o - 3: - o - - 5 w < , o - w E o -2 �E .0 -2 N o E -w ii 2 x o o -w o a 0 4t M. o cD N t6 u - w c6 u o lo v v N a Q o lo u o E E 2 2 o o E 1O y o x. o 4� 1 u 2 2 E > U w _ 7 M ' - x < o E m o u - w - m - w w o -2 E 0 = - 0 w '8 2 - o w . - u EE 'L EE o t�b o w o w° o 2 no o w o'er' 5 o nv mu2 e m 2 3 -Fu i 2 6 c is cu tP �E y C; E 4,� --z :E C E z o > 'E -T, c) @ 4'� 46 M C) 2 M u c E -u o .2 o o 'u c, c E o w �u -E �2 o o ll� o c, w L o 2 N E- o E -,i2E! -E k� -E -6 -E > > o u. 3: o E E E E E E E E R o m o o m o a u > . u� . q q u� u u u� o u� E E Is = I - _ �� m :!2 - u o N U w o N UI O. L N N N y L w E OJ v 0 -n 0 �m ....... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ fC 0 o w 46 E I o o m IE u x o u u o .2 'm -a E u s � Z o M o o — 00Lh < c) E o g o o , w 3: —o Q -a > 2 E Q , m f0 f0 o°(° c) E o EE t CG yw o w lo GID E e 6 3: Fo o > o w o o ❑w E '8 u. t; E 46 o u 0 o m w o E o m o E 2 E st o ncn 4�4t o o in ]E Ebn u o u u m o o N0 o w - - w di E o aj o o 2 c, z- E -o' cl o LE E u 1 2 E ro -a -m < o o. o E . -o cF bo n do -2o o w E o E 3: bB 0 41 8 E E " -'S -- 71 -P P� c z -F� -1 o o E OJ 0 , 3 - - 2 E E E -E E o -o .2 ou E w = 8 E IB -w E 3: E E 3: m E o o o o t o F-- I E E E U Lf� E ra w c, 41 E > E o o ■ LO m a) rn a — t C OJ m o 0 3 _ o o Q v — a a o a J J ✓%i��i 1 v lz � JJ ✓'A� � (I .� it I .Lou O L O "6 m a Y N N 0 N �ILI✓ / 3 Ei�o=v�o f� Ilm m;i, r a f � u v m o v Q c 3 l I j aX o Q o o y o .o 3 Q ' ¢ ¢ z2.S obb z» 3 > — b a .� m m m — O m w 'O N Lf1 O L v p m c N a m T O y N N C O T6 v v -6 E -6— b4 C C C � '� D- v 0 Y — N X Y O ti y .. iiiN G -a o C C �. Q C 4 A rc. a E .'� s � n L v -0 3 a m N c C I I cco .X � c 46 rco m � C O 46 u' -o O N - •C �l d y Y T 10 C 4 O a E ° Y m o y f'fi O E C 0 3 r v m w v w 3 cuCL �e N . w E Oo w u g E E E � u• L I :z .cs ou o 6 m o Wo m v 48 3 Y v 3 u 3 u m u 3 N 3 a 0 v N 3 x �i o£ N� N o N r cco g m o . c N rLa ° .Q N '-- L bL : K— -O J a O -6st a 'E 3 7E- v 3 v m...., ..... ...., ..... ..... ...., ,. ...., ..... ..... ...., ..... ...., ..... ..... 0 0 v m m E 1= E g o t 'o o •3sY a �� LIP o0 U1 000 v— 3 T 3 C N 3-o m o0 to `o C O v 8 E o N N o m UU r -O -I _ 0 c m c i••� ;— w N [6 m E � T O C m m e E_ c -O — O ou N �Ec v C Co C i > 3¢ v ng o o o GJ E -t, Y N Y N C �6 b0 Umo O row � a r O L m 2 N Y N O N L C� C ra 6 Y N m L 41 V O Q,,,E tlq a! ...., � � ,..� 3 ...., ,.... ,.... ...., ,.... ...., ,.... ,.... ...., ,.... ...., ,.... ,.... LO m a) rn a v v v N C .0 O io " Q p O N E N O L E L (a O ° lD 3 O v 41 = u o a u o N DD m C O ti ° J y) C O L u Y ° N O 46 vraa m °o -6 ,m „o v N ro c N o o i a N N 9 N E Vt O `O N O L i u OJ C C L C J E N m E a a o m o v E cw;5J v I a .3 0 o o avcn E o o'a 3 Eu ncn s E J f6 00 v u on v C" OA w N J v .+ oa °1 N tin J° O °u w z a Q n is O -6 Jo N O L '3 al m c on � > c ra o f �a hp J m c v L> C bCll cE .0 w L o> L o v v W v > on c a ra v 3 -o ° 3 c a 3 a v o N J .0 o C a " O N L N c 3 O O C fa m N C v - L O •-• t6 J (6 Y E N C u v o C v C p v 'u avi °= E y ?S v v w .c o 0 o ° L �n O" C L o v Y o i v° O c a) - " U w E a H C E C -O E o °- 6 m E v O° .v N O O V L e C = N v N S a a a a) v u o v 0 0 'c 7, v v v 'C Y m o o O YS a J ao 3 u L a v y ° F c y C N'3 O o m .E C _ o o °; -O r o v° — Q v w O ' v >, £ 3 v m c 3 O a x o '° v °1 L Y ro c a E 3 °' " -O N v L « v N° v v 3 v v v 3 N N a o� 3 ° f0 v ro a v ao a- v w c "6 Q o :Lu- o I `° -a m r ° v E v�� a v on v n fl- v 0 C u t N tlC9 a N Q N a J. OJO N 'E pv v c o v ra o c o r N L Y E v v m v v o° =o o u o a :4 3 t to o° fE ua C -O -6 @ C N yL- u Ol J N C tl0 ro nu - C 'E _ c c -- A + M. Z YO 'u L O W - a L a f6 v E O 3 to C p u> y CW N __ O " E V1 A N C a6 v> y v Q Nv v Y a y p 0 E v io ro *'�LLac= m y 'c 3 v J v v-p� C c ro o° A :, 3 a L vvi 3 s v °=o m C > M. 3 3 J .3 c a on 3_— d O C ro v N "6 p b� N J a y '0 Y c ° 3 o E u c a o a O v 'FE a N u N z m a v a c — a c Y E v v `° N c v c Y u _ c to N v .� y Q c — c y o° c v J '_ +R+ c v o o o o v E w - a o v" L o - ra O a E J m o ° u y++ 3 c a pp T- Y c Y v -d - 3 3 3 N 2 ° 3 m d L a C -° a C v - E v J O J o¢ C J M u a a' m w Y o v v l7 `o v 3 3 m v' v c v v 3 .° v ° a c a o v m c x 3 L �- c l o v a c ro a f6 3 E °1 aai E x _� L 0 v N v Q 0 O v a s o rn 3 L a v ra co L ra o ra ra v 3 z .� O N L m Q 0 Na L 3 N O M O L 0 E 13 as N U OJ v rn O a a a n a N v n o r°° '� a° m ............................................. ..., ,.... ..... ..... ...., ..... ...., ..... ..... ...., ..... ..... ...., ..... ...., ....,. r_ m O v L L m v 6 C 3 48 L p[ v v E ro C E "3 aO+ aJ L 0 c a u .- c J v . - a .L+ vUi ° N -6 a° O v ° E bA v ++ _ on y °p +. on -p ro v �vv v .� E io 3 _ m o EW 06 c -p v Y a u ra Y" u E0 ui 0 a v 3 c oto N'v� Q L a 4 L '3 c UO L" c J ° v L .� 3L,L O N 3 .. y}" E =U a; v a a 3 3 a 16 x� s� Baa ra w to °'� 0 CLT CG m' vL° 0 0 v u a v u v v Y `° c 3 m C a -o o rco - 0 0 U m 3 t 3 v E m m c T m C a v a - O ° O O y° u v E L Y 9 v -a' c 6° °? 3 -° v v ° o r"a °c° v '" ° v a L , a v '_ rua 3 E a N v c 3 >. c N s° o °' a a+ x c o v c -ao ,rc_o s v .`. _ ° v o O p `o O N 0 0 0 N Y L>« a — V a oa a v ,., N 3 o m v 'c o vL, v Q o O:t.2 m= N ,�, c a on ., v v a 3 c @ J GJ Q E Y`„ °. a E v p -o ¢ a �° 3 v a Q r —°>_ Y t rcLa o U > v C E v C 01 ° ci O ro CO `.4 v v 0 -° io r m� E c -° ry j� o -0 3 a _" w v -a v ami 01 Q � L^ c V co c m Z rua 'E Y o 'v^ o .E rNii =p CC c E v i o 0 3 o v - L O o J a w ra N c C ?> a5 o �, oa v l6 0°q = E J � v o ° H O L u a Q ig C .0 as v m L v= N c m o m vv y m o 3 v v Lv o c N CCU O N aaJ " 30 p 3 0 u v C O j C as -6 O R 3 C O O L C U }I v 3 o c o E °p a! -° ' t6 m .'L"' a a =_ ° 3 -C fes' N tCa -6 L o c a '� Q a o - N al a° v C '6 v L O Q L 3 0 O E J Y J x 3 E 'v 3> E E J OJ E l7 v o rca 3 l a° ca c L -6 a o aai += o " L �" c l7 1 0 0 u 9 0 13 -o .x = v ra 'c a 'c v t '^ Oc is m v is v O v a oo v a 0 u+ F v a a `° ra v O E E E m E _ u .o c a c u v u O N= O N ra J c u N a __ to c a v v ra O N N :� v C o m E v C L v v v v E a v C u N c v v O :° C ¢ N¢ U N° E v �n aL+ ra .L+ Q ,... ...., %f.,, rfl 0 a ,E a p .................................................a m Vf .-I,.,a a N �, N m-- " ,o, p 0,.... L ...., U E .0 .0 0 E s -E N- o:E E E > E 0 -Em CL Zo 'M T M 1 .2 :L -M 1 0 M 10 E bn E 0 0 Ci N > 0 o Z, 0 m 0 0 CO >.0 m 2 - �6 m .§ M w I I -E 0 � . ?: I . = . , -3 w 0 u -- ND 0 o o W bz u > N w Au E 2 E w E 0 2 rco co 3 rco 3 m 2 2 ZW 4; aj 0 ms 4 w tm w (U w M w w v° .E , r>- w W c V x 0 E 7a OD ll� c E 0 x zt E' 0 WM �a 0 u 0 tu o .2 E 'R In w F 0 3 0 E -0 C 0 r .2 E 0 .2 -M Im -E u < 2 0 0 u uR > c'm E -S < -E 0 0 m -1 C> Y —M E VD m tc w E 0 3 E > 0 - . k U� . m ?r 0 w J� -1 - 0 o o 'E W I w > > r c m ol X CD & w M, .2 > M, o .2 F 0 W M 0 jo .0 0 > a -6 :!� m 0 w E •`+ 76 Q 0 u a o o 4� r 0- -iLw w -E 0 o u w E P o U. o . - I m v - < u 0 E 0 w L:� F= 0 w 45 .2 -0 z O a E . 0 3: -;, > E 7F 0 0 E 0 t C) '3 T) aa o C) > E E C) (fi E �E E % 2 -0 iz m..................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................. ................................................. ................................... r_ -M 0 0 w U 2ot 41 aw 0 t .2W IE5 FU Ln 00 -M w .2 'E D u 4� C) 0 x ') .- 75 < > j to >M- . mE 0 in 0 -MUX 00 M u > w bf .2 -w M 'o -E w w -0 s 03: LL u 0 - 0 E 1p z : < r 0 0 r u Z:) aj—bZ C a —0 vto z 3 v 0 E -aj 0 t: w 2 — ?: � u, ?: V v R - T, .1 M N 3,: oN cc 41o .2 is OJ o 4,� E 0 LL z o m E o a E E E M - , 0 0 .2 > -0 0 m u . . s -E .P W -Ei 48 0 .- ,rO u. F= E 2 E o 0 E . m ww o o co w r0C J in O v— Gm 0 ............... i ID -0 C3 o o 00 m a) E c S v o c E i o 2 E 2 E 0 do T-1 E Eo 73 E 0 0 E 3: 0 - 0 CL -0 E w bn m C) w 0 w 7D o E L E E n°'-2 w5 E CD o vu w E 0 o v 0 66 m 66 7E m 66 4,� 0 oo uo 0 10 45 Z E V E E 4tJ E 'w 4� 0 v a 0 E 0 E E w - r3 -m lz .- t oj u' E um , I u B w u E---, 71 hp 71 ..6 0 -W u E !6j .2 1 E 73 < E w 0 A 73 E 12 m m o E a tw lD Z E u 'E 3Q < '5 t �u v T E 75 E 0 w ' 6 ET -2 9 E No 3 c 0 j, w 0 w :L 48 8 u z 2 S o 0 1 6J 6l 0 61 E ao 8 h z -u E C, 0 E - E < C, t- 2 m E E E a 0 v z cc 73 u - E m 0 7 :E 3 ot E Y B ;a u o E 7:1 t E z o U N .i5 8 2 0 LL 0c c; u E 0 0 un u v E3 ou 4" 4b 0 46 u-2 0 W 45 > 71 O OJ 0 0 ZP M cS QE E ...................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... .2 E EoE-. . -. ?; 2:. E 0 > 00 > uN :E 45 0 E E o 4t E E E E 00 s E E :w, C) 0 < - cl 0 o0' E t0 f0 a 16 E o' -S <0 uw 0 -F. 48 Cw 76 8 -W E 0 E 'ED t; E lD u -2 E -0 u a E E 4� "7:1`0 E N ao a E 66 N A E "W=CI �5 2 d w w a NE 4; w -7 E vi CCS 73 � U E W E :L' W W, E 0 0 C, v! Az! w p E 2 E 2 u 10 - .- -E - 0 L� w E 7D E E W E �u 4' w m LL z :E E E F :E a) tti 8 E N u 73 W E C, �U w 4(5 C, E E u 4, E - .2 :L U < E ...................... ........................................................................................................ 2 4� ID D S E :c� �s .......... "I'l""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",lI ............ 00 m a) w M r_ M t 3 r -I �l1 00 m � o O m -6 m m Qj E C N Y O ° _ O 3 �M C T 3 M > C a N L C O U a am+ > 3 0 0 9- 3 N E o 0 E E V ,._. O C N 3 °�' v ❑ „ ° c o m v .> - Y u N@ o o � Y to O v> = a N N E v L a - o fO a o� o. Q 3 of tvi > v v a T on-vo y o 0 V > O t+1 .L' 3 Y 3 L N m p m o > N S N v 3 E° L E o v m o v c Q o o o o o o u c m o= c o v o v v o v E =0 3 v E E O E 2 h -O O E m � E o C N Y .0 m E O r�o a v v a m i v> in o Z O 3 a v Z -- 3 v T N m °- v OJ L m h v 'o tua C on a N m o v OCA p o .T. v N U u�� m m C �n N m Q Y o O �n o3 L N V nY�j O c Y° Y 0 m v U C Y O T W 41 o W m p 6 -6v E 0 N N a o oa aL -� m> a v WNc) E O m m v 3 v o N o '>--E E cc H O1 w E v S m Ol v v v a i LLO -O a+ E l0 LL to N C 4 m '3 oN @ c° 3 m o a v V m 0 a m Q 'c O m o vO L ° m _o N L 3 N 6 S > O Z > O m Z N y o o y m > u- E o oc° E a v ° 3 a v v m >. S N C� N cco O° O Vt -6 ° N E ^ E ti c� rvao n O o a -vo C aoi m° o m -6 OJ a S Y 0 +V+ U O — 6 N ^ w s v ° `m ~ o -va p 3 �G y O n ci ❑ fl. N^ Y m 3 O Y> O °J N N L N $ -6 O :L"+ C nv� �LL m ;� ono �mQ W yi Z N 3 f° 3 a - n`6 v m c = o m � N 3 3 o= 7— ❑n C N N > C V zl c _ m aS+ o �- -`o �- o m« 'c > v L 3 > .n c m H d v m c o Y -a CL NO c E c w b0 i ° °❑ C N— o N> m O L> 3 b0 OUv m y O a to (vp Um o = E o., o •--I O m N N Ol N C m L C Y Y 3 .- U ry i E o E > "O S o o C L y� -6 -6 m -6 , Eo N W F C LL N o O Np " a VE C Lm.-, O v m E °_ m N `o s Z O -o m o Z ;=3 C u c fl- v `. E N m ¢L. co" a Q M m vi ° v `-! v rco = v E .� o .� a Q .� .. v -O o> O 3 E° oa v o �n 9 c O "' ° m❑ R L 6� 3 to o V �+ h0 V1 N O 'c `-' o C N b4 C O `o y Y c u � c v _° -ma p Y °o '~^ O N° E a C o 2 w > y E v m E F Ol X in w 3 -u E , C� � = t N C8 0 E Q 3 O E �YnO aLcvi OO p > m>NQc° man o. -x E � -O❑ mQs a tcc c v O "6 .� "6 O o « m -p C s0+ -6 C Y ^_ E c- E C N 3 rc a E O ro N Z Y a M s+ O v c a Z ❑ Y N £ a O E Q C N "m6O .o Y 0 u m o 0! r -O O -O C o O T O C N Q a Y h p°Q o m N o Q V -6 Vu v O C U > C v Q _° v Toa v o o s R o 3 F Z N N N LL E m -°_ E^ 3yQ�o my 3 '^ > Ov- v one wYzv� z�Y °c° ° c > m E m-° v °'° Tv N.� Y oo m au'c� �a -o Yrs y ° 3 0� �aaY Nv - m 0 o a Q c? O _° .E t 3 "6 LL H Z v u o c> -v0 E M _O m in LL L C m Y -° 3 o W❑ O F F a N m o .� z v L6�^ i N v 3° _ ° > 46 E .cm, i£ 'E E avi `^ in n-�-" u o O 3 n v U -6 N Y p LL (7 v 3 Yy c LL LL uDoo ocn �'E m wu T ^° L N �n N m C •--I y 'i ^ 3 ° L d i m m Q U n V m .- U .--I m a > Q m > a > m 3 Vl IA lD rl N L a .--I Z m O N {n lD N N d N O m -6 m m Qj O ° _ O 3 �M C T 3 M > C a N L C O U a am+ > -O O O N E o 0 E E V ,._. O C N 3 v E v O ° c o m v .> - Y u N@ o o � Y to O v> = a N N E v L a - o fO on - tvi > v v a T V > O t+1 .L' 3 Y 3 L N m p m o > N S N Yl O E o v m o v c Q o o o o o o u c m o= c o v c o v E E O E 2 h -O O E m � E o C N Y .0 m E O r�o a v v a m i v> in o Z O 3 a v Z -- 3 a. °- v OJ L m h v 'o tua C on a N m o v OCA p o .T. v m O N O C �n N m Q Y o O �n o3 L N V O N m ci N C s -O C Y O T W 41 o W m p 6 -6v E 0 N N a o m> a v WNc) E O m m v m o v o N o '>--E E cc H O1 w E v S m Ol E LLO -O a+ E l0 LL to N C 4 m '3 oN @ c° 3 m o a v V m 0 a m Q 'c O m o vO E O>> c a °,o O C E Y N m wu 6 S O m y Z O C E m Z N y o o y m > u- E o oc° E a o m a o cco v E Q .2 a u > o Z ❑ w v c> m° a« c E� c '� w s v ° `m ~ o -va o c o a l7 v v a l7 v v Q cua y i $ -6 w ° N 0 W Y O W yi Z N S J 3 a OQ O 3> u VI ❑ `� T m = o m � N K 7— ❑n C N N > � 1' Y M — O zl c _ m aS+ o �- -`o �- o m« 'c > v L 3 > .n c m H d v m c o Y -a H d= o m U ° m >' c E c w b0 i ° °❑ C N— > O "6 m O L> 3 b0 LL LL W Z C W O m y O a to E J LL LL W W LL •--I O m N N Ol N C m L C Y Y 3 .- U m ry i E 01 N N ate+ n 04 C m N L m U L L a O L E C L y� -6 -6 m -6 W N J C C LL O Ll N@ a C E W F C LL N DA �^ O -ds O " oo�` 0Q C Lm.-, O v ° E N v"C o cm oNw v w m r_ O m t 3 r -I U1 00 O N O 4.1 6, 4.1a Cu C aj E Q N U c aj L U ra 414.1Q H OO Z Z w w 4J R w ° 'E o o v 5 v a a w w C ° o ° z n o O C f6 f6 c o to c N N ry L 2 z c m a m 4 y L a 3 ' o J `° ° m O N K O Z= L@ Z= L v ,... O C o 'O C o9 0 ro u co j a O v X L E x 3 C C b4 C C O O L Q C O L O. fU '� H E Q O O L a] R LbiD o m'3 o C X Q X Q C— O '6 W C 0 C� f O C C O UI C C O s Ul C C p N C C O Q 'C O iG r6 a+ ❑ O N W U-- 0� _'oE Q ;u O C¢ O 3 0 L L L O p = N ❑ O Q ¢ -6 O s m Q = aL+ = o Q o ¢ � � m L �_ O N O O O O 0 o E 2 O P —O bD N O 16 C C 0 L op C T F) Y� U p Q O i p1 O � 3 >, O U m �O N 'N C W W N O b4 N N C ZOU Q 0] p Z Z OO Z Z w w W R w O a h L O O -O 0 0 ° o072 v a a w w C ° o ° z n o O C f6 f6 c o to O N N ry ^ N _6 O -6 O H K OO O N� O O ~ O O N O i i O O i i O O 0 O O H v N to 01 H N K _m N H v N N N H 'ry Z= L@ Z= L v ,... L ru Z 2 L Z 2 U z o ro u co j a O v X 3 x 3 C C b4 C C O O L Q C O L O. fU '� H E Q O O L a] R LbiD O a' C 7 C O C O C X Q X Q C— O '6 W C 0 C� X Q X Q = O W C— O W C O C C O UI C C O - Ul C C p N C C O Q 'C � v n o�� v o_ 0 3 3� c v a o;� v a o 3 E QC N W U-- 0� _'oE Q ;u N f0 0 o :U� o U m oQEQ Co N 00 ov o N LL y O w°U 00 00 O 3 N 9- O o M rCo N �p 5 v 0 v - m rca N N N � = aL+ = o Q o ¢ � o E¢ � L Lv°i Y 0 - o ¢ o ¢ v ocn 3 a v ❑ U C N O p 16 N -6 4,� 4 O b0 C +E '� O X m a-ar N � N 4 CO 6 Y E w O fl — c 0 0 O N C N T C v O L C Ny 0 O 4 '-4 EN .y 3 N O — O U Q fl_ C U ° C L w C t E O J L S L 3 V 3 W N k O N O C >K u L Nc cc F a N 'Y '6 to b0 N O_ OJ I` — N W -o Z c0 0 O i c l7 1D v o Qv tLil U "6 L '2.- ~ C7 '5 v«° Q > W Z v `° '0 3 3 v J v v' v v a o Y fl M (' Ul N (6 ❑ � f0 C � D� U � � � � Qd z a o fl ,s-, Y a c Q o m> ac o° w -2v do o Q Y E W !� . 'v 3 v ra m p Co3 T a co M Z O N u c� rca -o v z .5 o ,� m Y W O W> C bo O O N m m w wv cn N C O T c > U N C N 3 (n " W L m F V rC d d d d d a u H W 9 aL+ Z C Q L L 10 N w a,: U Y c �> C O 0 � O a h O- Q O v a a w o o z n O O C m tau rag O .w� KU N m 2 0 c O v Y = v O c 6 > t � > L L U H O 47 4 LL Oy � �L ^� CS C C) Q � W w O' u to O O N a 0 J [0 C> N E U a o a ° o o t0 w W 3 N N W U-- 0� N tG U 3 LL C L a (6 E 0 C? C u L Ev —O C m LL y O C Q O OJ e -I Y N -6 4,� 4 O b0 C +E '� O X m a-ar N � N 4 CO 6 Y E w O fl — c 0 0 O N C N T C v O L C Ny 0 O 4 '-4 EN .y 3 N O — O U Q fl_ C U ° C L w C t E O J L S L 3 V 3 W N k O N O C >K u L Nc cc F a N 'Y '6 to b0 N O_ OJ I` — N W -o Z c0 0 O i c l7 1D v o Qv tLil U "6 L '2.- ~ C7 '5 v«° Q > W Z v `° '0 3 3 v J v v' v v a o Y fl M (' Ul N (6 ❑ � f0 C � D� U � � � � Qd z a o fl ,s-, Y a c Q o m> ac o° w -2v do o Q Y E W !� . 'v 3 v ra m p Co3 T a co M Z O N u c� rca -o v z .5 o ,� m Y W O W> C bo O O N m m w wv cn N C O T c > U N C N 3 (n " W L m F V rC d d d d d a u H W 9 aL+ Z C Q L L 10 N w a,: U Y C O �C N O a h O- Q L +' v a a w o o z n 0 m C) v � � o o c o m 2 0 c O v Y = v O L y 6 > t O u 3 C > L L U H C C) Q 'E C r O' u to O O N a 0 J [0 C> N E U a o a ° o o t0 w W 3 N N W U-- 0� N tG U 3 LL C L a (6 E 0 C? C u L Ev —O C m LL y O C Q O OJ e -I Y aL-+ O c m m Q CO n u _ W N m 0 0 a) IT m a w m r_ O m t Y .3 r -I U1 00 O N O 4.1 6, 4.1a tu E C aj E Q I N U C Cv C L u 41 414.1Q v 3 a m ti c a `O o � =a v a C � o 3 �+ N Y o 'U N Ol � C C v c � m a � v � O — C 3 -- > a o o` U O 3 T c -6 C N a j6 a Q c � v 3 O a a `O � 3 m75 � b9 m v v s 3 v Y o 'U 3 v c � m a a w 3 -- > a o o` U O 3 T O Yra 3 a Y 3 Y E E N _ N N c -I Q E ra Q c Ii M N E C o 7 L M N m Z O O o o�N O N N C ~ Q a O O p N o f Q V ..� J o '-^ E z Z 'c p 'c io 3 `Y° 3 p z ro Q 'c F p _ C in cm .E p O C C .-I O E s i,:1 V1 V1 C = V1 Z_ o a LL C C O C O a j C -p O C -p o m •� = � v ,f6 m Z y v v v 'c � m v v u v Cl O ? H N z z N u C C 3 C C N c -I N O C O1 p E J ate+ Q j F a 0 W � O -O a C aO+ v'5 y o Q .E O -6 a >, t�o oC. 0 a N um u m ut Im u u 3 :L 3 O E m C 0 C = L L a o .9 0 0 � �+ 1 a N N O N p O N C v ] p a v O vOi m vOi no ao R ? ° mcoF- O E y U N aL+ 3 a -O E`? Q t6 C m p m °[ c.� o v a v p p 'E E — w d d rl V M- rl C j 3 j M O O H O W N V) M v— v .LL m ° cc p v acu ccu m m ,o p3� t o j z Y O '3 m y Y? N u o y '3 G Y +' m o c 3 3° o v vi ._ a `o `O`O c U p Yvvi :. 3 p p 3 LL v U w G v ra Q c a c 3 p U N N p U -- '° fO `O W U C C v cn ro o m a m Q m N 3 v ru LL m C C O 0 o O v E t0 o E U O Y O O. N hq C N N> E O C Y` v K `= v O N Ul N O C O LL O LL O Q LL y u LL tD ° 1� O ++ "O a s E? O. t0 C—-=> u a 'O N N b➢ '6 '6 ° l0 U N n U l6 m O E D_ M U f6 M U l6 a s 3 O Q a Q U U S .` O d d K K V1 to Vl N Vii H VOf Z .M -I �I-I C N V1 - [�6 I�y1 C �y M C v 3 O a 0 Co V Co O O N iT a UI U1 C C O O - - 6 � m75 � b9 m v v s 3 v v E v c � m a a w 3 -- > a o o` U O 3 T O V N w O w O Z N E E N _ N N c -I Q E co c Ii Q v 4 -a n z v m Z Z v .3 o�N O O C ~ Q a O O p N o f Q J ..� J o '-^ E z Z 'c p 'c io 3 `Y° 3 p z ro Q 'c F p _ C in cm .E p O C C C y T in T vOi M C C s C Op v h C W N GC = m :P m V1 v, Z_ o +� q .0 m m H .0 � >. o o acro N N a o Q pp LE p c Z c04 "6 pA O N w t `w `o v° H N z z m C r 0 C O- O N o 3 3 C C o r m o v pz00 o N N .� v o U-- w o Q a Z M u c c c c um u m ut Im u u 3 ,�6, n" C N« +R+ Y m C 0 C I 01 O� I a c N rp a o .9 0 0 � �+ 1 a N N O N p O N WEj m C N OJ ? 0 C E O O C w -O C U Ei O a Vl a Vl C Ou O E y U N aL+ 3 a -O E`? Q t6 C N C` K K a] O N N v O w C> a '- N N U by 3 R L O C '�+ N O l0 i+ M P Q C Q C O .- O Ol '�+ M 3 O to 3 O J Q V V O p 2 0 2 - O 41 l6 t6 O E 7 0 a d= K- V V- Vf Vl H N m V) ''I Z d rl V M- rl C j 3 j M O O H O W N V) M 0 Co V Co O O N iT a N O N m m a v v E ffi E v v v v E 0 0 o 0 o v a v E c 0 v c 0 v a v 0 v a v 0 0 v a v io a v io a v io a v m a v m a v io ) a c v p a c v p 3 v 3 m 3 3 O7 d L CO p' L m m N u1 C c 0 - v ? L O N C c 0 - v � T L O o N N > L O o N L O c N N N ir1 al N a L N L 3 p N N u'1 a m C N N N v1 al al a L N L p '3 N N u'1 a m c r6 N N N v1 N N V1 a m C fa N N N u'1 N N u'1 a O ul c O = o o O c -p O c -p O 7 J O O c o c o c v O c o c -p o .O^ 1 C L d N ++ v v a .oE o4� ov4� .oE o o4� a o o4� a o F ++ p o ami o Q o +. o +. o +. o ++ „o, o a va 'c 'c O O O O C v S no C C O C .. N� = C t C C C C C c C c O iLL O _ C l6 rymj o = O d - O ? ra - LL C N M O - O - .d •W = O = O = O = v 41 m° apa O apn 3 m 3 acu 0 apn apn m v ' L a O ry x ,� C c 0 O v O i L '� p i� 2 L O L aL+ �..' @ L fa L p L O L O L O o vvi :• 3 v 3 3 c o rn o 3 y 0 '3 v '+..3 .. v 3 v •+. 3 .+ v c J 3 fl- rco Q c a c ca 3 fl- ro m m v v v a a LL O u LL LL O u Q Q LL LL LL LL O rp ."� N O t0 O `� O rp n O O LL O O LL O M a O O N V p v u p v u -o E La C N N m N N N OJ C N N o a M It L m M M M C M O@ MItL 1!1 M C Ill M l0 l0 M M C n n M M ...., ..... ...., ...., ..... ...., ..... ...., ..... .. ..... ...., ..... r pE v v o v a v E o a v }I L H C L n C C �. o o o - N al O o v C o 0 - N o 0 - N Y fa bq E C ooA p E c O fa oA 10 7 oa 3 v v vY Q v vY L � t N L L U 1l1 3 v x y 3 v 3 v 3 v pp v c v v� U v c v v U v .1 m0 0 �o 0 3 0 o �o 0 3 a `0 3 0 `0 3 S N= T u r0 = j, u rp �, u T T N N U to a v aU+ N p N N a N Y v 0 Y N a Y Y ✓ a N V ✓ E o cO L c o N a-+ .E E cO L C o N a-+ .� E � N a-+ .� E o N N a Q 3 v a Q 3 LNri v a v a O v -p v h O u +' o c c M o N v to ul m v-. o c c O v c 0 v c -0 0 4.1 d �, L? uE C O -rap L a a T v L C p O y a Y a/ N T E a L N a 9 L E •O M t r E -a ba 3 o z '�' c u E -o c 3 ti N m m m E m m GCJ Q j O a ._ _ u z M ._ W Q Q L Z J Y L .I. Z o Q f6 3 3 c o v Z c � c ra 3 Y 3 3' 0> c z o u � o N°=? u � O .. o .. 'c c m a w o Y a g N Y a W Ev�ymm Eoso =_= m DoE zmo mYm m 30=o dC v� c v� al M H - - c vi c v� y N M O C ._ c c v� c iA H _ - c v� C F _ - Q ?i Y E O N a M c W_ rn 3 v Y Y 3 N f1 M 3 c -_ ¢ a - Y Y w N_ ¢ 3 N Y Y 3 v_ W ¢ 3 3 I to m — c c o- o o v vi o �_ c 0 z o an un o c c _ o- o m o o c 0 3 w on ou 3 c c _ o- o o 3 m c c c _ o- o 3 o� o N m — C .-I N 0 v Y N- o to _ �- _ c -I N U- o r6 Z v W 0- r -I - N N aJ Z R N W O N N v aJ Z r6 A W :..i 0 :+ 3 N 3 ^r N O N _C 3 N U N c O O r C 0 3 N 3 N -r-- N O N O `'r '3 v O Y N c ru 3 N 3 N C N O N c O O L c 0 3 N 3 N .Y N O N c C o Y O Y C m `^ ¢ c c c c m N o 3 a u a C c c m o= ° 3 -a u ° `^ "' c c a 3 a a m `^ `" v c c c M a-. v 3 a a u a QJ c o 0 0 o `o a� � :t J= p m e `0 3 v ¢ c m ra c ¢ ,o .o o o .c � +c � p v c 3 v -p c rn ¢ ra a c o m o o p o Q .� +• uv i a c �c �a C ¢ p o g o .. +• i Q c Q n �a L m va v p a' ''^LLQ LLa va v LLa' p ''^ in va v ''^LLQ 0 va I..i O a to a N �•y Q Q .ti O M @ rl d U c p O u! a to a to l0 Q Q n O m @ d U C `p p O `p a N -O to Q Q c O D M Q Q O N OU � C C ci .Q +-' C C ci +-' C C +' N c C N "- N i� M v O a+ a+ N p O 3i 3 M p tpJ N u a M v M c a+ a+ M c O 3i O M u Q a u v Ln c N v O a+ a+ Ln c 3 3 O N l0 c v O a+ a+ l0 c 3 ?i O u w n c n Q M 0 o F....O M V O t6 N M- ,.... M 0 0.,,F o M V O 0.... N M .. M 0...o F 0 m 0 o F O N O N m m a v v v v ffi v v v 0 a v v 0 a a v v a v v 0 a v v 0 a v a v a c v v a v a = a C v o 3 3 3 3 v a" o MM. m o o m o x v o m N O N u'1 N L_ N O 0 N �, v O a a a a a L ti ul N U1 O V1 N O C N N N N U N N N Y> C N ✓1 t(1 Vl � Lfl �!1 �!1 C N -p � C o g ,o o -a o a o o c o -a ,o 'a w v a r y w-u s o ++ o o - o o •p o o E ++ o •� vvi vi 'c v46 m N ] v ,�., a n j bo c c c c r an •� c c = c > o v nn c C O O = 0 o = o = 0 —y O - m= M v 3° v 3 ti 3 3 D O M 3 O 3 m 0 > ou > 3 m r`i D m > oa > m to c ea _ .L cL g .� @ L .! c vi .2 a o L A� cL o Y L :L 'u 3 oa C v cL o Y a 3 3 p 3 3 3 ..3 C o N .� 3 a v v a u v v ry a N -aa Q v C a v ¢ a v - v c 3 fl o 'tea °J Q a `O o ^ `p. oa ° io o `oma O M O LL O N p W O v ^ O 0 O 'a-I-I N tC R I00 N '++ N N ry ry ry E .Q N N OJ C 00 M C M Ol N M M m v O O V a O O n a L .ti N a V m ..............................................., ..... ..... ...., ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...., ..... ...., .................................. v N O ° ° E m N N N N C O u L _U m C C O C C O in C C O C O a s �. O O O 4, m 3 tov m v 3 v v v v y v v Qo t t L L t L � N u1 aL-• 3 v 3 v aL-• 3 v Y3 v x v u v u - v v v' 3 c Ic v f0 a `0 3 a 0 3 a o 3 a o3 o _ ° U _ o U v - o U C' o - t6 T R tb to o •O :19t, O � � � a � Y N N v a N ur N Q a N N v a a N Lri fU v n : N L > a v v v E m Y E Y y -o +yam' c Ol .u16. a a C[ Ol .�@. -o s 41 Q O .�. W w Q C C N L L Z 0 Z W 0. a N L t W 0 N L tL U Z j 3 3 Y O c a+ to 'c ,� 3 3 Z a+ O o c a+ ca c Z a v o SZ L > in ? t+ c] ++ 0] C = C C O .- O C a+ T �n T = C m ++ m C LL C C = O C aV-• > U T = m ++ m C C - LL C X C C VI - O C --. >? t+ CO a.+ Co d C C ~ 0 6 :L _ W .- O IA d QC �Y�w' m uo g 3 3 m ou Q 3 3 3 m m ¢ 3 Q 3 p tln m o C v a 3= C_ 0 C 0 H O hq O C 0 C O H O DA O C 0 C 0 F H O bA — C O C O O SZ H O Cq — Nv a1 N W C O C N .-1 0 (V W C O C .-I v [V W W O W C O v N y 4 W C O U 3 N ?j N D O L p 3 N N D O L CO 3 N 3 N inN v Q L O .2 N W N 6 p O L O a+ p N N N N N�� M W 3 ci a a vQO 0 O p 0 O 0v 0v z Oo I •' u =o o O a O a =Oo v =a v i a -CC 6 U Q c Q c o m io Ca c o Ono a ¢ a+ CV O N uu -m4+ O u X au N a� ora NrNl � 0o o w co aoC� 0 0 o, 'r ma� 3� o o... a, oti 0 o oZCw F-- m -mp F m m..,- m ,0 � m ,m tn..-1 - ,a ~...o a v a) E -E C E -E C E E E 0 E 0-0 w .0 O E O .0 O E N .0 -0 E -0 Z) Z) Z) Z) rs u A u L u u 7E Lr;rJ 2 M vui m W -0 M N2 -F . w W -0 Lr; t! Lr; 00 Lf) C t6 a V1 V1 r- r w w tlo tw o 8, 1 .3 w 0 0 0 o 0, .0 0 M. 0 .0j > E 0 0 0 01 E 0 0 0 01 0 0 m m to to 4)2 -0 - a .- w 2 Q > - bb 40 a a 0 (D > 0 - m 0 .0 -M iLL 0 g 0 .0 0 0 - :Ult! 1 5 - 'o E 2 - . o 'r-- 0 'E 7 -Fa 6 a r 'E r- : U w .2 .0 v4- , o :t m :5 O -- -P 0 -0 M 0 -0 M -0 0 0 4 - u :a 4 m C, u mo 0 o 0 X X 0 0 - 0 0 A zr u 'D U Ul U� 00 m u -E 6 I 0 uu u u -0 -a 0 a m E 0 q L. - 'r = . a- " c - = a......................................................................... m .................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ ...................................................................................... .2 E 0 m E 0 E 0 4I m - U - a U - a 7 EL I o 0 .0 0 m E ro ro 12 E 'm 4, 0 mE v ao bU 22 tQ:L uu 3: 00 U LE .1 Ic m x u u f0 a o lul o I ou uu 2 IQ 0 4� 2 U u u % 72 u to :o r :L! E 0 0 ±m! st E 0 0 st C) cc -0 st! 1 j :3 0 'o N mou 0 u I , . :)Ou� MO-� 71- u W, W 00 -M -M E E -E CP E E - E E bn 0, U Z -Z- Z - FZ -0 -U -1 0 0 -u a 0 0' 0 'E 'E u a 0 ajnn to -a w w ba w S b0 p E '--E "D 0 4) 0 Co Ca E 0 48 2 S E Co :t Co 48 Co .sL, 7) LE D t E 3: - D !E 1,3 E 4,� 3: D iE D - to E o oin 0 12 , z o 0 w c 0 0 o oc -:5 11 zb0 0 a O z a Z W- 0 .2 .21 :t Nnl 41 C) L'i cc C, JCN cc o E -2:! -ou -0. 0 —u 7- -u N 0 Cucc In Cu 0 0 z--; -u 0 _0 8 m .0 4 u u 0 U OU u a o U qT ou Lo < E < � U CVt .2 u < 4� 3: 4� 0 o F-- o 0 1 -1 �t m w C4 ............... w 0 4� 3: 4� 14 .1 0 o F-- o 14 0 'T �t lu f� 4:5 30 4� -,T 0 o F-- o 0 , Rr 't m ............... . '! Q -1 MQi�O 4 30 4� 0 o F-- o 11 -T a) co V co O LO O N m a v v v v E E v E v E N v v = o u m a J o v 9 E J c OO N ° v = oE U v a J 0 v S J c N v v = o u m a J o v 4 E J c o v io a ) v io a a v m a n v m a a v m a o v m a a a c v o a c v o a c v o a c v o i In i In i N i Vf o o= J m J - M. u >' t 0 N N y= J m J >' m t 0 m N N y= N J m J v >' m L 0 m N N y= v J m J N N a Y N S 0 3 N ul =o to N ^ a L _ v S 0 3 N u1 =o to N ^ a S v S 0 3 N V1 m to N ^ a S - N L 0 3 T C N N ate+ T C N N T C N N N T C m a N V1 C m a N 0 tlo=J O C C ' :6 C J J ]L oO 1 oC io y C L U N v — N y C 401 N N C y C O1 S N L N C y C m' •' - v v -0 p0 4 5 a v v m = v v w a E 3 v v -0 .. E o o �1-1 >0 o E o ±j v oEo n a ao =oe •c .t46 vvi F o. a 7 v01i o. a C C C C�_ O S = bb C = C ate+ 0 9 C_ C C C }O, O N O1 0 N m 0 a! 3 is 3 O m c LL O— M o N �n C O w J C O J N m— M 0 N m !n _ — O — °i is w 0 J is J o m !n v 0 J c v v s 'E v 0 J D v O v *� v 0 m y -Fu v� v o J Y onoNy O L C A AS .� J Y •3 ocncOVOi m S oy m o y s" �oln y Y -u 3 �0v°Ji _ 3 3_ _ 3 _ 3 3 3 Y 3 _ 3 o co ¢ c ¢J 3 co 4a c 3 9 0 a m a c 6 3 M =o a u E LL� LL: 00 O N o N o N LL O LL O LL 0 O O m T 0 0 1 O 1.N O O N .V O N ,V n m m Oi O Cl L o I(1 IA V a N O 2 V 7 0 u wwN V C a W O Q a S a n n V a C n N O d a S o ...., ..... ...., ..... ..... ..... ...., ..... ..... ., ...., ..... ...., ,.... r- p 01 0 EN O to N OJ v E O Ul a OJ O) E O N N Ol 0) E O N }I L S LU L N O. N 0 - N NQ - N N d N - m W d t 41= E J J b9 E Im 2 J J 0A E A = J J QO E I •` CJ N =b� D_ O 11 v N = f1 O b0 L Y1 N = 12 O b0 i v N = Q O �..� Q� S L Q� S S t Q� S L Q� x m 3 v x 3 v x N 3 3 u N 1l1 o« v u = v .L- �' u c o f = x n o f0 m -0 0 F a 0m M. — . C O @ 4 O O m . o�o 4,5 CG �= m c o= Qp N L v m L v v v a v v G a v v y a v v v .0 O L v 0 N O s W O N t �V.. O Y O s Z N E a C a- W N ZO E a = r+ Nc L Z v a L O � N v o_ L 3 � v L O , 4 0 O r v W 4 >, C O u W = N v n >' U u N O v 4 9 >• Y J u OJ L te, 3 m v m@ E =:3-z F v v w m E Y O •c 7 y u v r T E O Y m +�+ y rco a 0 �^ ¢ a E mL-• rca c a - 3 t a m t E 4 c=o O' a nn 3 0 « m Q y E am+ -o m- a C 3 0 C al u .� H a+ 3 ¢ a v -cu 0 � v u ?i .- F m Y v t r v -E- a f6 > C o Z o W o ° S m >i a- 3>= -6 l6 = O. Z o O W o N Q L Y m >j Y 3>= •c -O (0 3 0. Z a+ 0 W •C p ° •C f6 3 Y >> D>_ 0 O a un W C m '}' f6 Q m = @• a, a H a c W O Y Q f6 O �. O a i•L > W Oq > Y Q 00 c a a YO ++ C _ = T .n T Y �] ++ m O � ++ K b0 = ? in T 00 !' Co ++ CO C QI YO �+ C C C T in ? C r, m ., m rU+ H O � Q E v .4 ¢ 3= m e c 3: =) D, '° E c .4 a c c c E Q 3= 7 6 v o o- o O . m - Y m_ O_ O v -° 0 0 a= s 3. a= Y Y 3 og 0- O «� v o Q 0 o n 3 Y Y O oo _ on O— O v = a �n N icy y C O O 3 t '^ N WWc O N C D— C LL a1 t= UC Y S 3 N N 3 J f6 '^ m L m 3 N 3 N r= O S O 3 N 3 N 7. m m O 4 3 4 vi vi Q N m O 3 vi �ri m m E N N C C !n o O O .0 `o '« N vUi C 'iS C c¢ 'p O O .0 N C Q C n Q O O J N N C t 3 J 0 a u m cad �0 3 J o c `off Q +- v" u 3 J o �, '� m coo -a u 3 J o LLa "'u ° !n -aa ln�vOi Hca �� �� o�v°'i -ao In oa �� 'o�v°'i -ao In �� 9 a =a = 0) .- O eLL i+ O m LLa =a = 1l1 01 .- O .- LL� tp Ql on ++ N N 0) .- O 4••1 Z, O a v� S= m !n _ a+ a+ !n = J 3 J o a vi 6 = m u= 4 4+ n= J 3 J O a c 3= a n= 4+ 4+ n= J 3 J v� n 3= aO o...~ 0 ,ave m... �.v— a..0 o�,o .1 t `° ,....tea-..., ao,o� 0 .._a vn.`o ..... co V co O LO O N m a v v v a a a - J 0 E C v E C v 0 C J u C N Ol L C C J N 9 C v N i C C J N C v N i C O L E C O1 N i C O N E = 00 O N E = O N -O v O m io a io a io a io a m a a io a a = v o a = v o a C v o 3 E m 3 E m 3 E v m L O m N N a °x' o v- J J - v C m L O o m N N a v o v- J J - v C m L O o v o m v- N J R N J r. v a C � m L O ti N u'1 -o m N O N a S v S o .3 ti N V1 -a m N N v a S N S o .3 ti N u'1 m N 01 a S N N S 'N^ o .3 �y N u'1 0 ° u C a T C v T ry �It �fl ? t0 a N V1 N ✓1 N .� t0 a N V1 N N C �fl .� t0 a C O C C 7 J 0 C C 7 J 0 C S m 'u S m 'V L m u L � O u 0J = Gl C v u O1 L O L d = C v u y S N L = O C d -u v S N S o'E o ,o o .. o v .o .� o .. 'C o v .o E .. o .� •C 00 a > > a t= m D 46 ~ O. N a 46 = M D C_ - C .m 0 409 r d 2 W bo « 0/ O W � to C O C O- LL ro C C C - O - C O r0 C C C - O - C O > ra s C CO = r 3 _ M W° J J ° vm 3 341 G = i y C 0 0 A7i 01 iJ C QI o v C O >V O a+ L L J 3 J =O L =O L S J J Y =O L =O L L J J Y N =O L =O ri C°'0 '+� Y 3 �ovvi '-y y 3 �ovvi-y '«. 48_�ovvi C a v J v� C a v J a s N a b UO 4 O -° LL E a O° UOmo O a O a O O M O M O M O 01 I, O 00 O � O 01 u n ° 00 OU O 0 01 1� ° W a m a m _U a E a N m N N E a N m N ,U N E a N m N OJ ^ ^ v a ^ `^ a a L ca In u o a In � L ro v v In In v `^ o a In � L m vi vi In In ...., E+ o Ep o vo U La C� aYE O O .O .O� V R OhC 41 J Oq E J 00 E J bD E J •� tl0 d v S N C a o by i v S N C a o bq N C v a o S b0 v t Ln ,3 w x 3 v x 3 u N 3 O C r0 O vOi V C r0 O vOi N w I v C f0 vOi O C 3 f0 3 0 ° f0 0 3 0 ° f0 0 3 0 ° `6 o M 3 0 u m CGm m c -° ° m c a= Z m ° a -° °� ° O O N 0) C Z aL+ N Y K N Y v Z aQl •� O O O t 'E COT yS ON p O W Z C O N E N E N O O_ w a v v Y m 3 O v Y `° 3 Lri O C v n Y w o m m T m c v v .o O t v Q s �, r' v v .4 `n s v v �, v L T E j v o O L v g L T rTo E w Y r=a E E ] y E E aj a 0 Q -6 'o c 3 o vu'i w ''' -a c 3 0 =a o y c :° : c 3 0 y c .f0. CFes, C LLJ 'C �. v 'C L L w u 'Mg Q- v L L wwuI++g r6 x a-o v =a L L j -6 r6 7 p Z a'o L .6 O 0 a+ O a+ -6 a+ O g a+ 3 a 3 o O X c a+ E u° QCJ z C C �- ~ a �. v a 01 a �. C W O T N T N -E m= m yl O O a+ O0 Y C CO O0 ? �n ? C :L m ++ CO F O :t N lt0 Z c OC b0 .� > in > +O+ C t+ 07 ++ m F ++ O0 } C O FFn bq j• C m Q 3= 3 Y? ° �~- w= v y D Y ° m d_ v Y LEY E W_ E w� oc 0 J o on m C O C v O O- Z 3 J W D 3 on M 0 C 3 C v O O- z 3 J 0 3� m a c v 0 C O O- z 3 J in 3 O cW 00 N R .0 o Q Cp Y� y� C `O N j C O `p !' F C9 `� C Q N U c� O S N •--I v N L Z_ C� L C v N v N L ,+N.' L C S � N •--I N N L L Z C L C N •--I +' C :+ pa :t 3 N 3 N a�vNipvNi 3 O �^ C 3.. O 3 N N 1,�v^lNi J O N D O WW .. O 3 N 3 N' 3- .'�vi��n N S O C7 .. 0 3 N '.�vi 3 I Q u a C C C C mNm J 'C to 3 Q a v a C= C C m�m p 'C to 3 C dorm C C C C p C Vt 3 = a 'a C C O .y N ✓moi C I a C Q O O J N vU1i C I a C a O 0 O .o J N vvi C I a C a O t a LL� LL u +' u =a v =a v - 3 J o a N LL •+ u *' U =a v =a v LL 3 J o a �, N LL +' u *' u LL 3 J o =o v =a v a LL +' u ° Ma a M �o 3^ ° a a m w w o^ ° ma .m , =o_^ ° -0-ow ma }+ .=gran " a m d v ° a+ a+ c in d O a t N m ^I v ° a+ 4+ N O a 1 �' fV m ..a fJ N O fV p a a+ 4+ vi ++ fV fV N 4+ ^ ^ c J J ^,.., M M E 3 J . c m a... a J 3 J a 3= m m..., m Q_w An a a o o ff 0 ..3 a v e cv ,.... �n �n ,.... �n O o ff o �n v� ro ....M •n om � o o ff o m vt co In �n on o o .c .. e N j E E \ E « � v 2 E \ 412 0� ® {\ \ \ \ Ln ` l o. \ M CL 46 \ k\) \o \�w / \ \ ® 0\ - \�) / {/) _ N/ j\}> !m kE:a\ .) oo- \ \\\. \o \\j / g2rsm 0 0� a) \ \ \ Ln ` l o. M CL 46 \o \�w 7E ® - \�) / {/) _ N/ j\}> !m 7-§:g oo- \o \\j :{\)moo 2s - /)m\\\ /)} k 2 Attachment D — Newspaper Notice (appearing in the Record March 1, 2024) Kl"I"(1,11FINI, R Have Your VdIce Heard! Planning & Strateoc Initiatives Committee Date: March 25, 20214 Location- CounclI Chambers, Ki'tc!he nier, City Hall 200 King, Street West, prVirtual Zoom Meeting, Go to, kitchener.ca/meetings and select • Current agendas and reports (posted 10 days before rneeti ing) Appear as, a deiegatiion 0 Watch a meeting To learn more albOL]t this pr,oect, including information on your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchener.ca/ (D 0 0 PlanningAppli cations or contact: P% id �,,J (tD 1)a'1, Padldn'g Katie AnderL Project Manager e ri g �ena bLi ngfou run itsip kit ' chener.ca (J rl I f, S S19.741.2426 The City of Kitchener wili consider City -initiated applicationsOPA23/020/K/KA and ZBA/035/KA to, amend the Officiall Plan and Zoning By-law, These amendmentswill permit up to 4 dwe4lng units on lots, which Permit a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street townhouse dwelling, subject to re; ,ullations for llot sizes, parking, landscaping and built form, Page 108 of 343 Attachment E - Municipal Scan A background review of some municipalities was undertaken to understand the different approaches in relation to multiplex (four units or above) development in low rise residential areas of these municipalities. The municipalities reviewed were selected on the basis of those that have implemented as -of -right zoning for four units or more in low-rise residential areas that would historically permit single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings and included the City of Toronto, the City of London, and the City of Mississauga in Ontario, the City of Vancouver in British Columbia, the City of Edmonton in Alberta, and the City of Portland in Oregon, USA. The following presents an overview of the municipal scan as it pertains to the 'Enabling Four Units' project for the City of Kitchener. It compares the relevant zoning regulations that would enable up to four units in the select municipalities with what is currently existing and what is proposed in Kitchener. Note that the terminology in the table may not be the wording of the respective zoning bylaw for the purpose of summarizing and comparing through this review. It is also important to note that there may be additional regulations applicable for four units which may not have been included in the comparison below as only key site functionality regulations relevant to Kitchener have been included. Page 109 of 343 0 0 m rn m a s a 3 E E E C N C5 z Z O m m 2 s o E O v E E 'o O O N W v w c tn N i O Y 9 0 N v 0 3 0 o m cc �y c E o E v i E co u u L¢ E a 0 O> d L L C O 3 E m z t t L z z °o °p ° 3 tx6 3 .C� C 2 E 0° v °'t E 3 c a 3 Lv E v w o c v v 0 = 3 = O ' N N CD � C L O tl1 O O C c E E N � m a) L1.' m e Lon E 0 °1 a � v 3p m °"' a x v o v E 'D w E v L �o 0 Qo Q E a° w v c s �. — -O -O O '6 L O E°> E E 0 3° E m z z:z a° 3 2 E 0 `O a°° E 3 v,a o 0 m C '6 3 N N o v v O 2 E o a s a: a ''� c o o ...� � Q o o v L E O El0 I � o E E E 0 0 o 0 0 o a lD X 11 � Qn ° o E Lq E O E E O a...: O a.: a Iq N i a 0 3 0 o m cc �y c E o E E , - E LL 'm M m E E a) E E N � m a) m e 'pp m e Lon °1 v ❑ c °1 a � v 3p m °"' a x v o v N 0 o E L C Q �. — -O -O O '6 L O C_ J Q L L t Q G L m C '6 3 N o v v o_ va E o a s a: a ''� c o o ...� � Q o o v L E O I � o E 0 0 o 0 0 o Qn ° o E E :E o v LL Q a, o ¢'. a p Ln c � o m rn oo Q c w tm0 O N c m L 3 Y v ca O X x E o f Y2 u N N N O y a > v Q i E w _ p 0 u m L O X Q@ 46 m L 3 v E o a= p_ o m E E v v w C7 O ¢ z -o E E z: ❑ o 0 c o E L Ei 3 3 3: E. C E m £ _ E E _ E mE E ' E (' E 2 m E L m m £ a a cI E L m t o: o v'. o o o vo EE 0 0 m z m 0]: LL W W Z O 2 E E 1f1 Q.. N oo Z N v Y E v a E a o c c a o a v > E O �o v E a u a L E'x�n Y on E a E� mat zo o o w 0 o w O >- o EE 0 _ o N N c E° O v E 3 -O E E z _ E E m W v C o vO of O 7 m LD Q m m o o E E O C1 O E E -O -� O L p M bq c O O O O O Q _ L w N a 0 0 o – w 3 O" r–w o.v 3<— 3 ZL Ozaor a 9 O O 0 O Q E 0 0 E T to 0 0 O d w Y° an p 'E E o w Lq L to O mo aL. u i aL Y O o Tm O Q V 3 .x O a = to E Q: tD Z:: p IO lD O OC v CC v o ': v "6 v o v « ; v Y 6 0 c ', 3 6 0 c m O N= 0 O a= 0 E E q(v Y v a E n v a m O u bo v co ° 3 c Oo w OV 3 L v� fO E E L— a Ea W M y .� O.. N a 6' ID O V v E E E N N O a a Z O 2 E E 1f1 Q.. N oo Z N v Y E v a E a o c c a o a v > E O �o v E a u a L E'x�n Y on E a E� mat zo o o w 0 o w O >- Eo EE Q N N E° O 0 0 o E° o f o vO N N D Y c a O N N E E -O -� O L p M bq c O O O O O Q _ L w N a 0 0 o – w 3 O" r–w o.v 3<— 3 ZL Ozaor m O n o a o O >- O = ^= = C N N E° O 0 0 o E° o f o vO 2 E E -O E v a E L Y p X E N 16 O V1 = OEi Q'. r� O a w x I� 9 lD E 9 Z:: o c O C7 O E a 9 E E i I C E E Y E E m E E � E E; L L T Oq �M a c G O O co C m rm _ E 01 O E o E E LD W O rl II II N N O O v 3 o r £ E 1'- E E c ° u E lf1 c aLR-+ L O 3 tD Attachment F - Kitchener Lot Analysis The following presents a review and analysis of lots in Kitchener, undertaken with the objective of understanding how many additional lots will be eligible for up to 4 units with the proposed zoning regulations. The analysis is based on MPAC parcel fabric data available to City of Kitchener and extracted as of November 9, 2023. Summary • 28,575 lots are currently eligible for up to 3 units, representing 46% of the total lots or 48% of lots with single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings. • 41,451 lots will become eligible for up to 4 units, representing 67% of the total lots or 69% of lots with single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings. • 11,937 additional lots with single detached dwelling, 658 additional lots with semi-detached dwelling, and 281 additional lots with street townhouse dwelling unit will become eligible for up to 4 units. Lots in Kitchener • Total number of lots in Kitchener (includes parks, utilities such as pumping stations, reserve for roads, etc., institutional, commercial etc. that may have 0 units) — 67,590 • Total number of lots in Kitchener, excluding lots having 0 units — 62,194 • Total number of units in Kitchener —109,974 • 96% of the lots are either single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings, with single detached dwellings accounting for about 80% of the lots in Kitchener (Figure 1). Other dwelling Street townhouses, types, 2,313, 4% 4,407,7% Semis, 5,381, 9% Singles, 50,091, 80% Figure 1. Total number of tots in Kitchener by type of dwelling with a minimum cif .x unit • Of the single detached, semi-detached and street townhouse dwellings, majority have only 1 unit on the lot. • About 55,905 properties in Kitchener (90% of the total lots in Kitchener) have only 1 dwelling unit, about 3,380 properties have 2 dwelling units and about 555 properties have 3 dwelling units as shown in Figure 2. Page 115 of 343 1. Unit 2 Units 3 V.yi1i'Cs Figure 2. Number of lots by total number of units on a lot for single detached, semi-detached and street 'townhouse dwelling Eligibility for 3 Units on a lot in Kitchener • Up to 3 units on a lot are permitted where a single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwelling is a permitted use, subject to regulations. • Existing regulations for 3 units require a minimum lot width that is greater of that required by the zone or 13.1 m and minimum lot area that is greater of that required by the zone or 395 mz. • A total of 28,575 lots are currently eligible for up to 3 units based on existing regulations of minimum lot width and lot area. This represents approximately 48% of lots with single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings (Figure 3). 70000 60000 50091 50000 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillilI 0 40000 0 aj -0 28237 8575 ,IIIIIII ,2E 30000 IIIIIIII 1.0000 5381 4407 111 207 131 Single detached Serni detached Street Townhouse Singles, Sernis and Street f own houses IIIII Total INA ::.:k&Ie for 3 Units Figure 3. Cot eligibility for ups to 3 units based on current regulations.for lot area and lot width Page 116 of 343 Suitabilitv for 4 Units on a Lot in Kitchener • Proposed regulations include a minimum lot width and lot area required by the zone and dwelling type, except when the lot is outside of an MTSA boundary, 800 m of an LRT station, and Central Neighbourhood area where a minimum lot width of 10.5 m and lot area of 360 mz is required. • A total of 41,451 lots in Kitchener will become eligible for up to 4 units based on the proposed regulations. This would represent approximately 69% of lots with single detached, semi- detached or street townhouse dwellings (Figure 4). • Single detached dwellings will continue to have the greatest potential for up to 4 units, with approximately 80% of the lots with single detached dwellings becoming eligible for up to 4 units. 70,000 60,000 50,091 50,000 40,174 41451 40,000 QJ 30,000 t t 20,000 Il 0,000 5,381 4,407 865 412 0, Single detached Sc rn! detached Street lua«srnhouse Singles, iernis and Street f o wnhou ses IIIII iotaI Suitable for 4 Units Figure 4. Lat. suitability far up to 4 units based on proposed regulations for lot area and tot invidth Page 117 of 343 3 Units vs. 4 Units Eligibility • With the proposed regulations, an additional 12,876 lots will become eligible for up to 4 units. This is in addition to the 28,575 lots that are currently eligible for up to 3 units and will be eligible to add a fourth unit (Figure 5). Figure 5. Total lots, Lots eligible for 3 units, and Lots suitable for 4 units by dwelling type 60,000 50,091 50),000 0 40,174 40,000 30:),000 8,237 E ::S 10,000 1.0,00() 0 Single detached 41451 8575 5,381 4,407 207 865 131 412 Segni detached 5treeL fownhouse Singles, Sernis and Street iownhousess IIIII C of aI iii liiiligible for 3 Units Suitable for 4 Units Lots with Lots with Lots with Single Semi- Street Total Detached Detached Townhouse Number of lots with up to 4 units permitted based on 40,174 (80%) 865(16%) 412(9%) 41,451 (69%) proposed reeulations Note — (value) denotes percentage of total lots of the dwelling type Page 118 of 343 Lot Width and Lot Area Analvsis Limitations 1. Parcels subject to Zoning By-law 85-1 are excluded, assuming that majority of properties are subject to and will eventually be brought into Zoning By-law 2019-051 through the Growing Together project with zoning that allows for more density. However, the exclusions applied also rule out some of the newer subdivisions such as those in the Rosenberg Secondary Plan that are subject to Zoning By-law 85-1. 2. Parcels with RES zoning in Zoning By-law 2019-051 that are 'developed' and have a 'frontage' as noted in MPAC data have been included. As a result, many multiple dwelling type properties (including those with cluster townhouses and stacked townhouses) have been excluded. 3. Lot frontage is taken as a proxy for lot width (means the horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured at the required minimum front yard setback). 4. Parcels with multiple zones may lead to double counts and totals not adding up. 5. Parcels with multiple zones may skew minimum and average numbers. 6. Condo ownership has not been excluded and may skew minimum and average numbers, particularly for low-rise RES zones. 7. Special use regulations that permit higher density forms of housing have not been accounted for. Low Rise Residential designation • Total number of lots that are designated low rise in the Official Plan or any Secondary Plan (includes low rise conservation, low rise multiple), excluding MTSAs — 53,082 • Total number of units that are designated low rise in the Official Plan or any Secondary Plan (includes low rise conservation, low rise multiple), excluding MTSAs — 68,228 RES (Zoning Bylaw 2019-051) zoned lots • Total number of lots that have a RES zoning under ZBL 2019-051 and are identified as developed per MPAC - 52,138 (approximately 77.1% of the total lots) • Majority of the RES zoned lots are zoned RES -2 (38.6%) and RES -4 (35.6%), followed by RES -3 (11.5%) and RES -5 (12%) as shown in Figure 6. 25,000 20,114 20,000 18,542 0 15,000 GJ G,O,f.100 s 5,970 6,254 5,000 720 463 105 RI:::S 1.. RI:::S 2. RJ:::.S-3 RI:::S 4 RI S 5 RJES-6 RI S '7 Figure 6. Number of Lots in RRS zones Page 119 of 343 Low Rise RES (ZBL 2019-051) zoned lots • RES -1 to RES -5 zones are low-rise residential zones, and encompass over 76.3% of total lots in Kitchener. • As -of -right permissions for single detached, semi-detached, street townhouse, and 4 -unit multiple dwellings — • Single detached dwelling is permitted in RES -1, RES -2, RES -3, RES -4, RES -5 zones • Semi-detached dwelling is permitted in RES -3, RES -4, RES -5 zones • Street townhouse dwelling is permitted in RES -4 (maximum of 4 units), RES -5 (maximum of 8 units) • 4 unit multiple dwelling is permitted in RES -4 (maximum of 4 units) and RES -5 zones • Majority of the low-rise RES zoned lots, 48,741 or 72.1% of all lots in Kitchener, only have 1 existing unit on the lot (Figure 7). 6o,aoo so,000 4a,aoo 30,000 2..0,000 t 0,000 0 7. unit 2 units 3 units 4 units 5 units 6 units 7+ units 111119 RFS -.5 5,779 183 136 38 24 79 15 RES -4 1.7,1.4.6 1,799 7.69 1.3 2 1.0 3 Hill -RES 3 5,685 28.3 7 0 0 0 0 1I RES -2. 1.9,434 661 1.4 3 0 1. 0 IIR RES .1. 697 1.9 1. 2 0 0 1. Figure 7. Number of Cots by Number of Unit.S on a Lot and RES Zone Note: 1. There may be lots in zones that may not permit a certain number of units as -of -right as these may be zoned with site specific regulations or may be legal non -conforming. For example - RES -4 zone permits a multiple dwelling with maximum of 4 units. However, the data captures 15 lots with more than 4 units. This may be attributed to legal non -conforming status or site specific zoning permitting higher number of units. 2. The analysis also excludes lots with '0' frontage as noted in the MPAC parcel data. As a result, many multiple dwelling type properties (including those with cluster townhouses and stacked townhouses) have been excluded. This exclusion impacts the number of 4 or more units noted in the data, particularly for RES -5 zone. Lot Area Analysis — by RES Zone (low rise) and Number of Units • The average lot area typically increases with the number of units on a lot (Figure 8). • There is not a significant difference in the average lot size for 1 unit and 2 units on a lot. This can be attributed to no minimum lot area requirements for 2 units. • For 3 units on a lot, the difference from 1 or 2 units on a lot is about 20% more (from 560 m2 for 1 or 2 units to 680 m2 for 3 units). Page 120 of 343 0 For 4 units on a lot in the low-rise RES zones, the average lot size is 900 m2 across 56 lots. This may be attributed to larger lot size requirements currently for 4 -unit dwelling being considered a multiple dwelling. RES I Zone RES -2 Zone 900 700 600 Soo 400 300 200 too 0 ("Doo 5,0()0 4'Ow 3,0()0 2,000 1,00D 0 697 2 units .3 unils RES.1 Zone S'68S 3500.0 25'00o 2931.9 3000'0 20,000 2 M 2000.0 15,000 1500.0 10,()00 1000.0 5,()0() 500.0 0.0 0 1 uuIL 2 unit. 3 units RIES-5 Zone 1. unit 2 units RIES, 4 Zone 600.0 20,000 60,000 17,146 5,779902.4 18,00o 500.0 16'000 14,000 800.0 400.0 8DOA7 1.2,(:100 336.7 94.5 7(.)D.(.) 40'000 300.0 to,o()O 4,00D 8,C)OD 200.0 6,000 100.0 4,000 2,0(70 0.0 0 it 3 units 750.0 739.2 740.0 730.0 720.0 710.0 700.0 6 9 0. 0 680.0 670.0 G60.0 650.0 640.0 700.0 602.7 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100,0 units 3 units 4 unit,, RES -1 to RES 5 Zones combined Page 121 of 343 1.000.0 60,000 1000.0 5,779902.4 9(70.0 48,741 900.7 900.0 800.0 8DOA7 94.5 7(.)D.(.) 40'000 0 680.2 700.0 4,00D P)00505051 600.0 67.1 600.0 1 400A0 400,0 2,000 321.7 3 D.C.) () 300.0 200.0 1.0,000 200.0 1'000 183 136 38 100.0 2,346 322 56 1.00.0 0 - 0.0 0 mom 0.0 1 unit 2 units 3 units 4 units I unit 2 units i unit" 4unfts ttilufTli➢41 JA f . .. .. .. ot ',,,a (,n2) Figure 8. Number of Lots by Zone and Number of Units on a Lot, and Average Lot Area by Zone and Number of Units on a Lot Page 121 of 343 Lot Area Analysis — By Type of Dwelling (Existing) Existing single detached dwellings in RES -1 to RES -5 Zones Majority single detached dwellings are on lots with more than 395 m2 area (current requirement for 3 units on a lot) — at least 80% of 40,129 lots (32,103 lots) have an area of more than 399 m2 (Table 1). ?.able .1. Lot Area Percentile Analysis for Existing Single Detached Drnrellings in RFS .1 to RFS 5 ?ones RES -1 RES -2 RES -3 RES -4 RES -5 RES -1 to RES -5 combined Min. Lot Area per ZBL 929 411 288 235 235 NA 2019-051 (m2) 10th percentile (m2) 965 472 371 292 284 335 20th percentile (m2) 1,105 507 390 320 300 399 25th percentile (m2) 1,170 519 400 331 312 428 30th percentile (m2) 1,253 537 408 343 327 458 40th percentile (m2) 1,477 573 424 379 377 488 50th percentile (m2) 1,811 612 449 420 425 531 60th percentile (m2) 2,098 649 475 463 457 578 70th percentile (m2) 2,382 699 512 511 501 629 75th percentile (m2) 2,595 732 538 542 540 664 80th percentile (m2) 3,021 774 566 579 576 704 90th percentile (m2) ;; 4,523 921 660 Note — Percentile means the value below which a certain percentage 20th percentile value means that 20% of the data is below that value. 675 696 853 of the data in a data set is found. For example, Below 360 m2 Above 360 m2 Page 122 of 343 • Existing semi-detached dwellings in RES -3 to RES -5 Zones • Over 40% of lots with semi-detached dwellings (1,944 lots) have an area of more than 383 m2 (Table 2). Table 7. Lot Area Percentile Analysis for Existing Semi Detached Dwellings in RES .3 to RES S Zones 20th percentile (m2) 335 281 258 RES -3 to RES -5 25th percentile (m2) RES -3 RES -4 RES -5 combined Number of Lots 79 4,186 550 4,859 Min. Lot Area as per 348 325 305 324 ZBL 2019-051 (m2) 260 210 210 NA 10th percentile (m2) 313 258 244 258 20th percentile (m2) 335 281 258 281 25th percentile (m2) 342 293 274 292 30th percentile (m2) 347 306 280 305 40th percentile (m2) 348 325 305 324 50th percentile (m2) 360 353 334 350 60th percentile (m2) 384 386 360 383 70th percentile (m2) 390 418 384 417 75th percentile (m2) 404 430 401 426 80th percentile (m2) 432 449 420 446 90th percentile (m2) 459 538 530 536 Note — Percentile means the value below which a certain percentage of the data in a data set is found. For example, 20th percentile value means that 20% of the data is below that value. Below 360 m2 Above 360 m2 Page 123 of 343 • Existing street townhouse dwellings in RES -4 and RES -5 Zones • Majority of lots containing street townhouse dwellings in the RES -4 to RES -5 zones have a lot area of less than 360 m2 (Table 3). Table 3. Lot Area Percentile Analysis for Existing .Street Townhouse Dwellings in RES 4 and RFS 57.one.s RES -4 RES -5 RES -4 and RES -5 combined Min. Lot Area as per ZBL 2019-051 (m2) 148 135 NA 10th percentile (m2) 258 171 171 20th percentile (m2) 290 176 176 25th percentile (m2) 302 181 182 30th percentile (m2) 302 187 187 40th percentile (m2) 306 199 200 50th percentile (m2) 343 215 216 60th percentile (m2) 371 239 241 70th percentile (m2) 402 264 270 75th percentile (m2) 454 282 287 80th percentile (m2) 493 307 310 90th percentile (m2) 544 389 388 Note — Percentile means the value below which a certain percentage of the data in a data set is found. For example, 20th percentile value means that 20% of the data is below that value. Below 360 m2 Above 360 m2 Page 124 of 343 Lot Width Analysis - by Type of Dwelling (Existing) Existing single detached dwellings in RES -1 to RES -5 Zones • Substantial number of lots containing single detached dwellings in the RES -1 to RES -5 zones have a lot width of more than 13.1 m (current requirement for up to 3 units), with at least 60% having a lot width of more than 13.4 m (Table 4). • 80% of lots have a lot width of more than 11 m. • In the RES -4 and RES -5 zone, lesser proportion (around 60%) have a lot width of more than 10.5 m Table 4. Lot Width Percentile Analysis for Existing Single Detached Dwellings in RFS .1 to RFS .5 Zones RES -1 RES -2 RES -3 RES -4 RES -5 RES -1 to RES -5 combined Min. Lot Width* as per ZBL 2019-051 (m2) 24 13.7 10.5 9 9 NA 10th percentile (m2) 22.0 13.0 10.7 9.1 8.7 9.2 20th percentile (m2) 24.3 13.8 11.3 9.1 9.1 11.0 25th percentile (m2) 24.4 14.3 11.7 9.2 9.2 11.9 30th percentile (m2) 24.9 15.0 12.1 9.5 9.4 12.2 40th percentile (m2) 27.5 15.2 12.2 10.4 9.8 13.4 50th percentile (m2) 30.5 15.8 12.2 11.6 11.3 14.3 60th percentile (m2) 35.4 16.8 12.7 12.2 12.2 15.2 70th percentile (m2) 40.2 18.3 13.4 13.7 13.5 16.2 75th percentile (m2) 41.0 18.4 13.7 14.6 14.4 16.8 80th percentile (m2) 43.7 19.3 13.9 15.2 15.2 18.2 90th percentile (m2) , 53.6 21.3 16.2 16.8 16.8 20.1 * Minimum lot width noted are for interior lots, corner lots have a greater lot width requirement. Note - Percentile means the value below which a certain percentage of the data in a data set is found. For example, 20th percentile value means that 20% of the data is below that value. Less than 10.5 m More than 10.5 m Page 125 of 343 0 Existing semi-detached dwellings in RES -3 to RES -5 Zones • Majority of lots with a semi-detached dwelling do not qualify with current lot width requirement of 13.1 m for 3 units (Table 5). • 90% of lots have a lot width of less than 10.7 m. Labbe .5. Lot Width Percentile Analysisfor Fxisting .Semi. Detached Dwellings in RFS -3 to F{F.S.'a Zones RES -3 RES -4 RES -5 RES -3 to RES -5 combined Min. Lot Width as per ZBL 2019-051 (m2) 9.3 7.5 7.5 NA 10th percentile (m2) 9.1 7.5 6.9 7.4 20th percentile (m2) 9.6 7.7 7.5 7.6 25th percentile (m2) 9.9 7.9 7.5 7.9 30th percentile (m2) 9.9 8.3 7.6 8.1 40th percentile (m2) 10.0 8.8 7.6 8.7 50th percentile (m2) 10.7 9.1 7.9 9.1 60th percentile (m2) 10.7 9.1 8.4 9.1 70th percentile (m2) 10.9 9.2 8.8 9.2 75th percentile (m2) 11.5 9.3 9.1 9.3 80th percentile (m2) 12.0 9.6 9.1 9.6 90th percentile (m2) 13.4 10.7 10.4 10.7 Note - Percentile means the value below which a certain percentage of the data in a data set is found. For example, 20th percentile value means that 20% of the data is below that value. Less than 10.5 m More than 10.5 m Page 126 of 343 0 Existing street townhouse dwellings in RES -4 and RES -5 Zones • Majority of lots with a street townhouse dwelling do not qualify with current lot width requirement of 13.1 m for 3 units (Table 6). • 90% of lots have a lot width of less than 10.4 m. Table 6. Lot Width Percentile Analysis for Fxisting Street Townhouse Dwellings in RES 4 and RE'S 5 Zones RES -4 RES -5 RES -4 and RES -5 combined Min. Lot Width as per 6 5.5 NA ZBL 2019-051 (m2) 10.4 6.5 6.7 10th percentile (m2) 7.4 5.5 5.5 20th percentile (m2) 9.0 5.5 5.5 25th percentile (m2) 9.0 5.5 5.5 30th percentile (m2) 9.0 5.6 5.6 40th percentile (m2) 9.1 6.1 6.1 50th percentile (m2) 9.3 6.1 6.1 60th percentile (m2) 10.4 6.5 6.7 70th percentile (m2) 11.1 7.6 7.9 75th percentile (m2) 11.1 8.1 8.2 80th percentile (m2) 11.2 8.3 8.6 90th percentile (m2) 13.3 9.6 10.4 Note - Percentile means the value below which a certain percentage of the data in a data set is found. For example, 20th percentile value means that 20% of the data is below that value. Less than 10.5 m More than 10.5 m Page 127 of 343 Attachment G1- Engagement Summary Project Engagement Overview Kitchener's Enabling Four Units project included a comprehensive public engagement process to gather feedback and respond to questions from the public and the development industry. This report captures the key findings and insights from the engagement activities held between December 2023 and February 2024. In December 2023, an Engage Kitchener webpage was launched to provide details about the project including in-person and virtual engagement opportunities, and information on ways to stay involved. The webpage has a news feed tab that was updated throughout the project with all the new documents, materials, and engagement information. While working on this project, staff kept open communication and engagement with the public through different channels, including: • Engage Kitchener • Email correspondence • Phone conversations and in-person one-on-one conversations • Advertisements in the newspaper • Virtual Community Meeting • 3 Public Open Houses • Development Industry workshop • Presentations to Kitchener Development Liaison Committee Engage Kitchener The Enabling Four Units project utilized a dedicated engagement webpage hosted on Engage Kitchener, the City's online engagement platform. This webpage served as a central hub for information, updates, and opportunities for community participation related to the project. Our webpage received about 1893 visitors and 146 subscriptions. Subscribe Button To further enhance accessibility and engagement, the webpage included a subscribe button that allowed visitors to opt -in to receive email updates about the project. By subscribing, community members could stay informed about new information, upcoming events, and opportunities for participation without visit the webpage regularly. This feature helped with ongoing communication throughout the duration of the project. Page 128 of 343 r, l ,y AIr ¢ .r / .�t 1 l r, r Enabling IFour nab 11 0 0 'F r, r, (,i, r f IC IrrIheti€, 'Si^,suing arlr ,rc PSnrrr ,, naed cd'Po i r,,M"hv neral of i aril l,r,—'e3liti, riPa In rd a i .h,02 ,PliCtty i91, tcie w ,,,, "a"A' fi, Ic pal f o ,inlf Nlr?a (,bull ro i acid t'i-al 15,0001 rn ie, try?CM I A i<eyIIM( rI .t. ofIY,,ple dge lricl i rlr,r n abl[rig o irrrr,I ioi i ^irq thar,,Il oF,i is tri rtld'rf—,Iud-,rf oror rx'irmg la m nor, re„k'Iermel ;reap. F rioNing F oui IJ, t v,ll-plcrat r.r-tnr ol zi,riiirq i r iAt , � il,,I will lei t Lplr:inow d✓e II }trill. i n , iylot fl tt,[1—,asingl ta:J"'l dnFlu l.,r r: �alar.hx! rlwcrllin.d or .tr.e: fronts I turd osrr .!,✓r�luy;trrbjecd tura reu ,1t r.t., ores � luw �a1 d” lli lu its—Ad,,t-0,,din: ax ,rang hu trIDngs drtrru; to n.w hcutrllneg, xrtbiY ildin, r<rasthcr nnbuildlnn of in theYrar,.;'rryarr;l (nr i ."Ort LmLhoZ m;'"a Why is timers being considered? 14. 's C7wnunrra9.. With :,u'" r.r ty rtrcn`air't her iv a, tted arxpin:e ins rrat:'r..s+olut rsc�r,—niir—arotbc, leicir .ryyderian I>i utirrgm i r trr a vnricty of hauanig)gdioria. Utc,a barvsrlrvpyanr t:Inahlinry fo, ,ri,-I)wfftsite to a n'irrP r11 iarrt u,E ni nrfr;.t elra 4.; and lnPi—fiurture, Figure 1. Screenshot of the webpage Updated ews Feed The webpage featured a news feed that provided visitors with the latest information on the project. This feed served as a resource to stay informed about project milestones, upcoming events, and opportunities for engagement. Regularly updating the news feed with relevant content ensured visitors to the webpage had access to timely and accurate information about the project. The Engage page included a survey to gather feedback from the community. The survey allowed participants to share their opinions, preferences, and concerns regarding the proposed changes to zoning regulations. The survey response report of the 80 completed surveys can be found in Attachment G2 to DSD -2024-066. Page 129 of 343 in 10 `.,rAYINI-OPMl-:.D r Ah rt.l'IIJH f1,1 1} 1 1, t llud.terot �'�*� � IIIIIIIIIII p.itimrprNe � .. Project armcunced Learn mare abc Lft this project and he"' Y- —,'cotrlb"te "o Open for fee&.k Attarnd a r11.0inG, aperr hcnri�ae, or ''.., add y -n feedbdcla online Under review Wda are reviewing the feedback vae ''..,. recalved. A srurnmzary cf Mat we heard,and copies cf srdanti4ted comment';, w&dl be iricdudk with aur ''..,. report to Councif. q„ q Report to Council WJ are presenting aur eep.t and rtcalniTi dation to coi fora The webpage featured a news feed that provided visitors with the latest information on the project. This feed served as a resource to stay informed about project milestones, upcoming events, and opportunities for engagement. Regularly updating the news feed with relevant content ensured visitors to the webpage had access to timely and accurate information about the project. The Engage page included a survey to gather feedback from the community. The survey allowed participants to share their opinions, preferences, and concerns regarding the proposed changes to zoning regulations. The survey response report of the 80 completed surveys can be found in Attachment G2 to DSD -2024-066. Page 129 of 343 A dedicated email address, EnablingFourUnits@Kitchener.ca, was established to facilitate communication, gather input and address questions. Since the project's initiation, staff received approximately 95 emails (including about 40 comment emails from about 26 individuals) through this dedicated email address. The emails received encompass a wide range of responses. Many residents support the proposed zoning changes, citing the potential benefits of increased housing options and affordability. Others have raised specific concerns or questions about the project's potential impact on their neighbourhood, infrastructure, green space, and quality of life. Responding to emails promptly and effectively has been a priority for our team. The team endeavored to provide responses to inquiries and feedback received within 48 hours of receipt. This timely response demonstrates that staff are listening so that community members feel heard and valued throughout the engagement process. The email correspondence can be found in Attachment G3 to Report DSD -2024-066. Phone conversations and one-on-one conv Throughout the Enabling Four Units project, the project team engaged in numerous phone conversations and one-on-one interactions with community members, addressing questions, receiving feedback, and discussing the proposed zoning changes. Residents and property owners contacted City staff through phone calls and walk-in visits to the City Hall Customer Service Center. Many inquiries were site specific with residents identifying privacy, change to neighborhood characteristics, and parking as primary concerns. Additionally, residents wanted to understand how the proposed changes would impact development opportunities on specific lots, including whether their properties were included in the project's scope. Staff responded to each inquiry, providing information and guidance to community members. They listened to residents' concerns and feedback, acknowledging the importance of incorporating community input into the project implementation process. Staff noted the specific issues residents raised and committed to considering these factors when formulating the final recommendations for the project. Many phone conversations and one-on-one interactions provided positive feedback and expressions of support for the project as many community members recognized the potential benefits of increasing housing options in Kitchener and expressed interest in the proposed zoning changes. Page 130 of 343 Advertisements in newspaper A Notice of Public Consultation was published in the Waterloo Region Record on January 5, 2024 and January 12, 2024 to inform the community about the project background and the upcoming engagement opportunities (Figure 2). NOTICE OF PUBUC CONSULTATION EnabUng Four �Unit,s The City of Kitchener is growing and more homes are needed to meet the needs of existing and future residents. In March 2023„ the City of Kitchener made a MunicipaL Housing Kedge to build an additional, 3.5,00u IhomLey 2031 A key cornponent of this pledge incluides enabling more, hiousing that wilL support gentle in,tensffir-ation in our existing low-rise residentiaL areas. Tinabling Four Units' witt explore the creation of zoning regu[atiorii5 that will permit up, to four dVwelLLiin sunlits on any Lot, that would perrNit a sirigte-detactied dwelling, :semi-detached dwelling or street fronting townhouse dweRing, subject to regutations. Visit us during one, of our public consultation events or, attend our Virtual, Community Meeting to, discuss this project, a5k questions and provide Comments. To learn more visit. www.engagewrxa/ Ena b)b,ngFourU' nits Have Your Voice Heard! Attend onie of our events: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 630- 8:00 1p,.m,. Virtual Community Meeting To connect to the virtual meeting online, go to: www.zoom,.us/join and enter mepting 1D# 868 394213268 Saturday, January 20, 202 TOO a.m. - 2:00, p.M., (drop4in anomer Kitchener Market 300 Ding Street East Tuesday, January 23,2024 3:00 - 7.= p.m. (ftp -In swims) Stanley Park Community Centre 505 FranKin Street North Wednesday, January 31, 2,024 3:00 - &-00 p.m. �droon anytime) Forest Heights Community Centre 1,700 Queen's Bolu[eva, ird Katie Ander4 Project Manager eiia�bfliigfourLiiii,ts,@kitclhene,r.ca 519341-2426 Figure 2. January 12, 2024 newspaper notice for public consultation Page 131 of 343 A notice of Statutory Public Meeting was published in the Waterloo Region Record on March 1, 2024 (Figure 3). Ti-tivmdv#Nlpl"il&a,N&Yrtli"r"-e Enabiling, Four Units 9 Ki� .1 I - Ni R� D' ate-, March 25.2024 Location: Coluinch Chambers, Kitchener It Hall 200 King, Street West OrViftual Zoom Meeting ,Go to kitchener.ca/meefings and select;: 15 Current agen�das and repar-h, 10'(JaYF, IbCfQrf- TTIflng) 0 Appear, as aAdele p viatchal mileeting To learn rnore about thiis project, i riduiding nfor-oration 011 Your i3ppeal rights, vi! it: 01wwwAtcheneirca/ 3 0 0 PlianningApplications lu,lor cordact, [,I, I ni � r,;i P .i r k,Pro beAntl erl� ject n Maager Ka J "Nu,lJ.Iunuru'r1 u_j [ a i 1 111;' e-oablingfouirunits( )kitchener,ca 519141.24216 The City of Kitchener 'will consider City-InIti,ated applications 0PA23/020/K/KA and ZlIA2 3/03 5/KA -to a miend the Official Plan aind Zoning l3plaw. These amerlidiments will pernAt up to 4 dwelling units on lots which pernilt, a inle detached dwelling serni-detached dwelling or street townhOUSP. dwelling, subject to regUlations, for lot sizes, parkin,g,, landscaping and buift forim. Figure 3. March 1, 2024 newspaper notice of public meeting Page 132 of 343 Virtual iMeeting The project team hosted a virtual community meeting on January 17 allowing participants to join remotely from the comfort of their homes or workplaces. Approximately 30 attendees participated in the virtual public meeting. Residents, property owners, developers, and other interested parties were present, demonstrating high engagement and interest in the project through their questions and comments. Agenda and Format The virtual public meeting followed a structured agenda featuring a presentation from staff to provide an overview of the Enabling Four Units project, its objectives, and how it can look in low-rise residential properties. Attendees had the opportunity to learn about the project's background, rationale, and potential impacts on the community. Split Level Single Detached Dwyelfirn Lot wWth — 17,5 im / 57,5 ft Lot depth — 35 m / 115 ft ��PIrrU�;�oi�, �� i� O J "40 iEnabltng Four Units Everywhere - Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting. Jay'+n rhlfl x /Ilia Figure 4. A screen capture of the virtual meeting showing various formats for Additional Dwelling Units Question and Answer Session A question and answer (Q&A) session was held after the presentation, allowing attendees to seek clarification, raise concerns, and ask questions. Some questions were about existing regulations related to the two units attached and the street fronting townhouse building type. Other questions were related to building style and site layout, Page 133 of 343 such as allowing up to four storeys, and side and front yard setbacks. There were also concerns about the loss of trees and green space. H - M, " to type your, questions, our comments Figure 5. A screen capture of the virtual meeting during the question and answer portion of the meeting In addition to the formal presentation and Q&A session, the meeting included an open dialogue segment where attendees were encouraged to ask questions verbally. Some of the concerns discussed included whether this project would help provide more housing solutions and if the additional dwelling unit could be sold. Lastly, there was a question about clarifying the review process. The project team helped answer those questions by explaining the current regulations and how enabling four units can provide more housing choices on more properties. Recording and Accessibility The meeting was recorded and posted on YouTube allowing community members unable to attend live to access the information at their convenience (or for participants to rewatch) with approximately 185 views to date. The recording, available through the project webpage, provided a valuable resource for community members with several members indicating that they watched the video in advance of engaging with us in- person or online. Page 134 of 343 By leveraging digital platforms and technology, staff was able to reach a broad audience, facilitate open dialogue, and gather valuable feedback from residents and other stakeholders. Public Staff hosted three open houses at various locations across Kitchener. Open House Details The open houses were held at the following times and locations: • January 20, 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Kitchener Market (300 King St. East, upper level) • January 23, 3 to 7 p.m. at Stanley Park Community Centre (505 Franklin St. North) • January 31, 3 to 6 p.m. at Forest Heights Community Centre (1700 Queen's Boulevard) Figure 6. Kitchener Market Open House Page 135 of 343 Figure 7. Stanley Park Community Centre Open House Figure 8. Forest Heights Community Centre Open House Page 136 of 343 Engagement Activities At each open house, attendees had the opportunity to explore a scaled, 3D -printed model representing different lot sizes and dwelling types including additional dwelling units (attached and detached). These models provided visual representations of how four units might function on lots in existing residential neighborhoods. In addition to the models, community members could view display boards, handouts, survey sheets and use tablets to access the project webpage and survey. The project team answered questions, listened to concerns, and discussed the benefits and considerations of enabling four units on a lot. Community Feedback In total, the open houses attracted more than 150 attendees. Many attendees expressed interest and enthusiasm for the project, particularly highlighting the benefits of enabling four units on a lot such as gentle intensification, affordability, and providing house choices. However, we also received comments and concerns from attendees, particularly regarding: • Trees and green space preservation • Parking considerations • Stormwater management (infiltration) and climate change factors • Use of units as short-term rentals • Servicing and electricity capacity • Privacy and overlook associated with the placement of units. A Summary of Open House comments is available in Attachment G4 to Report DSD - 2024 -066. Enatihng Four U*5' is exploring 1� �/;N the creation of zonun,g �J� n f regulations to allow up to four yy dwelling units on a lot where a Cl"W�p��AB,LING �l sintaledetached p1o, ^ semi-detach ed, or streefronting townhouseFOU U pIw dwelling is a permitted use. FOR KITCHENER'S LOW' -RISE RESIDENTIAL AR T is rt„ ko 1 (ho , p nad p�, WPI P.,th.Prrrd 1 wrmnr.e,plgzpmwwcau�nah�lonpfuoarpprrulds "■. DO R:VK&hmvmit T hM Il I:I 1& ^b' y Y !NMitAr� rttd. a dnV ew d Inng, pruml:lana d�1 e,m r�.dw�er p, sn�rvrm lion wn �e app � T111111;11 tr eJrl.n+ur / /"j II S II...0 M dknrxvf wl44�rvrri'vJ. v1 rn IrlMa�a ouu l?v'u vrRir. �; f our HN:nnI I IrW Figure 9. Enabling Four Units handout Page 137 of 343 A workshop targeted to the development industry was held on January 31 at Forest Heights Community Centre from 1:00 to 2:30 pm. The workshop was attended by 20 industry professionals including builders, designers, and developers and designed to gather insights and feedback on proposed zoning regulations. Workshop Structure The workshop was launched with a brief presentation providing background information on the project and its objectives. Subsequently, participants were divided into four groups for discussions regarding: • Lot Size and Area: Discussions centered around considerations for lot sizes and areas, exploring the feasibility of smaller lots and minimum dimensions. • Parking and Driveways/Parking Lots: Participants delved into parking and driveway considerations, assessing the impact of increased density on parking availability and discussing potential reductions and solutions. • Detached ADUs: This segment focused on regulations for detached Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs), exploring design considerations and regulatory requirements. • Building Design: Discussions revolved around building design elements such as height, doors, openings, setbacks, and yard projections, focusing on aligning design considerations with proposed zoning regulations. Overall, the feedback from participants was predominantly positive, with support for the project objectives and proposed zoning changes. However, several suggestions emerged from the discussions, including: • Exploring ways to further minimize the need for minor variance applications. • Increasing public awareness about the project and its implications for residential development. • Developing an online tool or resource to assist with Additional Dwelling Unit projects and streamline the application process. Summary of Open Houses and Industry Workshop Feedback can be found as Attachment G4 to Report DSD -2024 -066 - Page 138 of 343 Kitchener iCommittee The project team participated in two Kitchener Development Liaison Committee (KDLC) meetings. These meetings were a great opportunity for dialogue and collaboration with development industry professionals involved in residential development in the region. • The first meeting on January 19 presented an overview of the objectives and goals of the project and a discussion of zoning considerations that were being explored. • The second meeting on February 23 staff presented and discussed the draft zoning regulations. Consultation and Feedback Following the presentations, the project team engaged committee members in a discussion focused on high-level considerations. The committee discussed emerging trends in purchaser and homeowner preferences, including developer built duplexes in new subdivisions, challenges experienced with constructing additional units, and what might be useful to assist the development industry in implementing and supporting uptake of additional units. Committee members expressed desire for streamlined review timelines, and easy to navigate online resources and zoning tools. There was also discussion about homeowners who proposed changes to dwellings while subdivisions are under maintenance periods and when homes are under Tarion warranties, and implications of this on acceptance processes. During the second meeting, staff shared the draft regulations proposed for the project. Questions were raised regarding the feasibility of adding a detached dwelling unit when the rear yard setback is at the minimum 7.5 metres. Staff highlighted that properties meeting this criterion might be more suitable for additional units attached. Another query pertained to the lot analysis and modelling used to determine the minimum lot width and area. Staff confirmed that several mechanisms were used to complete an analysis of different lot configurations and building layout which have informed zoning recommendations. Questions were raised about capacity and servicing constraints. Building staff confirmed that servicing can be supplied from the principal existing building. Additionally, engineering and utilities will continue to monitor capacity, and advise that areas with constraints may need to be addressed as additional units are added incrementally in neighbourhoods. Lot grading and drainage considerations discussed included ensuring that infiltration galleries and side yard drainage are not impacted by proposed units or the unobstructed walkway. Page 139 of 343 Lastly, a suggestion was received to consider more rear lanes in new subdivisions to enhance the potential of these properties. Planning staff indicated that they are supportive of exploring new and creative ways of enabling additional density in new subdivisions through the subdivision design, street layout and site-specific zoning. The engagement with the Kitchener Liaison Development Committee provided valuable insights and perspectives from industry professionals. Conclusion Our commitment to comprehensive public engagement was one of our priorities throughout the Enabling Four Units project. From December 2023 to February 2024, the project team utilized various engagement methods with the goal of transparency, accessibility, and inclusivity in gathering feedback and responding to questions from both the public and the development industry. The Enabling Four Units project team's efforts to engage the community and industry stakeholders demonstrated our dedication to working with and having meaningful conversations with our community. By offering a variety of ways for people to get involved, staff were able to gather feedback that has been considered in drafting the proposed zoning changes. Looking ahead, staff is committed to keeping communication lines open throughout the implementation phase of the project. Page 140 of 343 Attac,hiirneiril G2 . Survey I:RespoinseII::: epoirt 343 Add uii" coiriiuuiw°°u ints oin Che cuu°'walll os by Ill wwr Sui,vccy 'c)i 1 JaII'Mairy 2024 to 05 III 6!xllftlaiiry 2024 Iage I of 69 Page --142 .of 343 Add uii', coiriuuiw°°u ints oin tihe :uu°'walll ose by Ill wwr Si,vvccy lk)r 71 Jal'Wairy 2024 ko 05 III 6i!xftlary 2024 55 50 45 40 35 28 30 25 20 5 111 14 51 17 Question options mk%ll I live in a neighbourhood where there are new homes with 2 to 4 units on the property or where homes are being renovated to add more units to the property 0 1 live in a house with 2 to 4 units on the property I am interested in renovating my current house to add more units r/ 1 am in the construction industry and will be designing or building these projects I am thinking about how these changes may affect my neighborhood * Other (please describe): Optional question (77 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Page --143 of 343 Illuwi��, cr1 �:°» Add youii coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin ul.lhe Il:iirgposed by Illaw ;. ui,%(cDy :c)r 21 21al'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 property. Please s1haire Iboth poslitive and inegative a peiriien a .. fid., N d;:^All a II" d ➢u 1iw,. II ;;� .N�,. i;1 For 60 years it was fine,. Respectfully mature neighbours. Give years ago the building was sold and I have spent my time dealing with bylaw for noise after 11 pm, backyard fires past shut off time in space that was two small. I was called all kinds of names. It made me want to move in a house and neighbourhood I have lived for over 60 years. d N Alli II Nu r ti II :fid iii Dfd 4.. N eAll li Janiii:;�,.: �,., ,i';� °:,j As far as I am concerned there are no real negatives. We are in a massive housing crisis. We need to encourage the development of any and all additional units. Gentle intensification is amazing! We have done it several times, and it just makes communities better! More vibrant, more liveable, more affordable. win -win-win. c N d;: All a II" ",Jam II ;; «:1�,. i;:1 1 haven't had negative experiences with living in an area with 2-4 units per property. Typically makes the neighborhood less car reliant because the area is being used for residential buildings. Increases viability of small local businesses. 1acN e�'��II a II J,:1N'rie II $2+'kiider:"d While there are not many yet in the neighbourhood, I haven't found any negative impact to the local community feeling. S4..rN e ei li " dark' e je+C:Vact('wxl Some units in area are converted at 2-3 units. Parking problems increase with onstreet parking and full use of available spots per house. Transient renters and absentee landlords reduce sense of neighbourhood and standards of property upkeep. Screen II"^dfii"iN"ne II $&;w,"dn..tc Iied I have only positive experiences with the gentle density initiatives and would like to see far more happen with far fewer restrictions S N dw eiri II" dalrini,, II ed:lcted I live in Doon and close proximity to conestoga college. There are house here with more than legally allowed numbers of tenants. That is a fact, by the way. Maybe if they did not take in as many students, there would not be this need for more housing. Many years ago, mr. tibbits was appalled that our colleges were taking students from other Page -144 .o# 343 IIIuwNi�, 3 cri 69 Add youii coiriinun°°neints ourr Che Il:uu„'olll osed by Illaw ;. ui,%(cDy :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 countries, guess money means more t amity education. ScJreeiri "U ;tllrne u="'' a led It is great. No complaints. Screen peen II" a airn"! If planned properly, additional residential occupancy on a property has minimal impact. There have been some homes in our neighborhood where it was done without the proper approvals and led to over crowding and poor living conditions. d Ireeiri I enjoy having new neighbours. There is definitely a parking issue and our street has become much busier. Other than that, It is nice to diversify our street. S n eei a II" Ja rre II ieti; a r(),°::V Need for parking has dramatically increased for our neighbourhood as current public transport system is not adequate. Our local 2 dwellings often have atleast 4 cars, 2 per dwelling which leads to cars parking on the front lawn and spilling out to the street. I support higher density living but I would also like for there to be governance requiring land owners to provide enough parking for their renters. Ideally we also increase infrastructure for public transit but I understand that will take a longer time to improve. Basic parking requirements would be good interim fix. Sc reeiri "uptu`n"'u iedr nd Iln! d There have been few negative, or even noticeable affects as a direct result of long-term rental units, however, short-term rental units are more problematic. Problems include parking issues, garbage accumulation, property maintenance, and sidewalk clearing. Screeil li "Jami:? n:Itdacl,ed Positive: more variety in the people who live in an area, community feels more active and vibrant, more people increases the demand for additional services such as transit connections, options for people to stay in community as they transition through different life stages. Negative: certain property owners do not maintain their properties to a good standard. ,i' Sc e: " uaniMost of the homes sold recently are being flipped with additional units added, it has been positive for the most part to date, but I do see some concerns starting to arise, less neighbourly feelings and transformation of quiet neighbourhood and 'knowing your neighbours", guess this is the price of a growing community, but some new focuses should be alternative, like limiting the numbers Page -145 of 343 II "uwn ire 11cri ::°»2 Add yotwu coiriinuiw°°nannts ourr ul.11lwe Il:iirq osed by Illaw ;. ui,%,cDy :c)r 21 Jau°Maui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 ari. not aving all" converte_ -� of wable in an area or street vs all as an example. .gid., a d; All 11 I,Ja mw.. II n d ..new V:i;:n':V The East Ward of Kitchener now has a large apartment building on Borden St. N. and it has completely changed that street (try dropping off or picking up your children) from Sheppard school and it forced people on East Ave. to sell their homes and now they've built over- sized units where normal, well kept houses used to be. The East Ward is not that close to the LRT and we are being adversely affected so I can only imagine what some other residential areas are experiencing -----certainly this is not a positive outcome. ScreAli n \ V ;nu'ne Ieda, ted The neighbors across the road and to my right are both single men. The neighbors to the right are part of a triplex. Two houses down is a rooming house -- friendly men, good to have them there. On the other side is a neighbor who put an addition on to there house so they could host students and other housing challenged folks. All good experiences. We are a relatively healthy mixed community.... at least from my perspective. " c u n °All li "VaIrnni jug+:,, a to and There isn't a lot of positive. If I look out my bedroom window next door see 4 shopping carts from Zehrs in various places on the driveway/front yard. Across the street there are no front yards, only parking. It lowers the value of every other house on the street, because obviously these all become rentals, with absent landlords, and the tenants often don't look after their properties. & u d SSI' II a II V nll'n`1u II �u ;V a � n:d In general, our neighbourhood has mostly properties that are single family, with some renovated to have a second basement unit. In the recent past, we have seen some renovations that add additional units. Overall, some light densification is positive given the housing challenges in Kitchener and within Canada overall. However, this type of densification should be done carefully to have minimum impact to the character of the neighbourhood. d a d All li V :!:' rn'ne We recently moved from being adjacent to multiple properties with 2- 4 units on single detached home properties or low rise multi residential. While certain properties could have been better maintained, the housing form was positive, added more diverse demographics to the neighbourhood, and contributed to having more residents able to access downtown amenities, transit, and other key services. I strongly support their inclusion across the city and fewer restrictions should be placed on housing density to reduce pressure Page --146 of 343 Il�uwni�, d cri 69 Add youii coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin ul.11lwe Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. ui,%(cDy :c)r 21 Jal'Wairy 2024 ko 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 on the owntown area an su ur an eve opments. ScJreeiri I,Jairne ju=g'' a ted A few single family homes are being converted to duplexes without changing the exterior template. That is fine as long as there is adequate parking. Scue�Dlll �ie,�°Ja..ted There are more people outside and using community resources, which make them more inviting. Negative experiences stem from lack of pest and garbage control, extra turn -over in the community, and parking conflicts. S re ^IIS L ;tu'1f e Iedacted Within the past 2 years the wartime single-family homes on either side of my single-family house on Queen's Blvd. have been demolished and multi -unit buildings have been, or are being erected. A 4 -unit building at 1080-1082 Queen's Blvd. has been completed for just over a year and has tenants in all units; it was constructed by a long-established K -W builder whose design and footprint harmonizes well with the block. A 3 -unit development on the other side of my property at 1092 Queen's Blvd. is still under construction by first-time developers due to delays caused by Ministry of Labour violations and other issues. The 1092 development has caused multiple incidents of damage and/or disruption to my property and apparent changes in design have resulted in a higher building that comes much closer to my property line than was originally told to me; the height of the building will partially block my solar collector array and reduce my income from it. In principle, I am in support of mindful and appropriate urban infill construction, in order to reduce spread onto agricultural land and to keep city residents close enough to services and amenities. But I also feel that builders should be more considerate of their existing neighbours and to build at quality standards that are sustainable over a generation or two rather than trying to make fast profits out of our housing shortage. I will continue to live in my single- family dwelling, where I've lived since 1974 but there has been more negative than positive outcomes during the construction period and I won't know for sure how much impact these projects will have on me until all the construction is completed. "_,r„IIe:)i li "uall're II jed„.,t.cIu; d I live in an older neighbourhood with many modest single-family and semi-detached homes - the kind of places young people used to buy as starter homes or lived in for decades while they raised their children then aged in place before downsizing or passing away. Over the past few years, however, many of these houses have been bought by investors and turned into duplexes for rent. On the surface, this seems great. People need to live somewhere and this increases Iage 6 of 69 Page -147 of 343 Add youii coiriilun°°hints ouim wll.11lwe Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III :wMlll:orwuairy 2024 housing, right": inreality thisas cue neighb_o_rhoo and not necessarily for the better. While some landlords and tenants are conscientious, generally you can tell which addresses are owned by absentee landlords looking to maximize profits and keep costs low. Some places are now housing for foreign students who come and go. Property standards have declined and I don't see the city doing much to address this. I don't necessarily blame the tenants as it is not their responsibility to mow lawns, clear snow, maintain structures, etc. They are not the owner. I fear the drive to add ever more units on existing lots will only worsen this situation,. I believe this initiative really does nothing to address the root causes of the housing crisis. In an environment with no rent controls, where only the rich can afford to buy and renovate houses to turn into multi -unit rentals, how will this help build affordable housing and livable communities? How will more one -bedroom units and studios in basements and garages help families with children? The number of housing units might increase, but so will the greed of speculators who have the most to gain from this. In the virtual neighbourhood meeting someone asked if the 4 unit initiative would have a pilot project and the answer was no. I also noted a slide in the presentation that showed the very small percentage of lots in the city that currently have 2 or 3 housing units on them. Shouldn't you consider encouraging growth of 2 units first and examining the impact of this before jumping to allowing 4 units on lots that were never designed for that type of housing density? Maybe we need to start asking why we always need to be striving for growth in this city (or on this planet) when we don't have the social and environmental infrastructure to sustain it. Maybe we need to be slowing things down, not accelerating, at least in the short to medium term until we can, hopefully, achieve some balance. I have to say I am tired of having my concerns labelled as selfish NIMBYism. Worse yet, anti -immigrant. I am against unsustainable growth and the commodification of housing in this country. I feel like the city is only listening to some interested parties in this, like self-serving developers and naive social activists. You are focused on zoning and number of units and more, more, more as fast as possible. You talk about the "missing middle" like you have found a magic bullet to a very complex problem. Also, I work hard to keep and maintain the home I own and the quality of life I enjoy on my property in a community I care about. I won't apologise for worrying about my property value if my neighbour (an absentee landlord) decides to build a monster home on the other side of my fence. My opinion also matters. Many others share it. Optional question (24 response(s), 56 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Iage "7 of 69 Page -148 of 343 Add youii coiriilui:°°neints ouim the Il:uu°'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 Tau°Maui°y 2024 to 05 III :wMlll:orwuairy 2024 Q3 'Telill us albout your experience Illiving in a home with 2 -to 4 units on the property. Please s1haire both positive and inegative experiences. d. N d: ell ii " u ➢u"n"1e II u;:m�';� : clirl � blah S atl,`�:)i a iu1dacl, o-; d We share the basement of our bungalow and are thankful we can share the space and the bills! S u: eII"n II L"1u'ne II Ied::Jcled Done properly it's a positive experience. The property owner gets cashflow and underutilized spaces serve a purpose in the neighborhood. c eeii a II" U an ,iiu.m II yu.mda ti::?'::j Unfortunately I live on a busy road (Frederick) but otherwise I really enjoy the Central Frederick neighbourhood, especially living so close to many amenities. Sc a d; dii`u II" urrairne II ed.ic lu;:ld It's a much better use of land and ensures there are more rental units available in my neighbourhood. It can also help people afford their own homes if there are additional units whose rent can help offset mortgage costs and taxes. la�..�u4.`�C�II'u II"'au'�"1i .1 II $u +';:;� n�..Iur: I own and live in a triplex so have people above and below me. This has been a positive experience for the past two decades, especially during Covid when we spent a lot more time in our backyard as a community. Optional question (6 response(s), 74 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Iage 8 of 69 Page -149 .of 343 Add youii coiriilun°°feints ouim ul.11lwe Il:uu„'ollposed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III :wMlll:orwuairy 2024 In your olpfinlion, what do we irneed t0 consider iiirn zonfing -to betteir enable lle devell pmeirnt of Additional Dwelling Units ( IAV ) od., a d;"All a II" I ➢u 1iw,. II ;;I":1�,. u;1 Parking and landscaping requirements. Scre, :i)ll a iedac,, o -;J The reason we scrapped our plan to build an ADU at 604 Guelph St was the absolutely ridiculous requirements for set -backs AND the requirements for additional walk -ways in addition to the driveway space i.e. driveway cannot be used as a walkway. We felt we were entirely up against a brick wall, so decided it wasn't worth the hassle/expense/time. No one in the planning/building department seemed willing to think critically/actually work with us to find a good solution forwards. Such a frustrating process! Our property is MASSIVE half an acre so is a prime candidate for extra units.. and yet... nope. enc iieei ii "I 'l'iu'rue Streamline the process. I've tried to build an Adu around 2021/2022 - there is way too much bureaucracy in the process. The current approach is not solution orientated. The process is laden with irrelevant property criteria when the goal is to build housing Units. The government needs to get out of the way and let developers do what is economically viable Optional question (3 response(s), 77 skipped) Question type: Essay Question 5 In your o1plinion, should properties with 2 -to 4 unfits Ibe required -to Ihave Ip irlkiing by or w1hy not? Sci eei a "Jaime II Io-rdaac ued Parking should be required unless the property is very close to a main transit point, something like less than a 5 minute walk to a transit stop with a service frequency of 30 minutes or less. Street parking is not preferred since streets are public goods and should not be the default option for temporarily storing, i.e. parking, private vehicles. "oc a eAll a II" I"'SII"rue II &;Ja,c I;ed Yes. Most people have cars in subdivisions. No if near transit Iage 9 of 69 Page -15©.6f 343 Add youii coiriiuuiw°°uein s oin Che Il:iirolll osed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 2laIlUairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 ,�cr ^All li U" �u`ria Il i "tin a The occupants simply park on the street if parking is not provided with the unit ... with cars constantly on the street it impedes garbage pickup, snow clearing etc. "_ cu eAll a II" a a8lrnie II i&Jact J Absolutely. Intensifying the number of families on a street means an increase in the number of cars. Some families can have 2+ cars per family and that doesn't even take visitors into consideration. They can't all park on the street and doing so would negatively affect the existing residents. Where would these units park during a snow event? How do you ensure you're keeping roads and sidewalks safe for existing residents? Even 4 couples living in 4 units could mean an extra 8 vehicles with all the extra journeys they would bring. ,' c II ee In II" J ": rrii i.,! blah Sdw 11 eeIIrII I,Jan,iirr dac tii�A Dfg IIeAll li "aaIr i:D II Ieda.ctu, (J Yes. People need accommodation and is affordable. ""¢ aeeinII" arniia Not required. Some people are willing to forego a parking space for lower rent and this should be accommodated. We have lots of transportation options available outside of owning a car. S Il eeII a II L' ?dune II 32,':::td.urd No parking required; takes a lot of space and there's no reason to require it if someone doesn't want it Sci ;All a " aIlrf° e Ieti„Vn.ucted Yes, and parking should be planned such that properties do not become fully paved with parking lots. We need to give consideration to neighbours who do not want renters in homes surrounding them. fid,. II eei a II" ualllne II ed" uUl.ed Maybe not for 2 units but any more should require 1 parking spot per unit S r e ell a II" ua rrie! If properties are within a 5-10 minute walk of a Light Rail Station, or similarly -critical transit option (which GRT buses may not be), they should not, or landlords should need to provide a realistic, alternate parking plan. If properties are farther away than this, occupants most - likely require* motorized vehicles to get to work, get groceries, drop Page -151 .o# 343 II"va,ir� 1�n gal � Add youii coiriiuuiw°°ueinto oin t.11lwe Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 Jal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 off at schools or daycare, etc. Those vehicles would need to be stored somewhere, and if not in the driveways (or parking lots), of the properties, they will be parked on the streetside, at the ends of cul- de-sacs, or in other areas that frustrate other residents. I think this could generate more pushback for the *perceived* challenges it poses, from residents who have concerns already. *: it could be argued that bicycle or e -bike transportation is a viable alternative to owning a car, but as a 4 -seasons cyclist, I do not believe that this is currently true or feasible for any areas beyond the catchment areas of the Iron Horse and Spurline trails. One additional candidate would be the Homer Watson Multi -Use trail, but from my understanding it's not sufficiently connected to the downtown core or enough other places of work. Scu eell a III,Jarne II et':V" t, tt:NJ ***Clarification to my submission from 12:50pm, Wed Jan 24th **** saw in my response that I'd written that "if properties are within 5-10 mins, they should not require parking, or the landlord provides a viable alternative..." The landlord -provided alternative was meant to apply to properties that SHOULD require parking, not ones that should not. ca dw ell a II" utatll w II :"„1,., Vii;,, °.:;p Absolutely not. Many folks don't have a car, particularly those on transit lines/in more walk-able/bike-able areas. The parking requirement is 100% old-fashioned and is purely to appease NIMBY- ers who don't want cars parked on the street. Rely on appropriate street parking by-laws and move on. We don't want to encourage car - centric living. St.. II eeIl li L'tu't'ie II r ech::,tcted No. Let the owner/developer decide parking requirements. Mandating parking is short sighted and counter productive of what intensification beings to a community. ro4.,ll eell II U°i'�u il, i;t°.:..V".t�,..V:u t;:) In areas close to frequent transit I think this should be optional, otherwise I believe spot per unit should be required. Those required spots should be designed with an available EV charging port if the intent of the ADU is to be rented. t.,u4.`�"i 11 li untll't'1i ziw:n.�. �u: t':� yes-- in a non -walkable area car is essential a reelin II" Nifl,ne, Yes and no. There should be some parking options available for these types of residences, whether that's on site, or on street. However, don't feel every unit needs parking. We should transition to less Page -152 .of 343 IlIva,ir" I 1 gal � Add youii coiriinuiw°°neints ourr Ulwe Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir F :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 parking as a model for development with strong public transit and walkable neighbourhoods. But we also need to recognize some people in these unit will need to travel to location not easily accessible by foot or transit (or bicycle). So, therefore, some parking, but not parking to cover all units is a good balance I think. S a eeii a II" d tir'�""ue II Iu, ,°;fid„ �„tu;,�d It is OK to park on city streets for unlimited time in residential areas (except in snow emergencies which could be done on the odd numbered side of streets followed by even numbered side of streets d u d Ani Il d«:�u`lriti II iu'"il°;ddtd NO. The tax revenue from these units should go towards our public transportation, bike and pedestrian infrastructure. We NEED to encourage less car dependency and having less parking is a way to force this. c eei a II" d :'tn ,iiia II yn.mda V:n: d Parking requirements should match those of other dwellings in the neighbourhoods. Dwellings in suburban areas will require parking to be functional for the tenants, whereas downtown dwellings may not. c a dw yn a II" d anmw, II :«.1,.u; ".:;p Yes and no. It's a tough balance, because if the tenants do not drive/do not have cars there is wasted space if there is a minimum parking requirement. Conversely, if there is little to no minimum parking requirement but all the tenants have cars, there may be impacts on the surrounding streets. I like the option of not having parking minimums so more homes/properties can be easily retrofitted without the potential barrier of providing parking, but then this might mean more leniency with on -street parking by-laws, may need to establish more street permits throughout the city. Sc eei li 1,Jamia .(i:::?dac,led yes. Otherwise we will end up with vehicles parked on front lawns, boulevards and sidewalks more than they do now. d u d Au a II" d lug"'1iw m II (nwm `:;dd.cV:uw °:) Yes . Adequate parking is essential at 1 car per sleeping unit. Currently a detached home usually has up to 2 parking spots per house to a max. of 4 for a double car driveway at double depth. Additional occupancy rentals means additional car(s) parked on the street not withstanding seasonal parking restrictions/ bad weather restrictions. cmc r ei n IlJ,:vn,Eni Yes, I think parking in a must. My concern is the front yards are being used as a parking lot. So much for drainage. I thought there was a Page -153 .of 343 IlIva,ir� 12 gal � Add youii coi iiun°°ieinwlls ourr wll.11lwe Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxirwuairy 2024 bylaw Fbddfdfid ow muc property can e parked? FTit h -tthis will make neighbour hoods look like trash city! ;.gid., i d;; All li I,Jamw., II i d"..i'cVa;:I':V There should be no parking minimums for adding more units to an existing property. Parking minimums artificially subsidize parking spaces and driving since they represent a floor on the available space for cars. Housing is the least free of all markets and we need to stop artificially distorting it as much as we can. One of the best ways to do that is to stop having parking minimums. Making housing available that doesn't automatically come with parking is a great way to offer lower price tiers of housing. Not everyone needs or wants to drive and should be able to acquire housing that doesn't have parking so they can maximize the savings of going car free. Those who choose to drive should pay more for housing that has parking associated. If people building additional units want to include parking because they think it will attract higher rents they should be free to do so. If people want to skip some or all parking to get a 4th unit in instead of 3 they should be free to do that. The city should not impose a minimum the forces everyone to make the same choice. s i d yid II" V:!';'rirm'�ti II iu: °,;rr�� Vi: ;:;V Absolutely. Street parking, particularity in subdivisions, is already a serious problem. The crowded streets are dangerous. p,creAll i ed acted I don't think they should be required to have parking, because that further encourages car -dependent urban development. The city should think about what infrastructure changes are needed to reduce car -dependency (think walkable cities), and commit to supporting and investing in such infrastructure in neighborhoods most likely to be impacted by the 4 -units project. The landlord can consider parking, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Sc eei li "Vau"n"1ii.? i:I dacl,ed Absolutely, look at green valley drive, even in the winter when parking is not allowed. Stiil and over flow of vehicles, why is that? Why not tow them so they get the message. "ad a d Aii i II" V:!';'i'~i'n They should not be permitted in existing neighbourhoods. If they were then each until should have parking. The streets are narrow and residents should not be further impacted by having multiple vehicles parked on the streets. Sc i eAll i II" V":ii"rie II:3e;)a.d.,te d Yes parking is required. We are not yet with technology that will change this requirement. Page --1 .of 343 IlIva,ir" 13 gal � Add yotiii coiriinun°°neints ourr the Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 Sc II eei li "UaIIme (uwtdac led I think that such requirements should exist, if anywhere, only where the area is not well -served by the transit or active transportation network and where staff believe excessive amounts of on -street parking are likely to result. If in doubt, it should be left to the property owner to determine whether including parking on their property is necessary to attract a tenant or otherwise make the additional unit useful. r. Il e. : n u II" u��u'ne II n��+;:;U .,n�.,„�u r:� Yes, Waterloo Region does not score high on walkability and transit can be very inconvenient outside of a few core areas (and I say this as someone who exclusively takes transit and walks). Many people need to drive to their places of work, appointments, etc. Also, the city of Kitchener does not allow street parking during the winter, so if someone was living in a unit without parking and had a car - what would be their options? Every unit should have at least one parking spot required. enc n eei a II” a ';'iu'r i) II I i. ,°:"bn tc ted No. If people require parking, they will simply choose a rental unit that offers parking. Parking adds a cost to the construction of units, and often looks terrible (esp. when there is more of it). The City and Region have long-term plans for a more sustainable city, and it seems that parking minimums are at odds with these plans. c eeii"n "up,Hnei No, parking is a luxury. However, there needs to be enforcement on the number of vehicles parked and where they are parked. Having multiple units on a property isn't the only reason for excessive vehicles, I live next door to a single detached where one person lives and he has 5 vehicles parked on his property. Bylaws restricting parking are what is required, a person renting a unit without parking should know that going in and plan to use public transit/other means. Sci eei a II" U irne II (edn uc ted Yes. If parking is not required, streets will become unsafe because of vehicles parked on streets, etc. In addition, only streets with sidewalks on both sides should be considered for 4 units to keep pedestrians safe. d u d An`u II" uan`lf'lti II ;:;�p1u: °.:;p Definitely not. First off, parking minimums are something we should be moving away from, they increase the cost of homes that might not need them and fly in the face of the city and region's plans for more walkable communities. Most importantly, for 2-4 unit infill, parking minimums (when combined with existing regulations like setbacks) will just end up disqualifying many properties that would have been a Page -155 .of 343 Il1va,ir� 1 11gal � Add yotwu coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin Ulwe Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 Jal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 great fit. ff adcing un�ot requires a ding parking, an t ere s no economical way to add both units and parking without running afoul of other bylaws, then these additional units won't get built at all. "_, 4 eels a "d a8lrnie I ai;,,,dn,Act l That is a tricky question. If there is insufficient parking, the street gets crowded with cars. But Greater restrictions on street parking will be a problem for everyone. Ideally, people will take transit or walk more. But I have a car and my own parking. That is a huge privilege. S a eell a yes but minimal ' cII ee Il a Jaralp Iu'„,edac d. is d Depends how close they are to transit routes. Closer they are to Transit, the less a parking space is required. S II eellrll "daIn,iiii.r II iii�r dac Vti�A I don't believe that there is a "one size fits all" answer to this question, since the number of parking spots is dictated by lot size, road access &amp; traffic implications, site drainage, damage to the tree canopy required to meet parking requirements, and easements &amp; utilities access / piping. "c N eels li ed": cted if they do there needs to be ample driveway space for winter parking S�..�u4.`�C�II'u II"d"'au'�"1 i. II $i +';:;d II�.,�u:r:d Yes. I live on a street with narrower lots and the road is always full of parked cars which in my opinion is a safety issue. Not have parking on the lots with multiple units would increase the amount of street parking. Sci ;ell a "dairf° e Ieti° Vn..ucfed Yes absolutely! Most of the 2 dwellings in our area have at least 4 cars some of them 5 cars which causes renters parking on the front lawn as well as cars spilling out into the streets. Need for parking has dramatically increased I our neighbourhood as current public transport system is not adequate. I support higher density living but I would also like for there to be governance requiring land owners to provide enough parking for their renters. Ideally we also increase infrastructure for public transit but I understand that will take a longer time to improve. Basic parking requirements would be good interim fix. c a eell a II" d"'l:ll'rue II $u:„udad,.;d.u::ut':"d YES. We are already dealing with cars parked on boulevards on the Page --1 .of 343 II"va,ir" 15 l ga� Add yotiii coiriilun°°hints ourr wll.11lwe Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r y"t Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 on the grass &,J eAll ii I,Jairne &'Jn.,t.c led Yes I think these building need to require parking otherwise the neighbours will be affected by cars parked on lawns, partially in front of their driveway which is happening all too often now. I think it should be up to the owner and how close the property is to bus stops/transit, and of course the layout that best maximizes the land to keep it functional and fitting in with the neighborhood ',"wc eAii a II kIIu'rue Parking must be included, we cannot become another GTA , Mississauga on street parking twenty four seven. Including commercial trucks Sci eei a II" Ja rrue II load ac Iu-pd Yes to having off street parking. Otherwise, road become congested with parked cars. d ii d yii II" u:!';'rirm'�w II iu: °:,rr�� pu: ;:� No requirement. If the lot can support some parking, then that can be the homeowner/developer's prerogative to add or not. Otherwise, requiring parking can be the difference between a lot being able to support additional units or not. Parking takes up SO MUCH surface area on lots. It's unlikely many lots in Kitchener can support 1:1 parking ratio, stormwater requirements, landscaping, and maybe a tree plus setbacks. I also think, if you require parking, it's going to push people to only consider adding more units if it's new development. This should be also be encouraging to folks who don't/can't afford to tear down, but work with the existing building they've got! Additions, ADUs, etc. This is a no brainer to me. Remove parking requirements. Sci dwell a II" Jairnu ` II Iuw`ti' Iln..u.cted Depends on location and proximity to public transit. Parking should be available in residential neighbourhoods. Lang Cres is a good example of large lots that could accommodate increasing the number of units/dwellings. There are no sidewalks on Lang Cres. Adding more cars to street parking would make walking there more dangerous and more difficult for snow removal. �S N eAll ii " uall"riti,. II acted rd Yes, particularly in suburban areas where cars are, and will continue to be, the primary means of transportation. Page -157 .of 343 IlIva,ir� 16 gal � Add youii coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin Che Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 2lal'Mairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 Scr ^All li Uau`r ia Il i da led I would really prefer to not require parking, but that might just push parking out onto the street. I'd really like to see more investment in public transit and the walkability/bikeability of neighbourhoods, so that it's more viable to not need a car. In that kind of neighbourhood, I'd definitely like to do away with requiring parking. S u d Alli "u Ali, iii:3! Yes, because even though the ministry wants to "go green" this municipalities transit is not great, everyone knows if you live here you need a vehicle to get anywhere timely. a..11 eeII a II Lau'ne II ied::icted Properties with 2-4 units should not be required to have parking for each unit if they are on a transit line (bus or ION). A unit without parking would need to be marketed as such, and would be at a disadvantage. Forcing a requirement for parking spaces which may not be used is adding an additional layer of complexity and reducing space which could be utilized for dwelling or green space on a lot. enc II eei a II" U ';' u'�°u r);:J tc ted Yes parking should be a definite requirement for any conversion of property use, one space minimum per unit for additional units added. On street parking always generates complaints and abuse, the reality of expecting those to 'reduce' their car use is not always achievable. Our area is rapidly growing and access is a primary generator of new residents here, if we had all amenities and work places walkable distance this may change but not realistic. With Ontario such a large province, to get anywhere you need to literally drive there out of town, so the focus should not always be 'public transit, walking and cycling' there is more than just local in this world. S4..II4..^eirii I,Jwne I ",'::V"..tcu2"d ABSOLUTELY!!!! Sci dwell a "UaIirn ` I eti' Ia.cted No they shouldn't. In my triplex, over the years there have been times that I am the only one with a vehicle -- the other two units ride bicycles. I put up a secure bike shed so they could store their bicycles. I have had tenant applicants who have requested for two parking spaces which I have refused because I don't have the parking space. We need to encourage more reliance on public transit, walking and bicycling. Screeiin II" aali,n Yes, because parking on the street creates hazards for children. I am on Huber Street and it seems to be used as a high speed short cut. Page -158 .of 343 IlIva,lr" 17 gal � Add youii coiriiuuiw°°uaints oin wll.ie Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 2laIlUairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 Sc � ^All a II" U" �u`rir) n Iu No because lots of people can't afford a car - requiring parking increases costs but may not benefit them. We do need good parking enforcement so that streets don't become difficult to navigate due to illegally parked vehicles dw 11 dw ylr1i II" a tlrtt'�e II iu ��°: : �, �r:�d Yes. Likely renters will work across the region or beyond and public transit is not meeting that need. But I would not make it a deal breaker. S aeei a II Jau`1r'tie-111 Yes! It is already challenging during the winter months to drive down streets that are full of parked vehicles. It becomes a safety issue for pedestrians and for the ability of plows to do a proper job. It clogs up streets for EMS and Fire. They can barely get down our street where there is a group home that often has staff parked on the street. Plows and garbage trucks have had to back out of our street. gid, II eAll II I,Jaime II edz:ick)d Depends on distance to local transit. However, one parking spot per unit - on average, should be adequate. "curt:!'.^II a II" a ;tern i iD� k ac tu and Yes, so the streets won't be full of parked cars S a u ein II" Jaime Yes, parking should be available for all units. In addition, street parking should be carefully monitored and enforced by bylaw officers. Street parking should not be considered a permanent parking solution for rental units. Street parking should never be allowed overnight in the winter. ScII eei a II" darn e II eti':V"ai,,. t d No, parking should be provided at market rates. Tenants who do not use it shouldn't be forced to pay 500$/mo for it, which is what is currently happening. i4wll dtwAllll Uii,i�811""ui� $uw�':;p".u�. V:�i,a�;;:V No, there are many residents who do not need to make use of a car. The city and region have invested in improving active transport and transit and should encourage densification in neighbourhoods located near employment and amenities. Concerns raised about street parking can be addressed through better street design and enforcement. Our household of 4 has a single car and uses a -bikes and transit to fill as many trips as possible. This can be the case for others. An excess of parking would actually make me less interested in 2-4 unit housing, as I would prefer properties with room for natural yards or simply more housing space. Page -159 .of 343 IlIva,ir� 18 gal � Add youii coiriilun°°hints ourr wll. ie Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. ui'%Mc yF :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 S a eei ii Uci1 u'ni Vii. °: rr � u4 ,,::� Yes they should be required to have parking. In the winter when there is a snow event where would these cars be parked if the properties did not have parking. The street is for guests to park not people living in properties. The streets would be too crowded if parking was not mandatory. cr e Aii a II" a ii`r Absolutely, their should be at least one space per residential unit. In the suburbs, public transportation is not enough, one needs a car. Mostly, everyone needs a car in Canada. Distances too great and general lack of public transportation. Need for parking is a major issue in itself which city development planners are totally ignoring. Developers love city staff, they save at least $60,000 per space which goes directly into their pockets. S ii d ei a II" Ja rrue II ju:rd ac iu-pd Parking should not be required, IF transit options can be sufficient to meet demand. w� a d yii II" u:!';'rirm'�w II iu: °:,rr�� pu::;� In my view, the requirement for properties with 2 to 4 units to have parking is unnecessary and could be reconsidered. This opinion is based on two primary reasons. First and foremost, there seems to be no justifiable reason for imposing such a requirement, especially when considering the existence of other regulations such as minimum lot size, walkway requirements, and maximum lot coverages. These existing measures already address concerns related to space, accessibility, and overall lot usage. Secondly, the current parking requirement has led to the need for numerous minor variances. This suggests that the regulation imposes an unnecessary burden, particularly on smaller lots in downtown areas where the development of properties with 2 to 4 units is often desirable. The variances indicate that the existing parking requirement may not align with the practicalities and needs of these specific locations. Therefore, I believe it would be beneficial to reevaluate the necessity of mandating parking for properties with 2 to 4 units, considering the redundancy of the current provision and its potential hindrance to desirable developments, especially in smaller lots near downtown areas. "�c e ell a II" uarriii II +;:��.,u"bil d They should either have no parking space required, or parking for up to half the units, especially when these properties are located within easy reach of public transit, street parking or city lots. Page -160 .of 343 IlIva,ir� 19 gal � Add youii coiriilui:°°lein s ourr wll.11lwe Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r y"t Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III :wMlll:orwuairy 2024 Sc eei ii dau`ria u dw,led Yes, the properties should have to prove that they have enough driveway space for parking for each unit. Because if not, there will be a huge influx of people parking on the streets in these neighborhoods. This is concerning because increased street parking creates difficulty with clearing snow, and increases danger for bikers and pedestrians. It decreases visibility for drivers which could result in bikers and pedestrians getting hit. cr e yii a II" a ii`r Only two unit properties should have parking and that parking should be limited in size. Aren't we supposed to be promoting public transit use and active transportation? I see even single unit properties expanding driveways (legally and otherwise) to accommodate more and larger vehicles - everyone who can drive has a car, SUV and/or truck, plus maybe a trailer, camper or boat. The more units are added to a property, the more potential vehicle users are being added. Too many streets are beginning to look like parking lots as it is. It's especially bad when street parking is allowed. People park their vehicles on the road (legally and otherwise) while the driveways are empty. Optional question (74 response(s), 6 skipped) Question type: Essay Question 6 What opportunities and beine-fits do you see as im ire properties iinclude upto 4 units in our community? Sc tlu.`�'��II a i" n-iiiy 3ydaclier:"d It is critically important to challenge the need for or inevitability of continual growth. Gentle intensification of residential areas has to be preferred over intensive, i.e. high-rise, developments or low-density sprawl that destroys essential and irreplaceable farmland and natural areas. It may also be a way of keeping at least some of the rental housing stock out of the hands of greedy real estate trusts. S II eei ii I,Jarre a.r. find None whatsoever. Kitchener is turning into no plan of where larger homes are going to go. You can't just change an existing neighborhood with no consideration to the existing neighbours who are tax payers. Maybe we are as big as we are supposed to be. People that live in Owen sound have had almost no growth and very little good farm land ScNeeia II" d":III"t"'ue Il 3e"';)a.d, ted More intense neighbourhoods resulting in additional retail and more "eyes on the street" resulting in a safer community. Page -161 .o# 343 IlIva,ir� yin gal � Add youii an.oiriii'uuiw°°Ileums oin wll. ie Il:iirq osed by IIlaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 21al'Wairy 2024 to 05l awM !l Irwuairy 2024 w4„ II eei II I,Jaime VV,wmtl"„;da..w!c letl°,.d "_cNeeia II"VaIrnie Il ai';Vactezl a"4 NeAIIII da,IC`,ii: Ili &Ilreein II"hNN`n Il iu i';;V Dd a r,:d I don't think it's beneficial at all blah M Community housing S4. i eein " VaN`n"'11ir Ie^,°,::Vai,. V,i';r^(J Homes are expensive. This can help spread the cost. Aging parents can have a place to stay close to family. Helps add density without sprawl. mac II eei II V ';'iN'ni::) II I,i. da tc tu-"d More housing for people wdw N dw All 1 dell"tt"tw,. II ':;Va:1 Vii;,, °.:;V Very few, honestly. We already allow ADUs in most properties; believe increasing to 4 per property is a mistake. Properties will become poorly managed and maintained and will become all parking and hardscape. I do not support 4 per property. S¢.,Nee'll II I,Jwne II 32'da..tylu' r:"d 1. Reduced costs of rent &amp; housing prices via increased supply of rental units, and increased income opportunities for current or aspiring homeowners 2. Increased densification, and reduced growth of suburban sprawl, which can (ideally): -- reduce the City's long-term cost per resident for utilities and infrastructure -- allow more people and families to live their lives while relying on 1 (or ideally zero!) cars -- keep more viable farmland in Waterloo Region, which is not simply a Subdivision -in -Waiting d N r All a II" V:!';'rll''t ja;,"dac Il:&!J More affordability, multi -generational living, supportive living for family with disabilities, seniors being able to stay in their homes/stay with family (out of retirement homes), more options for consumers, more vibrant communities, gentle intensification, getting away from urban sprawl. Honestly the list is never ending... SclreAll a II V,;tN''tti" II VaNr Vi.,; A more diverse group of inhabitants. Page -162 .of 343 II"va,ir� 1 gal � Add yotiii coiriinun°°hints ourr wll.11lwo Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;.ti. iwr ,)y :c)r 21 Tau°Waul°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlalry 2024 "mac a eei a II" dna'�u'nia °:, rr � Vu ,,::� Creating more middle density areas will improve use of existing municipal services, and obviously create more housing. Transit and active transportation will be used more in denser areas and therefore hopefully regional transit and active transportation will improve (with regards to frequency and infrastructure) as more usage increases. cr eAll a " uaIr"n"'ue wealth transfer, get rich quick schemes I would imagine local small business would benefit from more residents in proximity. There would also be less demand on expanding out so we can preserve the excellent farm lands in the region as well as natural spaces. Could also benefit schools if more families could live closer to schools and less buses are needed. Could also provide opportunities to include affordable rental housing, and disperse renters around the city rather than concentrating them in specific areas. One note, I think of older neighbourhoods in the city (think Central Frederick, Auditorium, etc), where small apartment complexes are a common sight mixed into quite back streets without any disruption or concerns. So I don't see how these 2-4 unites being proposed would significantly different, while offering more density to our growing city. d„u :^An a II” d"'nu'�"'u wo-,:^+';:�t�,.: t`:d Provide much needed housing. Provide housing for increased population growth. save farm land Sc II eeII`u Il L!:au'"n'ie II Iegid".acted More available housing, no sprawl, better usage of existing infrastructure Sci dwell a II" d"alirn ` II Iuw`ti' Iln..u.cted Increased density leading to lower housing costs and more sustainable development. d a r An n II" dt'rll'�'nu ;,d„� Ilo- Diversity/range of housing types. Able to house more people and potentially lower rent because of increased supply. More people get to live in low-rise neighbourhoods or wherever they want, as opposed to the only option being dense, high-rise areas . ScreAll a II” d":III"rue Il 3e+';Ja.d,.te d great for investors and speculators not good for resident owners Page -163 .of 343 IlIva,ir" 2 gal � Add youii coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin Ulwe Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir ')y :c)r 21 2lal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 Sc II eAll II ',Jaime II j(imdac t(iA 3 units is detrimentel to housing in my area but 4 units would be CATASTROPHIC in areas of detached homes. Single high value housing areasdon't seem to be underattack as other neighbourhoods. Sew N eei a II',Jaime II u:m�°;;��.tcli;:)d I really do not not see any opportunities or benefits to putting up to 4 units on a property. I can not believe that the city is allowing this, is our drainage going to be affected, how will our sewers handle from a single family dwelling to a 4 unit dwelling? a II eei a Il J,tu'ne There is a huge opportunity to add infill density without radically altering neighbourhoods and 4 units per lot is a great way to do that. We do need to be far more flexible with the height and setback requirements than the existing 3 unit requirements. I looked into building an ADU with an architecture firm and the size limits made it basically impossible. The resulting unit would be so small that no one would want to live in it. My lot should be perfect for an ADU. I live on a busy street (Lancaster) within 20m of a bus stop. My backyard is a a blank wall of an apartment building (no windows). And yet the current rules are so restrictive it makes no sense for me to invest in an additional unit. Setbacks need to be flexible and allowed to smaller with various methods to increase fire resistance. Building heights need to allow for actual practical living units, not 320 sq ft prison cells. Variances to adapt to the specific lot and situation need to switch from needing to prove the case to being permitted by default unless someone directly affected can demonstrate a material issue. Finally only directly adjoining neighbours should be able to object to plans, with a prescribed adjudication/mediation method and standard compensation for disruption. The rules should also incorporate Transit Oriented Development, with lots near existing transit routes given more leeway on setbacks and heights. ScII eei II "Jn:,'tmii.? jiI dacl,ed This will create some housing opportunities, but it is very short- sighted and the cons far outweigh the benefits. c II d:, All 11 US'II "1i ju;:m`;;Ud,.,�,w, Vaw ': Increased financial value from the same amount of land. Potential for more affordable housing and supply reduces demand. "ac �`�':�II a II" u�`�Iin,ii: II ziw+;: n. �. �i :� The post secondary institutions can then bring in more students to increase their revenue. No jobs, no housing, but hey, they get money and that is what it is all about. Scu eAll a II1,Jarne II $u..:.^+';:Jw., ied This will benefit contractors and real estate developers and harm Page -164 .of 343 IlIva,ir� ,� gal � Add yotiii coiriilun°°lein s ourr wll.11lwo Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 communities by increasing density. Sc II eAll a II" Uall"ne II )&'Ja.c led Yes many changes will happen, financial gain for many that buy and change land use, overall for people that want to live in nice neighbourhoods with great neighbours will loose that ability S u d �liia II" a"l ire"'uw II ei,°J"tc led Including more of these units has the potential to add much-needed housing supply relatively quickly, without requiring a massive expansion of the urban boundary, street grid, or other municipal services. This increased density might also make more frequent transit service, more density of service and retail businesses, etc. viable, especially for neighborhoods near the downtown core or transit spine. These additional units are likely to, like multiple -dwelling housing in general, have less of an adverse effect on both environmental impact (e.g., CO2 emissions) and the cost of providing city services. enc ii eei a II" U i;' a"�'1i Iii:J tc ted I like the idea of neighbours and community that would come with this kind of living. Also, we need more housing and quickly! I feel like many property owners, not just developers, may be interested in turning their properties into 3-4 units. We need more smaller apartments to drive down the unattainable price of bachelor and 1 - bedroom apartments in the city. ,, a d,.!^�''liia II" u'l�ir�"'u � II wu,^+';:,) ��,., ,9 1°f';d More neighbours. I'll add that I'd like to see commercial units permitting in more locations, so that more neighbourhoods contain more amenities. �,. �'^A II" U:'�u'tt'ur',::� ii,. Vii;,*',,.� Better land use, increased ridership on transit, less urban sprawl. Increased amenities in the down town to serve increased residents. c eyu a II" U miii.r II )uD6.)cV:ed Poor urban planning by the city is being dumped on home owners so the only benefit is to the city. "mr., II e:)il ii I,Jai,re Iedn.,t.cteu!J We have so many great, walkable neighbourhoods - particularly in the core - with old 2-4 unit buildings that are now illegal to make today. This city desperately needs infill, particularly small size, missing middle stuff. Allowing for these units to be built will increase overall housing stock, lowering prices, rents, and helping to address homelessness in the region. Additionally, if we only allow MDUs in the form of condo towers, family sized units will continue to dwindle in Page -165 .of 343 IlIva,ir" 11gal � Add yotwu coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin the Il:iirq osed by lllaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 2lal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 number. That wi cfl o intint nue fo pus y am ies o�tchener entirely. Denser infill also makes for better neighbourhoods that have lower per -family infrastructure costs and a lower carbon footprint. "_, n eels a "a a8lrnie I i&Jact l More neighbours, diversity, perhaps more amenities to support the increased population, better transit service. " "cp e ei a II" uaIi,re more affordable housing and density d a d ell a II" �d':�u'�`lu II iu'" it°:fid lig d It's a much better use of land and ensures there are more rental units available in my neighbourhood. It can also help people afford their own homes if there are additional units whose rent can help offset mortgage costs and taxes. S II eellrll "UaII"n""liii.r II jiiadac tii.?d I think that the theory is that higher densification of properties will provide for more homes at (presumably?) lower or more affordable rates. While I can see this being the case for "new builds", it's not clear to me that adjusting pre-existing neighbourhoods is a wise choice for our city. c eels li eda.cted I don't see any benefits other than increasing the housing availability. Sc n ek 11 a II" Ja Ideally this will force street and public transport infrastructure to improve as there will be more traffic and higher population density. would like to see more pedestrian only or pedestrian/bike only routes in downtown kitchener. Increase in population density will hopefully bring more businesses to the area and improve economy. Increase in population density will hopefully bring more art and cultural events to the area Increase in units will hopefully broaden the range of affordable units. Especially adding units minimum wage workers can afford ($2650 pay a month for minimum wage means units should ideally be max $900 a month to be affordable) c a d elin II" u:!';'rll're edis Ili:"d Easier to have access to amenities without having to drive. c n eell a II" uaIi,rie II u,,r+;Ja.c ted none- our community was never designed for this methodology! Page -166 .of 343 II"va,irp ,� gal � Add yotwu coiriiuuiw°°uein s oin Ulwe Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. ui,%(cDy :c)r 21 2lal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 Scr ^All a II" Uau`rir) Il i da led I don't see the benefits squeezing more people in places that had often at the most five people including children. Now I am seeing new Canadians with 12 people in a house. This affects the neighbour and not for the better. Screen dw^Alln II" u�tlr'tt'�w�,. II u,,���;:;�".,�cti,�d Fewer highrises that bring it more congestion, affect bird migration and the flight path, not to mention the shadow impacts. Many old properties have huge backyards and front yards, if we allow for additional houses, with the same height on the property, it would definitely help. Maybe there should be incentives for people to build. Kind of like the first time homebuyers where u can use RRSPs for financing or something like that. '.w4, i ee IIS J": aril,., u'^^,°,: ,i,. d. is ;: These units will only lead to a more inclusive and viable city and it's neighborhood S lledllrll "Ualn,iiir) Provision of more rental properties. "_ creAll li \Jaii'ni: Iu dn.,t.c tu,md Neighbourhoods will still feel and look like neighbourhoods. Allows homeowners to have multi generational living or act as a mortgage helper. In theory it can democratize housing development. Sc eAll a II" ud'l)lr'ruti,a II wy+';: d.,t id It may, in time, reduce rental costs due to increased availability. It will also help offset ongoing purchase costs by allowing for an additional revenue stream. It is also an opportunity for older adults to age in place by developing shared accommodation with family members. S II eAll li I,Jau'1f e II Veti' a Ved I like seeing more density, particularly in existing neighbourhoods that only have single family homes. This allows more people to live in areas close to existing downtown/uptown areas instead of pushing them to newly built suburbs on the fringes of the region. S a dw AlliII" ualrnien II u, ed:l to-,wrd Increase housing without additional sprawl. Maximize our housing within existing neighborhoods and keep people living in the older areas. Increasing to 4 units will also shift the economics of renovation and building to a more realistic scenario: input cost of properties is still high, need to have more units to make the dollars make sense if Page --167 of 343 IlIva,ir� ? gal �? Add yotwu coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin the Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 21al'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 loo ing o—r —add itiohafinfifl development. Sc II eels li Jai'tt1e j&'Jaacled I think the tax base for these units should account for these enhancements and additional fees reviewed. Opportunities for community to grow in various areas rather than all in a new area or highrise DTK condos which are small and not able to accommodate families. Benefits - community can adjust and center programs enhanced for our growth and improvements to community parks/trails/neighbours day expansions to celebrate. Screeiri I,Jwne NONE!!!!!! Sc eei a II" Jau'ne II eti':Vact d I have a large back yard where I could build/install at least one ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit). If not for City permitting requirements which add dramatically to cost, I would have built one several years ago. Why does a 350 sq ft tiny home need to have R40 in the walls and R60 in the ceiling and be built to the same standards as a new build? Unless you install an HRV (Heat Recovery Ventilator) the occupants would be starved of oxygen because the dwelling volume is so small! This is a dramatic example, but my point is couldn't we have different regulations for "tiny homes" so they could be built for less than $150,000-200,000? There are so many creative ways that could be explored for this category of dwelling so people would be encouraged to build them and we would actually stand a chance at achieving our goal of "an additional 35,000 homes by 2031 ". I would appreciate being part of that conversation. S II eeIl li L'an'ie r ech::,tcted I see opportunities for absent landlords to pad their pockets, and for the city to enlarge its tax base. For the average person, no benefits. Please don't insult my intelligence with lip service to "affordable housing " It does not exist on the open market. &, II eei li I,Jarne II i&J„.,mai. ted More affordable housing, more density so there's better transit c u d ein II" u:!';'ti,rie edme Ili,:? ;V Lots of community interaction -- neighbourhood BBQs etc. cNeei a II" uali,rie II u;,m+;Jp.m.cted It depends on where this is happening. It is the demise of the sense of community. Usually units like this are transient in nature. There is little to no sense of ownership. If these units are on major transit routes there could be benefits to people have accessibility to Page --168 of 343 IlIva,irp 7gal � Add yotwu coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin Che Il:iirolll osed by Illaw ;. ui'%Mc yF :c)r 21 Jal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 amenities/work or schoo , These units do not fit into sma crescents or cul de sacs c II d_ �:.::'^II a II" Uau'ne II Iu; +'Ja.cp.ed Decrease the amount of land currently wasted on single home properties. Will allow friends/family to live close by without living on top each other 24x7 Sc u°e, :?II a II" N:u'rue II iedw, [&J Potential alleviation of rental housing shortages and reduction of the high cost of rent. S r ein II L"fu's' e IIied, ::JJcle ' Increased density means better, more complete, neighbourhoods. ScII eei a ',,Jairne Iu:`ti' IIa.cted Most critically - faster expansion of the available housing supply and densification of the areas surrounding downtown, high density areas. This is particularly relevant for family scale housing that may not be easily integrated or marketed for condo developments. When looking for our home, we would have actively considered well designed and located multi -residential properties near key transit locations. Unfortunately, this intermediate form is mostly absent from our housing stock. ��dAlli a d,l�a ; w � acted none whatsoever Scm�'��II a',Janie $ydaylu': d I see no benefit as 3 Plex is more than enough for one property to be able to handle. What about garbage for the additional cost units ? Also with more population growth transportation, health care and transportation are also strained. ci dwell a II" UaIirn ` II I eti' Iln.,u.cted This idea is really not necessary given all the virgin lands still available to build on as well as the vacate spots all over the city ie. former petro locations. S r„ II e:)il a "aall'rue Ieda.c te;!J Huge cost savings benefit to those renting, and young families. Screein II" uall'ne! Expanding the inclusion of up to 4 units in our community presents significant opportunities and benefits. As a lifelong resident of Kitchener, my family and I are keen on contributing to the vitality of our hometown. After thoughtful consideration of past by-laws, I Page -169 .of 343 Il1va,ir" gal � Add yotiii coiriilun°°hints ourr wll.11lwe Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 propose adjustments to the Zoning By-law to foster this aspiration and extend similar opportunities to others. Eliminating Parking Minimums: This adjustment allows for more flexibility in property development. By approving lower parking ratios through 'unbundled' parking, developers can tailor parking provisions to market demands. Granting property owners autonomy in deciding whether to provide parking enhances adaptability, applicable city-wide, not just near LRT stations. Removing Lot Width Requirement: This step addresses redundancy in zoning regulations. With minimum lot size, walkway requirements, and maximum lot coverages already in place, the lot width stipulation proves unnecessary. Its removal accommodates diverse developments, particularly in smaller lots near Downtown, where the current requirement poses an unnecessary burden. Increasing Building Height to 4 Storeys: Allowing a 4 -storey height provides enhanced design flexibility, aligning with efficient slab -on - grade construction. Uniform height for detached ADUs and primary dwellings supports a cohesive aesthetic and accommodates developments with up to 4 units. Permitting Units in Front Lot and Exterior Side Yard: Encouraging more efficient space utilization contributes to a dynamic and vibrant community landscape, fostering innovative development patterns. Seeking Justification for the 1.1 m Walkway Requirement: Addressing this requirement is crucial, especially in older neighborhoods near Downtown. Requesting real- world analysis and engaging in a neighborhood walk with staff helps understand the implications and align this regulation with practical considerations. Removing the 50% Building Floor Area Cap: This adjustment promotes more balanced development, discouraging overbuilding of primary residences and ensuring equitable size standards for detached ADUs across all lots. Permitting Severances: Allowing lot severances where easements for access can be secured is a financially viable solution. Assessing reasonableness at the time of severance without necessitating an OPA/ZBLA streamlines the process, fostering accessibility. In a time where mortgage struggles are prevalent, these adjustments not only align with the needs of our community but also lay the foundation for a symbiotic relationship where communities can thrive. S ii eei a II" Ja rr II acted With greater density, it can be possible to create or rebuild neighbourhood communities, where people can enjoyably interact. Less land maintenance might benefit young single or career couples, as well as those starting families with two or fewer children. If well- maintained city parks, green spaces, or community garden plots are nearby, these can make up for the lack of large lawns or backyards. Above all, multiple -unit (up to 4) buildings on former single lots should be AFFORDABLE -- not "market affordable" that developers talk about, but INCOME affordable, costing no more than 30-35% of tenant's earnings. Page -17©.6f 343 IlIva,ir� gal � Add youii coiriiuuiw°°ueints ourr the Il:uu„'ollposed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 Jau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III :wMlll:orwuairy 2024 Sc II eei II ',Jaime (u:mdac ued We are in a climate crisis. Anything that limits suburban sprawl and protects natural areas and agricultural lands is necessary. Building inside city limits and building up is one solution. But only if done thoughtfully and within limits. We need to recognize that this is Canada and the majority of Canadians still dream of owning a single family house on a plot of land, not renting in a 4-plex or being cheek - to -jowl with their neighbours. I don't see that changing anytime soon. It's nice to think of this helping out multi -generational households. I recognize for many people in the city, this living arrangement is a cultural norm they want to maintain. If they have the means and the lot size to do so, this should be accommodated (within reason). Also, the population is aging and more and more the burden of caring for the elderly is falling on their younger relatives. So in theory things like in-law suites and granny flats would give seniors some independence while having free and caring support close at hand, at least for a certain time. There might also be an opportunity for younger members to have an affordable place to live while they save for their own, larger home (which, like most people, would ideally be a single family home with a sizeable lot). Unfortunately, I do not think these situations will be the majority of applications to add units to existing houses. The majority will come from investors who will not be living in the primary unit and may not even be living in the city. Optional question (70 response(s), 10 skipped) Question type: Essay Question 7 What concerns do you Ih ve as moire properties iinclude up t0 4 units In our ceinnimuniity") d II d SSP II a II d�:'�II'r 13u +';d7uG de,tti Space for gardens, flower beds, trees and other landscaping features will be lost to building footprint and parking which will fundamentally change the character of any neighbourhood with a significant amount of 4 -unit redevelopment. Zoning requirements for 4 -unit redevelopment should include measures to prevent the affected residential areas from becoming something resembling strip malls for housing. S a d ein II" i:!';'rll'rie edp is Ili,:? ;V Too much overcrowding. Most people that live here don't want to live in an over crowded city. There hasn't been enough thoughtful plan to growth and now just stick it anywhere and who cares what it looks like. Just jam them in. SIa eAll a III,Jarrie II $u,udad,.;d.0 uu':"d That owners will simply use the Committee of Adjustment to get Page -171 .o# 343 IlIva,ir� d1n gal yid Add youii coiriiuuiw°°uaints oin wll. ie Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 Jal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 approval to circumvent the front/sde7ba6kyar semis an increase the height ... there needs to be height restrictions based on the height of surrounding buildings. Infill and new builds should be required to replace trees cutdown due to construction - Toronto doesnt allow ADUs if trees need to be cut down. Screen eAlli II" ualrr i:3! Pressure on services, parking issues, shoddy development impacting on existing residents, units being too large for the space, noise from the concentration of families on one plot, changing the feel of residential areas, over intensification Sd r All l k::�r nue Dfg ScreAll II 1,Jau i:3 II jiada lid Loss of green space, parks, community gardens needed for health, gardens help with poverty. c II d:^All a II" ",Jaime II j wm°:;ud,: � :�°:;V Added vehicle traffic and street parking is often increased. Sr p r (I'^Il a all'r�p, Literally nothing c 4 einII" up)Hne, Parking, poor maintenence and management, junky looking properties, limited storage for outdoor items thus things left in yards. Most homes and properites are too small to allow for well designed 4- units. - units. cII eII li ln':!�u i i u r',:a � ,Vii;,* °,,.1 If you increase the density I have doubts that the city will be able to supply the services eg: police , health, reasonable on street parking , fire services and on and on. I also wonder if there will be a property tax reduction for the people who keep single family homes. After all is said and done there should a large uptake in tax collection from these multiple units while there will be a loss in value for those who just want a single family home if it's located with a 4 unit dwelling on either side. "���rreeiI li ',Ja rIii +;:jzu'1li: d 1. That this program/initiative misses its mark of enabling Citizen Developers, and instead keeps a disproportionate amount of housing in the hands of already -advantaged landlords -- If the City is unable to provide resources (incl. how-to guides, but perhaps some forms of incentives) to individual homeowners to add units, there is a high Page -172 .of 343 IlIva,ir� 1 gal � Add yotwu coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin Ulwe Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. ui,%(c F :c)r 21 Jal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 chance that this situp y�leads to new fourp exes being bui t into already -planned subdivisions far from the Core, or for existing single- family homes to be bought by developers, replaced by new -build fourplexes, and sold to landlords who do not live there, or have any interest in their tennants beyond providing MORE monthly income. �. II eels a II" a tll"�""uti� II 4.w �^:td„ �„tih d absolutely none aside from poorly though out zoning/bylaw standards that make it nearly impossible for new builds/renovations. It's so ridiculous, Kitchener claims they want to increase housing and yet have massively restrictive building regulations, particularly in old neighbourhoods, where lot sizes are smaller. These are the neighbourhoods people want to live in! Scu eell a III,Jarne II teda, t(:NJ None. The government needs to get out of the way and let developers do what is economically viable. S II dwell a II" UaIrne II Ieti°: a iu:.pd Constructing in difficult to access narrower backyards to build ADUs could be very difficult and potentially cause inconveniences for neigbours, and also the potential for damages. S p r ta'^II a II" a ;tlrrie Increased temporary residents decreases neighbourhood security and cohesion. The emergence of slumlords and those who will not familiarize themselves with the LTB. Sca4.`! II'u II Jaau'�"1: II $i:::!; ll�,. d Transit infrastructure will need to be reviewed after these start going in to ensure we have the capacity and frequency to make more density viable. Also, walkability in these neighbourhoods will need to be reviewed to ensure there are pathways, local caeeia II"ud i,rie IIt&;Jacd:u:d businesses/destinations, and schools/parks/other infrastructure to again make the increased density viable. The tree canopy also need to be considered. I'm sure more density with mean the need to cut down some trees, but we should be careful to keep as many mature trees around in neighbourhoods as we can. They provide a very good positive impact on the feel, temperature, and environment of an community. Cutting mature trees down and replacing them with new young one is not a one to one substitute as they take forever to grow back in. So lets just keep the canopy in mind when organizing how this density comes in. none, put them everywhere Page -173 .of 343 IlIva,ir� 2 gal � Add youii coiriiuuiw°°ueinto oin t.11lwe Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 JaIlUairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 n ^yll II tllmu m II (m',:;�"w� '� That it has taken this onlg o ook at this as a way to help with the housing crisis c II d_ :.::!1 II li I,Jarr1ie II (u; +'Jaacp.ed Maintaining greenspaces and tree cover in neighbourhoods without impacting construction. Many new build dwellings completely destroy all tree cover on the lot. S ndeli?ll a II" NuI're ied„acl,lu- d Servicing, garbage, landscaping, and parking need to be carefully considered, but I think it'll work itself out. E.g. many of Toronto's older low-rise neighbourhoods have a diversity of units like duplex, triplex, etc. and while it can be cramped sometimes with finding parking, collecting garage, there is so much character and charm with having a lot of people in these tight -knit communities - more "eyes on the street"?? ric d� eiri II" Uan,iiii.r II iiadac tii.?d loss of trees, grass and shrubs etc. More pressure on our ageing infrastructure, turning the subdivisions into concrete ghettos it'll yryll a " U"a,ll'n(u: "'�„�..u; °.:;V More occupants/renters (transients) with no sense of neighbourhood,property upkeep standards and groundskeeping standards. Particularily applies if the owner/landlord is absent. Neighbourhood appeal falls as more conversions occur and symptoms are more visible. The city looking run down, ghetto like. Tell me how many family's out there do not have one car, than the kids stay home longer and before long each unit has 2-4 cars.... really lIl . I'm concerned transit frequencies are not sufficient to support people �t. cIIi ”Uam who want to live in a car -free or car -light way. Far too many bus routes are 30 minute frequency which is simply not enough to get around the city in a reasonable manner. We also don't have nearly enough separated bike infrastructure to allow comfortable cycling as a primary means of transportation. .rn4.`�"i 11 li unfll'�'1i ziw:)n.a�.lu: ':� I believe that these housing units will essentially be created slums. The properties most likely to take advantage of this are ones that are owned by developers, investment companies or landlords. This will further create generations of renters, which will primarily impact people of lower economic means. This will also create infrastructural issues. The communities where these will be built were not designed Page -174 .of 343 Il�va,ir" ,� gal � Add youii coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin Ulwe Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 Jal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 with this in mind. There witf�betraffic issues, concerns aroun groundwater demands and other similar issues. For example, how will garbage pick up be managed? The current policy is 3 bags of garbage per household. Does this mean that if there are 4 units on a property that now means there can be 12 bags or garbage or is it still somehow 3? How is this enforced? I am fully supportive of creating more housing, such as building new apartment buildings etc., but this project seems very short-sighted and it will have longterm negative effects. S a dell a So. Much. Concrete. Looking at the proposal what struck me the most was the loss of green space for housing. Not all green space is created equal, but it's so important for humans and other species to have natural areas to be in. Forget parking, what ecological requirements will this plan contain? For every mature tree removed to make space for housing, how will we recoup that ecological loss? Sc eeiril I,Jan,iiii.r dzi V.iA Read the comments above, pretty clear "_i 11 eels li "Va,Ir is ju da.d. tu,m J This will change the composition of older neighbourhoods. The frontage of many lots is not sufficient for larger units. These will likely be rentals and may detract from the community of many of our neighbourhoods. The place for density housing is high rise buildings in the downtown core. Not in established neighbourhoods where this will detract from the peace and quiet and potentially impact upon the green space in a negative manner. Sa.. II eeIl li L!i1 ie These changes will result in junky places to live that are now possible to really enjoy. Have a look at locations in Waterloo that have homes taken over already. The loss of pride and maintenance of homes in nice neighbourhoods will result. & II eels li I,Jarne j&Ja tu-pd On the whole, I think the housing crisis in Kitchener comes before most concerns I might have, so I think my concerns are mainly that the city might not remove as many obstacles as possible to the success of this effort. The city should proactively identify areas where the planning/building process can accelerate such developments where they make sense, and include supporting the expansion of the housing stock in how the city prioritizes, e.g., any changes to add/upgrade connections to municipal services, regional plans for transit service, etc. Perhaps the city could even identify neighborhoods or streets where existing infrastructure (electrical, water, roads, transit, etc) can already support more units and Page -175 .if 343 IlIva,ir" °Igal � Add yotwu coiriiuuiw°°uein s oin Che Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 2lal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 encourage such development/improvements t ere e.g., t roug making that information available to the public; providing blanket, simplified or expedited approval; waiving or reducing municipal charges; etc.). Scredw ein II" a�tlr'tt'�w�,. II t4;;��'; : ctih„;�d I think there should also be some rules around how these type of properties should be built - since people will be living so closely with one another. For example, it should be mandated to have an exhaust fan above stoves and in bathrooms. Also, walls should be insulated between units and any mandated precautions to prevent outbreaks of rodents or bugs. It should be illegal to build apartments with paper - thin walls and all landlords should equip their units with working fire extinguishers. ScII eei a I,Jarne teda,.tod None. This is a preferable approach to growth. Sc eei li `,kir ue I eti°:,tn.. cted Ensuring they are properly panned for from an infrastructure servicing perspective, as well as transit and other active transportation methods. tl"VIII a " ull"rP" iiw+;tp �� to Parking Drop in property value of nearby single detached homes. Garbage collection issues Property maintenance issues (absentee landlords) Streets with single detached homes are not wide enough for the increased traffic. Reduced number of trees i.e. trees cut down in neighbourhoods Sr.. II eeIl li L!:an'ie terch::,tcted If the city is not careful, this law will be a change in name only. The city should make sure to review other relevant zoning regulations and determine if rules like setbacks or parking minimums will end up blocking these units from getting built. There's no use making 2-4 units legal if the other laws still make them either illegal in some other way or so impractical/expensive as to not be built. d II eAlit II" kirnie! II to ;, a Ied My biggest concern is about noise. Loud cars or loud parties. The risk for both go up as the population increases. S a eein II" a Minnie II t4,dtc Iurd My only concern is that this is being framed as multiple units being the exception. I think from now on, only multiple unit dwellings should be allowed. No more single family homes. Page -176 .of 343 Il�va,ir� ,� gal � Add youii coiriiuuiw°°ueints oin Che Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. ui,%(cDy :c)r 21 JaIlUairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 Scr ^All a II" Vau`rir) Il i da led I have numerous concerns. Higher population densities will lead to more traffic, sewage, and utility usage within pre-existing neighbourhoods which were not likely to have been designed with densification in mind. As a result, you run the risk of significantly degrading living conditions, lowering property and home values, and changing the very nature of the neighbourhoods in which "post -build" densification occurs — this will increase crime and decrease the overall quality &amp; liveability scores of our communities for generations to come. My strong recommendation would be to NOT re- zone existing communities, which are a "known thing", but rather, to incorporate densification "by design" into newly -planned communities, undeveloped areas, and certain zoned plots on a case-by-case basis only. '.w4. i ee IIS Varriii,., u'^^,°,: t, i.. V. is ;:d I suspect that most of these units become rentals and most of the lots that could accommodate such units would be in older neighborhoods that have larger lots. My concern would be for the residents of those neighborhoods dealing with poor maintenance of their new neighbours in these multi units. For example there should be mandatory lawn and snow removal policies enacted that make landlords responsible for the property maintenance. ,wdw N dw All Vtll"tt"�w,. II ;'.:;V".1„i;,, °.:;V 1- parking and street wear for up to 4x increase in usage 2- sewers and water management need improvement. Sewers and storm water need to be upgraded to handle the 4x increase in usage. Building additional structures reduces open land for water to collect and travel across requiring improved storm water management. Water tables are very high in our neighbourhood, additional structures will require additional access to storm drains, sump pumps and their own storm water management rather than pushing water onto neighbouring lawns. 3- maximums on increase on rent to keep these new places affordable 4 -increase schools and hospitals for population density increase 5 - increase waste management and recycling for 4x increase in usage 6 - improve electrical infrastructure to handle 4x increase in usage 7- increase internet infrastructure to handle 4x increase in usage 8 - traffic management, up to 4x the drivers requires additional traffic congestion management especially since public transport is not currently adequate for many residential neighbourhoods in kitchener 9 - increase access to public services and input, more people means you need better systems to serve them and receive input from them c � ein II” V :pn Our community was never designed for this! Infrastructures are going to be pushed to their limit and if something fails, it will be catastrophic!!!! Page -177 .of 343 IlIva,ir" gal � Add yotiii coiriilun°°lein s ourr Che Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 Sci eei ii ',Jaime Iu,wmdac ued More people starting business in their garages. Watering down our neighborhoods will have a negative effect. The majority of people do not want this in their community. �S�w 11 dw ei n II" u�flr'tt'�w�,. II u;,���":;�".,�cti;:�d Some people may think it's acceptable to have 7 people living in a house. So 7 x 4 .... It adds up. So there should be a disclosure of how many people are able to occupy, in total, on the 4 units. Another thing is the privacy of neighbours and the additional noise that will be generated by the additional units. Green space should be required for pets, kids or for a garden for the birds and the bees (environment). Will these lands be severed or will they have to be owned by the person who owns the land? ,c eei a II" U" iirne II Iu:`da.cted Rent control must be included, geared to income „c ii d, ei a II" Jzirrue II (&i';wIn..tcted As a owner of a single family dwelling, I am not interested in becoming a landlord by developing my plot and providing more housing. This change benefits those who wish to make money from their property. S N eAll a ed That homeowners won't be able to afford the construction costs required to do it. So the likelihood of folks converting homes or building an ADU won't have the positive effects impact on increasing housing as much as we hope it will. Lack of financial incentives to accompany this proposed zoning change. Storm water management concerns. Although, getting rid of parking requirements might alleviate it. ScII eei li 1,Ja i D Will these units fall under the provincial rent control or will they be exempt? Will the owner of the units live on site or rent all units? Are there bylaws in place for the owner of the units/property to be responsible for property maintenance? ".'a., II e, :)11 a II" aa11'rue II Iedacle!J Residential streets are generally narrower so on -street parking and modification of parking bylaws is not an option. There must be changes made to planning permissions to allow for on-site parking development with a minimum of 1 parking space per unit. Existing parking bylaws must be strictly enforced to keep streets safe and prevent an encroachment of on -street parking. Page -178 .of 343 IlIva,ir" 7gal � Add yotwu coiriiuincounts oin t.11lwe Il:iiroll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 2lal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxorwuoiry 2024 ScII eei a II" Uau`t°°ue II jeti jn : toy d I'm concerned that this creates more of a wealth gap in the region, creating more landlords out of existing homeowners. It could result in more inspection costs and wait time, as lots of renovations to add units finish, which could encourage renting out units that don't adhere to building/fire codes. I'd love to see more 4-6 storey multi -unit mixed- use buildings, like the ones seen in many European cities. S u d �w'^Ila II" a"'i ll's"'uw II ei,°Jacted That there will not be enough parking. That there will will be some eye sore units that are quality built. I think fire rating and sound proofing should be prioritized. Fire rating for obvious reasons and sound proofing, to help with neighbors frustration amongst each other, limiting/ lowering possible police involvement. I am also concerned about locations, should be able to be next to 2500 + sf homes as this could depreciate property values. cIIe ei II `,Jan'iirr II jirdacVed My concerns are not directly with the increase in the number of units, but in how the city will roll out this program and how many barriers there will be to implementation. The program needs to have options for all property types within the city, not just the ideal suburb lot. "curt:!'.^II li \Jaiiii,nii " II j iw�k3 to and I think it may/will be beneficial in the long run but short term pain while construction is ongoing and contractor parking and abuse. Resident parking will be a concern if exemptions are allowed and a wait and see approach SHOULD not be used, requirements should be implemented right from the start and adhered to as current residents should have a say in their neighbourhoods and changes/development. Flips and sales and greed is always a concern, price gauging for max profits and tenant behaviours with more and closer residents than has been the norm in mature neighbourhoods. All combined could be a real issue, I understand the need to change to accommodate our housing crisis but more in this way is not always the solution, limits on areas, neighbourhood specific may go a long way. S II eei li I,Jarre acted My comments above pretty much explain my reasons why 4 units on any residential property will adversely affect the adjoining residential properties as they will be de -valued and the individual lot boundaries will not be respected because of crowding. I have already seen this happen and it will only get worse. c � ein II" a :pne I think a lot of education needs to happen. The photograph used for this page shows very large houses with two -car garages designed for one family. Often these houses are under-utilized -- smaller families, Page -179 .of 343 IlIva,ir" gal � Add youii coiriiuun°°uein s ourr wll. ie Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r y"t Tau°lUaui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 r�eakups, age -- so represent a big opportunity for additional shelter. Many people I know wouldn't consider living in a triplex with neighbors living on the other side of the wall or on a different floor. We are fixated on our independence and privacy despite the homeless occupants of tents we drive by in our city. Is this "comfort" we seem to think we need part of giving us a better quality of life or are we being deceived? Even asking the question suggests we've created a world where our personal needs and wants should be catered to above the needs of our community. S a eei a Over crowding, reduced quality of life due to loss of greenspace and increase of greyspace, increased crime, increased travel times to work and school on congested roads. Scii eei a III,Jarne II Ieti':Va,.tod Just that all the units be inspected to confirm that they're safe and livable S iieei ii Uttu'rue &;Jn..tcued None. Come to Laurentian Hills. d a d Aii urr!Iir`uw II to ;:;gyp r Vu: '.:;p The Infrasctrue of existing houses trying to accommodate uses that were not intended for the original build. The water and sewer lines for a single residential building would not be built to withstand the increased use. Would Direct Detect and sprinkles be mandatory in these buildings? who would make sure that the units were built to fire code? How are the builds monitored to make sure that the proper ventilation is built for multiple cooking times if the dwelling is shared without proper separation? Who would make sure that there was enough parking? Already parking is at a premium in many of the newer developments. Parking is happening on front lawns, across the aprons of driveways and on streets. Small streets /courts and crescents were not built to accept the significant increase in density which impedes the ability for EMS and Fire to gain safe access to the properties that may not have the increased density. I have seen where Fire could not get onto our street during an emergency call and had to honk repeatedly to gain access to the home where the emergency response was required. .,u 4.`�"i 11 ii up tll'�'1i z i::tn.�..1u; ':� Absolutely none.* I think it's a fabulous idea, and one which will go a long way toward correcting the zoning errors of the last 70 years. a,u eei a II1,L:iunE, We are concerned about how many people the land lords will allow to - live in one small unit. Some houses, especially rental properties are Page -18©.6f 343 IlIva,irp gal � Add yotwu coiriiuuiw°°uein s oin Mlwe Il:iirolll osed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 Jal'Wairy 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 over ScII eell li I,Jaime j&'Jw. ted First, new construction should be mandated to have the style of the additional units blend in with the design esthetic of the neighbourhood. Second, construction plans should be designed so as not to impede proper drainage of the properties that could cause flooding or excess water on neighbouring properties. Third, since privacy is important, there should be additional set backs from the property line that need to be adhered to. Fourth, since green space is important, construction of additional units should not allow for the destruction of mature trees on the property. Fifth, as some densification occurs, the city needs to ensure that local services (schools, roads, parks, transit) are appropriately managed given the increasing population in some areas. Sixth, units need to be permitted and legal, with proper controls on maximum occupancy. Sci dwell a II" Ja rr1e II ied uc tu-p,°:;V Communities that are zoned for 3+ floors already should also be for 6 units by default. c II d ells II" a 'l'rlrne eda II is d I am concerned that the zoning requirements such as setbacks and floor area ratios will be overly restrictive and not make a significant impact in the increase in housing supply. I am also concerned that the city needs to continue to expand the walkable, bikeable and transit accessible streetscapes to support denser, low -car housing. Ensuring provision of more park space and city amenities is also important to make living denser more attractive with easy, local options that are not a car ride away. Sr..11 ee Il li I,Janie II edacted You're basically trying to turn middle-class subdivisions into slums! Bad idea! Sci dwell a "Ua,Ilrf'14n juwti„Ia.cted Backyards are meant to be a place for leisure and enjoyment. The more units the more busier neighbourhoods will become. People will not know there neighbours as much. Sc II e, :)ll a II" uall'rue II jedacte�i;J Not sure how compatible the residents of these additional units will be with the existing population. Furthermore, these conversions should only be allowed in cases where an existing resident wants to do this and stay living in their residence. The city does not need more absentee slum landlords, speculators and investors. That would poison the entire neighbourhood. Page -181 .of 343 IlIva,ir 11�n gal � Add yotiii coiriilun°°lein s ourr wll.11lwe Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir ,)y :c)r 21 Tau°Waui°y 2024 to 05 III 6llxftlairy 2024 Sc eei a II" Jau`t°°ue II Ieti )n t!c. t d I'm concerned about the prevalence of "luxury" units. It seems whenever a duplex goes up, it is replacing a house that was on the more affordable end, and the resulting luxury units are priced far higher. Sew N dw^ein II" u�tlr'tt'�w�,. II u;,���;�".,t�„ �i ad One prominent concern with the increasing inclusion of up to 4 units in our community is the potential loss of trees, greenspaces, and naturalized areas, which play crucial roles in groundwater penetration and water management. As properties are developed to accommodate more units, there is a risk of diminishing these vital environmental elements. Loss of Trees: The expansion of properties may necessitate the removal of mature trees, impacting the community's overall canopy coverage. Trees are essential for absorbing rainwater, preventing soil erosion, and contributing to improved air quality. Their removal could disrupt the delicate balance of the local ecosystem. Reduced Greenspaces: The development of multi -unit properties may lead to a decrease in available greenspaces. Greenspaces serve as permeable surfaces that aid in rainwater absorption, reducing runoff and potential flooding. A decline in greenspaces could compromise the community's resilience to extreme weather events. Diminished Naturalized Areas: Naturalized areas, such as wetlands and meadows, contribute significantly to groundwater penetration and water filtration. These areas act as natural sponges, absorbing excess water during heavy rainfall and facilitating groundwater recharge. The reduction of such spaces could impede the natural processes that help manage water resources. Impact on Water Management: The alteration of natural landscapes through increased property development may disrupt established water management systems. Trees and greenspaces act as natural buffers, mitigating the impact of stormwater runoff and enhancing overall water quality. Their removal could strain existing water management infrastructure and increase the risk of water -related issues. To address these concerns, it is crucial to incorporate sustainable development practices that prioritize the preservation of existing trees, greenspaces, and naturalized areas. Implementing measures such as green roofs, permeable pavements, and strategic landscaping can help mitigate the environmental impact and ensure that the community retains its essential natural elements for groundwater penetration and effective water management. c a d Aii a II" aii'roe edl tu:)d Some general concerns were expressed in Item 2 but more specifically, some others are: poor tenant screening, resulting in excess noise, uncontrolled or unsuitable pets, illegal activities (such as theft and drug -dealing); poor property maintenance by landlords and tenants, congestion caused by too many vehicles parked in too small a space; light pollution; exploitation by developers concerned Page -182 .of 343 IlIva,ir� 1 1, 1 gal � Add youii coiriilui:°°launlo ourr 1.IIIfie Il:uu„'oll osed by Illaw ;. uir Dy :c)r 21 Tau°Maui°y 2024 to 05 III :wMlll:orwuairy 2024 more witn profit tnan quairty ana aesign. Sc II eels a II" Jai'ttle II (&'Ja.:. tu,:d -increased danger for pedestrians and bikers associated with increased number of people who have to park on the street. - increased garbage - how will all these units have their garbage and recycling picked up? There is a limit on number of garbage cans per household. -increased noise coming from poorly insulted outdwellings -decreased curb appeal S a eei a Setbacks and heights - Some of the pictures showing of 4 unit properties look anything but "gentle" density. It looks like structures will be allowed practically up to the property lines. How will you address the impact on the privacy of neighbours, especially where the additional unit(s) will be more than one story high? Someone asked in the virtual neighbourhood meeting if you are considering 4 -story units. This should not be allowed or only be allowed in large lots. The quality of the additions to the primary unit or additional structures — When some people build an addition, frankly, they build an eyesore by anyone's standards. Is there, or will there be, any measures to ensure these new units will be in keeping with the character of the primary unit and neighbourhood? This is something that needs to be in place not just for designated heritage neighbourhoods. What will stop these sorts of developments from being turned into illegal rooming houses or short-term rentals? We are losing tree canopy to the effects of climate change. What protections will be put into place to prevent removal or damage to mature trees to allow for additional units? Offering to plant some saplings somewhere else in return should not be an option to the builder. Because of climate change we can expect to see more and more severe weather events. What will the impact be on rainwater management (run off) if permeable land is effectively paved over to build additional units and parking spots? Someone in the virtual neighbourhood meeting asked about waving development charges to build these multi -unit structures. How can this even be a consideration? I thought cities were in a revenue crisis. How do you plan on paying for the costs of increasing infrastructure to accommodate all these extra units? Optional question (71 response(s), 9 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Page -183 .of 343 IlIva,ir 1 1,2 gal yid Attachment G3 — Email Correspondence Emails through the EnablingFourUnits@kitchener.ca The project team attached the feedback and inquiry emails. Other emails related to registration and information about the open house and engagement process are not included. Page 184 of 343 From: Ediphique Renovations Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 8:54 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Re: Enabling Four Unit Project Update and Draft Regulations Hi there, I took the week to read through the draft amendments a few times. I'm not sure if you were looking for feedback, but I thought I would just write something to show my appreciation for being part of the process and give some insight on how it's being read. The draft changes look great and I truly believe that they will allow for a diverse new direction for infill that can accommodate a variety of scenarios. As an industry member, I think that is what we were hoping for. This is how I am interpreting a few broad points from the draft. This is just for reference to let you know how it's being read. - The Central Area Neighborhood in entirety and areas 800 m from the LRT Stations have no set minimum for frontage and lot area for 3 and 4 ADUS. These lots would default to the residential zoning for each property to determine lot minimum requirements. The minimum of 10.5m frontage and Lot Area of 360msq would be required for all areas outside the Central Area that are not within 800m of an LRT station unless their corresponding zone requires larger (RES - 1, RES -2). -Detached ADUS are permitted to have two dwelling units, while keeping to the new specified ground floor area, height/setback requirements and lot zone/location min requirements. - Parking: For 3 dwelling units and up, table 5-1-1 seems pretty clear. Areas within 800m of the LRT Stations have no parking minimum, Central Area minimum of 2, outside the Central Area minimum of 3 parking spaces. All require 2 sheltered bike spaces according to Class C definition. Again, this feedback is just to give insight on the user end interpretation of the draft in case the intention was something else. One note that I think is worth bringing up pertains to the proposed changes in landscaping minimums. Just as a case study, I used the proposed lot minimums as an example, on a 10.5m wide and 34m long lot, and using a typical 6m x 12m building with a 5m front setback to compare the old and new regulations. The original minimum of 20% of landscaped area vs the new proposed 30% of front yard landscaped, 30% of rear yard landscaped produced roughly the same amount of landscaped area. I supposed the consideration here is that the new regulations would not allow as much flexibility for lot design. So for example if someone wanted to provide more than the minimum parking requirements, or provide minimum required as rear parking and a detached accessory dwelling this may prevent these options. I don't believe that this point is a make or break issue as people can find work arounds. The new landscaping minimums could also lead to less parking which may reduce the use of cars overall, but I thought it would be worth mentioning. I look forward to working with these proposed by-law amendments to create more diverse housing solutions. Thank you again for including me in the conversation. Page 185 of 343 Regards, Amanda On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 1:32 PM EnablingFourUnits (SM)<EnablingFourUnits@kitchener.ca> wrote: Good Afternoon, First — I wanted to thank everyone who participated in the Enabling Four Units Industry Engagement Workshop! We truly appreciate your time and input into this project. Staff have completed a draft of the proposed zoning regulations that will enable up to four dwelling units to be located on a lot that currently permits a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street -fronting townhouse dwelling. The draft zoning regulations were developed based on consultation with agencies, city staff, the public and members of the development industry. Staff will be finalizing our recommendations for consideration by PSIC Committee and Council at the end of March 2024. Thanks again for your input and participation! Katie and the Enabling Four Units Team Katie Anderl Project Manager - Planning I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7987 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.anderl@kitchener.ca G�jNraraniu�kyq, r ��„. a ., ' I 'll�UiDiUDiiG �iii��,,,, �u��%////i/% i1Jfili"Ulflflfl%t ` 2 Page 186 of 343 From: Hal Jaeger Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 3:23 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Comments on draft zoning re: Enabling Four Units Thank you for sharing the proposed zoning to enable four units, Enabling Four Units Team. I appreciate • The clarity provided about "Unobstructed Walkways". I hope this will reduce frictions between neighbours and make people less apprehensive about additional units. • The removal of the limitation on ADU size based on principal dwelling size. • The clarity about minimum landscaped areas in front and rear yards. Does the proposal also include a minimum overall landscaped area for the lot? If so, what might it be? Does the proposal specify that a landscaped area must contain living plants? I'm seeing more and more astroturf and hardscaping. The parts that are more challenging for me involve height and setbacks. Can you please help me/us understand the logic in permitting ADUs to be closer to a neighbour's lot line than the regulations governing the principle dwelling permit? I comprehend that the setback was borrowed from the regulations that existed on sheds and garages, but that does not demonstrate that the choice was reasonable. Can you please do a "reality check" without assuming any blinders inherited from our past practices? am trying to envision the transitions that would be achieved, and the impact on light, privacy and skyviews of permitting ADUs to be of 6.Om in height. I do note that the proposal would have theses ADUs set back an additional 0.3m from the adjoining property line. Do you have any scaled diagrams that display the relationship in the context of typical, existing lots? Might it help to include in the regulations that the additional height is permitted, so long as it does not cast additional shadow on a neighbour's lot or interrupt a particular angular plane? Might an angular plane origin point of 3m high and the minimum required setback (consistent with existing ADU regulations) be appropriate? Might it also be useful to note that the City would accept waiving the additional criteria, should the affected neighbour accept in writing? As I wrote earlier, I value the vistas of front yards and do not appreciate it being interrupted by parked cars. So the proposal to have a parking spot 0.5m from the street does not appeal to me. If there is to be a strong push for parking over the public sphere, might this be an issue that can be handled differently in different neighbourhoods? Maybe the setback can be greater in neighbourhoods where there is scheduled to be reduced parking minimums? Page 187 of 343 I am happy to discuss further, by phone or in person. Thank you, Hal Hal Jaeger Page 188 of 343 From: Peggy Nickels Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 3:03 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Cc: Sheldon Atos; Frank Etherington; Gail Pool; Mario Chilanski; Wendy Weinberg; Debbie Chapman; Jeffery Silcox -Childs Subject: Enabling 4 Units You don't often get email from Dear Enabling 4 Units Staff, Please find below a statement from the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association's Development Committee regarding Enabling 4 Units. Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association Development Committee - Statement about Enabling 4 Units We understand and support the importance of urban intensification; it protects essential farmland, natural spaces, and aquifers. We want a compact city that reduces unnecessary commuting and makes the best use of existing infrastructure. We also know the importance of tree canopy and green space in making cities and our planet livable and sustainable as we move deeper into climate change. Both capture and hold carbon, clean and cool the air, absorb excess water, provide habitat for birds and other wildlife, and are vital to our health and wellbeing. New zoning regulations that permit up to four dwelling units on any lot that allows a single -detached, semi-detached, or street fronting townhouse dwelling could have potentially unanticipated consequences. Without protection, intensification on residential lots will lead to the loss of mature trees and green spaces that, while private, still contribute to the City's environmental health. We urge the City to establish additional by-laws that protect mature healthy trees on private properties that are less than 1 acre, and to require appropriate replacement trees for any that are removed. It is important to ensure that urbanization doesn't deter the City from its plan to maintain and grow the City's tree canopy to 30% canopy coverage in each of the Wards by 2050, and 33% by 2070. Page 189 of 343 Thank you for your consideration of our recommendation. Please keep us informed as you move forward with this Peggy Nickels, for VPNA Development Committee Members Page 190 of 343 From: Sent: To: Subject: You don't often get email from Hi Katie and Team, Mitchell Avis Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:07 AM EnablingFourUnits (SM) Feedback: Enabling Four Units Learn why this is important First off I'm brimming with excitement at Kitchener's proposal to permit 4 units as -of -right on all residential lots. YES YES YES! This is a great step in the right direction for the City. As we all know, the proof is in the pudding - or the Zoning By- law - in this case. As excited as I am I know that over regulation can dampen feasibility and uptake. I hope the City has learned some real lessons from the implementation of ADUs that can be applied here. Here is what I'd like to see in your Zoning By-law Amendment: 1. Remove all parking minimums. The City approves developments all the time with lower parking ratios using "unbundled" parking as a justification. Unbundled parking lets the market decide how much parking to provide. If a landlord/developer believes they can rent a unit without parking they should be allowed to. Similarly, a landlord/developer may decide parking is necessary to rent the unit and want to offer a spot. Either way, the property owner should be the one to make the decision, not the City. And this should apply City-wide, not just near LRT stations. Parking is extremely cost prohibitive and space intensive. 2. Remove Lot Width Requirement. This is redundant for two main reasons. First, there is no reason to require it. Concerned the lot is big enough? You have a minimum lot size. Concerned about access to backyard? You have a walkway requirement. Concerned about overbuilding? You have maximum lot coverages. Second, there are many lots smaller than 13.1m - especially near Downtown - where this type of development is desirable. I also understand this is the provision that has required the most minor variances and demonstrates it is over burdening and unnecessary. 3. Increase Building Height to 4 Storeys. I understand the most efficient form of development is slab on grade and this would permit more flexibility in terms of design when allowing 4 units in new builds or conversions (1 unit per floor). The height for any detached ADU should match what is permitted for the primary dwelling (4 storeys for both). 4. Permit Units in Front Lot and Exterior Side Yard. We need to encourage the more efficient use of space. 5. More Justification and Real World Analysis of 1.1m Walkway Requirement. This becomes less of an issue if parking requirements (#1) are eliminated. Many properties, especially in the older neighbourhoods near Downtown, will be unfeasible for a detached ADU because they are built off -centered where the house is shifted to one side of the lot - closer to the lot line than 1.1m and a driveway on the other side. Would request information from Staff why 1.1m was chosen and what is required by OBC. I'd also welcome a neighbourhood walk with Staff to share more of the implications of parking requirements and this walkway requirement. 6. Remove 50% Building Floor Area Cap. This encourages over building of primary residences and penalizes people who live in right -sized housing. Neighbours should be allowed to have the same size detached ADU regardless of the size of primary residence. I would like to see a maximum detached ADU size that is standard across all lots. Would also request information from Staff why 80 sq. m was chosen as the maximum size. 7. Permit Severances. The inability to sever these lots is cost prohibitive when it comes to securing mortgages and financing. Creative solutions are required. Permit severance where easements can be secured for access. The reasonableness of this should be judged at the time of severance and should not require an OPA/ZBLA too, which makes it incredibly prohibitive. 3 Page 191 of 343 I hope through this process the City will release a map showing the lots where four units will be permitted as -of -right based on proposed Zoning By-law regulations. And that this map can be groundtruthed for feasibility. All too often, the regulations make this form of development prohibitive in the neighbourhoods where it is desirable and needed - close to the Downtown core and in proximity to transit. I look forward to seeing your draft and the map. Mitchell Avis Page 192 of 343 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hi Katie, This sums up my suggestions: Michael Brisson Monday, February 5, 2024 2:43 PM Katie Anderl 4 Units - Graphic Notes / Our Open House Chat of Jan. 31 Untitled_Artwork.pdf Preservation of the distant views , front and rear , of the the near centre picture windows of mid -20c lots with shallow back yards is possible by building at each side with small party wall defined 3 storey homes with roof terraces, located at side lot lines. The tops of the infill homes will still be well below the height of the predominate large mature trees that occupy the rear yards of a large proportion of these very numerous lots in Kitchener. Thanks for a great chat. Michael Sent from my iPad Page 193 of 343 From: Leslie HOLDWAY Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 2:10 PM To: Schreiner, Mike; Berry Vrbanovic Cc: Sarah FitzPatrick; Katie Anderl Subject: Re: Fourplex infills - as per right You don't often get email from Hello Berry, Mike, Katie, Sarah, As a follow up to the Kitchener Planning Meeting and developer discussion and our one on one meetings, which were of great interest, I do have one point I would to follow up on. Should the four-plex units be limited to 40+ feet in width, that would only take in about 70% of built residential housing according to Kitchener Planners. Most of pre1945 residences are in the under 40 foot category. But much more importantly by my estimates 60 plus % of housing appropriate for renovation or outright demolition to create the 4 plexes desired in this legislation are in this under 40 foot frontage number. To get enough uptake of this bylaw/ legislation, it essential that this artificial limitation be avoided. Thanks Respectfully, Les Holdway Rescom Properties On Jan 28, 2024, at 12:50 PM, Leslie HOLDWAY wrote: To Whom it may concern Four-plex infills - as per right Some of the parameters of any proposed bylaws, as I see it 1. Lots must be a minimum of 20 feet in width and / or a 600 sq. foot buildable area 2. Lesser width may be considered if depth of lot exceeds 120 feet 3. Units within subdivisions shall have a 42 foot height restriction unless otherwise allowed 4. Ground level units should have asses -ability features 5. Al units should have enhanced sound / fire resistance 6. All sites should require 50% (.5 car) minimum parking requirements per unit or greater 7. 1 in-line double parking may be allowed were a total of 3 parking spaces or more are available 8. Parking may be allowed on up to 80% lot frontage 9. Main Street units may allow a density maximum of 300 per acre by right, 126 foot height allowance Page 195 of 343 10. Lots of 50 feet or more in width may allow 2 four- plex units Les Holdway Page 196 of 343 From: Justin McLaughlin Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 12:18 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Cc: Nelson Chukwuma; Nathan Barnett Subject: Letter of Support for Enabling Four Units Attachments: COK Support Letter - Four Additional Dwelling Units - 02.04.2024.pdf You don't often get email from Hello, On behalf of Nelson Chukwuma and Conestoga Students Inc., please find attached a letter of for enabling four units in the City of Kitchener. Please let me know if there are any questions. Justin McLaughlin helhim Senior Manager, Advocacy Celebrating 50 Years Leading the Student Experience Proud Mr.uarubou of gho Caoo«.odwiin Alliance of Sluudd nL AssmJahons (CASA) Experiencing an emergency or mental health crisis? Please call 911 or Here 24/7 Crisis Services at 1-844-437-3247. Conestoga Official Disclaimer: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may be privileged or confidential. Any distribution, printing or other use by anyone else is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately, and permanently delete this email and attachments. Page 197 of 343 Nelson Chukwuma Conestoga Students Incorporated (CSI) Room 2A106 299 Doon Valley Drive Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4M4 February 4, 2024 Katie Anderl, Project Manager (Planning) City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 RE: Support for Four Additional Dwelling Units Dear Katie Anderl, On behalf of Conestoga Students Inc., the official student association of Conestoga College representing over 34,000 students attending school in the Waterloo Region, I would like to express our support for the creation of zoning regulations that would allow for up to four dwelling units where a single -detached, semi-detached, or street -fronting townhouse dwelling is a permitted use. As the City of Kitchener is aware, Waterloo Region, like many other places in Canada, is facing an ongoing and worsening housing crisis. This crisis has accelerated the need to explore innovative solutions that meet diverse accommodation needs, including the needs of students in the city. As Conestoga College has grown its footprint through Kitchener and the surrounding municipalities, students have had an increasingly difficult time finding appropriate and affordable housing that suits their needs, as over 72% of students found the process of finding somewhere to live difficult.' As such, we are pleased to see the City of Kitchener taking steps to ensure that neighbourhoods and communities are being developed and allowed to adapt to create diverse residential options that meet community needs through a mix of residential dwellings to support all community members. By allowing up to four additional dwelling units, the City of Kitchener supports the need for gentle intensification; responds to the ongoing housing crisis and both immediate and future housing demands; and supports diverse household needs including multi -generational, homestay, and other programs that benefit homeowners and potential tenants. It is important to ensure that these additional dwellings can be served by existing infrastructure, such as water and power, and we are pleased to see the City of Kitchener considering these aspects to ensure that new units, whether they be purpose-built or in addition to existing units, are suitable for tenants. CSI is in support of the creation of zoning regulations that would allow for up to four dwelling units and appreciates the opportunity to submit our comments regarding these zoning changes. CSI looks forward to continuing to work with the City of Kitchener and other stakeholders to improve housing availability throughout our communities. Sincerely, /( )d4_ei1i (?44&vtax�ll Nelson Chukwuma President ' Barnett, Nathan R.G., and Justin McLaughlin, 2023 Year -End Survey Report. Kitchener: Conestoga Students Inc, forthcoming. con estogastudents.corn 519-748-5131 299 Doon VaLL&A—E-Urvel 98 of 343 @CStudentslnc csina conestogac.on.ca Kitchener, ON N2G 4M4 From: Scott Hannah <shannah@heritagehomes.com> Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 11:40 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Enabling four (4) units - Comments from Scott Hannah Attachments: Comments on four unit proposed regulations S Hannah.pdf You don't often get email from shannah@heritagehomes.com. Learn why this is important Katie and staff: Thanks for a great workshop yesterday with representatives from the development industry. We could have used 4 hours, but you did a great job in the time allocated. I've attached my comments on the Enabling four units initiative. If you need more explanation of my comments, please don't hesitate to reach out. Please also keep me updated on the staff report and when this will go to Council. Thanks again. Scott R. Scott Hannah Sr. Project Manager, Land Development I Reid's Heritage Homes 6783 Wellington Road 34, RR 22, Cambridge ON N3C 2V4 T: 519.658.6656 C: 519.504.24261 shannah(cDheritagehomes.com s4 R L A c I�I�ouE RIpGE 111, m P u •. 1m. N RJfCHF.HER �I W SIU I � 2021 Canada's Top 100 Small + Medium Employers 2021 Waterloo Area's Top Employers 2022 Canadian Brownfield Champion for Redevelopmnet at the Community Scale 2023 Certified Great Place to Work WE'VE MOVED! Our new office is located at 700 Jamieson Parkway, Unit #103, Cambridge, ON NX 4N6 Linked) n 1 1 nsta m ram I Twitter I i=acebook 10 Page 199 of 343 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Zoning provisions to allow four (4) units on residential lots. I viewed the online presentation and attended the builder/developer session on January 31, 2024, from 1-2:30 pm at the Forest Heights Community Centre. I am also a member of the City's Committee of Adjustment and have spent over 40 years working in Development Planning both for municipalities and the private sector, so I hope I offer a unique perspective. I have several larger concerns with allowing four units everywhere in lower density residential areas: 1. The loss of residential character: Previous changes to the Planning legislation to allow two units and three units have resulted in changes to some residential neighbourhoods, where larger 18+ metre wide lots with post war bungalows have been demolished and severed to allow two detached dwellings or, more decently, duplexs/triplexes on the new lots. The character of these neighbourhoods has changed, and in my view in some cases not for the better. But when done right these new units can be compatible with the existing. Given the stats provided both online and at the session there are thousands of properties that can be gently intensified and help solve our housing crisis. Uptake is only beginning to happen so patience is needed. With the allowance of 4 units, I fear that that there may be enough financial gain for the tear down rebuild will start to occur in beautiful neighbourhoods that have only experienced gentle intensification (ie. New units added internally without noticeable change to the architectural appearance of the dwelling) without destroying the character of the area. This is the right kind of change. There is clearly a closet industry (intensification contractors, builders/real estate) that has developed (I see the same applicants all the time at the C of A) and they only care about the dollars not the neighbourhoods they destroy. If we were to lose the character of Westmount (only an example), it would be sad. Perhaps the heritage planners need to look at some of these neighbourhoods that you want to preserve and create heritage districts. Most of my comments for and against the changes to the zoning by-law are based on my concern with character. 2. Has servicing and stormwater management been considered: Some of the changes proposed appear to result in development that will add to lot coverage and the percentage of imperious surfaces on a property. With climate change and the severity of rainfall events have the Engineers considered these changes. In my view, any change that will result in allowing more coverage on a lot (driveway or building coverage standards) should not be allowed as I see troubles down the road with storm sewer capacity and even the load on the sanitary sewers. I trust this has been considered. I would also suggest that your building by-law be updated to require SWM reports where proposals exempt from SPA (e.g less than 10 units) are substantially adding to imperious cover on a lot (expanded parking areas or lot coverage) Here are some specific comments on the changes proposed: Parking 6.0 metre setback to the first parking space — Currently required. Proposed to remove the requirement. I fully support this change, as this was something that I suggested to staff early on. The Committee sees this variance one or two times a meeting where applicant's want to convert a garage to living space but must go to the Committee even though two (2) functional parking spaces exist in the driveway while meeting the driveway width requirements. Staff always support this variance which is typically seen for conversions of existing detached dwellings to two units. This is good intensification as the character of Page 200 of 343 the dwelling and neighbourhood remains unchanged. Based on the stats that were presented, there are thousands of existing lots in the City that could take advantage of this change added thousands of new units without the need for tear downs and rebuilds. Reduced parking for 3 and four units — current 3 required for three units and 4 required for four units. Proposed changes to allow less or no parking in MTSA, and reduced parking in older built-up area. The City needs to be very careful with these changes. The City is not downtown Toronto even though you are doing your best to encourage alternative modes of transportation. I like the idea of allowing the areas in the MTSA areas to have lessor requirements or not require parking for three- or four -unit conversions, ADU's (detached) and new purpose-built residential buildings (2, 3 or 4 units). You already do that for larger residential developments. In this way, you have chosen areas that you want to see change. Developers then can decide if they want to provide parking (1, 2, 3 or more spaces) based on the tenants that they want to attract. I am still very concerned with the teardowns and 4 unit rebuilds in the older built-up areas. These are the areas that have the residential character as many were built before the cookie cutter designs, we see in modern neighbourhoods. The loss of these wonderful architecturally diverse nieghbourhoods would be devastating. There are larger properties that can accommodate 3 or 4 units though conversions or additions with appropriate parking, but parking is usually the regulation that controls the ability of making the change. I fear reducing parking will promote more teardown/rebuilds. Parking should remain at 1 per unit for purpose-built duplexes, triples and four -unit building. Possible reduction in parking (i.e. 3 spaces for 4 units) where a conversion or addition is made to an existing building. This would retain character, and this has been my theme. ADU's Permitted # of units in ADU (detached) and Maximum Height — currently 1. Proposed 2, Currently 4.5m proposed to go to 7.5 metres. I strongly oppose these changes. There are two issues typically with ADU's detached for surrounding property owners. The first is lose of privacy and the section is increased shadowing as the new ADU's are typically conversion of existing detached garages or accessory structure or purpose built ADU's (detached) located close to rear or side property lines. The building code does not allow window openings in structures less than 1.2 metres from the property lines so it is easy to explain to abutting neighbours that there won't be a loss of privacy as walls less than 1.2 metres from the lot line must be blank and the new ADUs will only be one storey so no issue with shadow. Even if the new ADU is situated more than 1.2 metres from the lot line and windows face the neighbours yard any loss of privacy can be resolved via fencing with a one storey building. The abutting neighbours already need to deal with increased activity and noise caused by the ADU (detached). They should not have to deal with loss of privacy and shadowing impacts. ADU's (detached) should be the exception to gentle intensification not made easier. The regulations should not allow more than one or higher heights, unless a developer wants to provide a lane -based product where there is a unit over a garage accessed off the lane. This was successfully done in Oakville when I was a Senior Manager of Planning and there are no issues with privacy. Lot width - currently 13.1 metres. Considering narrower for allow ADU's on 12.1 metre lots. Page 201 of 343 I am open to the idea of openning up more opportunities for 12 m (40 foot) lots to be intensified by two - and three -unit conversions. These lots can accommodate a double car garage and two ccars side by side in a driveway and meet the driveway width regulations (as an aside, please don't change this). At the Committee we have seen ADUs both internally and externally on properties with frontages slightly less than 13 metres and they appear to function properly. I am strongly opposed to allowing 4 units on something less than 15 -metre -wide lots. As noted earlier, there are changes that can be made (example allowing garage conversions with appropriate front yard parking) that will enhance intensification opportunities. I fear a raft of four (4) unit teardown/rebuilds and they should not be the norm or you risk destroying neighbourhoods. ADU's in exterior side yards - currently not permitted. Consider with 4.5 metre setback to the property line. I support this change as corner lots (especially oversized ones) are exposed to two streets and have the unique opportunity of architecturally exposing a new ADU to the street to enhance the character of the neighbourhood. As an aside, during the development of new residential neighbourhoods in the post war era (e.g., 1950's) many corner properties were developed with walkup apartments as the two -street exposure allowed the placement of the building closer to the intersection with a small parking lot with access from the exterior yard. Perhaps the new zoning regulations could allow this for corner lots only in new and existing neighbourhoods. Corner lots might allow the tear downs to allow 4 units in a sensitive manner with appropriate and functional parking. Needless variances for existing situations As I mentioned at the Developers session, the City continues to require variances, for example a resident looking to convert a home to 2 or 3 units, where the lot is the right size, the parking standards are met and the addition is fully compliant (e.g., coverage, height, setbacks) but perhaps one of the existing yards (front or side) for the existing dwelling doesn't meet the by-law (i.e. legal non complying). This should be allowed without the need for the time and money needed to go through a variance which, by the way, are rubber stamped by the Committee. I have worked for and in other municipalities that have a section is the by-law that would allow this without a variance. This is just a small example of a way to make the process easier. Concluding comments From my read of the new Planning legislation, you are being asked to allow up to 4 units on lower density lots in residential areas, but you still can control the regulations that would allow this to happen. There are many positive changes being proposed that will make it easier for 2- and 3 -unit conversions both internally and externally and uptake is only just beginning. The City should be cautious and monitor what is happening (teardowns and rebuilds) with the new changes. If you find you have made a mistake and want to go back, the legal community will fight you. Slow and steady should be your approach. R. Scott Hannah Page 202 of 343 From: Ediphique Renovations Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 10:17 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Enabling 4 Units - Workshop (Follow-up) You don't often get email from Hi there, I wanted to send a quick addition to my comments regarding the frontage minimum. I know that you are considering 12.1m, so I would like to bring up some case points for making that limit 10.5m. 1. Kitchener Central Zone, likely has a higher percentage of smaller lot sizes than the city as a whole. From a developers perspective, I believe the business case for fourplexes will be highest in this area. The access to transit/walkability and higher likelihood of a rental market because of proximity to the downtown and colleges, will make it more desirable to create rental properties in the Central Zone. Since the majority is already zoned RES -3,4,5,6,7, zoning already permits reduced lot frontages from 10.5m and smaller. Adding higher minimums for lot frontages in this area will result in a further restriction on land that can be used for this purpose in a market where land is already scarce. This was my reasoning for saying that 12.1m (40ft) would lead to a need for minor variances. 2. In suburban areas, the larger lot frontages dictated by Res 1 and 2 zoning will prevent a permitted lower min of 10.5m from being utilized in these areas, so it should have little impact on the street scapes. 3. Because you are applying this to the ADU regulation for 3 units as well, in my experience 12.1m is still too restrictive for 3. Having 3 units on a 10.5m lot frontage is easily achieved. Even if the 3 parking requirement is kept, tandem parking up the side is viable. As I mentioned to Katie, If the lot area minimum is kept at 395 sq m it will allow for further possibilities with building size and parking. There are many narrow, but deep lots in the Kitchener Central Area. Thank you again for including me in the discussions. I hope my feedback will be helpful. Please let me know if you would like me to elaborate further on these points as I am happy to do so. Regards, Amanda Ediphique Renovations On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:44 AM EnablingFourUnits (SM) <EnablingFourUnits(@kitchener.ca> wrote: Good Morning, This is a friendly reminder that you have registered for the Enabling 4 Units — Industry Workshop. it Page 203 of 343 Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2024, 1:00 — 2:30 pm Location: Forest Heights Community Centre (1700 Queens Boulevard) The agenda for the workshop is as follows: uruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuirimoioioioioioioioioioioioioioioioioiouuui�m�m�m�m�m�m�m�m�uuiuir�i�r�iu�u u�uirui�ui�ui�ui�ui�ui�uim�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�o�muummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�ir�r�iomirm :' Welcome and Presentation 1:10 — 2:10 Facilitated Discussions 0 Theme #I..: Lot Width and Lot.. Area 0 Theme #2. rking 0 "herne #3u Backyard Ham mes UIIVu, - Theme #4. Building & Lot Design & Layout ': :25 LSI Discussion: Supporting I pl I i 2:30 Wrap Up and Closing Remarks Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind Regards, Katie Katie Anderl Project Manager - Planning I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7987 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.anderl@kitchener.ca 12 Page 204 of 343 From: Carolyn Barfoot < Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 9:33 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: 4 units [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] We must do a lot more infill and a lot less using good farm land. There is too much wasted space within the city limits to be allowing more spread. Affordable units are smaller, more efficient and conveniently located. We have too many monster homes with very low occupancy rates to be considered an efficient use of housing areas. 13 Page 205 of 343 From: Sarah Rioux Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 7:14 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Enabling Four Units You don't often get email from Hello, I wanted to express my interest in this project. I would be in favour of the project going ahead and adding 2 ADU's We are on a pie lot with significant area. We would likely require an allowance/curb cut for additional parking in the front, but there is a lot of room. And a lot of room behind the house. It would be helpful financially to be able to build one on -top of the other, or at least back to back. Thank you, Sarah Rioux 14 Page 206 of 343 From: Hal Jaeger Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:28 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: RE: Feedback You don't often get email from Sounds as if you have a plan to address some key areas. I invite you to visit me at my home for a tour of how setbacks and site plan have been addressed at my neighbour's. Best wishes, Hal Hal Jaeger From: EnablingFourUnits (SM) <EnablingFourUnits@kitchener.ca> Sent: January 30, 2024 11:18 AM To: Hal Jaeger Subject: RE: Feedback Thank you very much, Hal, for your comments and feedback; it was great meeting you at the market. We look at each dwelling as a household (family) it is hard to regulate the number of people from the zoning By-law. As we are exploring the regulations, We will not increase the lot coverage percentage (55%) and the driveway width regulation. We are also considering maintaining the 20% landscape requirements and looking at ways to maintain the more green space and the trees. I hope this answers some of your questions, we will be at Forest Heights Community Centre (1700 Queens Boulevard) tomorrow from 3 pm to 6 pm to collect more feedback ��, 15 Page 207 of 343 From: Hal Jaeger Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2024 9:47 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) <Enab in F-ourUnits@kitchener.ca> Subject: Feedback You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Thank you, Katie, Gaurang, and Arwa for handling the Enabling Four Units file. I really appreciate the materials you shared via the live presentation and video and open house at the market. As I said at the market, I see two very different issues being addressed in Enabling Four Units: a. the question of the layout, room allocations and relationships of residents and b. issues of lot coverage as it relates to residents' quiet enjoyment, including lot functionality, greenspace, privacy, access to light and aesthetics. I do not see why the number of units, the internal layout of a building (number of kitchens, bathrooms, etc.), the relationship of residents (single family, multiple families) or the relative size of ADUs to the gross floor area of the primary building should be subject to a neighbours' concerns (beyond general public safety and well- being). With three units already permitted, I imagine and hope the expansion to a fourth unit could go largely unnoticed. Conversely, I believe issues of lot coverage can impact a neighbour and the general community profoundly. I cannot speak directly to the question of minimum lot sizes and coverage, but I can speak to some of the contributing factors. I have concerns about lots reducing their green space and tree canopy, from which we all benefit. I support establishing and, in some cases, expanding minimum green space requirements, as opposed to merely regulating lot coverage or landscaping requirements. I already see people interpreting hardscaping and/or carpeting their space with astroturf as meeting minimum landscaping requirements. I take no issue with raising of maximum height limits on principal buildings or detached ADUs or reductions of setbacks where such would not compromise a neighbour's enjoyment (sightlines of the sky, access to sunlight, privacy, etc.). Regarding setbacks, my first-hand experience suggests that inadequate setbacks and poor site layout can be exacerbated under more intensive uses. I suggest that 1.2m setbacks are already inadequate for maintenance purposes and allowing setbacks to be reduced further by projections in the setbacks can be even less tenable as the number of units increases. I see parking primarily as another issue of lot coverage. I value the vistas of front yards and do not appreciate it being interrupted by parked cars. I am pleased to see the reduction of parking requirements, so long as it does not lead to an externalization of costs. I would be unhappy to see the city subsidizing new parking lots or spending more to clear snow if users cannot remove their cars from the streets during snow emergencies. I know that my neighbour clears snow from their parking area onto my property and onto the street. I believe this is the result of a parking lot area out of proportion to the location and size of space for snow storage. I hope that your work can be paired with updating of our bylaws and their enforcement, to enable swift resolution of the increased pressures between neighbours' interests that I expect our intensification may produce. I specifically ask you to coordinate with bylaw so as to ensure any additional units are used as long- term residential units, not as short-term rentals or commercial rentals, which I believe can produce more frictions with neighbours. 16 Page 208 of 343 Thank you for your consideration. I invite you to observe the outcomes at my property, Hal Hal Jaeger v Page 209 of 343 From: Susan Lloyd Swail Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 10:39 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Cc: Ron Swail Subject: Considerations for 4 unit policy You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Good morning, I would like to see analysis on the upgrades needed to community centres, schools and parkland to meet the needs of the population demand at 4 units per lot. As food growing is a way households make ends meet new quads should be built to minimize shadowing on adjacent yards growing areas particularly on the south and west exposures. Setbacks should enable provision of energy infrastructure like heat pumps and access for maintenance in the side yard i.e. 6 ft minimum. Parking requirements should provide paved areas for a minimum of four cars unless they are within 100 m of an all day regular transit route. Due to additional paved areas yards of four plexes should require rain gardens to reduce heat island effect and reduce runoff to adjacent dwellings. Units should require sprinklered systems to minimize fire damage to adjacent dwellings. This may be a building code issue. Regards, Susan Lloyd Swail 1s Page 210 of 343 From: Chris Hund Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 10:32 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Four units You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Why bother with comments. This has already been back room approved. Like most other "unit cramming" to make future ghettos out of older subdivisions with single family homes being bought buy speculation. Some of us purchased homes to enjoy space. Not to experience how many people the government can jam in per square foot. 19 Page 211 of 343 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: You don't often get email from To Whom it may concern Four-plex infills - as per right Leslie HOLDWAY Sunday, January 28, 2024 12:51 PM Schreiner, Mike; Berry Vrbanovic Sarah FitzPatrick; Katie Anderl Fourplex infills - as per right Learn why this is important Some of the parameters of any proposed bylaws, as I see it 1. Lots must be a minimum of 20 feet in width and / or a 600 sq. foot buildable area 2. Lesser width may be considered if depth of lot exceeds 120 feet 3. Units within subdivisions shall have a 42 foot height restriction unless otherwise allowed 4. Ground level units should have asses -ability features 5. Al units should have enhanced sound / fire resistance 6. All sites should require 50% (.5 car) minimum parking requirements per unit or greater 7. 1 in-line double parking may be allowed were a total of 3 parking spaces or more are available 8. Parking may be allowed on up to 80% lot frontage 9. Main Street units may allow a density maximum of 300 per acre by right, 126 foot height allowance 10. Lots of 50 feet or more in width may allow 2 four- plex units Les Holdway 20 Page 212 of 343 From: Andrew Vlcek Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 9:08 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Cc: Philippe Fournier Subject: MSS Staff Masters Thesis - The New Plex You don't often get email from Hi, One of our Intern Architects Philippe Fournier recently finished his Masters Thesis on the topic of urban intensification and may be of particular interest to you. Philippe and Patrick Simmons from our office recently met with Liberal MP Brian May who will be sharing Philippe work with the housing minister. We have attached the thesis here: https://we.tl/t-te0ELaazIK You can also find a digital copy of this which was uploaded at the link below: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/67943797/the-new-plex Best, A.J. Vlcek B.A.(Hons.), M.Arch, OAA Important Notice: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Martin Simmons Sweers Architects Inc. immediately by phone. 23 Page 213 of 343 From: V K Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 12:40 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: Re: 4plex By -Law Questions Hey Katie It was nice speaking with you last night. I remembered 3 other points I wanted to bring up. 1. Having the front doors at the front of the triplex or 4plex is also a better idea for security and privacy reasons. As a neighbor, I'd much rather have a house with 3 or 4 doors upfront and people entering that way then having side door lights turning on, flooding my house windows each time someone is walking in and out of their units. Also, Id prefer not to have someone walking along the side of my house late at night to get to their door at the neighboring house. 2. We need to get rid of that set back rule concerning being in line with neighboring homes (reins or something). I would allow someone to do it if it benefits them (allowing them to exceed the 4.5m set back requirement for example). But otherwise, there should be no issue with sticking out or in if it meant being able to build a better structure. I think that is far less of a negative impact on a neighborhood then allowing 4 stories. 3. Three bedroom units need to be incentivized more through reduced fees or something. The reason we're bringing in so many people is because our replacement rate is so low. One key factor for people having less kids is cost and availability of housing. More three bedroom units allow for people to rent a family size unit that is cheaper then renting a full blown house or townhouse, which is more expensive. We need to provide ways for builders to make 3 bedroom apartments more financially feasible for them at every level of build (I would even mandate a minimum number in the buildings being put up). Thanks for setting up the info session last night. I hope it went well and some good ideas were brought up. Vlad On Tue., Jan. 23, 2024, 9:41 a.m. Katie Anderl, <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Vlad, I recall you were interested in attending our industry workshop for discuss the proposed zoning regulations. In case you didn't receive our mass email late last week, I've include the details for you below. Please be sure to register if you wish to attend. Thanks, Katie orl p: January 31, 2024 1:00 — 2:30 pm at the Forest Heights Community Centre (1700 Queens Boulevard). Workshop space is limited to 20 participants and registration is rewired. Please email enablingfourunits@kitchener.ca to confirm your attendance. 24 Page 214 of 343 Aln Imo: January 31, 2024, 3:00 — 6:00 pm at the Forest Heights Community Centre (1700 Queens Boulevard). Drop-in any time to this open house which is open to the development industry and the public. You are also welcome to attend a Public Open House. These are scheduled for Saturday, January 20, 7:00 am — 2:00 pm at the Kitchener Market, and Tuesday, January 23, 3:00 — 7:00 pm at the Stanley Park Community Center. For more information and to share your feedback through our short survey, please visit and subscribe to our EngagePage (https://www.engagewr.ca/enablingfourunits ). Separate comments are also welcome and can be emailed directly to: enablingfourunits@kitchener.ca From: V K Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 10:30 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Cc: Gaurang Khandelwal <Gaurang.Khandelwal@kitchener.ca>; Arwa Alzoor <Arwa.Alzoor@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: 4plex By -Law Questions Thanks Katie, I'll definitely make a note to attend. The only other point I would bring up that I thought about was parking setbacks in rear yard areas. I was told that there was a 1.5m set back required on all three sides of the parking area (left and right side and in front of the parking space between it and the property line). I agree with the right and left setbacks, but the one between the space and property line is going to limit a ton of properties from being converted/developed into 4 unit dwellings. We have a TON of 40ft lots where existing houses with laneway style driveways could have a rear 2 storey bump out built on to them to create 3 additional units (bsmt, main, upper). If you lose the 1.5m, it makes pulling in and out of that space more difficult. But if you're allowed to park the car right up to the fence line, it opens up a ton of potential on that size of lot. Existing houses could be spared from demo and more housing could be built. That's a win for the environmentalists, the developers and the neighbours who want their streets to preserve their existing feel and look. Thanks for the info and I'll make sure I attend. Thanks! Mad On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 14:48, Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Vlad, Thanks for reaching out — your comments are timely. We are currently working on reviewing and drafting new regulations, and will be engaging with the public and builders such as yourself throughout January. We have just set up an EngagePage: https://www.eneaeewr.ca/enablinefourun its I would encourage you to subscribe to get updates on when engagement opportunities are added. We are planning a couple of public drop in sessions, a virtual meeting as well as a builder/industry workshop. With respect to your questions, I anticipate that two driveways will continue to be permitted for corner lots (however driveways will continue to be subject to regulations for maximum widths, etc). I appreciate your feedback on the limitations on pedestrian entrances. We are currently reviewing regulations for such matters and can take this one back for further consideration. 25 Page 215 of 343 Thanks, Katie From: V K Sent: Monday, January 1, 2024 9:49 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca>; Gaurang Khandelwal <Gaurane.Khandelwal@kitchener.ca> Subject: 4plex By -Law Questions Hey Katie and Gaurang Hope you had a nice holiday. I was given your contact info from one of the planners at the city in order to find out more information regarding the proposed 4plex bylaw that the city will be voting on in the first quarter of this year. Have you established any guidelines yet that you will be proposing for the bylaw? My interest relates to parking and what will be the guidelines for it? I have a property located at 1180 Union St in Kitchener, which I am hoping to convert to a 4plex if the bylaw is approved. I currently have a driveway from Union, but would like to add a second off Maple Ave to accommodate the other parking spaces. I understand that this is permitted for duplexes and triplexes for corner properties and am wondering if it will be allowed for 4plexes as well? I also want to know if the disastrous idea that was applied to triplexes which only allows for 1 door at the front of the dwelling will also be applied to 4plexes? I will never understand how in a city that is promoting densification, having more than one door at the front of the building is somehow seen as a negative. It actually impedes our ability to design/redesign new and existing homes in an efficient manner in many cases (depending on grading and lot size). I understand that a variance application can circumvent this, but that then just becomes a cash grab for the city and time lost for the builder and future occupant. Is this also going to be applied in the bylaw? Thanks for any information you can provide. Vlad Knezevic 26 Page 216 of 343 From: Katie Anderl Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:46 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: FW: 4 Plex Lots From: Leslie HOLDWAY Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 12:31 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: 4 Plex Lots You don't often get email from Katie Here are physical examples of possible 3 and 4 plexes that would fit 20 to 25 foot lot widths Les Holdway v Page 217 of 343 is Page 218 of 343 Dri�'UtaJfISf:�i f01 �AUbM mr „i„ „mm. 29 Page 219 of 343 Khandelwal <Gaurang.Khandelwal@kitchener.ca>; Hajnal Kovacs <Hajna1.Kovacs@kitchener.ca> Subject: FW: Headline in record Jan 19 Front Page From: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2024 9:14 AM To: Carolyne Wagner Cc: Jeffery Silcox -Childs <Jeffery.Silcox-Childs@kitchener.ca>; Joshua Shea <Joshua.Shea@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Headline in record Jan 19 Front Page Hi Carolyne, Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. I pasted a couple links below that detail the city's tree conservation policies and urban forest goals. Of course, there is always room for improvement. I am copying Jeffery Silcox -Childs and Joshua Shea on this message, as they will be able to better respond to your concerns. Regarding the role of the Horticultural Society, it is an independent body with its own board, budget and agenda. You can learn more about the society at the following link: https://www.kitchenerhs.ca/about/ https://www.kitchener.ca/en/water-and-environment/tree-conservation-and-management.aspx https://www.kitchener.ca/en/strategic-plans-and-projects/urban-forestry.aspx I hope this helps. Debbie Chapman, PhD Subscribe to monthly newsletter here: https:C/bit.lyL3NMIDTe Councillor, Ward 9 1 City of Kitchener 0: 519-741-2200 ext. 2798 C: 226-752-7104 Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca AN 1 e M mwlih Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling the 24/7 Corporate Contact Centre at 519-741-2345 From: noreply@kitchener.ca <norePly@kitchener.ca> on behalf of Carolyne Wagner Date: Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 6:27 PM To: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca> Subject: Headline in record Jan 19 Front Page [You don't often get email from. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification j There was an article by Brent Davis in the Record Jan 19 about Kitchener properties allowing up to 4 units on large lots. I would like to see something in the bylaw that ensures the owners must keep or plant the same size trees already on the lot or add a certain number of trees. This has not been done in Queen St. South near Blueridge and I fear we will soon be creating a concrete jungle with few trees, more global warming and poor drainage and habitats for small animals and other plants. I was told by a city planner that they had no jurisdiction over how homeowners cut down 31 Page 220 of 343 trees in their property. This SHOULD change and I would hope you as a member of the horticultural society would have more influence to see this becomes true. I am not in the country right now and unable to attend any of the open houses or I would be there in person , for sure. Origin: https://can0l.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kitchener.ca%2Fen%2Fcouncil-and- citV-administration%2Fcouncillor-debbie- chapman.aspx&data=05%7CO2%7Cdebbie.chapman%40kitchener.ca%7C4ae0eaaf497342ec9c2208dc19e57b90%7Cc703 d79153f643a59255622eb33alb0b%7CO%7C0%7C638413720633845521%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWlioiMC4 wLiAwMDAiLCJQlioiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=epbRPSTuaFWD2JU3kXv aEObRnpxEwh7kr0udVVWpeDc%3D&reserved=0 This email was sent to you by Carolyne Wagner https://can0l.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kitchener.ca%2F&data=05%7CO2%7Cdebbi e.chapman%40kitchener.ca%7C4ae0eaaf497342ec9c2208dc19e57b90%7Cc703d79153f643a59255622eb33alb0b%7C0 %7CO%7C638413720633845521%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW IioiMC4wLiAwM DAiLCJQlioiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklh aWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h0IxN9KkxDoVlzYKuiekPsxOkJBnADscssRYQSXiggU%3D&reserved= 0. 32 Page 221 of 343 From: Klas Bockasten Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2024 11:32 AM To: Justin Readman Cc: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: The Missing Middle: Los Angeles Needs to Build Different Types of Housing You don't often get email from Hi, I thought you might find this page interesting: httos://commonedoe.ora/the-missina-middle-los-anaeles-needs-to-build-different-tvoes-of-housina/ I know it does not exactly meet the discussion on four-plexes, but highlights the need to construct the missing middle. My oldest daughter lives in Malmo, Sweden, so I am quite familiar with the area and the missing middle discussed in the article about Los Angeles. Contact me if you want to discuss this further. Klas Bockasten 33 Page 222 of 343 From: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 10:41 AM To: 'Sam Head'; Enabling FourUnits (SM) Cc: 'brockl'; 'Andrew Head' Subject: RE: Four Units - Hi Sam, Thanks for your comments below. We are exploring many different permutations of how four units can work, and what the constraints might be. The intention of this project is to enable zoning to permit four units and expand the number of lots and existing dwellings that can take advantage of such expansions. We have had some experience and uptake now on the 3 units per lot regulations which have been in place since early summer 2023, and are exploring whether we can allow for some reduced lot widths and sizes, and to consider when parking may or may not be required for additional units and how it can be organized. Applicants must still comply with building permit requirements, and we acknowledge that there are various fees and costs that are associated with development. However, site plan approval and urban design review will not be required. We will require a basic site plan as part of the zoning occupancy certificate and building permit process to allow a review for compliance with zoning regulations. There may also be some additional projects and work as next steps to creating the enabling zoning for example resources and guide for homeowners and builders, further exploration of financial incentives etc. This is beyond the scope of this initial project, but may be explored to help support uptake, and will follow as next steps. We will be hosing a workshop and open house targeted to builder/developers/industry on January 31 (workshop (registration required) 1— 3 and open house (drop-in) 3 — 6) at the Forest Heights Community Centre. If you subscribe to our engage page you will received further notice when more details are available: https://www.en a ewr.ca/enabhn fourunits . Thanks! Katie From: Sam Head Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:17 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) <EnablingFourUnits@kitchener.ca> Cc: 'brockl' <brockl@dsh.ca>; 'Andrew Head' <andrewh@dsh.ca> Subject: Four Units - Hi Katie As I understand the system currently, every residential property with a single house is entitled to adding an additional unit. 34 Page 223 of 343 Additions to the building and conversion of the basement to add a unit basically does not need planning approvals but needs building permit ,plumbing approvals and pay building permit fees. The owner needs to hire a qualified designer. I assume the usual DC and Parkland fees apply. Adding an ADU Additional Dwelling Unit requires planning approvals and has to go through pre consultation process to see if it will work. No consent is permitted and you need to connect to the municipal services via the existing home. Again you need a builder designer. Pay the permits fees and other municipal Regional Fees, Often leads to the owner getting a survey done. And hiring a planner to get them through the process. A servicing contractor is necessary for the sanitary , water and electrical work. More expenses. Parking is often a problem. We are often looking at Tandem parking. This is all time consuming and expensive. Often do not realize that the need to pay Development Charges to City, Region and School Boards. Sometime the GRCA get it hand out for fees. Some time there is a parkland dedication fee. All of this makes it less desirable to the owner to go through that expense and the cost of actually building a home. Most of our recent application need to go through a minor variance application process. More time and expenses. I am saying all this to let you know that the easy is not easy. On the question of adding 4 units. This should say adding 3 or 4 units, if two are already permitted. I don't see too many lots qualifying for three or four units. People will see an opportunity to add more dwelling units to their property. The City needs to be clear on how you might qualify for the additional units. I would suggest that the 30 and 40 foot lots would have a had time meeting all the requirements for even an additional unit. Let assume the following. Only large lots will have any chance of adding up to four units. Do we need to provide 4 onsite parking spaces . One per unit.$$$ Will there be a frontage requirement. Do you recognize that the existing dwelling is legal not conforming to reduce the number of variances. Does every new unit pay the three development changes. $$$ How is the parkland dedication applied. Should have that number up front. $$$ How do you address the capacity in the existing sanitary and water line currently servicing one unit. They were not designed or sized for four units. Do we need to dig up the street and oversize the connection to the city systems. $$$ How about electrical. The current system is designed for one unit. Need to retain an Designer qualified to work with City Building Departments.$$$ Building permit fees. Plumbing fees. All contractors will need to be hired for these services. Renovations to the existing services to accommodate the additional units. Are you going to ask for Tree saving plan. Are you going to ask for Archaeological Assessment. Does the Region get its hand on the project. They love to do unnecessary archaeological assessment because the property may be in a area that is identified. Off all the one I have completed recently not was found. 35 Page 224 of 343 Can we add units to properties that are on Septic Systems. I assume site plan application is not required. We still do a site plan sketch on how things work. What is the level of detail that we will need to submit on behalf of our clients. Can we just give you a bunch of bicycle spaces in lieu of Parking. Do we need to install an electrical charging station. $$$ You need to be up front with the rules, guidelines, etc. so we know what is required. You going to ask for Urban Design. You need to let property owners know what the cost will be and what is required. Some random thoughts of a seasoned Planner. Good luck with making this work Love to see how this plays out. Sam Head, President Dryden, Smith & Head Planning Consultants Ltd. 36 Page 225 of 343 From: Katie Anderl Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 8:09 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: FW: 4plex By -Law Questions From: V K Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 10:30 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Cc: Gaurang Khandelwal <Gaurang.Khandelwal@kitchener.ca>; Arwa Alzoor <Arwa.Alzoor@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: 4plex By -Law Questions Thanks Katie, I'll definitely make a note to attend. The only other point I would bring up that I thought about was parking setbacks in rear yard areas. I was told that there was a 1.5m set back required on all three sides of the parking area (left and right side and in front of the parking space between it and the property line). I agree with the right and left setbacks, but the one between the space and property line is going to limit a ton of properties from being converted/developed into 4 unit dwellings. We have a TON of 40ft lots where existing houses with laneway style driveways could have a rear 2 storey bump out built on to them to create 3 additional units (bsmt, main, upper). If you lose the 1.5m, it makes pulling in and out of that space more difficult. But if you're allowed to park the car right up to the fence line, it opens up a ton of potential on that size of lot. Existing houses could be spared from demo and more housing could be built. That's a win for the environmentalists, the developers and the neighbours who want their streets to preserve their existing feel and look. Thanks for the info and I'll make sure I attend. Thanks! Mad On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 14:48, Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Vlad, Thanks for reaching out — your comments are timely. We are currently working on reviewing and drafting new regulations, and will be engaging with the public and builders such as yourself throughout January. We have just set up an EngagePage: https://www.engagewr.ca/enablingfourun its I would encourage you to subscribe to get updates on when engagement opportunities are added. We are planning a couple of public drop in sessions, a virtual meeting as well as a builder/industry workshop. 42 Page 226 of 343 With respect to your questions, I anticipate that two driveways will continue to be permitted for corner lots (however driveways will continue to be subject to regulations for maximum widths, etc). I appreciate your feedback on the limitations on pedestrian entrances. We are currently reviewing regulations for such matters and can take this one back for further consideration. Thanks, Katie From: V K Sent: Monday, January 1, 2024 9:49 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca>; Gaurang Khandelwal <Gaurang.l<handelwal@kitchener.ca> Subject: 4plex By -Law Questions Hey Katie and Gaurang Hope you had a nice holiday. I was given your contact info from one of the planners at the city in order to find out more information regarding the proposed 4plex bylaw that the city will be voting on in the first quarter of this year. Have you established any guidelines yet that you will be proposing for the bylaw? My interest relates to parking and what will be the guidelines for it? I have a property located at 1180 Union St in Kitchener, which I am hoping to convert to a 4plex if the bylaw is approved. I currently have a driveway from Union, but would like to add a second off Maple Ave to accommodate the other parking spaces. I understand that this is permitted for duplexes and triplexes for corner properties and am wondering if it will be allowed for 4plexes as well? 43 Page 227 of 343 I also want to know if the disastrous idea that was applied to triplexes which only allows for 1 door at the front of the dwelling will also be applied to 4plexes? I will never understand how in a city that is promoting densification, having more than one door at the front of the building is somehow seen as a negative. It actually impedes our ability to design/redesign new and existing homes in an efficient manner in many cases (depending on grading and lot size). I understand that a variance application can circumvent this, but that then just becomes a cash grab for the city and time lost for the builder and future occupant. Is this also going to be applied in the bylaw? Thanks for any information you can provide. Mad Knezevic 44 Page 228 of 343 From: Ediphique Renovations Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 11:32 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Suggestions for Fourplex zoning Hello, I wanted to provide some feedback regarding the mandate to allow four units on any residential lot ( single detached, semi-detached and townhouses). I have been researching fourplexes in different cities for a few years and have been familiarizing myself with Kitchener's zoning over the past year. I will say that Kitchener's Res -4 zoning is one of the more progressive I have seen. The set back and lot area parameters as well as parking requirements are workable. The main difficulty we are having is securing land that has the correct zoning with the right lot dimensions. As the number of properties with zoning for Res -4 is limited, securing the appropriate land has proven challenging. So opening fourplexes up to all residential zones and using the existing Res -4 setbacks, lot, height and parking parameters would already be helpful. I will make two suggestions for altering the existing Res -4 zoning to make it easier to work with. 1. Reducing the Interior Side Setbacks will help with both the conversion of existing houses and allow more flexibility in design for new builds 2. Allow more flexible parking options; While rear individual access parking is the ideal arrangement, allowing front in tandem parking may also work in some situations. Allowing this will also make it easier to convert existing homes into four units. If the goal is to go further than this then I would suggest a reduction in the frontage and lot area size. Right now the ADU policy restricts 3 units on a property to 13.1m lot frontage and 395 sq m area. Making this the case for 4 units as well will allow for builds on more residential plots, while still accommodating the parking and set back requirements outlined in the Res -4 zoning. However, this may not accommodate semi-detached or townhouses. Right now the semi-detached and townhouse min frontages would not allow 3 units under Kitchener's existing ADU policy. The policy would have to reduce the min frontage required to 9.3m or 7.5m. With this, I believe that 4 units can be comfortably accommodated within the building. The parking could be achieved in certain circumstances. 9.3m could allow for a suitable building with tandem parking up the side, or double drive tandem to accomodate 4 spots. If there is an option to forgo the parking requirement near transit or in the central areas then this can work better. I myself lived in one of these types of 4 plexes (semi-detached) in Toronto during my school days. They work really well near a university where students typically walk and don't have cars or in high transit areas where cars are not required. I will mention though that as far as the 3 unit ADU policy goes, that can easily be accommodated on a 7.5m or 9.3 m lot frontage. The limitation of the 3 units to 13.1m frontage is removing the opportunity of semi-detached and townhouses to accomodate more residents, as well as existing detached homes with smaller frontages. In the case of detached and semi-detached buildings these can often allow tandem 3 car parking up the side of the building, or have garages that can accommodate a third car. My thoughts are that 3 units with parking is easily achievable on 7.5m or 9.3m frontages, 4 units in some circumstances (or with a parking exemption). I was very happy to hear that four units were being considered for all residential homes. We have been advocates for multi -residential builds for years and will participate in the building of these over the next few years. I hope my suggestions will be helpful. I will try to attend one of the Neighbourhood meetings to connect. 45 Page 229 of 343 Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of my suggestions further. Regards, Amanda Ediphique Developments 46 Page 230 of 343 From: Heidi Valee Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2023 9:11 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Thought on this project Hello, Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinions on this project. I believe it needs careful consideration as to how this will impact neighbours in an established neighbourhood. We bought our house because of the private backyard. We chose not to buy in a crowed subdivision where neighbours can look over into each other's yards. We like our space and privacy. If our neighbours, for example, were to build another unit on their property, they could potentially build one high enough that the occupants could have full view of our yard. We have a pool and appreciate our privacy. I believe it would lower our property's value to have an intrusive building overlooking our property. Not to mention shadows created etc. The landscape of the Region of Waterloo has completely changed and in my opinion not for the better. We moved here 30 years ago from the Toronto area because the K -W area was a quiet, smaller region. It is the opposite now. Thanks to both the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo it has been ruined. It is no longer the attractive area it used to be. Random buildings are going up without any forethought of how it might change the aesthetics of our neighbourhoods. Traffic in the area is also a nightmare that city officials don't seem to take in to consideration. This project is just another one that could potentially make a mess of our region. H. Valee 47 Page 231 of 343 Page 232 of 343 From: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 6:33 AM To: 'theluketaylor'; Enabling FourUnits (SM) Subject: RE: Draft zoning language Hi Luke, Thanks for reaching out— the 30% landscaping in the front yard and rear yard is intended to measured only on the areas located within the front yard and the rear yard of a property. Therefore, with a front yard setback of 4.5 m and a width of 10.5 m (47.25 m2) you would need 30% to be soft landscaping or about 16 m2 which accommodates the root zone for a small tree, or plantings and grass. For a rear yard having an area of 100 m2 would require 33 m2 to be landscaping which could include landscaping, walkways, decks/patios and lands that are part of setback to the ADU or a parking area. This adds up to about 49 m2 between the front and rear yard. We assume there may be more landscaping in side yards (but possibly not if you require a walkway, or a driveway is located beside the house.) The intention of the regulations is to ensure there is some green space in the front yard, and greenspace and private amenity space in rear yards. If you do not have parking in your rear yard, the 30% should not be too difficult to achieve within the rear yard area. This compares to a minimum 20% overall landscaped area for small multiples which would be about 75 m2 for 360 m lot. The landscaped area may actually be less with the new zoning, but we are a bit more prescriptive with where it needs to be. The lot area for the ADU is measured based on 15% size of the entire lot (and coverage of all buildings is up to 55%) the same as it is today. For a lot with the minimum lot size of 360 m2 your maximum ADU size would be about 54 m2. If there are particulars of your property you wish to discuss please let us know, Thanks, Katie From: theluketaylor Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 9:14 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) <EnablingFourUnits@kitchener.ca> Subject: Draft zoning language Katie, Gaurang, and Arwa: I have taken a look at the draft language to enable 4 units and I have questions about the landscaping coverage. In the existing zoning code the landscaping coverage is 20%. In the draft it's 30% backyard and for 3/4 units it's 30% both front and back, for 60% total landscaped. That's a staggering increase in landscaping requirements and seems to drastically limit both lots that can have ADUs and the forms it's possible to actually use. How many city lots (especially in the central city) currently have 30% front yard landscaped? Will this prevent prime infill development lots of being as -of - right? What research led to 30% being the recommended value? Page 233 of 343 From some quick measurements using the zoning map I have about 9% of the front yard landscaped. Would someone in my situation need a variance to go to 3 or 4 units? If so, what would be the value of the variance process given the whole point of by -right is to prevent special variance needs. My backyard currently seems to be about 39% landscaped. Would that mean the maximum effective lot coverage I could have in an ADU would be 9%, or about 40.5 m^2 / 440 sq ft rather than the 15%? Absent the landscaped requirement an ADU on my lot could be around 67.5 m^2 / 730 sq ft. The landscaping requirement seems to impose a nearly nearly 40% floor area penalty and would be the difference between a tight studio and a comfortable 1 bedroom unit. As part of developing plans for some renovations I looked into building an ADU with an architect this summer and came away very disappointed. The existing restrictions resulted in such a small unit I would feel like an abusive landlord taking advantage of a cost of living crisis. I was excited about going to 4 units by right since it seemed like some of the arbitrary restrictions were planned to be lifted, but it seems like the actual result is not substantially different from the existing code. Am I misunderstanding the requirements (or my lot measurements)? How does dramatically increasing the requirement for landscaping not just replicate the gross floor area restriction requirement in a different form? Also, is there a reason to refer specifically to LRT when raising certain minimums? Shouldn't major bus interchanges like Sunrise Centre get similar treatment? Luke Taylor Page 234 of 343 From: Katie Anderl Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 8:29 AM To: 'Michael Brisson' Subject: RE: "Reaching YES on Infill via A New Making of Allowances" Hi Michael, Thanks for forwarding — unfortunately I was not able to access the file. Is there another format or file type you could try sending? Thanks, Katie From: Michael Brisson Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 9:27 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: "Reaching YES on Infill via A New Making of Allowances" Open my shared note: Reaching YES on Infill via A New Making of Allowances 1 c,e., Sent from my iPhone Page 235 of 343 From: Ryan Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 4:40 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Re: 4 plexes on existing residential lots Thank you Katie. I appreciate it. I will review this material Ryan On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 4:32 PM EnablingFourU nits (SM) <EnablingFourUnits@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Ryan, Thanks for reaching out. The City of Kitchener is currently exploring regulations that would permit up to 4 units to be located on lots which currently permit a single detached, semi- detached or street townhouse dwelling, subject to regulations for items such as lot size, parking, etc (which are still being developed). You can learn more about this project through our Engage Page: https://www.engagewr.ca/enablingfou run its . Kind Regards, Katie Anderl -----Original Message ----- From: noreply@kitchener.ca <noreply@kitchener.ca> On Behalf Of Ryan Moore Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 11:42 AM To: Building (SM) <building@kitchener.ca> Subject: 4 plexes on existing residential lots Good morning, I have had a client inquire asking me if City of Kltchener is following Toronto and letting investors potentially buy certain existing lots to build 4 plexes on them. Any insight appreciated. Regards, Page 236 of 343 Ryan Moore Keller Williams Innovation Brokerage Realty Regards, Ryan Moore Sales Representative ASA T11 CC Realty Group Page 237 of 343 From: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 4:32 PM To: Cc: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: RE: 4 plexes on existing residential lots Hi Ryan, Thanks for reaching out. The City of Kitchener is currently exploring regulations that would permit up to 4 units to be located on lots which currently permit a single detached, semi- detached or street townhouse dwelling, subject to regulations for items such as lot size, parking, etc (which are still being developed). You can learn more about this project through our Engage Page: htt�s:l/www.enaewr.ca(enablinRfourunits . Kind Regards, Katie Anderl Original Message ----- From: nore Y kitchener.ca <norepVy@kitchener.ca> On Behalf Of Ryan Moore Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 11:42 AM To: Building (SM) <buildinC�kitchener.ca> Subject: 4 plexes on existing residential lots Good morning, I have had a client inquire asking me if City of Kitchener is following Toronto and letting investors potentially buy certain existing lots to build 4 plexes on them. Any insight appreciated. Regards, Ryan Moore Keller Williams Innovation Brokerage Realty Page 238 of 343 From: Yvonne Fernandes Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 1:39 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Re: Public Open House for Four Units Thank you for the response to one of my questions. I am waiting to understand the reason for not choosing another Community Center as a place for public engagement in person. Why was the Doon Pioneer Park Community Center not added as one of the locations for these open houses? With our diverse community and the large number of students that we have living in this area, l would have thought it would have been one of the most important areas to receive input from. Cordially Yvonne Fernandes President of the Doon Pioneer Park Community Association Follow your dreams of a better world, and keep on trying, even when there seems to be little hope, because it is the right thing to do. Robert Alan. On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 8:53 AM EnablingFourUnits (SM) <EnablingFourUnits@kitchener.ca> wrote: Good morning, Thank you for contacting us, yes we have one today Jan. 31, 3 to 6 p.m. at Forest Heights Community Centre (1700 Queen's Boulevard) In addition, please note that our open house poster and information are available Open House information now available I Enabling Four Units I EngageWR Our virtual neighborhood meeting is available online Enabling Four Units Everywhere - Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting (youtube.com) Please follow our Enabling Four Units I EngageWR and let us know if you have any questions or comments 23 Page 239 of 343 Thank you again for contacting us! Regards, Enabling Four Units Everywhere team Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 2426 1 Enab9in FourUnits@kitchenerxa our N to past and present contributions respect the cultural diversity that First Nations, IV16tis and I nuit bring to the City of Kitchener. From: Yvonne Fernandes Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 5:32 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM)<EnablingFourUnits@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Public Open House for Four Units Hi Katie, I understand that you are the project manager on this project. My husband and I attempted to attend an open house that I believed was supposed to be at the Stanley Park Community Center. Apparently it was scheduled for last week but I am almost certain that I saw that it was for today. I will make my comments known on the Engage Kitchener site but I have a question that is more about the location of these public open houses. Why was the Doon Pioneer Park Community Center not added as one of the locations for these open houses? With our diverse community and the large number of students that we have living in this area, I would have thought it would have been one of the most important areas to receive input from. 24 Page 240 of 343 Will there be any more opportunities for the public especially in the Doon /Pioneer Park area to attend a public meeting? If not then I believe that you will have a very skewed response from those attending the open houses that were made available to the public. I would ask that another opportunity for the public to respond in person to this very significant change to our community be considered before the report comes to Council. Respectfully, Yvonne Fernandes President of the Doon Pioneer Park Community Association Follow your dreams of a better world, and keep on trying, even when there seems to be little hope, because it is the right thing to do. Robert Alan. 25 Page 241 of 343 From: Jenn L. Ward < Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 2:46 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Cc: Nicole Cotie Subject: Additional units and group home bylaws Good afternoon, It was great to speak with City of Kitchener staff about the Enabling Four Units project at the Stanley Park Community Centre. I appreciate how the City of Kitchener has provided various opportunities for information sharing and feedback. I represent Karis Disability Services (formally Christian Horizons), a developmental services agency with six properties in Kitchener registered as group homes (non -correctional) as per zoning bylaws. The Engaging Four Units projects has raised a zoning bylaw question for us that actually applies to any additional units on the same lot. Currently the City of Kitchener group home definition in 430.1.1 defines a group home as 3-10 people, and zoning bylaw 5.17 and 4.9 state there can only be one group home per lot. If we were to add an addition or renovate a lower level to create two separate dwelling units, both supporting 3 people, we create 2 group homes on a lot which appears would not have zoning approval. When we discussed this on Tuesday, staff wondered if the bylaw could be interpreted to mean one group home operator per lot, however this would require clarification in the current wording in the bylaw. If this is not the intent, then a revision to the bylaw is needed to ensure that increased housing opportunities created by additional units on the same lot is more widely available to include people who experience disabilities. Thank you for flagging this question and bringing it forward for further discussion. For further contact and consultation feel free to contact: Jennifer Ward, Community Facilities Specialist - jward@karis.org Nicole Cotie, Community Development Manager— ncotie@karis.org Thank you, Jennifer My email has recently changed to jward@karis.org to reflect our neve name! Please update your email contacts to reflect this change. Pmails received byjward@christian-horizons.org will continue to forward for the time being. Jennifer Ward Community Facilities Specialist Karis Disability Services — West District (formally Christian Horizons) Supporting the regions of Waterloo, Wellington, Hamilton, Niagara, Halton and Peel Cell: 519-505-3878 v Page 242 of 343 Chri�tiaril ka�l is M Services m :I I :I : M 11::11 [fls ini"i I nHl ininill: ss�nge (findudhirq:, a iny at L a ii:[iiirii I ints), ��s c:c�iiinfidii: iinitkfl� nind finiteinded h!)ii, dhe ackfiresslin, A iny ii unaii &hc�iiiid d uus�: or cfisdlosuiriiIs stiddypiirofflhidted. IIf: yciiuii, tffls cornirim ui )uc at oin Jilin eirrc)ir, Il3lea~ iinc)H fv dh�!:, incieII" aind tIIS ds firciii'n Mairflk you <aiIs D!saLddity f011-M�l'?ii-hil Churn ;:Jiaiin Il poirizoirvi:1, \Ala I e Ic!ic!i Offb:126 `;tl, \AlateiiI':�wo, OPJ II1110 K!"I� I 519 783 6810 (ou airii: recek/iiing ttfline::,sage I:iid: cau!!;:,e cif Your hnteiiracAiciiin wifdh Kaids Seinfilices, :c)irmeiIy Chiiisbain �� �oidzc,Ii,v:I. FID click here. 28 Page 243 of 343 From: Planning (SM) Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 3:40 PM To: Kevin Stewart Cc: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: RE: Request arising from Enabling Four Units Market info booth Hello Kevin, I am forwarding this to the enablingfourunits email, copied above. One of the staff involved in that review will reply. Regards Sheryl From: Kevin Stewart Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 3:32 PM To: Planning (SM) <planning@kitchener.ca> Subject: Request arising from Enabling Four Units Market info booth I found Market info booth and your video informative however before commenting on proposed change, my request is: Could one of your staff members contact me to arrange a phone meeting to review how the proposed zoning change would affect our specific property as it has a non rectangular shape with 8 adjoining properties? Thank you for your consideration of this. Kevin Stewart 29 Page 244 of 343 Arwa Alzoor From: Katie Anderl Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 2:00 PM To: 'Sam Head' Cc: 'Andrew Head'; 'Brock Linklater' Subject: RE: Four Units Hi Sam, Yes, there is opportunity for additional units in Heritage Conservation Districts, however the architectural controls and heritage permit processes would continue to apply like they would for any development or redevelopment. We have been discussing this with our Heritage Planning Staff as well. Parkland dedication would be in accordance with the policy in place. My understanding from our parks staff is that if these are additional dwelling units, they would not be required to contribute to parkland dedication. Thanks, Katie From: Sam Head Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 1:50 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Cc: 'Andrew Head' ; 'Brock Linklater' Subject: Four Units Hi Katie Watched the video. Can you do this in the Designated Heritage Districts. There are areas with a lot of smaller homes i.e. near the St Mary's hospital. Will parkland dedication apply. Thanks Sam Head, President Dryden, Smith & Head Planning Consultants Ltd. 30 Page 245 of 343 From: Katie Anderl Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 1:32 PM To: 'Peter Maxwell'; Michael Maxwell Subject: RE: Enabling Four Units - Development Industry Workshop and Open House Attachments: Virtual Meeting Presentation. pdf Hi Peter, Here is a copy of the slide deck from our virtual meeting. King Regards, Katie From: Peter Maxwell Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 7:43 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca>; Michael Maxwell Subject: Re: Enabling Four Units - Development Industry Workshop and Open House Hi Katie, Thanks for the quick response. I saw the video. I was hoping for the slides instead of writing down the information provided. Thanks, Peter From: Katie Anderl <Katie.AnderhSkitchener.ca> Sent: January 19, 2024 7:40 PM To: Peter Maxwell ; Michael Maxwell Subject: RE: Enabling Four Units - Development Industry Workshop and Open House Hi — yes, there is a link to a recording of the presentation available through our engagepage: haps:/Cwww.ena ewr.ca/enabQinfourunits Regards, Katie From: Peter Maxwell < Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 5:51 PM To: Michael Maxwell Katie Anderl <Kade.AnderlSkitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Enabling Four Units - Development Industry Workshop and Open House Hi Katie, Can you share the slides that were used for the Enabling Four Units Everywhere - Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting? 32 Page 246 of 343 Thanks, Peter Maxwell Maxwell Building Consultants From: Michael Maxwell Sent: January 19, 2024 5:11 PM To: Peter Maxwell Subject: Fwd: Enabling Four Units - Development Industry Workshop and Open House Get Outlook for Android From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Ander 6 kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 5:07:12 PM Cc: EnablingFourU nits (SM) <EnabVin FourUnitsa)kitchener.ca> Subject: Enabling Four Units - Development Industry Workshop and Open House Enabling Four Units The City of Kitchener is growing and more homes are needed to meet the needs of existing and future residents. In March 2023, the City of Kitchener made a Municipal Housing Pledge to build an additional 35,000 homes by 2031. A key component of this pledge includes enabling more housing that will support gentle intensification in our existing low rise residential areas. Council has directed staff to prepare a by-law to enable up to 4 dwelling units on a lot which currently permits a single detached, semi-detached or street -fronting townhouse dwellings. These additional dwellings could be located in existing buildings, additions to buildings or new buildings (either as the main building or in the backyard), subject to regulations. You're invited to provide input! Planning is seeking input from builders, developers and others in the development industry as we review existing zoning regulations and prepare revisions that will support and enable additional units in residential neighbourhoods. We are inviting interested members of the development industry to join us in a focused workshop session, or to drop in to an Open House to discuss regulations with us. orll�: January 31, 2024 1:00 — 2:30 pm at the Forest Heights Community Centre (1700 Queens Boulevard). Workshop space is limited to 20 participants and registration is rewired. Please email enablin fourunits kitchener.ca to confirm your attendance. Qper: (House: January 31, 2024, 3:00 — 6:00 pm at the Forest Heights Community Centre (1700 Queens Boulevard). Drop-in any time to this open house which is open to the development industry and the public. You are also welcome to attend a Public Open House. These are scheduled for Saturday, January 20, 7:00 am — 2:00 pm at the Kitchener Market, and Tuesday, January 23, 3:00 — 7:00 pm at the Stanley Park Community Center. For more information and to share your feedback through our short survey, please visit and subscribe to our EngagePage(https:/(www.enewr.cafenablingfourunits ). Separate comments are also welcome and can be emailed directly to: enabVingfourunits kitchener.ca Regards, 33 Page 247 of 343 Arwa Alzoor From: Maxim Carpenter Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 12:49 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Re: Doon It does a bit re. Preferential treatment ... Still hate the idea and what it'll do to our city. Thank you On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 12:46 PM Ena blingFou rU nits (SM) <Ena blingFou rU nits@ kitchener.ca> wrote: Hello Maxim, The council's decision on Lower Doon applied RES -4 zoning across the majority of Lower Doon. Therefore 4 units is permitted. Going beyond 4 units is what Council didn't approve IKOU.gnty, eignt area properties tn,'AL curren.uy mave i1igner-a.el-isity zoning WOUICt keep it. Tlie maxinlium height for low-rise res,identia] properties t1irOLfghoti.t. the atret'l IS being raisecl sliglitly from eires m 1.0.5 In, to 1 m 1 etres, or a maxilnU1.11. Of ffiree 117� storeys; tti.is is in keepin�g \Arfth s.in.1flar zon[n.g dty-wi.de. "It's to ver N, dedicated. group of citizens in LowerDoon, �vho love their C,0,111,111011itY, alUlfl1ey, also, worl( well witti- ffie co4lege tandthe college stude�nts," said and Coun. Christin,e Michaud, acknoxviecig-inij t1lei-le have been. 17 1`�rustnations "My goal. when I first started .., ovasto create a beautiful Lower Dooi,'i \Avhere die students and flie resideiits, cati live harnioniously antl J'U.St C011fl.11 UetO grow New iii leu d.evel(),o,rt ,nt its the arei't is beitwy, directed. to, t.acatit LLincIS I hope that clarifies your concern 35 Page 248 of 343 From: Maxim Carpenter Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 9:21 AM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Re: Doon It doesn't seem that way https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/revised-development-plan-for-kitchener-s-lower-doon-would-limit- density-in-existing-neighbourhood/article 36e82058-c152-59ba-b24a-783b72f9bbe9.html Honestly this is a terrible idea httos://Phys.org/news/2023-06-houses-high-rises-zoning-hasnt-effective.amp Anyway, it seem like the die is cast and our politicians are going to cram this down our throats regardless. It is unfortunate the wealthy in the region will not have to suffer with the rest of us. On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 9:04 AM EnablingFourU nits (SM) <EnablingFourUnits@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hello, Thank you very much for reaching out to the 4 units the team This project applies everywhere in the city We are working on updating our regulation to enable 4 units everywhere in the city in Single Detached, Semi Detaches and street townhouse There is an increase in housing demand, and part of that is promoting a variety of housing options. This project includes opportunities for community input. Your comments will help us to determine the appropriate permissions to include in a proposed four -unit dwelling by-law, for example: lot width, area and setbacks building height and form driveways and parking provisions Please let me know if you have any input, recommendation, thoughts or questions about that Regards, Arwa Alzoor Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7847 1 arwa.alzoor@kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener is situated upon the traditional territories of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee Peoples. We extend our respect to all First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples for their past and present contributions to this land. We also recognize and respect the cultural diversity that First Nations, Metis and Inuit bring to the City of Kitchener. 39 Page 249 of 343 From: Sue Weare Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 4:06 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: FW: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere Sue Weare(she/they) Community Engagement Consultant I Communications and Marketing I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7058 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 sue. weare(&kitchener.ca From: Cari Van Niekerk <Cari.VanNiekerk@waterloo.ca> Sent: December 21, 2023 2:08 PM To: Sue Weare <Sue.Weare@kitchen er.ca> Subject: Fwd: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere From: Byron Murdock Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 1:27:37 PM To: Cari Van Niekerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere The unmanageable policies of asylum seekers have created this problem and that is a whole different discussion. To me it is not the number of permitted units on a property. More effective is the number of inhabitants per unit. It is common in our current over abundance of immigrants that there is two or three families in one unit. The federal policies need to change. My message is stopping immigration until we can catch up and diversify the landing spots. It seems KW has more than its share of new Canadians and I am opposed to that. From: Engage <EngageWR-NoReply regionofwaterloo.ca> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 12:54 PM To: Byron Murdock Subject: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere 41 Page 250 of 343 From: Sue Weare Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 4:06 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere Sue Weare(she/they) Community Engagement Consultant I Communications and Marketing I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7058 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 sue. weare(&kitchener.ca From: Cari Van Niekerk <Cari.VanNiekerk@waterloo.ca> Sent: December 21, 2023 2:07 PM To: Sue Weare <Sue.Weare@kitchen er.ca> Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Re: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere From: Carolyn Hertzberger Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 1:09:19 PM To: Cari Van Niekerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere No housing projects on agricultural land, or expanded boundary changes. Ford has reversed that concept so I expect that no building will occur on land outside the borders of our urban development. Calandra may want to approve that land but that is a corrupt process, against the new provincial legislation. If Kitchener builds outside the boundary , that they are also corrupt, going against the law. On Thu, Dec 21, 2023, 12:54 p.m. Engage <EEn ageWR-NoReply regionofwaterloo.ca> wrote: eNGAGe KIT'CH NE 44 Page 251 of 343 From: Katie Anderl Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 3:50 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: FW: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere From: Sue Weare <Sue.Weare@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 2:09 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: FW: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere And also this one. Sue Weare(she/they) Community Engagement Consultant I Communications and Marketing I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7058 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 sue. weare(&kitchener.ca From: Cari Van Niekerk Sent: December 21, 2023 2:08 PM To: Sue Weare <Sue.Weare@kitchen er.ca> Subject: Fwd: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere From: Byron Murdock Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 1:27:37 PM To: Cari Van Niekerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere The unmanageable policies of asylum seekers have created this problem and that is a whole different discussion. To me it is not the number of permitted units on a property. More effective is the number of inhabitants per unit. It is common in our current over abundance of immigrants that there is two or three families in one unit. The federal policies need to change. My message is stopping immigration until we can catch up and diversify the landing spots. It seems KW has more than its share of new Canadians and I am opposed to that. From: Engage<EngaeeWR-NoReply@reeionofwaterloo.ca> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 12:54 PM To: Byron Murdock Subject: New on Engage Kitchener: Enabling Four Units Everywhere 50 Page 252 of 343 From: Maxim Carpenter Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 3:28 PM To: EnablingFourUnits (SM) Subject: Doon Why was Doon exempted from this. Is it only middle class people that are going to have to put up with the disruption this will cause??? It would seem like the large lots in Doon, Hidden Valley and Westmount would be best suited to this. Start there and then expand the project. Honestly, you guys are going to do this no matter what so this whole outreach is pointless. It feels like you guys are intentionally prioritizing newcomers & drug addicts over the people that live here and contribute. Please plan to quadruple the size of every school where this policy is put in place. Maybe think about the quality of life of residents who will have to suffer through ongoing major construction, destruction of peaceful neighborhoods and property values. Based on the regions track record that seems highly unlikely but hopefully things change soon. Max 53 Page 253 of 343 Attachment G4 — Summary of Open Houses and Industry Workshop Feedback The following are notes from staff, based on feedback received through discussions at the three Open Houses and the Development Industry Workshop. C*]'T� i1: [+11 T1:If �'T iT 'i ►�� F1 i !i 1FT i1.'F1'"iTI+•TiJKIYZ! • Overall positive feedback, supportive of allowing more units on each property. • Concern about tree loss and associated urban heat impacts with canopy loss. • Concern about the increased impervious surface on residential properties and implications for stormwater management (infiltration) and climate change factors — increased frequency and intensity of storms and urban heat islands (retention of heat in paved surfaces). Suggestion for a maximum impervious ratio on properties and requirement that driveways and/or walkways be made of pervious materials (e.g., pervious pavers). • Side/rear setbacks avoid impacts on adjacent properties, such as stairs in the side yard and limited space to get to the rear yard on a property (e.g., residents or maintenance requiring access to neighboring properties). • Request that we consider allowing direct access to a trail (e.g., Iron Horse or Spur Line trail) as the primary access (1.1 m sidewalk) rather than requiring it to a front yard. • Questions about the degree of impact that this project would have on new housing being created. • Concerns that units would become short-term rentals. • Concerns about the overall affordability of housing. • Concerns about traffic and parking in the neighbourhood streets because some properties do not have enough driveway capacity to accommodate 3-4 cars. • Concerns about reducing parking requirements for neighborhoods that do not have easy access to transit. One resident said it takes them 20-30 minutes to walk to the nearest bus station. Page 254 of 343 • Allowance for lower ceiling heights in the basement (staff indicated that this is a building code matter). • Feedback about allowing detached ADUs at the regulatory exterior side setback rather than in alignment with the house on a corner lot. • Questions about electrical capacity in neighbourhoods (indicated that Enova is circulated through the process). • Concern about parking — where vehicles would be stored (over -use of on -street parking) or illegal widening/parking on the lawn. • Questions about the rules in a dual zone lot (NHC and RES) • Questions around group homes and whether more than one unit can be used for the group home with the same operator. • Property owner perspective concerns about privacy and overlook — placement of units, overlook into the rear yard (sides of long additions). • Concerns about servicing capacity — sanitary, SWM — area is very flat (e.g., some places may not work). • Opposition to growing at all — questioning why we need to grow. • From a developer perspective, allow for narrower lots - triplex rules are too restrictive and can be functional on smaller lots. Consider flexible street frontage if all the other requirements can be met. • Avoid variance from a process perspective. • Side yard setback for a parking lot should be 0.6m • From a developer perspective, 4 doors at the front should be permitted as it can be challenging from a floor plan perspective. Stairs may project in the front yard. • Interest in shared driveways between two properties to have a narrower driveway. • Concern about neighbourhood character — moved to the neighbourhood for the density, and it is proposed to change (parking, number of people). Page 255 of 343 • General supporting feedback • Suggestion to allow the Additional Dwelling Unit detached in the exterior yard, including the front yard. • Suggestion to allow a prefabricated tiny home for faster approval process. • Concern about the overall impact on greenspace and parking around the city. • Concern with shadow impacts for the additional dwelling units detached. • Supporting the geographical approach to parking requirement. • Concern about property values if neighbouring properties build four units. • Concern about impacts to on -street parking and that visitors to their home would not have access to on -street parking. - - •• - • ••; llii - - •� 1 This workshop was attended by 20 participants in the development industry. The format included table discussions with each group discussing each theme. The following are staff notes from the workshop. Theme 1: Lot Width and Lot Area • Parking will drive lot width • Access to laneway lot width is not relevant • Rely on coverage • Consideration for character of neighbourhoods • Allow higher heights rather than size requirements. o 12.1 m o Leave "as is" o 12-13 m height o Prefab o Flat roof • More rear lanes in new subdivisions to allow for narrow lots • Builders see several additions or conversions for family arrangements. • Keep the main lot area and reduce width. • 13.1 m width comfortable for tiny homes • 1.1 m walkway • Reduce frontage to reduce side setback • Need to shrink house • Acquiring land -> more lots enabled • See need for 2.5 m side yard setback • Conversions need more space • 40 ft will still need a variance Theme 2: Parking • Parking requirements should be different in different locations of the city Page 256 of 343 • Bicycle parking can also be based on location • Parking is a market-driven component • Cars can be parked in the front as the legal parking space and tandem parking can be considered • Car share idea to reduce the number of cars • Propose creative parking lot design to reduce hard surface • Remove all the parking requirements and keep it to the market demand • Parking can be on a rate of 0.5 per dwelling. This will balance the demand. • Create accessible units, especially the ground floor unit, to be barrier -free and have accessible parking space. • Class A bicycle parking was not supported. • Do not formalize the bicycle parking requirement. • Parking rate should be reduced from the current By-law requirement. • Permit system for street parking • Shared parking/ shared car • To make those units affordable, parking rate should be reduced. Theme 3: Backyard Homes • Existing garage to ADU • Common space (amenity) — suggest 7 ft x width of house • Flexibility • 2 storey — egress - 7.2 m v 23 ft • 2 units make sense technically. • Cost of foundation • Increase maximum footprint. • Staircases take up space • 80 m sq not enough • Access is a problem • How does it fit with urban design • 2 storeys is viable • Maintain it as subordinate, don't destroy the intent of additional units • Trees o Use existing streets o Protect trees • Corner lots good for ADUs • ADU above garage -> demand • Separation distance between primary and ADU -> OBC? • 4' setback — closer? • More height is beneficial • RIENS rules limiting height based on the height of the principal dwelling is a constraint • Lot width -> pie shaped lots • 6 m setback for parking • School board DCs Page 257 of 343 • Development Charge for 4t" unit — $40,000 CAD • Storm water, infiltration galleries • Green space • Funding to take down old buildings • Privacy, activity, shadow [vegetable garden] o One storey is fine [preferable] o Not in favor of 2 storeys • Not maximizing the property • Cap at 20ft flat roof • Below grade • Permitting 3 units in ADU — going beyond • Impossible with townhouse • Less concerned with number of units • Laneway housing -> 2 storeys is okay • Exterior side yard -> okay! Theme 4: Building Design Number of doors on front facade: • Current rules noted as not being flexible. Don't limit number of doors but perhaps limit the way the doors are facing. • Concern of tear downs and rebuild. Make it easier to retrofit existing buildings. • Cross comment of rebuilds being designed to fit the community and offer more flexibility in design. • Can you save the original house and focus on ADU at 3 units? • Can the City push to develop properties that have existing laneways in the rear? • Allow multiple doors. Doors and entrances must be fire rated and effects egress (Building Code issues). • Common corridor in a building is wasted space. • More flexibility of door layout. • Natural layout of a building usually results on doors along the sides or rear of a building. • No opinion on doors. Supported one door. • One door is restrictive. • Can you have one door but a projecting vestibule with access to other units? • One door can result in unfunctional front door. Access and building projection: • Many existing homes don't have existing weeping tiles. • Slab on grade is preferred instead of pushing people into the basement resulting in more vertical projection. • Try to preserve original house and focus on new build. • Difficulties with mechanical units projecting into access area while maintaining proper access widths. • Mandate a clear egress width. Page 258 of 343 • Door along the side of the house beside mechanical works. • Grading and external stairs. • Mobility concerns. • More allowance for new mechanical works. • Cluster mechanical to one side of the building with access on the other all while considering setbacks. • Door swing should be prioritized where doors are located not for the whole walkway. • Can mechanical works be elevated? • Allowance in zoning to allow for pop outs. Trees: • Trees vs. Parking. Provide opportunities to plant more trees. • Private trees should be allowed to be removed. • Shared trees and needing to preserve the canopy may limit uptake. • More options for tree replacements. • No arborists should be needed. Adds to cost. • Can trees be replaced? • Private trees should be dealt with privately. • Private landscaping is encouraged and incentivized. • Make the expectations clear. • Permits slow the process down. • Bad thing to take down large -diameter trees. Toronto requires permit for private trees over 0.3m diameter to be removed. Servucung: • Concern for SWM and increased impervious areas. Triggered through the Building Permit process. • Green roofs could be a SWM solution. • Checklist for owners: Have you thought about these things? • Where are downspouts going? • Make it clear when servicing upgrades are required. • Potentially oversize services during upsizes. • For properties that don't have lot certification the developer should be notified prior to issuing an ADU building permit. Other. • Maximum height of buildings should be increased. • Height restrictions result in accessibility issues. Easiest way is slab on grade. • Get the real estate community involved. • Can you get a cross-section of the development community to do test project. • Set up an online tool to do mock up site layouts of each property. • Less trips to CofA • Time is important. • Make it very clear what the requirements are. Page 259 of 343 • Monitor where the City is seeing increased re-development clusters. • More public awareness. • To increase uptake, reduce red tape... Parking!! • Get rid of the requirement to eliminate Committee of Adjustment for existing building layouts that don't meet bylaw. • This will be successful if it is creative. General feedback about how the City can support uptake: • Get real estate industry involved • Pilot program • Online tool -> automate • Simple library for ADUs • Direct link to zoning requirements by property • Flexibility so that it doesn't go to Committee of Adjustment • Approval process is time consuming and expensive • Clearer regulations • Where severances are happening? Where is density going? (analyze planning trends) • Public awareness / questions on what going • Eliminate the need for minor variance for addition to existing building setbacks • Templates o Good to have o May not always work o Need to consider site constraints Page 260 of 343 From: Lingard, Norman <norman.lingard@bell.ca> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 12:56 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) You don't often get email from normen.lingardCbell.ca. Learn why this is important Good afternoon Katie, Thank you for circulating Bell Canada on the City of Kitchener's OPA and ZBA. Bell appreciates the opportunity to engage in infrastructure and policy initiatives across Ontario. While we do not have any specific comments or concerns pertaining to this initiative at this time, we would ask that Bell continue to be circulated on any future materials and/or decisions related to this matter. Please forward all future documents to circulations(a)wsp.com and should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Norm Lingard Senior Consultant — Municipal Liaison Network Provisioning norman.lingard(a-)bell.ca 1 9 365.440.7617 W-m Please note that WSP operates Bell Canada's development, infrastructure and policy tracking systems, which includes the intake and processing of municipal circulations. However, all responses to circulations and requests for information will come directly from Bell Canada, and not from WSP. WSP is not responsible for the provision of comments or other responses. This email message, and any attachments, may contain information or material that is confidential, privileged and/or subject to copyright or other rights. Any unauthorized viewing, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this message, or anything contained therein, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you believe you may have received this message in error, kindly inform the sender by return email and delete this message from your system Page 261 of 343 From: Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 11:24 AM To: Katie Anderl Cc: Gaurang Khandelwal; Arwa Alzoor; Greig Cameron Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) You don't often get email from shaun.wang@enovapower.com. Learn why this is irroportartt Katie, In Kitchener, the City allows up to 3 units per residential property (i.e. 3 Units Everywhere). It can be either a triplex building or duplex building with a detached backyard small unit. Our current service requirement: "one hydro service connection with multiple meters (ganged) allowed". There will be only one service connection from hydro owned transformer to the property (ESA requirement, one service per property). The customer can install one ganged multiple -meter base (typically 2-4 meters) at the connection point thus each unit can be individually metered/billed. To enable the 4 units Everywhere project, we should be OK without changing the current hydro connection requirement. Regards, r IEinova I oweir Corp 301 Victoria St. South, Kitchener, ON N2G 41L2 Office Number: 519-745-4771 x6312 shaun.wang@enovapower.com I,irop,,v,,ap2LA eir„coirrr From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 10:47 AM To: Greig Cameron <greig.cameron@enovapower.com>; Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com> Cc: Gaurang Khandelwal<Gaurang.l<handelwal@kitchener.ca>; Arwa Alzoor <Arwa.Alzoor@kitchener.ca> Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) Some people who received this message don't often get email from I<atie.anderlC@kitcFiener.ca. Learn why this is important Good morning, Page 262 of 343 I wanted to reach out to your directly on the City of Kitchener's Enabling 4 Units Everywhere project to see if you had any comments or feedback. Through this project we are looking at creating zoning regulations that would allow up to 4 dwelling units on a residential lot. Over the last few years we have seen incremental increases in homeowners duplexing, triplexing and adding tiny homes, and wanted to get your thoughts on how this has been going — and if there is anything that we need to consider as we create regulations for 4 units. I'd be happy to chat by phone, or arrange for a teams call if there is anything you would like to discuss or feel is important for us to be aware of as we create regulations. Thanks! Katie Katie Anderl Project Manager - Planning I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7987 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.anderl@kitchener.ca MoMoMP..� From: Christine Kompter <C.Ih.iriis.tiiin .IKa�mp.teir.( Kk tclheirneir._ce> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:27 AM To: DL # DSD Planning <DSI[)....II)II_ Inlnii.in L)lviisiion@Iki clheineir.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <cii.ircj Ulla flo.ins_C w p.._c nim.>; Carlos Reyes <Carll_cns.JR .yes@I4tchener.ca>; Darren Kropf <,I[2_aIrlrein_.,_IKircn�lCa kirtclheineir.ca>; Dave Seller <I[)_ave.._Selllleir Ikii.tclh_eneir.._ca>; David Paetz <David..Pa_e.tz.� llc.iitclh_eirneir,.ca>; Ellen Kayes <,IFlllle.n..:IKpyes.� !h. tclheine1r...ca>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <gre'V.cameron@enova[power.com>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <slh_au�u!n..w.aun enova ower.com>; Fire Prevention (SM) <FpreF'!reyentpon_ kc tche_!n_e_U: ca>: GRCA - Planning (,12� _�n_�n.urug@g�rand�rVver.ca < Vannun , .12.............................@ran Uuver,ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <I ndu.�sep annin�@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Juu.rp_._Ed'_r0_eun_d'_soun.. _�u.t�Ih�un_e_U.n Justin Readman <J_urus.d n_._Readmaru..( _Orir:ch_eune!r.ca,>: Katherine Hughes <,VC.a.tIh_e_run .._I.:Ia. hes.. _Vcu.tclneneU._c >; Mike Selling <, is e. e_uVu_Ln.g. a n_e_rneU..c >; Ontario Power Generation <ExecuVutuveyp.VawanddeveVoipunent@o[ .coum> Park Planning ................................................. (SM) <.P.ark..PI_ tntni_rng@kutchener.ca>; Region - Howard Chang (aCh rug@UeguonoCwaterVoo.ca) <SC�u_e!ng _E guoinoffwate�rVoo.ca>; Region - Planning <,PIa_un_un.in A hcaattoonsOr cdonofwateurVoo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) < tr..v .pDataAdmun@Vc f.cheneir.ca>; Robert Morgan <,znlbe!..t...M.2Egain@kutcheneir.ca>; Steven Ryder <S.te�ren..Kyder@kutcheneU.ca>; Sylvie Eastman < yltrue._ s:t_um_ n.. ku av�r_e_n r c ,>; UW-WUSA (Feds) (.pires a wusa.ca) <pres a wuusa.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <pI _rn_rn.un @wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (eig.in_e burns@wrdsb.ca) <elleiiin_e burins@wirdslb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <pllainniiin @wird.sb.ca> Cc: Katie Anderl <IKa.tie Aindeirll. .11<iltclhe1neir,,_ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) Please see attached. City staff can reference AMANDA folders 23-126057 & 23-126060. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Project Manager (Ik tV_e.,.a.in_d'_e.irll_ !l� tclh_eineir ca.; 519-741-2200 x7987). A post circulation meeting will be scheduled for November 29" and meeting invites will be sent to those who should attend. Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca Page 263 of 343 From: Sylvie Eastman Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 4:17 PM To: Katie Anderl Cc: David Paetz; Khaled Abu-Eseifan; Tammer Gaber; Gaurang Khandelwal Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) Hi Katie. We currently upsize main in 3 different circumstances: 1. Capacity Projects. In 2020 a list of —10 "Capacity Projects" were approved to be constructed over —10yrs to address low pressure in the Bridgeport area. These are upsizing significant mains near the pressure regulating stations and/or heading towards Bridgeport. These projects have their own budget, but we do the work with the same resources (i.e. internal and contract staff) as the Gas Pipelines projects, so we manage all gas projects on a portfolio basis. 2. New Services. In some cases there is insufficient capacity in the main to accommodate a new service, so the main needs to be upsized. This doesn't happen very often. Replacement Projects. Every year I do some "Replacement Projects" under the Gas Pipelines budget. There are a few ways a project can end up on my potential replacement list, and once on the list the projects are prioritized based on a number of factors. a. Conflict. If the road authority (i.e. City of Kitchener Engineering, Region of Waterloo, or Ministry of Transportation Ontario) identifies that existing infrastructure is in conflict with proposed work, then I have to replace/relocate the stuff that is in conflict. b. Concern Raised by Staff. If KU staff (normally corrosion technologist or C&M supervisor) indicates that the main is in poor condition. c. Road Reconstruction. If the road is being reconstructed (i.e. is on capital forecast for City or Region), then I look at the records and prioritize it based on a number of factors. Depending on other priorities, I might replace up to about half of the gas mains on streets that are being reconstructed. If the main is being replaced, then I check to see if I think upsizing is warranted. Some circumstances might be: i) The pressure loss (per the model) is very high, ii) The main appears to be a chokepoint between two larger mains, or iii) I am aware that densification is desired in the area (e.g. near LRT). Thanks, Sylvie (she/her) 519-498-9553 From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 2:51 PM To: Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca> Cc: David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Khaled Abu-Eseifan <Khaled.Abu-Eseifan@kitchener.ca>; Tammer Gaber <Tammer.Gaber@kitchener.ca>; Gaurang Khandelwal <Gaurang.Khandelwal@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) Hi Sylvie, Thanks for the comments and sorry for the delayed reply. We are currently putting together our report for Council consideration at the end of March. With respect to your questions: We cannot predict what the uptake will be, however we expect it will be incremental, especially at first. This has been our experience with ADU's so far. Page 264 of 343 With respect to ongoing upgrades to the system and upsizing — do you monitor the system to see where there may start to be improvements needed? I wonder if this is a next step that would need to be considered in terms of expansion and growth? Lots with additional dwellings are not permitted to be severed. However if a severance was proposed it would have to go through a planning act process and there would be a full review/report and separate service connections would be required for each new lot. There are no changes proposed reductions to building setbacks. Thanks, Katie From: Sylvie Eastman <Syjlyii_ .,]Fastma.n. !kftclh_e.in Ir..ca> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 1:51 PM To: Katie Anderl <IKatide. inderll. _Ikitclh_e.ineir.cp> Cc: David Paetz <I[yii_c)..,IF.r r_Ik,iiclh_.in_.ir.,cp,>; Khaled Abu-Eseifan<IKI.II.._u.::.lE;;stir(.p.in_I�iitcjheineir._ca>; Tammer Gaber <, p.im.inn_ .ir. _ Ib. irk!Utcjh_e.ineir.._ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) Hi Katie. A few comments. David normally deals with new business and gas modelling so he may have additional comments. 1. Do we have any idea what the actual intensification will be? Likely there will be more intensification in certain areas (e.g. downtown and along LRT), have these been delineated? For example, if all single residential addresses quadrupled the number of units and residents, this would be a 400% increase and existing gas mains (along with water, sewer, etc) would be undersized. However, if actual uptake was only —5 this would be a 20% increase and given each person is likely to use less gas in future (through more efficient appliances, partly or entirely switching to electric, etc) I don't think we would see a significant difference. 2. If mains need to be upsized to accommodate the growth, how will these projects be funded? We handle this for gas with our Conditions of Service, and if a main has to be upsized due to a large development (e.g. huge multi - residential development), the cost is charged back to the proponent. However, this won't work if the main needs to be upsized because of 100 smaller developments happening over a period of years. What if the first 99 developments are ok and then the 100" pushes the main into being inadequate, how would we go after the previous 99 people? Will we collect funds at the application stage and set it aside to fund upsizing services in aggregate? If we don't end up upsizing services for a certain period of time would we give money back, and how would we manage that? If we don't charge the people who are intensifying their properties but instead fund it out of overall rates, is it fair for all ratepayers to effectively subsidize these projects, particularly since the people adding the units presumably would be profiting from rent etc? 3. Are we planning to allow/encourage the properties to be subdivided? If so, then we will probably need a lot of easements for gas services. Unlike water & sewers, the gas service piping in private property is owned by KU up to the meter set. We have never worried about getting an easement for services on private property because the services were installed at the property owner's request. However, if we will have a bunch of properties that are not immediately next to a road right-of-way then services would have to go through a third party property and would need an easement. This would also necessitate a maintenance program to inspect easements on a regular basis for code compliance (e.g. no structures on top of gas piping etc). 4. Are we planning to change setbacks to allow more space for construction? Excavating right to the lot line could undermine utilities within the public right-of-way. Shallow utilities (gas, hydro, telecoms) are often close to the property line. 5. Not related to gas, but just checking you have considered multiple aspects of additional on -street parking and consulted with relevant stakeholders. This isn't just a matter of whether street parking would provide the additional spots needed for the 3 additional dwelling units, but also: a. Garbage collection. Based on my personal experience, garbage is not collected if a vehicle is parked on the street (i.e. if the truck can't drive immediately next to the garbage). If you want to maintain garbage Page 265 of 343 collection, this would need to be worked out in the Region's garbage collection contract and I don't know if additional costs would apply. If you don't want to maintain the current garbage collection program, again you would need to work out with the Region what the new program would look like. b. Snow plowing and leaf pickup. c. Emergency services (i.e. can fire trucks fit down the street if people are parked on both sides). If you need to make residential streets 1 -way to allow more space for parking, how will this impact emergency response times? d. Construction & maintenance services. Would additional on -street parking limit access by repair crews? This is probably a question for Tammer Gaber Thanks, Sylvie (she/her) 519-498-9553 From: Christine Kompter <C Ih.iri t.ir�ne..IKa im.inte.ir. Ikii.tcIhe1eir._cp> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:27 AM To: DL _# DSD Planning<DS.I[):.II'II_a.nlnii.ingll).iivr s.iio.n_.C�!kitcllh_e.ineir ea>; Bell - c/o WSP<c.ii.ircu.uIlatiions_@�s.p.._Cpim.>; Carlos Reyes <Cpirll_ens..Reyes@I4tclhener..ca>; Darren Kropf <,[ lar lrein_.,_IK.irpC Ikiitclheneir.ca>: Dave Seller <,I[:)_afire.._ elllleir.( Ikiirclh_eneir.._ca>; David Paetz <Davii_d.,_Pa_e.tz.lk.iitclh_e.ineir,.ca>; Ellen Kayes<,IFIIIIen.aCaygs.lk.iitclh_e.ine1r.,.c>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <gireii,.caimeiroin@einovapoinreir,corn>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <slh_nun. prang einovapoweir.com>; Fire Prevention (SM) <IF.iilrell'Irevein.til_on_ Ik.iitclh_e.in_e.ir,.ca>; GRCA - Planning (Ip ll .ininiiin ( iraindiriiveir.ca) <pllaininiiin (graindriiveir.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <Iland_use.rnll in in ii.in. C Ihydirooine.coim>; Jim Edmondson <iii.im_._IE:.im_ein_sj_scain. .lkiit lhein_eir,. .>; Justin Readman <J_u�u_s.til.in..Readirrn .i>.. _Ikiitelh_e.inieir. c >; Katherine Hughes <IK . Ih_e.iriiine..II::N_ glhesCa lkiitclheineir.ca>; Mike Selling <I ilkeSelling.:.Ikitclhenerca>; Ontario Power Generation<up.,I[A.iddeglQ.�pcoirn>; Park Planning .i@_i.................................................... g (SM)<I.IlgelUtcheneir,ca>; Region - Howard Chang (,SCIh in ire iioinofnrateirlloo.ca) ........................................................... < Clh_ in ire iioinofwateirlloo.ca>; Region - Planning , If�!I�.Ig.lgjin App lliicatiionsDir e iionofwateirlloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PUq.p. a.t9A�_uluuun.@ .k<.tc_hener._ca>: Robert Morgan <.R b r.t.p0n_c�Lg�in_�Vcutch_euner.ea>: Steven Ryder <S:teven.[�yder@kutchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <SKVvie.Eastman@kutchener.ca>; UW-WUSA (Feds) (Ip_uu s.��_ uusp:..!. ) <.p_Le.s.@_ WCDSB - Planning <g annung@wcd.sb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (e gjn.e burns@wrdsb.ca) <eVaune burns@wrdsb,ca>; WRDSB - Planning <Ipp _ininuun @wrdsb.ca> ........................... Cc: Katie Anderl <Katue.Ander:P_.6z.k_ tc_heneir.._ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) Please see attached. City staff can reference AMANDA folders 23-126057 & 23-126060. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Project Manager (.Veto_e,.and_e_frV_ kutelh_e_ner.cp.; 519-741-2200 x7987). A post circulation meeting will be scheduled for November 291h and meeting invites will be sent to those who should attend. Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter(@kitchener.ca Page 266 of 343 From: Chris Foster -Pengelly <cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 2:19 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: Enabling Four Units Everywhere - Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA23/035/K/KA, Official Plan Amendment OPA23/020/K/KA Attachments: Kitchener-4_Units_Everywhere_grca_comments-20231220.pdf Hi Katie, Please find attached GRCAs comments on the above noted proposed amendments. Thank you, Chris Chris Ilf:::'osfeir 113eingelllllly, I „3c„ Assistant oIl�e w.No:,uirce Planir:liir:a Grand River Conservation tior:.:th::iY°lid:. 400 Clyde Road, PO Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2319 Toll-free: 1-866-900-4722 Email: cfosterpengelly@grand river. ca :9.ir „irn iriiy ir: p 1 . .....wii th......'�.." ......![ri..... pii ll......lrw-.l.ea . Page 267 of 343 Ad entre: 100 Oyde Iqwd, I'0 Box /21) ;fI I i irIge, kN 1"I I F� ),016 Ph(:?nfi":'719 (321 �".1f5 1 ToH fire: '1 866 900 4112_2 Fax:1Y ()z 1VPS'VUw.CSN"c°i!`idICNvd:'f'.f:a tion P� December 20, 2023 via email Katie Anderl, Project Manager Planning Division, City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Re: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA23/035/K/KA Official Plan Amendment OPA23/020/K/KA Dear Katie Anderl, The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) is in receipt of the draft official plan / zoning by-law amendments (OPA/ZBA) as part of the City initiated `Enabling Four Units Everywhere,' received by GRCA staff November 16, 2023. GRCA has reviewed this proposal under the Mandatory Programs and Services Regulation (O.R. 686/21), including acting on behalf of the Province regarding natural hazards identified in Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2020), as a regulatory authority under Ontario Regulation 150/06 and as a public body under the Planning Act as per our CA Board approved policies. The GRCA understands that the proposed OPA/ZBA would permit 4 dwelling units on any lot that would permit a single -detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street fronting townhouse dwelling. Based on our review of the circulation notice, we have the following comments: While we recognize that it is not how the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw are currently structured, we recommend that the OPA/ZBA highlights the creation of additional dwelling unit(s) as being restricted / made conditional on meeting natural hazard requirements, by directly noting that they are subject to the applicable natural hazard sections of the OP (6.C.2) and zoning bylaw (17.2.1 / 17.2.2). Page 1 of 2 Iv er��7hel i)f C..oe solvaliE. n f' nl(,H,1 , 0117 a(io's ) Onsc: wation f)uthoiitles N ,ind A,: rii, r ici ",ive[ Page 268 of 343 We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned at 519-621-2763 ext. 2319 or cfosterpengelly@g rand river. ca. Sincerely, Chris Foster-Penge.1y, M.Sc. Assistant Supervisor of Resource Planning Engineering and Planning Services Page 2 of 2 Page 269 of 343 From: Lenore Ross Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 4:30 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) Attachments: OPA ZBA Comments NEW PD By-law.docx Hi Katie, Attached are comments for Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA23/035/K/KA and Official Plan Amendment OPA23/020/K/KA. Regards, Lenore From: Christine Kompter <Christine.l<ompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:27 AM To: _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Carlos Reyes <Carlos.Reyes@kitchener.ca>; Darren Kropf <Darren.Kropf@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Ellen Kayes <Ellen.Kayes@kitchener.ca>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <greig.cameron@enovapower.com>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com>; Fire Prevention (SM) <FirePrevention@kitchener.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuse planning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman <Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Howard Chang (SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca) <SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Region - Planning<PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; UW-WUSA (Feds) (pres@wusa.ca) <pres@wusa.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) Please see attached. City staff can reference AMANDA folders 23-126057 & 23-126060. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Project Manager (Vc u_g. a_0_d_g_irV_ kc tcD:r_ener.ca.; 519-741-2200 x7987). A post circulation meeting will be scheduled for November 291h and meeting invites will be sent to those who should attend. Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca Page 270 of 343 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: City Wide Owner: various Application: ZBA23/035/K/KA and OPA23/020/K/KA Comments Of: Parks and Cemeteries — Design and Development Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: Nov 29 2023 0 I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: OPA/ZBA Circulation letter dated November 16 2023 2. Proposed changes: The City of Kitchener is proposing to amend Official Plan Policies and Zoning By-laws 85-1 and 2019- 051 to permit up to 4 dwelling units on any lot that would permit a single -detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling or street fronting townhouse dwelling. Four units could be configured in many different ways including but not limited: - Renovating and/or adding onto an existing single detached, semi-detached or street -fronting townhouse dwelling so there are 4 units. - Demolishing and building a new purpose-built 4 -unit multiple dwelling. - Renovating/adding an addition onto an existing single detached, semi-detached or street -fronting townhouse to convert to three units and adding a detached additional dwelling until (tiny home). - Permitting two units in a detached Additional Dwelling Unit (tiny home). 3. Comments & Issues: Residential Intensification and Tree Assets / Tree Canopy Coverage It is recognized that the provision of additional housing and residential intensification is a key Corporate and Council priority. However, the City of Kitchener 2023-2026 Strategic Plan also highlights some of the competing and conflicting interests that are relevant to the proposed OPA and ZBA including the Corporate Climate Action Plan 2.0, implementing the tree canopy target plan and implementing actions from parks master plan. The negative impacts to municipally owned tree assets and the reduction in local and city-wide tree canopy coverage is of significant concern to Parks and Cemeteries and if the proposed OPA and ZBA changes proceed, zoning regulations and other bylaw changes should be implemented concurrently to minimize the impacts to existing tree assets and to adequately offset / mitigate negative impacts to tree canopy targets and climate implications. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community 13 of 343 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Adequate financial compensation or required mitigation for loss of municipal tree assets should be formalized and updated to reflect true asset value and current replacement costs. Staff review, inspection and certification times should be considered in these costs and process options. Zoning bylaw regulations should be included to require fewer parking spaces; establish maximum numbers of parking spaces and/or driveway area; limit driveway width changes and curb cut increases to sites where tree infrastructure is not impacted; and limit front yard building expansions where there are existing tree assets. The loss of trees and canopy on private development lands or in shared private ownership as a result of residential intensification also has a direct relationship to both overall tree canopy targets and to climate initiatives and different zoning regulations, bylaw changes and tree planting strategies are required to address this issue. Application forms should be updated and clearly outline owner responsibilities with respect to private, shared and municipal trees including required consent and possible consequences. Parkland Dedication and 4 -units as of right The current Parkland Dedication Policy allows an exemption for ADU's (currently defined through the Official Plan and the Zoning Bylaws as 3 units /property) and the Parkland Dedication Policy and Bylaw 2022-101 do not explicitly state a number of ADU's permitted. The Planning Act through the More Homes Built Faster Act changes allows that there will be no Parkland Dedication required for up to and including 3 Additional Dwelling Units. The fourth unit, under Provincial regulations, would be subject to Parkland Dedication. Municipal policies/bylaws can exempt the 4th unit (or any threshold or type of units for that matter). Bylaw 2022-101 is under appeal and cannot be revised until the appeals have been resolved. If the 4th unit is considered as an ADU, no amendment is required to either the Bylaw or Policy document to implement the 4 -unit ADU change. If the 4th -unit is considered as a multiple dwelling, a change to Bylaw 2022-101 and the Park Dedication Policy would likely be necessary unless an additional section is included in the Policy to reduce/exempt all residential development with 4 units or fewer. Legal Services may have additional commentary. Regardless of the manner in which the additional 4" unit is categorized through zoning and definitions (ADU vs. multiple dwelling), if the Parkland Dedication reduction is extended to a 4th residential unit threshold, there will be a loss of revenue to the City and to available park acquisition and development funding specifically. This will reduce the ability of the City to provide new and/or enhanced park facilities for residents and to implement actions identified in the City of Kitchener 2023-2026 Strategic Plan such as implementing the Parks Master Plan, Parkland Acquisition Strategy and the Grand River Park strategy. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community 13 of 343 From: Jennifer Passy <Jennifer.Passy@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 1:53 PM To: Katie Anderl Cc: Planning; Waterloo Region District School Board (planning@wrdsb.ca); Lauren Agar Subject: Enabling Four Units Everywhere You don't often get email from jennifer.passy@wcdsb.ca. Learn why this is imraortant Good afternoon Katie, Thank you for the time to meet with you and other staff and agencies about the proposed policy framework which would support four dwelling units on any lot that would permit a single -detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street fronting townhouse dwelling. We are supportive of the city's initiative to establish opportunities for the development of affordable housing options. As shared during our call on November 29, 2023, the board's primary interest in this matter relates to the impact of additional dwelling units on student accommodation. It is unclear how many residential lots in the city could support four dwelling units, or the number of units which may be created based on evidence from other jurisdictions. The board continues to collect future residential unit data needed to support our accommodation planning efforts throughout the region. Based on the significant infill and intensification occurring throughout the city, it would be helpful to receive additional information related to the assumptions on number of units and locations where these policies would support more units. Similar information has been requested as it relates to the city's Growing Together policies. Together, these policy initiatives may be transformational creating opportunities for more affordable housing. However for the school board, the implications are currently unknown. With increasing enrolment pressures throughout the city, more data will assist the board with projections and advocacy for capital funding to support this growth. Thank you for considering our comments and requests for further information. Sincerely, Jennifer Jennifer IManager of IPlanning Waterloo Catholic District School Board Phone: 519-578-3677, ext. 2253 Cell: 519-501-5285 Note: The offices of the WCDSB are closed on Fridays throughout the summer. Waterloo Catholic District i Board Disclaimer - This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and contain privileged or copyright information. You must not present this message to another party without gaining permission from the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose Page 273 of 343 From: WRDSB Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 11:51 AM To: Katie Anderl Cc: Planning; Jennifer Passy Subject: Re: [Planning] Circulation for Comment - Enabling Four Units Everywhere (OPA/ZBA) You don't often get email from planning@wrdsb.ca. Learn why this is important Katie Anderl Project Manager - Planning City of Kitchener katie.anderl aakitchener.ca December 20, 2023 Re: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA23/035/K/KA Official Plan Amendment OPA23/020/K/KA Enabling Four Units Everywhere City of Kitchener Dear Katie, The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the City's proposal to amend Official Plan Policies and Zoning By-laws 85-1 and 2019-051 to permit up to four (4) dwelling units 'as -of -right' on any lot that would permit a single -detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street fronting townhouse dwelling units on sufficient lot sizes. The WRDSB offers the following comments: As discussed during our call on November 29, 2023, the WRDSB's primary interest in this proposal relates to the impact on student accommodation. Therefore, we encourage the City to include schools and student accommodation in the "additional considerations" list (slide 6 of the presentation). We acknowledge that with this proposal and the City's "Growing Together" project, infill and intensification potential within the City may be transformational. The implications of these changes on school accommodation are currently unknown. We continue to collect data to support our long-term accommodation plan; therefore, we would appreciate any additional information the City can supply related to: • The number and location of lots with the conditions (i.e., sufficient lot size) to allow for four units • The number of units this could potentially add over time to the City • Any modelling or assumptions the City has created to determine the potential for uptake (e.g., the conditions in which developing four units on a lot is economically feasible, where the City has servicing capacity, etc.) Should these amendments pass, this information will be critical for the WRDSB to advocate for sufficient student accommodation capital to support the growth of the school -aged population within the City/Region. Furthermore, parkland and open space are challenges in more dense areas of the City. We have concerns regarding the adequate provision of parkland to support the number of future residents, which may result in unsanctioned use of school property during school hours, as we have experienced in other areas of the Region. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this work. We request to be circulated on any future materials related to this project. Please feel free to contact us to discuss any of our comments further. Sincerely, Page 274 of 343 Lauren Agar Senior Manager of Planning T: 519-570-0003 ext. 4596 cc: Jennifer Passy, Manager of Planning, Waterloo Catholic DSB On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 11:26, Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> wrote: Please see attached. City staff can reference AMANDA folders 23-126057 & 23-126060. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Project Manager (,Vc u_e. a_0_cj_e_irV_ k� tc�r_ener.ca.; 519-741-2200 x7987). A post circulation meeting will be scheduled for November 291h and meeting invites will be sent to those who should attend. Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca %lIii �11111 1,1111l ll�!!pj i Page 275 of 343 From: Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 2:50 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Enabling Four Units - DSD-2024-066.docx Hello Katie I can advise that on behalf of Engineering I was consulted on regarding the OPA23/020/K/KA for the purpose of permitting up to 4 dwelling units on lots which permit a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street - townhouse dwelling. I also took part in a community engagement meeting where Engineering specific topics were discussed. I have reviewed the Staff Report relevant engineering sections and can support the direction and recommendations. Engineering can recommend that long term monitoring of our sanitary, stormwater and water distribution networks continue in order to maintain the functionality of that infrastructure. Thank you. Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering, City of Kitchener rri.11m_e.lans¢1n..ki.lhner.Ga., 519-741-2200 x 7133 200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 276 of 343 From: Nick Gollan <Nick.Gollan@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 4:35 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Cc: Bu Lam <Bu.Lam@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: draft report DSD -2024-066 Additional Dwelling Units Hi Katie, This email confirms that I've reviewed the draft report and participated in discussions regarding sanitary and stormwater servicing for additional dwelling units. I agree with and support the recommendations of the report, noting that, pending the results of the Integrated Sanitary Master Plan, we may be bringing recommendations forward in the future to pause additional development in certain areas where the necessary servicing capacity is not available. Nick ollan, C.E.T. (he/him) Manager, Planning and Programs I Sanitary and Stormwater I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7422 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 I rliiplk,.gollllain5kitchener.ca From: Katie Anderl <K.a.til.e mder.1..@Il�lLgh_ ir...c.�> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 2:11 PM To: Nick Gollan<Niclk.Gollllan@Ilcitclhener.ca> Subject: draft report This version includes the section that you had previously reviewed. Its under the March 25 PSIC agenda in escribe if you wish to see any of the appendices Thanks! Katie Katie Anderl Project Manager - Planning I Planning and Housing Policy — Development Services Department I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7987 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.anderl@kitchener.ca Page 277 of 343 From: Tim Benedict Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 7:47 AM To: Katie Anderl Cc: Gaurang Khandelwal Subject: RE: 4 units project - final comments Over the past four months Building has been engaged with Planning staff around the potential of adding additional dwelling units (up to 4 units) to many residential properties in Kitchener. We regularly meet with the Kitchener Development Liaison Committee as well as joining Planning at one of their industry/public engagement sessions on January 31, 2024. The building industry welcomed the proposed changes and provided feedback which Planning has addressed while balancing neighbourhood concerns. The Building Division feels like the proposed regulations give the option for many different types of built form and look forward to working with industry and residents in adding much needed additional dwelling units throughout the City of Kitchener. Regards Tim Benedict, CET, CBCO (he/him) Manager I Building Division I City of Kitchener liIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uuu uuuuul VVU vuuul' Go oinl ine and USQ, YQUIr credit card to pay �l,rq,i to S5'0-1 Qw rot II'xi dim"r perrni'Gs, sorveys, r.:JraW�ITIgS W)d r:arI ir0nFTIf ntal repor:`5„ For more inforrInation, visit Mit h w r. /payorlin From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 11:35 AM To: Tim Benedict <Tim.Benedict@kitchener.ca> Cc: Gaurang Khandelwal <Gaurang.Khandelwal@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: 4 units project - final comments Hi Tim, Here is the final draft of the report — and I can also send the by-laws if you wish to review those as well. They are also in escribe Thanks, Katie Page 278 of 343 From: John LubczynsW x1LubczynsN@re8ionofv/atedoo.ca» Sent: Tuesday, March l2'2024l:09PK4 To: Katie Ander|<Katie.Ander|@kitchener.cax Cc: Alyssa Bridge <A8ridQe@re8innofmater|oo.cax Subject: Regional Letter ofSupport Kitchener'sEnabling Four Units Initiative You don't often get email from Hi Katie, Senior Planner .%egional Municipality of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor -Kitc�.%wer OV Catada 112G 4.13 Tel. 519-575-4532 11111 111 i 131111 MINIMPAN1111411111110-11100 M, Page 279 of 343 Katie Anderl Project Manager (Planning) DSP Department - Planning & Housing Kitchener City Hall, 6th Floor 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Anderl: PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca John Lubczynski - 519-575-4532 File: ZBA23/035/K/KA OPA23/020/K/KA March 12, 2024 Policy Division Re: City of Kitchener's Enabling Four Units Initiative Zoning By-law Amendment - ZBA23/035/K/KA and Official Plan Amendment - OPA23/020/K/KA Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the City of Kitchener's Enabling Four Units initiative. Regional staff have been actively participating in your consultation process and would like to offer the following letter of support. This initiative seeks to permit up to four dwelling units on any lot that allows a single - detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or street fronting townhouse dwelling, subject to regulations. The additional units could be located in existing buildings, additions to new buildings, or new buildings in the backyard. The proposal would also permit the construction of a new purpose-built residential building on a lot having up to four dwelling units. We commend the City for undertaking this important project to build more homes in existing low-rise residential areas. This work will spur gentle intensification and help meet the growing demand for new housing across the city. It will also increase housing options, including more rentals, affordable and attainable units, and housing close to schools, public transit and other community services to accommodate the needs of all households. This initiative will not only help generate new housing supply, it will also lead to more equitable and inclusive communities. 4616500 Page 280 of 343 As you may recall, Regional Council adopted Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 6 (ROPA 6) in August 2022. This amendment came into effect in April 2023 following its approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. ROPA 6 strengthens and modernizes the ROP in several key areas, including climate action, equity and inclusion, and supporting the development of "missing middle" housing in our communities. If implemented, the City's Enabling Four Units initiative would directly support the achievement of all these policy goals. In particular, permitting up to four units on a residential lot would directly conform to, and implement the policy direction set out in ROP Policy 2.D.5.1, which states: 2.D.5.1 Area municipalities will establish policies in their official plans and implementing zoning by-laws, to permit missing middle housing on a residential lot located within an Urban Area or Township Urban Area. Under the ROP, "missing middle housing" refers to a range of multiple unit housing including, but not limited to multiplexes, stacked townhouses, apartments, and other low-rise housing options. If approved, the City's proposed four units initiative would directly align with this policy by targeting the smaller end of the missing middle housing spectrum, which the City has referred to as the "missing little". In closing, thank you again for consulting with us, and we look forward to collaborating with the City on the implementation of this initiative moving forward. Please reach out to us if you have any questions. Yours truly, A/,t Jo( n Lubczynski, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner cc. Alyssa Bridge, Region of Waterloo 4616500 2 Page 281 of 343 Staff Report J IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: March 25, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director, Planning and Housing Policy, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Gaurang Khandelwal, Planner (Policy), 519-741-2200 ext. 7611 Tim Donegani, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7067 WARD(S) INVOLVED: ALL DATE OF REPORT: March 8, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-130 SUBJECT: Kitchener Growth Management Strategy: Annual Monitoring Report 2023 — DSD -2024-130 RECOMMENDATION: That the Kitchener Growth Management Strategy Annual Monitoring Report — DSD - 2024 -130 be used as the basis to fulfill Clause 22.1 of the Administrative Agreement between the City of Kitchener and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo regarding delegated approval authority. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to highlight key growth trends in the City over the past two years, track the developable land supply and measure progress against density and intensification targets. • The key findings of this report are that: o Kitchener exceeded the provincially assigned 2023 housing starts target under the Building Faster Fund by 39%. o Kitchener is on track to achieve the municipal housing target of 35,000 new units by 2031. Between March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2023, Council approved 11,457 units through site specific applications, and staff issued final site plan approval for 3,410 units. Between January 1, 2024 and March 13, 2024, Council has approved 1,051 units through site specific applications and staff issued final site plan approval of 203 units. o Growth remained strong in the last year with 3,985 dwelling units created. o A broad range of housing types have been developed in the last two years (2022 and 2023) with 64% as multiple dwelling types (49% of multiple dwelling types were in the form of low to mid rise buildings), 6% as townhouses, and 30% in single - detached, semi-detached, duplex, triplex and detached additional dwelling types. o Kitchener exceeded its minimum annual intensification target with 69% of residential growth within the Built-up area in 2023. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 282 of 343 o With planned updates to land uses and zoning within Kitchener's protected major transit station areas, land use reviews that will occur as part of Kitchener's Official Plan review over the next two years, and ongoing secondary planning work in the Dundee North area of southwest Kitchener, there continues to be sufficient opportunities to accommodate planned residential growth to 2051. • There are no financial implications arising from this report. • Community engagement included posting the report on City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. In addition, the monitoring report information will be presented to the Kitchener Developers Liaison Committee in March. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to provide Committee and Council with the Kitchener Growth Management Strategy: Annual Monitoring Report 2023 — DSD -2024-130 (Monitoring Report). The Monitoring Report is an action item of the 2009 Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS), which requires tracking of the general supply of land and the achievement of intensification and density targets on an annual basis. REPORT: The KGMS provides a long-term framework for planning where and how future residential and employment growth should occur in Kitchener. To ensure that growth contributes positively to quality of life, the KGMS coordinates the provision of infrastructure and services with new development. The 2009 KGMS goals and actions support the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) and the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS). The KGMS introduced a number of goals, one of which was to develop and facilitate an ongoing growth management program to manage growth -related change in an effective and co-ordinated manner (Goal 6). One of the action items of this goal is to prepare an annual monitoring report to track the supply of development opportunities and the achievement of intensification and density targets. This is also a requirement of the Growth Plan and the Regional Official Plan. Monitoring reports have been prepared since 2010. This is the 14th edition of the Monitoring Report and has been updated from the previous iterations. The updates reflect the recent changes to provincial legislation and to the Regional Official Plan (ROP). It includes statistics for Protected Major Transit Station Areas and other primary intensification areas that were established in Kitchener's 2014 Official Plan. This report also tracks progress towards the City of Kitchener's housing pledge that was approved in response to a request from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, on March 20, 2023 supporting the building of 35,000 homes in Kitchener by 2031. Highlights of the 2023 Monitoring Report include: Municipal Housing Targets • Council approved development applications for 8,271 units in 2022 and 12,227 units in 2023, a cumulative total of 20,498 units. • Kitchener's Housing Pledge is 35,000 new housing units between March 2023 and 2031. Page 283 of 343 • Building permits were issued for 2,303 units in 2022 and 3,985 units in 2023, accounting for a total of 6,288 units since 2022. • The Province's evaluation of the housing target is based on new housing and additional residential unit starts as provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the new or upgraded beds in long-term care homes as provided by the Ministry of Long -Term Care. Kitchener's annual housing starts target, under the Building Faster Fund is 2,567 for 2023. In 2023, Kitchener had housing starts for 3,579 units, exceeding the target (139% of target met). • Kitchener is currently on track to achieve its assigned housing target by 2031. Residential Development Rates • The number of new dwelling units created in 2023 (3,985) is the highest figure on record. The number of dwelling units created in 2022 (2,303) is the lowest figure in the last five years (2019-2023). • 77% (3,068) of the new residential units in 2023 were in the form of multiple dwellings, which is the highest on record. This was a considerable increase compared to that in 2022 of 40% (926) of the new residential units in the form of multiple dwellings. • 1,906 multiple dwelling units created in 2023 were within 6 tall buildings (9 storeys or higher), representing about 48% of the total new units created. The rest of the multiple dwelling units created (38%) were either in the form of low to mid rise buildings or additions to existing buildings. • In contrast to 2023, 127 multiple dwelling units were created within 1 tall building, representing 6% of the total new units created in 2022. The rest of the multiple dwelling units created (86%) were in the form of low to mid rise buildings or additions to existing buildings. • 688 duplex dwelling units were created in 2023 and 547 duplex dwelling units were created in 2022, a continued increase from historical averages. • 27 permits were issued for Detached Additional Dwelling Units (also referred to as backyard homes) in 2023 and 15 permits were issued in 2022, showing a steady increase since detached Additional Dwelling Units were first permitted in 2021. Development within Built Up Area and Designated Greenfield Area • Building permits issued for new residential units within the Designated Greenfield Area continue to provide a varied and balanced supply of dwelling types. • The number of multiple dwelling building permits issued in the Built -Up Area far exceed those that that were issued within the Designated Greenfield Area. This is expected as higher density multiple dwellings are focused within intensification areas (e.g., Protected Major Transit Station Areas, nodes, and corridors). • The residential intensification level (new residential construction that occurs within the Built-up Area) saw a dip in 2022 (32%) and a spike in 2023 (69%) as the timing of six (6) high rise multiple dwellings with a total of 1,906 units in 2023 affected the reported development rate in 2023. • The City's 5 -year average residential intensification level is 61 %, which continues to be an indication that the City is on track to contribute towards, and in some years exceed, its intensification target of 60%. Urban Growth Centre (UGC) Density Page 284 of 343 • The estimated density of the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) is 220 residents and jobs per hectare. Kitchener is on track to achieve the City's Official Plan minimum density target of 225 residents and jobs per hectare by 2031. Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) Density • The estimated existing density of the Queen and Frederick PMTSA is 185 residents and jobs per hectare, exceeding its minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs per hectare. • Five (5) PMTSAs (Central Station, Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hall, Kitchener Market, Borden, and Block Line) are also positioned to meet the prescribed minimum density targets based on the current zoning. • Four (4) PMTSAs (Grand River Hospital, Mill, Fairway, and Sportsworld) may not be able to achieve their prescribed density target of 160 residents and jobs per hectare based on current zoning. However, with the Growing Together project, the City will be positioned to achieve its minimum density targets for these PMTSAs. Capacity for Growth • The City continues to have the potential to accommodate its allocated employment growth to 2051 within its urban area. • With planned updates to land uses and zoning within Kitchener's protected major transit station areas through the Growing Together project; the Enabling 4 Units project; land use reviews that will occur as part of Kitchener's Official Plan review over the next two years; and ongoing secondary planning work in the Dundee North area of southwest Kitchener, there continues to be sufficient opportunities to accommodate planned residential growth to 2051. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. In addition, monitoring report information will be presented to the Kitchener Developers Liaison Committee in March. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • DSD -2022-410 Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2022 Annual Monitoring Report • DSD -19-206 Kitchener Growth Management Plan 2019-2021 • DTS-09-011 Kitchener Growth Management Strategy • 2010-2022 Annual Monitoring Reports and Biennial Plans available at https://www.kitchener.ca/en/strategic-plans-and-projects/growth-management.aspx REVIEWED BY: Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy and Research APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Page 285 of 343 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS) Annual Monitoring Report 2023 Page 286 of 343 Kitchener Growth Management Strategy Annual Monitoring Report 2023 Page 287 of 343 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2009, Kitchener approved its Growth Management Strategy (KGMS) in support of the City's Strategic Plan. Kitchener is expected and planned to accommodate a relatively significant amount of residential and employment growth by 2051. The City has also been assigned a housing target by the Province to achieve the building of 35,000 homes in Kitchener by 2031 - known as Kitchener's municipal housing pledge. As part of tracking progress on Kitchener's housing pledge, the Province requires municipal planning data to be reported on a quarterly and annual basis. Kitchener tracks and monitors specific growth data in a dynamic manner. A snapshot of the data is contained within this report. The results of the 2023 growth management data continue to be encouraging. Kitchener is on track to achieve and potentially exceed its 2031 housing target. The Province's current reporting on Kitchener's housing target shows that Kitchener not only achieved but exceeded its 2023 housing target by 39%. The number of residents and jobs per hectare (RJs/ha) in the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) is 220 RJs/ha, surpassing the provincially mandated minimum target of 200 RJs/ha by 2031, and approaching the City's higher Official Plan minimum target of 225 RJs/ha by 2031. Further, the estimated density of the Queen and Frederick Protected Major Transit Station Area is 185 RJs/ha, exceeding its density target of 160 RJs/ha. The City's 2023 intensification level was 69% and 5 -year average intensification level is 61% exceeding our minimum intensification target (60%). In 2023, building permits were issued for a total of 3,985 new residential units -our highest figure on record. 77% of new residential units developed in 2023 were in the form of multiple dwellings - a substantial increase compared to that in 2022 (40%) and highest number on record. Development of additional dwelling units (e.g. duplex dwelling units) has seen a considerable increase compared to historical averages. Despite current market conditions, Kitchener saw record numbers of building permits issued. It is anticipated that the City's growth management program, including the strategy, framework and dynamic tracking and monitoring system, will be updated in future years to reflect: changes to provincial legislation; updates to the Region's Official Plan; and, subsequently the City's Official Plan review which will follow. 2 Page 288 of 343 CONTENTS Executive Summary....................................................................................... 2 1 Evolution of Growth Management............................................................... 5 2 Municipal Housing Target........................................................................... 7 2.1 Tracking Progress on Kitchener's Municipal Housing Target ...................... 7 2.1.1 Council Approved Units.................................................................. 7 2.1.2 Residential Development Rates ....................................................... 8 2.1.3 Provincial Evaluation of the Housing Target .................................... 10 3 Growth Forecasts & Targets..................................................................... 13 3.1 Intensification Targets....................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Intensification Level Progress........................................................ 14 3.2 Density Targets................................................................................ 18 3.2.1 Tracking Growth in Intensification Areas ......................................... 20 3.2.1.1 Existing Measures.................................................................. 20 3.2.1.2 Capacity for New Growth........................................................ 21 3.3 Estimated Land Supply...................................................................... 24 3.4 Population and Employment Allocation ................................................. 24 4 Conclusion.............................................................................................26 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Kitchener's Municipal Housing Target and Council Approved Units, since 2022............................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2. Annual Residential Development Rates in Kitchener, 2009-2023 .............8 Figure 3. Kitchener's Municipal Housing Target and Building Permits Issued, since 2022.......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4. New Housing Starts as per CMHC, 2009-2023 .................................... 10 Figure 5. New Housing and ARU Starts, Long-term Care Beds, and Annual Housing Target for Kitchener, 2009-2031.................................................................... 11 Figure 6. Kitchener's progress towards the Municipal Housing Target, 2023......... 12 Figure 7. Urban Area Boundary, Built-up Area, and Designated Greenfield Area for Kitchener.................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8. Annual Residential Intensification Levels, 2009-2023 ......................... 15 Figure 9. 2022 Intensification Levels.............................................................. 16 Figure 10. 2023 Intensification Levels............................................................. 17 Figure 11. Intensification Areas in Kitchener, Kitchener Official Plan 2014 ........... 19 3 Page 289 of 343 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Annual Housing Target for the City of Kitchener ..................................... 7 Table 2. Annual Residential Development Rates by Dwelling Type, 2022-2023....... 9 Table 3. Annual Residential Development Rates for Multiple Dwellings, 2022-2023.9 Table 4. Minimum Annual Residential Intensification Target, Kitchener and Region of WaterlooBUA.............................................................................................. 14 Table 5. Annual Residential Development Rates in the BUA and DGA by Dwelling Type, 2022 and 2023................................................................................... 15 Table 6. Minimum DGA Density Target, Kitchener and Region of Waterloo DGA ... 18 Table 7. Minimum Density Targets for Urban Growth Centre and Protected Major TransitStation Areas.................................................................................... 20 Table 8. Existing Measures for Primary Intensification Areas .............................. 21 Table 9. Additional Capacity Measures for Primary Intensification Areas .............. 22 Table 10. Total Measures (Existing + Additional Capacity) for Primary Intensification Areas......................................................................................................... 23 Table 11. Estimated Land Supply (capacity of lands within the urban area boundary) ................................................................................................................. 24 Table 12. Population and Employment Forecasts Allocation ............................... 24 Table 13. Population Allocation vs. Estimated Capacity ..................................... 25 Il Page 290 of 343 1 EVOLUTION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT In the 1960s, population growth and expectations for the future in Kitchener were soaring. The population of 100,000 was expected to more than double in 20 years. Kitchener proactively undertook and participated in several long-range studies aimed at guiding the future growth of Kitchener and the surrounding area. One of these studies from 1964 entitled, Kitchener 2000 - A Regional Concept, suggested an approach for a 'Staging of Development' program. It was thought that given the predicted rapid growth, a logical economic means for developing the city was needed that would closely relate to the financial ability of the City to provide infrastructure services for an area. Following work on a new Official Plan in 1968, annual Lot Levies Reports were prepared. This report coordinated the provision of engineering services with the timing of approving new subdivisions. At the time, the annual Council -approved report led the way as an effective tool for managing growth and after several years the process became known as the 'Staging of Development'. The Staging of Development paved the way for coordinating subdivision growth in Kitchener. It was nearly 30 or more years later that many other municipalities in Ontario implemented a formal staging program. As with all processes, the need to evolve arises. After 40 years, the growth management landscape significantly changed. Kitchener became part of a provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Region of Waterloo (the Region) adopted a Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS). Social, environmental and economic objectives became more complex. These changes saw the Staging of Development program evolve and make way for the new Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS), along with its implementation tools. Approved by Kitchener Council in 2009, the KGMS provides a framework for planning where and how future residential and employment growth can be accommodated in Kitchener while positively contributing to the City's quality of life. The goals and actions outlined in the KGMS support the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 (the Growth Plan, 2006) and the RGMS. One of the goals (Goal 6) of the KGMS introduced an ongoing growth management program to manage growth - related change in an effective and coordinated manner. A biannual Kitchener Growth Management Plan (KGMP) and an annual Growth Management Monitoring Report (Monitoring Report) were identified as important components for the growth management program. The KGMP establishes priority levels for development and infrastructure projects for each growth area within the City. It includes the prioritization and allocation of resources towards completing initiatives that are required to move lands from the draft approval stage to registration, construction and developing complete communities. The Monitoring Report, historically, has tracked the supply of development, and the achievement of intensification and density targets for Kitchener. Monitoring Reports 5 Page 291 of 343 have been prepared and presented to Council and the development industry since 2010. The previous Monitoring Report iterations are available on the .��.ai.:ty's Girow tlh ...p.....g..ii:::..ii:::.::.............b. a e. These Monitoring Reports have included a summary of Planning Act applications, residential development rates within the delineated Built- up Area (BUA) and the Designated Greenfield Area (DGA), and potential capacity to accommodate growth in the City. Kitchener has been on the leading edge with respect to the ability to track and monitor specific growth data in a dynamic manner. As part of Kitchener's ongoing growth management program the intent is to continually refine the data, improve the dynamic capabilities and provide information to help support numerous corporate studies and infrastructure projects. The Province implemented .irk.:taii"Ii............II ..rAallatlioir� 323 I air liclip...IL............ IPII....lr:..ir:..li..irk..g............II;; ..:. . :..p ...i L.J.10...g in April of 2023. The regulation complements the Province's initiative of developing standards and achieving consistency for the reporting of data required for development applications. The City of Kitchener is required, under this regulation, to report Planning Act application information on a quarterly basis and additional information on an annual basis. The City of Kitchener has submitted quarterly Planning Act application data to the Province for each quarter in 2023. This is the 14th edition of the Monitoring Report and it has been updated from the previous iterations. The updates reflect the recent changes to provincial legislation and to the Regional Official Plan (ROP). It includes statistics for Protected Major Transit Station Areas and other primary intensification areas that were established in Kitchener's 2014 Official Plan. This report also tracks progress towards the City of Kitchener's .Ilu.)...u...li..ii')°)IIS that was approved in response to a request from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, on March 20, 2023 supporting the building of 35,000 homes in Kitchener by 2031. C. Page 292 of 343 2 MUNICIPAL HOUSING TARGET In October 2022, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing provided individual housing targets for 29 municipalities across Ontario and requested that each municipality submit a municipal housing pledge to the Province. 21 additional municipalities were assigned housing targets in 2023 as part of Ontario's plan to build at least 1.5 million homes by 2031. On March 20, 2023, the City of Kitchener approved aIh.ouu..j[in..g plledcle supporting the building of 35,000 homes in Kitchener by 2031. Further annual targets were assigned as each municipality's proportion of the overall 1.5 million housing goal and applying that proportion against province -wide annual targets. Table 1 summarizes the annual and overall housing target for Kitchener. These targets are independent from the Growth Plan intensification and density targets. Table 1. Annual Housing Target for the City of Kitchener Province 110,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 1,500,000 City of Kitchener 2,567 2,917 3,500 4,083 35,000 Note - No housing targets have been assigned for 2022. However, the overall housing target of 35,000 for Kitchener is from 2022 to 2031. 2.1 TRACKING PROGRESS ON KITCHENER'S MUNICIPAL HOUSING TARGET 2.1.1 COUNCIL APPROVED UNITS Plan of subdivisions, Official Plan amendments, Zoning By-law amendments, and Part Lot Control applications require approval by Council. The number of units that are approved by Council indicate how many units are anticipated to be built in the future years. It is important to note that there is a time lag between Council approval and actual development of units. The length of time it takes to get from Council approval to the start of construction varies dramatically and is highly influenced by market conditions. Figure 1 compares the municipal housing target with the number of units that the Council has approved since 2022. In 2022, Council approved 37 applications with a total of 8,271 units. In 2023, Council approved 65 applications with a total of 12,227 units. A cumulative 20,498 units have been approved since 2022. 7 Page 293 of 343 Figure 1. Kitchener's Municipal Housing Target and Council Approved Units, since 2022 Kitchener's IVILai i llaal Iiousing Farget Council Approved Units 12,227 111112022 20123 2.1.2 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RATES Figure 2Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the total number of new units for which building permits were issued annually from 2009 to 2023 and a 5 - year moving average. In 2022, building permits were issued for a total of 2,303 new residential units. This was a decrease from the previous three years (2019-2021). In 2023, building permits were issued for a total of 3,985 new residential units, the highest number of building permits issued on record. The 5 -year moving average shows that the number of building permits issued for new residential units have steadily grown over the years. 4500 n., 4000 �i U 3500 W �5 3000 C. �s 2500 2000 Figure 2. Annual Residential Development Rates in Kitchener, 2009-2023 2417 2417 3985 3672 3143 3036 2303 1606 � 9 1302 — 84 1 " 1169 125 2009 2.01.0 201..1.. 201..2 201..3 2014. 207..5 201..6 201..7 201.8 201.9 2020 2021. 2022 2023 OEM Fotal I E!W Units Created 5 Year IMoving Average Table 2Error! Reference source not found. provides the number of new units for which building permits were issued by the type of dwelling from 2022 to 2023 and Page 294 of 343 the average of last 5 -years (2019-2023). The development of single detached, semi- detached street townhouse and cluster townhouse dwellings has seen a downturn. However, there has been a steady increase in the development of duplex dwelling units. The development of triplex, and detached ADUs has also seen a considerable increase between 2022 and 2023, since Bill 23 changes were implemented, although the overall numbers for triplex and detached ADUs are still low. Multiple dwellings had a slow 2022 but a considerably strong 2023 with a historic record level of multiple dwelling units for which building permits were issued. Table 2. Annual Residential Development Rates by Dwelling Type, 2022-2023 Single Detached Semi -Detached Street Townhouse Duplex' Triplex' Detached ADU' Cluster Townhouse Multiple Dwellings2 Total New Units Notes: 447 148 407 12 7 27 298 18 206 547_ 688 _ 423 10 29 14 15 27 16 48 0 31 926 3,068 2,111 2,303 3,985 3,228 1. In association with single detached, semi-detached and street townhouse dwelling types 2. Includes stacked townhouse dwellings A further breakdown of multiple dwellings is illustrated in Table 3Error! Reference source not found.. In 2023, building permits for six (6) high rise multiple dwellings were issued with a total of 1,906 units. This was up from one (1) high rise multiple dwelling issued in 2022. Table 3. Annual Residential Development Rates for Multiple Dwellings, 2022-2023 Stacked Townhouse Low Rise Multiple (3 storeys or fewer) Mid Rise Multiple (4 to 8 storeys) High Rise Multiple (9 storeys or higher) Additions/Conversions Total Multiple Dwellings Notes: • (value) represents percentages of column totals 112(12%) 423(14% 43(4%) 121 (4%) 606(66%) 420(14% 127(14%) 1,906 (620Y 3-8__(4_%,) 1__9_8__(6_%_) 926 3.068 Figure 3 compares the municipal housing target with the number of units for building permits issued since 2022. In 2022, building permits were issued for 2,303 units. In 17 Page 295 of 343 2023, building permits were issued for 3,985 units. Building permits have been issued for a total of 6,288 units since 2022. This accounts for 18% of Kitchener's municipal housing target. Figure 3. Kitchener's Municipal Housing Target and Building Permits Issued, since 2022 KItchener's IMunlciloal Housing rarget -81 3,985 1:3uildin�; Permits Issued 11111 '102'1 2023 2.1.3 PROVINCIAL EVALUATION OF THE HOUSING TARGET The Province evaluates performance against the housing targets based on housing starts and additional residential units (for example, laneway, garden and basement suites) as provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC); and other institutional housing types (such as long-term care beds) as provided by the Ministry of Long -Term Care, created in a given calendar year. CMHC defines a housing start as the beginning of construction work on a building. This is usually when the concrete has been poured for the footings or basement. Figure 4 illustrates the number of new housing starts annually since 2009 and 5 year moving average. The trend generally follows the number of building permits that are issued in Kitchener. 10 Page 296 of 343 Figure 4. New Housing Starts as per CMHC, 2009-2023 4000 3,615 3500 3,356 3000 2,777 2500 2,042 2,094 2000 1,744 1,619 E 1500 1,302 1,263 1000 8;; 924 500 2009 201.0 2011 2012 201.3 201.4 2015 201.6 201.7 201.8 201.9 2020 2021. 2022 2023 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII New I...Ioi.a,sing Starts ...... S...yeaar moving average To evaluate performance against the municipal housing target, the Province has started reporting a cumulative number of additional residential units (ARUs - this is similar to Kitchener's nomenclature of additional dwelling units and duplexes) and new or upgraded beds in long-term care homes. These have not been reported previously and are not available for the previous years at the time of writing this report. Figure 5 illustrates new housing starts from 2009 to 2023, ARU starts and long-term care beds in 2022 and 2023, a 5 -year moving average of total units, and annual housing targets from 2023 to 2031. A multi-year average provides a better indication of progress towards the housing target. The compounded annual growth rate of the 5 -year moving average for a 5 year period (2019 to 2023) is 9%. Further, the 2023 data shows that Kitchener not only achieved its housing target but exceeded it by 39%. This indicates that Kitchener is on track to achieve and potentially exceed its assigned housing target and receive provincial Building Faster Fund. 11 Page 297 of 343 Figure S. New Housing and ARU Starts, Long-term Care Beds, and Annual Housing Target for Kitchener, 2009-2031 4,1500 4,000 3,500 :3,000 3,615 3,578 3500 11 3,356 11111 2,948 2917 4083 4083 4083 4083 4083 4083 2009 201.0 2011 2012. 2013 201.4 201.5 2016. 201.7 2.0:1.8 201.9 2020 202.1.. 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027. 2028 2029 2030 2031 H ousing 1 aige't IIWMEEM New f lousing .Stal'ts IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ARL) starts 4LTA: beds • • • • • • 5 -}Peal" gloving avel"age Notes: Total units in the figure above includes number of new housing and ARU starts as provided by CMHC, and new or upgraded beds in long-term care homes as provided by the Ministry of Long -Term Care for 2022 and 2023 only. ARU starts and new or upgraded beds in long-term care homes is not available for years prior to 2022. Figure 6Error! Reference source not found. illustrates Kitchener's progress towards its provincially assigned housing target of 35,000 by 2031. Since 2022, Kitchener has seen a total of 6,527 units created, which includes new housing starts as reported by CMHC, additional residential units, and new or upgraded beds in long- term care homes. This represents approximately 18.6% of the housing target. 28,473 units are needed to meet the housing target by 2031, an average of approximately 3,560 units every year. Figure 6. Kitchener's progress towards the Municipal Housing Target, 2023 Kitchener', IMunicilaal I iousing Tai°get New Iiousing.Starts, ARU Starts and I..:FC: Beds � ll, 3579 IIIII20 2023 12 Page 298 of 343 13 Page 299 of 343 3 GROWTH FORECASTS & TARGETS 3.1 INTENSIFICATION TARGETS The Growth Plan, 2006 defined the limits of the Region's Urban Area, including the delineated Built -Up Area (BUA), and the Designated Greenfield Area (DGA). Figure 7 shows the Urban Area Boundary, the BUA, and the DGA for Kitchener. It should be noted that Kitchener's Urban Area Boundary and DGA as established in the Regional Official Plan is subject to change pending a decision on Bill 162, Get it Done Act which was tabled in February 2024. Figure 7. Urban Area Boundary, Built-up Area, and Designated Greenfield Area for Kitchener 14 Page 300 of 343 The Built-up Area (BUA) represents the lands that were developed with urban uses as of 2006 and does not change year over year. Lands within the BUA have been used to implement and measure minimum residential intensification targets. Intensification refers to the development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists. The residential intensification targets have been a key component to create more compact development patterns, promote energy efficiency, provide a greater variety of housing options, and better integrate transit and land use planning. Kitchener's and the Region of Waterloo's residential intensification targets have changed overtime. The 2006 Growth Plan established a minimum residential intensification target of 40% for the Region. The Region's Official Plan at that time required the achievement of a minimum 45% as the region -wide residential intensification target. The Growth Plan, 2020 revised the region -wide minimum residential intensification target to 50%. Further, through the Region's Official Plan amendment number 6 (ROPA 6) which brought their Official Plan into conformity with the Growth Plan 2020, established a higher residential intensification target for the Region and specified residential intensification targets for the area municipalities. Kitchener's minimum residential intensification target is 60% with a total minimum of 31,660 units in the BUA from 2022 to 2051 (Table 4). Table 4. Minimum Annual Residential Intensification Target, Kitchener and Region of Waterloo BUA Kitchener BUA Region of Waterloo 61% 71,150 3. 1.1 INTENSIFICATION LEVEL PROGRESS Annual residential development rates by dwelling type in the BUA and DGA are indicated for 2022 and 2023 in Table 5. The intensification level in 2022 was 32% and in 2023 was 69%. The City expects to see "spike" (such as in 2023) and "dip" (such as in 2022) years with respect to intensification levels as the timing of multiple dwelling developments can affect the reported development rates in a given year for a municipality the size of Kitchener. As we have seen in recent years, when there is a substantial number of multiple dwelling units created in the BUA, the City's intensification level is higher. 15 Page 301 of 343 Table 5. Annual Residential Development Rates in the BUA and DGA by Dwelling Type, 2022 and 2023 Single Detached 423 24 447 137 11 148 Semi -Detached 2 10 12 4 3 7 Street Townhouse 298 0 298 18 0 18 Duplex' 211 336 547 356 332 688 Triplex' 0 10 10 0 29 29 Detached ADU' 1 14 15 1 26 27 Cluster Townhouse 0 48 48 0 0 0 Multiple Dwellings' 634 292 926 732 2,336 3,068 Total New Units (3) 1,569 734 2,303 1,248 2,737 3,985 (68%) (32%) (100%) (31%) (69%) (100% Notes: 1. Includes duplex, triplex, detached ADU in association with single detached, semi-detached and street townhouse dwelling types 2. Includes stacked townhouse dwellings Figure 8 illustrates the historic annual intensification levels and 5 -year average intensification levels for the City. A multi-year average provides a better understanding, for growth monitoring purposes, of whether the City is on track to achieve the required intensification level. This continues to indicate that the City is on track to contribute towards, and in some years exceed, the minimum intensification target of 60%. Figure S. Annual Residential Intensification Levels, 2009-2023 RO% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 2009 207.0 201.1. 207.2 207.3 20:1.4 2015 7016 2017 707.8 207.9 2020 2021. 2022 .2023 Intensification Leval (%) 42°% 43% 56% 25% 58% 54°% 49% 41% 44°% 53% 78% 69% 53% 32% 69% »,,,,,,;:,,,,,,,,,5 year average Intensification Level 40% 39% 41% .39% 45% 4'7% 48% 45% 49% 48% 53% 57% 60% 58% 61% Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the location of new units created in 2022 and Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the location of new units 16 Page 302 of 343 created in 2023 within Kitchener's BUA, DGA and built boundary line (the limits of the City's developed urban area as established by the Province in 2006). The figures show that location of new units created in 2022 were spread out across the BUA and the DGA in 2022, however, more medium and large sized developments were located within the protected major transit station areas in 2023. Figure 9. 2022 Intensification Levels 17 Page 303 of 343 Figure 10. 2023 Intensification Levels Page 304 of 343 3.2 DENSITY TARGETS Kitchener's Official Plan establishes a density target of 55 residents and jobs combined per gross hectare for areas serving primarily a residential function and 40 residents and jobs combined per gross hectare for areas serving primarily an employment function within the Designated Greenfield Area (DGA). Designated greenfield area (DGA) are lands within the urban area but outside of delineated built- up areas that are designated for development and are required to accommodate forecasted growth. Through ROPA 6, the minimum DGA density target for Kitchener and the Region have been revised to 65 and 59 residents and jobs combined per gross hectare by 2051, respectively (Table 6). Table 6. Minimum DGA Density Target, Kitchener and Region of Waterloo DGA Kitchener DGA Region of Waterloo 65 59 Intensification areas are identified throughout the City in both the BUA and the DGA as key locations where growth is to be focused. Kitchener's primary intensification areas include the Urban Growth Centre (UGC), Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSA's), City Nodes, Community Nodes, and Urban Corridors. The Secondary intensification areas include Neighbourhood Nodes, Arterial Corridors and other site- specific opportunities. Figure 11 shows the primary and secondary intensification areas. 19 Page 305 of 343 Figure 11. Intensification Areas in Kitchener, Kitchener Official Plan 2014 The Growth Plan, 2020 provides a minimum density target of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare to be achieved for Kitchener's UGC (Downtown) by 2031. Although the Regional Official Plan notes the same density for Kitchener's UGC (Downtown) as the Growth Plan, the Kitchener Official Plan sets a minimum density target of 225 residents and jobs combined per gross hectare. The Growth Plan, 2020 has further established a minimum density of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for PMTSA's that are served by light rail transit or bus rapid transit, as is the case in Kitchener. There is no timeline associated with density targets for PMTSA's. ROPA 6 sets the same target for all of the PMTSA's in Kitchener except for the Block Line PMTSA which is to achieve a minimum density target of 80 20 Page 306 of 343 residents and jobs combined per hectare. Table 7 summarizes the minimum density targets established for the UGC and the PMTSA's in Kitchener. Table 7. Minimum Density Targets for Urban Growth Centre and Protected Major Transit Station Areas UGC — Downtown Kitchener (by 2031) 225 PMTSAs (no timing noted) NA Grand River Hospital 160 Central Station 160 Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hall 160 Queen plus Frederick 160 Kitchener Market 160 Borden 160 Mill 160 Block Line 80 Fairway 160 Soortsworld 160 3.2.1 TRACKING GROWTH IN INTENSIFICATION AREAS 3.2.1.1 Existing Measures Table 8 quantifies the existing number of dwelling units, residents, non-residential floor area, jobs and density measure (residents and jobs per hectare) for the primary intensification areas within Kitchener's BUA and DGA. The non-residential floor area and job estimates have not been adjusted to account for changes in office and work from home trends brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Region is undertaking a workplace count survey in 2024 and it is expected that this survey will inform updates to the non-residential floor area and job estimates that reflect pandemic related changes to employment. Interest in residential development has remained robust. The estimated density of the Urban Growth Centre (UGC), Queen and Frederick PMTSA, and Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hall PMTSA is 220 RJs/ha, 185 RJs/ha, and 136 RJs/ha respectively in 2023. The Queen and Frederick PMTSA has already met its density target of 160 RJs/ha. 21 Page 307 of 343 Table 8. Existing Measures for Primary Intensification Areas Urban Growth Centres z 107 101 4,872 8,335 1 841,264 15,233 220 PMTSAs 715 13,914 28,382 1,679,121 25,090 75 Grand River Hospital 84 1,345 2,973 203,964 3,964 82 Central Stationz 68 1,238 2,663 277,060 3,420 89 Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hal 12 59 2,023 3,769 496,245 4,243 136 Queen and Frederick 45 1,918 3,696 164,460 4,586 185 Kitchener Market 49 1,392 3,010 58,385 838 78 Borden 51 534 1,231 106,400 1,187 48 Mill 89 1,129 2,733 161,202 1,000 42 Block Line 99 1,802 3,481 46,193 717 42 Fairway 92 2,342 4,286 101,782 2,913 78 Sportsworld 79 191 540 63,430 2,220 35 City Nodes 165 792 1,451 63,604 3,248 28 Community Nodes 234 3,528 6,321 87,530 3,810 43 Urban Corridors 280 2,067 3,892 249,366 6,642 38 Total for Primary Intensification Area S2 1,394 20,301 40,047 2,079,621 38,790 57 Notes: 1. UGC Data is provided by the Region based on Census, building permit and workplace count statistics. Job estimate for the UGC has not been updated for this year. As such, job estimate for UGC is from 2021. 2. Boundary for the Urban Growth Centre overlaps with the boundary of the Central Station, Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hall, and the Queen plus Frederick PMTSA boundaries. Therefore, Urban Growth Centre data has not been included in the subtotal for primary intensification areas. 3.2.1.2 Capacity for New Growth Table 9 explores the estimated potential for accommodating new development within the primary intensification areas based on existing zoning only. The primary intensification areas are well positioned with the existing zoning in place to accommodate some of the projected growth in Kitchener. New development applications and land use/zoning reviews such as the Growing Together project and on-going secondary planning work will continue to refine the planning framework and add to the capacity to accommodate growth in these areas. 22 Page 308 of 343 Table 9. Additional Capacity Measures for Primary Intensification Areas 50% Scenario The maximum amount of development permitted in the as -of -right zoning represents the City's total capacity to accommodate growth given current planning tools. It is anticipated that only some parcels within intensification areas will be redeveloped within the short or medium term for a variety of reasons. Some parcels will be developed at lower densities than the maximum permitted by zoning. Still others will receive zoning by-law amendments to exceed these maximums. In order to account for these factors, this report evaluates 50% of the maximum permitted by zoning as a reasonable estimate or proxy of opportunities for growth. As -of -right zoning permissions do not include any changes to zoning proposed through Growing Together project. Urban Growth Centre' 107 1,850 INN= 3,264 2421567 9,349 118 Major Transit Station Areas 715 12,367 23,072 809,874 27,294 70 Grand River Hospital 84 1,509 2,757 81,169 3,035 69 Central Station' 68 1,576 2,988 140,156 4,778 113 Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hall' 59 1,162 2,084 57,175 3,341 92 Queen plus Frederick' 45 1,044 2,063 126,730 4,362 143 Kitchener Market 49 1,191 2,107 59,130 1,946 82 Borden 51 1,603 2,866 102,1092,988 115 Mill 89 2,168 3,982 32,358 1,884 66 Block Line 99 1,332 2,511 143,278 2,958 55 Fairway 92 390 1,012 18,703 695 19 Sportsworld 79 393 703 74,465 1,308 26 City Y 165 2,322 4,154 5151054 9,559 83 Community Nodes 234 9,206 16,994 655,305 17,968 150 Urban Corridors 280 5,521 10,630 427,598 11,238 78 Total for Primary 1,394 29,416 Intensification Areas' 54,849 2,433,232 66,059 87 Notes: 1. Boundary for the Urban Growth Centre overlaps with the boundary of the Central Station, Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hall, and the Queen plus Frederick PMTSA boundaries. Therefore, Urban Growth Centre data has not been included in the subtotal for primary intensification areas. Table 10 provides an account of the total number of dwelling units, residents, non- residential floor area, jobs and density measure (residents and jobs per hectare) for the primary intensification areas within Kitchener's BUA and DGA. Given the additional opportunities for redevelopment, based on existing zoning, there is capacity and potential to accommodate more people and jobs within Kitchener's primary intensification areas. The UGC is well positioned to achieve its density target of 225 residents and jobs per hectare. Further, six (6) PMTSAs (Central Station, Victoria Park and Kitchener City 23 Page 309 of 343 Hall, Queen plus Frederick, Kitchener Market, Borden, and Block Line) are also well positioned to meet the prescribed minimum density targets based on the current zoning. However, four (4) PMTSAs (Grand River Hospital, Mill, Fairway, and Sportsworld) may not be able to achieve their prescribed density target of 160 residents and jobs per hectare. These estimates are based on current zoning and do not take into account the proposed zoning framework for the PMTSAs through the Growing Together project. If the proposed zoning regulations come into effect, the City will be well positioned to meet or exceed its minimum density targets for all of the PMTSAs. Other primary intensification areas do not have assigned density targets but add considerable population and employment to contribute to Kitchener's growth allocation. Table 10. Total Measures (Existing + Additional Capacity) for Primary Intensification Areas Urban Growth Centre' 107 6,722 11,599 1,083,831 24,582 338 Major Transit Station Areas _River 715 26,281 51,454 2,488,995 52,384 145 Grand Hospital 84 2,854 5,730 285,133 6,999 151 Central Station' 68 2,814 5,650 417,216 8,199 202 Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hall' 59 3,185 5,853 553,420 7,583 228 Queen plus Frederick' 45 2,962 5,759 291,190 8,948 328 Kitchener Market 49 2,583 5,117 117,515 2,784 160 Borden 51 2,137 4,097 208,509 4,176 163 Mill 89 3,297 6,715 193,560 2,884 108 Block Line 99 3,134 5,991 189,471 3,675 97 Fairway 92 2,732 5,298 120,485 3,608 97 Sportsworld 79 584 1,243 137,895 3,528 61 City Nodes 165 3,114 5,605 578,658 12,807 112 Community Nodes 234 12,734 23,316 742,835 21,778 193 Urban Corridors 280 7,588 14,522 676,964 17,880 116 Total for Primary Intensification Areas'' 1,394 49,717 94,896 4,512,853 104 849 143 Notes: 1. Boundary for the Urban Growth Centre overlaps with the boundary of the Central Station, Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hall, and the Queen plus Frederick PMTSA boundaries. Therefore, Urban Growth Centre data has not been included in the subtotal for primary intensification areas. 24 Page 310 of 343 3.3 ESTIMATED LAND SUPPLY The estimated land supply for Kitchener is a total of the potential capacity within the primary or secondary intensification areas, and the potential supply from registered, draft approved and in -circulation subdivisions. As development moves from raw land through the development approvals stage and eventually to construction, the land supply estimates become more accurate. Table 11 illustrates that the City's land supply includes a potential capacity of approximately 84,826 dwelling units and 2.97 million square metres of non- residential floor space. The estimated supply of dwelling units and non-residential floor space has increased compared to the previous report, reflecting changes in boundaries of the intensification areas based on the 2014 Official Plan. The estimated supply is further anticipated to increase once zoning is updated based on land use/zoning reviews such as the Growing Together project and on-going secondary planning work. Timing of development from the estimated supply of units, however, is influenced by many factors including infrastructure timing, landowner priorities and market forces. Table 11. Estimated Land Supply (capacity of lands within the urban area boundary) 3.4 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ALLOCATION A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (the Growth Plan, 2020) provides population and employment forecasts for all upper -tier and single -tier municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area (GGH). The growth forecasts are further allocated to area municipalities by the Region. The Region's and Kitchener's population and employment allocation as per Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 6 (ROPA 6), is identified in Table 12. Kitchener is forecast to grow to 409,200 people and 170,500 jobs by 2051 representing an increase of about 52 percent and 54 percent respectively between 2021 and 2051. These forecasts are to be used as the basis for planning and managing growth to 2051. Table 12. Population and Employment Forecasts Allocation Notes: 25 Page 311 of 343 2021 2051 2021 2051 City of Kitchener 269,100 409,200 111,000 170,500 Other Area Municipalities 347,900 513,800 191,000 299,500 Region of Waterloo 617,000 923,000 302,000 470,000 1. Population figures in this table show census -based population plus four percent under coverage. As such, it does not include university and college students who temporarily reside in the Region (either in student residences or other accommodation) to study at post -secondary institutions. 2. All population and employment in this table represent mid -year figures. Table 13 compares the current population and employment capacity with the population and employment allocations provided by the Region of Waterloo. Kitchener's 2023 mid -year population estimated by the Region is now 281,000 with approximately 7,000 more people than reported in mid -year 2022. Table 13 also estimates that the City has an existing supply/capacity of developable land to accommodate more jobs than the 2051 employment allocation by the Region. However, there is a gap with respect to 2051 population allocation by the Region. As previously discussed in this report, the estimated capacity for Kitchener is based on existing zoning. It does not include zoning updates anticipated through land use / zoning reviews such as the Growing Together project and on-going secondary planning work. Further, this report is based on intensification areas established as per the 2014 Official Plan that uses a 2031 planning horizon. There is sufficient zoned capacity to meet the City's 2031 population forecast of 319,500. Work is currently underway to update land uses and zoning within Kitchener's protected major transit station areas. Additionally, updated planning permissions will occur as part of Kitchener's Official Plan, and ongoing secondary planning work in the Dundee North area of southwest Kitchener and Hidden Valley. This ongoing work will ensure that there are sufficient opportunities to accommodate planned residential growth within the urban area boundary to 2051. Through the Region's ROPA 6, it was confirmed that there is sufficient land designated and available to accommodate the 2051 population forecast for both the Built-up area and designated greenfield area that will become development ready in the short term. Table 13. Population Allocation vs. Estimated Capacity Existing' 280,894 111,000 Capacity 84,826 74,341 Total 365,720 185341 2051 Allocation 409,200 170,500 Difference (Gap) .. (43,480)14,841 Notes: 1. Unofficial interim population as of mid -year 2023 and employment estimate as of mid -year 2021, Region of Waterloo 26 Page 312 of 343 4 CONCLUSION Kitchener is on track to achieve and potentially exceed its 2031 housing target. The Province's current reporting on Kitchener's housing target shows that Kitchener not only achieved but exceeded its 2023 housing target by 39%. Despite current market conditions, Kitchener saw record numbers of building permits issued. In 2023, building permits were issued for a total of 3,985 new residential units, highest figure on record. 77% of new residential units developed in 2023 were in the form of multiple dwellings - a substantial increase compared to that in 2022 (40%) and highest number on record. A broad range of housing types have been developed in the last two years (2022 and 2023) with 64% as multiple dwelling types (49% of multiple dwelling types were in the form of low to mid rise buildings), 60/0 as townhouses, and 30% in single -detached, semi-detached, duplex, triplex and detached additional dwelling types. Kitchener exceeded its minimum annual intensification target with 69% of residential growth within the Built-up area in 2023. The 5 -year average intensification level is 61% which also exceeds our minimum intensification target (60%). The number of residents and jobs per hectare (RJs/ha) in the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) is 220 RJs/ha, surpassing the provincially mandated minimum target of 200 RJs/ha by 2031, and approaching the City's higher Official Plan minimum target of 225 RJs/ha by 2031. Further, the estimated density of the Queen and Frederick Protected Major Transit Station Area is 185 RJs/ha, exceeding its minimum density target of 160 RJs/ha. It is anticipated that the City's growth management program, including the strategy, framework and dynamic tracking and monitoring system, will be updated in future years to reflect: changes to provincial legislation; updates to the Region's Official Plan; and, subsequently the City's Official Plan review which will follow. With planned updates to land uses and zoning within Kitchener's protected major transit station areas, land use reviews that will occur as part of Kitchener's Official Plan review over the next two years, and ongoing secondary planning work in the Dundee North area of southwest Kitchener, there continues to be sufficient opportunities to accommodate planned residential and employment growth to 2051. 27 Page 313 of 343 Staff Report J IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: March 25, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning and Housing Policy / City Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning and Housing Policy / City Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 Natalie Goss, Manager Policy & Research, 519-741-2200 ext. 7648 Janine Oosterveld, Manager Customer Experience & Project Management, 519-741-2200 ext. 7076 Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARDS INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: March 11, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-121 SUBJECT: Planning and Housing Policy Division & Development and Housing Approvals Division - Significant Planning Applications, Policy Projects, Affordable Housing Projects, and Housing Pledge Update RECOMMENDATION: For Information. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to provide an update of significant development applications, policy projects, affordable housing projects and significant projects to streamline and remove barriers as well as our housing pledge update. Not all work that is currently being undertaken by the Planning and Housing Policy & Development and Housing Approvals Divisions is captured in this report, rather a snapshot of significant work is captured. Planning staff provide a quarterly update report every March, June, September, and December of each year of all current significant development applications. It is important to be providing greater transparency on significant development applications with the community and Council. The key findings of this report include: o Since signing the Housing Pledge in March 2023, Kitchener Council has approved Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment applications for projects which propose 11,457 dwelling units (32.7% of housing pledge), Planning staff have issued final site plan approval for 3613 dwelling units, and building staff have issued building permits for 2981 dwelling units. o Three initiatives associated with the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) are nearing completion: Growing Together, Inclusionary Zoning and Enabling 4 Units. Three of the other five initiatives are also underway with various milestones anticipated later *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 314 of 343 in 2024. Two initiatives have not yet been initiated, but have been built into project work plans and will commence in the coming months. o In this last quarter, significant work has advanced on Growing Together, Inclusionary Zoning and Enabling 4 Units with recommendation reports being brought forward to Council for consideration. Council also authorized the launch of Kitchener's Official Plan review which will result in a new Official Plan for Kitchener in 2026. o Kitchener's affordable housing incentives is supporting six projects which will total 350 new affordable housing units in various stages of development from application to construction. o Extensive work continues to streamline development approvals, meet provincially mandated timelines and support excellent customer service with the current priority as site plan folder updates to prepare for the public portal. There are no financial implications with this report. Community engagement is undertaken for each development application and project, which varies for each. • This report supports the delivery of core services. REPORT: Since December of 2021, Planning staff have provided a quarterly update report every March, June, September, and December of all current significant development applications. This report, and future quarterly reports, will also include the following: • Progress and next steps for Kitchener's Housing Accelerator Fund initiatives; • Progress and next steps for major planning policy projects; • A summary of development applications that include affordable housing; • Updates on significant initiatives to remove barriers and streamline processes to support the development of housing; • Housing Pledge reporting - Development application data required to be reported under a new Provincial regulation — Ontario Regulation 73/23 — Municipal Planning Data Reporting. It is important to be providing greater transparency on significant development applications with the community and Council. Attached to this report, the Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q1 2024) provides a summary of the current Planning applications under review at the time of the preparation of this report (Attachment A). The current significant development applications section includes Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendments that have not received final approval. These are the bulk of the applications that Planning staff consult with the community on an application specific basis. Significant development applications include property specific proposals as well as new greenfield communities (subdivisions). Additional details on the development applications can be found using the online mapping tool available at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications. Kitchener's Housing Accelerator Fund Initiatives In November 2023 Kitchener received $42.4 million as part of the Federal government's Housing Accelerator Fund to help deliver more affordable housing in our community. 8 action plan initiatives are part of Kitchener's Housing Accelerator Fund and they include the delivery of: • Growing Together West: planning framework updates in Kitchener's western protected major transit station areas; • Growing Together East: planning framework updates in Kitchener's eastern protected major transit station areas: • Growing Together West Inclusionary Zoning; • Affordable Housing Construction Offset on City -Owned Lands Incentive • Not -for -Profit Affordable Rental and Co-op Housing Incentive Pilot; Page 315 of 343 • Enabling 4 Units — additional dwelling unit implementation; • Strategic land acquisition and supporting infrastructure; • A climate adaptation plan as an input into Kitchener's new Official Plan; and, • A housing needs assessment Attachment B provides a description of each initiative, current status, next steps and target completion. Major Planning Projects There are currently 14 planning projects underway or that have been recently completed spanning a wide range of topics. These include: • Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review • Housing for All implementation • New Official Plan • Review of Provincial legislation, policies and plans • Rental Housing, Eviction and Displacement Study • Tree Conservation Tools Review • Urban Design Manual Review • Hidden Valley Secondary Plan • Growing Together (Major Transit Station Area) Planning Framework review — West MTSAs and East MTSAs • Lower Doon Land Use Implementation Study • Dundee North Secondary Plan • Inclusionary Zoning • District Energy Business Case • Green Development Standards Attachment C provides a description of each project, current status, next steps, and target completion. Development Applications — Affordable Housing With a strong focus on the housing crisis, this report also includes a summary of 2024 current projects that include affordable housing that are either under review, received approvals this year to start construction or are under construction. To address provincial directives, streamline development approvals and support excellent customer service, the report also provides an update on significant process improvements underway in 2024 (Attachment D). Housing Pledge Reporting As part of the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 (Bill 109), the Planning Act was amended to give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the authority to require municipalities to report information on planning matters (Section 64). On April 6 2023, the Province implemented Ontario Regulation 73/23 - Municipal Planning Data Reporting requiring Ontario's largest and fastest- growing municipalities, which includes the City of Kitchener to report development application information on a quarterly basis (as per Schedule 2 of the regulation) and additional information on an annual basis (as per Schedule 3 of the regulation). The City's quarterly report data includes the following development application types: • Official Plan Amendments, • Zoning By-law Amendments, • Site Plan Applications, • Minor Variances, • Land Severances (Consents), • Plan of Subdivisions, Page 316 of 343 • Plan of Condominiums, • Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator Orders, and • Minister's Zoning Orders The report data must include the following: • application identifiers (application ID and address); • application details, as applicable (date application submitted, date application deemed complete, application status, date of decision, date of adoption/passing, date of registration, number of new residential units if registered); • heritage information for the subject property as applicable (listed under section 27 (3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, designated to be of cultural heritage value or interest, subject to easement or covenant under section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act, within a heritage conservation district area); and, • appeal information if applicable (third party appeal, type of appeal, date of appeal, date of appeal decision). The data gathered by the Province is being used to measure progress towards various Housing Supply Action Plan commitments and will also provide the information needed to support informed, evidence -based decisions around housing and planning policy. The regulation also complements the Province's initiative of developing standards and achieving consistency for exchange of data required for development applications. The City of Kitchener has submitted quarterly development application data to the Province for Q4 (from October 1 to December 31, 2023). The Q4 quarterly planning data reports to the Province are attached to this report (Attachment E). On an annual basis Kitchener is required to report geospatial data for the following areas: • Strategic Growth Areas • Employment Areas • Employment Area conversions • Major Transit Station Area boundaries • Settlement Area boundaries. The City of Kitchener has submitted this annual information to the Province. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. CONSULT — Significant development application specific engagements are undertaken for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law, and Subdivision applications. Engagement includes mailing Page 317 of 343 postcards to property owners and occupants of all buildings within 240 metres of the subject lands, publishing a newspaper notice when the application is first circulated and when the statutory public meeting is scheduled, as well as informal community meetings including Neighbourhood Meetings and/or site walks. A large plain language sign is also posted on the property. For planning policy projects, community engagement plans are developed and implemented to ensure fulsome, tailored engagement occurs early and throughout each project at a level commensurate with the scope of the project. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. APPROVED BY: Justin Readman — General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q1 2024) Attachment B — Housing Accelerator Fund Projects (Q1 2024) Attachment C — Significant Planning Projects (Q1 2024) Attachment D — Affordable Housing and Significant Streamlining Projects (Q1 2024) Attachment E — Provincial O. Reg 73/23 Q4 Quarterly Planning Data Report Page 318 of 343 Attachment A — Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q1 2024) Current Significant Development Applications Subdivision (SA), Official Plan Amendment (OPA), Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) WARD 1 104 WOOLWICH ST Proposal: Two 3.5 -storey multiple dwellings (stacked townhouses) with 24 dwelling units each (total of 48 dwelling units). File Number: OP18/007/W/AP Description: The owner is requesting a Site -Specific Policy to allow an FSR of up to 0.9. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA18/009/W/AP Description: The owner is requesting to change the zoning from Agricultural (A-1) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) along with a Site Specific Provisions to: a) reduce the minimum front yard from 4.5 metres to 1.0 metres, b) eliminate the requirement for Private Patio Areas for at -grade dwelling units, c) increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio from 0.6 to 0.9, and d) reduce the required parking from 1.75 spaces per unit to 1.2 spaces per unit. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: 1238455 ONTARIO LIMITED Applicant: GSP GROUP INC Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided through the initial circulation. 26 STANLEY AVENUE & 31 SCHWEITZER STREET Proposal: The Site is proposed to be developed with a residential subdivision consisting of 42 single detached dwelling lots, 12 semi-detached dwelling lots (total of 24 dwellings) and a 5 -unit street -townhouse block totaling 71 residential units. The Proposed Development will be accessed by a future municipal road connecting to Stanley Avenue. File Number: 30T-21201 Description: A residential plan of subdivision consisting of single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and townhouse dwellings, totaling 72 units. Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA21/19/S/BB Description: To rezone the Site from Residential Four (R-4) and Residential Five (R-5) to the Low Rise Residential Five (RES -5) Zone with a Site -Specific Provision to permit a maximum building height of 12.5 metres. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Brian Bateman Neighbourhood Meeting Date: May 31, 2022. Owner: Newo Holdings Limited Applicant: GSP Group Inc. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on May 31, 2022 and Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. Page 319 of 343 WARD 5 ROCKCLIFFE DR FREURE SOUTH Proposal: A new community with 471 new residential units including single detached, street townhouses & multiple dwellings. Parkland open sace & stormwater management facilities are also proposed. File Number: OP16/001/R/KA Description: To change the designation of the easterly portion of land to high rise residential, designate a future park area as open space, and to adjust the limits of wooded areas designated as open space. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZC16/009/R/KA Description: To change the zoning from Restricted Business Park (B- 2) to residential and natural heritage conservation zones. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: 30T-16201 Description: The plan of subdivision includes single detached, street townhouses & multiple dwellings along with parkland open space & stormwater management facilities. Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Katie Anderl Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: FREURE DEVELOPMENTS Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD LIMITED Update Since Last Quarter) Report: No update at this time. Archeological assessment work continues. 2219 OTTAWA ST S & 808 TRUSSLER RD Proposal: A new community with 240-409 new residential units including single detached, street townhouses & multiple dwellings. Institutional uses, a multi -use trail, a stormwater management system, parkland and open space blocks for the conservation of natural features on the property are also proposed. The existing buildings on the property will be demolished for the proposed development with the exception of the Shantz House, which will ultimately be designated a heritage property. File Number: OPA22/009/O/AP Description: The lands are currently designated Low Rise Residential, Natural Heritage Conservation and Mixed Use. The amendment proposes to align the proposed land uses with the proposed Plan of Subdivision. A Mixed Use land use designation is proposed on Blocks 11 and 12 to accommodate higher density multiple -residential developments. The Natural Heritage Conservation designation is proposed to apply to lands on which environmental features are located. Blocks 15, 16 and 18 are proposed to be designated as Open Space. Blocks 15 and 16 are proposed to be public parks, totaling 0.478 hectares of parkland. Block 18 is proposed to accommodate the stormwater management pond. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22/016/0/AP Description: The Subject Lands are currently zoned Agricultural (A- 1) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The amendment proposes to bring the lands into Zoning By-law 2019-051 and apply the following zoning categories; RES -5 Low Rise Residential Five Zone with Site Specific Provisions, INS -1 Neighbourhood Institutional Zone with Site Specific Provisions, OSR-1 Recreation Zone, OSR-3 Open Space: Stormwater Management Zone, and NHC-1 Natural Heritage Conservation Zone. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Page 320 of 343 File Number: 30T-22201 Description: The plan of subdivision includes single detached, street townhouses & multiple dwellings along with parkland open space & stormwater management facilities. Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: Kitchener Trussler Holdings Applicant: Polocorp Inc. I nc. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: The Applicant has filed an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. A Case Management Conference is scheduled for May 6, 2024. Page 321 of 343 WARD 6 — NEW APPLICATIONS 15 LAUENTIAN DR Proposal: The Site is proposed to be redesignated and rezoned to permit future expansion options for the school located at 11 Laurentian Drive. The lands may be used for an expansion of the existing surface parking area or to accommodate additional outdoor play space for students. File Number: OPA24/003/L/AP Description: An Official Plan Amendment is requested to redesignate the subject property, addressed as 15 Laurentian Drive, from "Low Rise Residential' to "Institutional". Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA24/003/L/AP Description: To rezone the Site from Low Rise Residential Two Zone "RES -2" to Neighbourhood Institutional Zone "INS -1". The property is proposed to be rezoned to permit future expansion options for the school located at 11 Laurentian Drive. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: January 30, 2024 Owner: K -W CHRISTIAN SCHOOL Applicant: GSP Group Inc. SOCI ETY Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on January 30, 2024 and Planning Staff are preparing the staff report. Page 322 of 343 WARD 8 400 WESTWOOD DR Proposal: To demolish the existing house and create four new lots for single detached dwellings. File Number: ZBA21/0121W/ES Description: To rezone the developable portion of the lands to site specific Residential Four (R-4). Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Eric Schneider Neighbourhood Meeting Date: January 13, 2022 Owner: NASIR BROMAND, ZAKIA Applicant: IBI GROUP BROMAND Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on January 13, 2022. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. Page 323 of 343 WARD 9 50 BORDEN AVE S Proposal: a mixed-use development consisting of two towers (57 storeys and 51 storeys in height) having 1,224 dwelling units and 7,240 m2 of commercial and institutional space. File Number: OPA23/004/B/KA Description: Site-specific regulations propose a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 16.1, a reduced rear yard setback, and a parking reduction to permit 618 parking spaces Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22/008/B/KA Description: Site-specific regulations propose a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 16.1, a reduced rear yard setback, and a parking reduction to permit 618 parking spaces Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Katie Anderl Neighbourhood Meeting Date: June 6, 2023 Owner: Woodhouse Investments Inc Applicant: IBI Group Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Page 324 of 343 WARD 10 22 WEBER ST W Proposal: A 19 -storey multiple residential building with 162 units, including 25 barrier free units. A total of 24 parking spaces are proposed at grade. File Number: OPA20/005/W/JVW Description: The applicant is now proposing to amend the designation to High Density Commercial Residential with a Special Policy Area in order to permit a floor space ratio FSR of 7.8. Application Type: OPA Status: Under appeal File Number: ZBA20/013/W/JVW Description: The subject lands are currently zoned Commercial Residential Three (CR -3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is proposing the same base zone with site specific special regulations to permit; an increase in height to 19 storeys, an increase in Floor Space Ratio to 7.8, To require a minimum ground floor fagade height of 4.5m, to reduce the required minimum landscaped area required from 10% to 8%, to reduce front and rear yard setbacks, and to reduce the required on-site parking to 24 spaces, including 8 visitor parking spaces. Application Type: ZBA Status: Under appeal Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson Neighbourhood Meeting Date: Sept. 8, 2021 & March 3, 2022. Owner: 30 DUKE STREET LIMITED Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Council refused the related Heritage Permit Application on August 22, 2022. This appeal was adjourned. This application has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly LPAT) which has suspended this matter until further notice. WARD 10 — NEW APPLICATIONS 135-161 JACKSON AVE & 136 BRENTWOOD AVE. Proposal: The applicant proposes to redevelop the subject properties with 4 street facing townhouses along the Jackson Street frontage with 116 stacked townhouses in five clusters internal to the subject lands for a total of 120 units with 128 on-site parking spaces. File Number: OPA24/002/J/BB Description: The applicant is requesting an Official Plan Amendment that would add a site specific policy to the existing Low Rise Residential designation to allow for increased Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 and building height of 12.5m. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA24/002/J/BB Description: The owner is requesting a Zoning By-law Amendment that would add a site specific regulation to the existing RES -5 zone for height, Floor Space ratio, rear yard setback and parking for 135- 161 Jackson Ave. while requesting to change the zoning from RES - 4 to RES -5 with site specific provisions for 136 Brentwood Ave. The intent is to have one consistent zoning to implement the proposed development of a cluster townhouse townhouses. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Brian Bateman Neighbourhood Meeting Date: February 21, 2024 Owner: 1000190771 ONTARIO INC Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Page 325 of 343 236-264 VICTORIA STREET NORTH Proposal: A mixed use development with 3 towers 18-40 storeys in height with a Floor Space Ratio of 10.5 with a total of 1076 residential units, ground floor commercial units, 916 vehicle parking spaces and 548 bicycle parking spaces. File Number: OPA24/001/V/CD Description: The Owner is proposing an Official Plan Amendment to add a Specific Policy Area to the Official Plan to allow for a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 10.5 with a maximum building height of 40 Storeys. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA24/001/V/CD Description: To repeal Site Specific Provision 126 and add a new Site Specific Provision to allow for; a maximum floor space ratio of 10.5; a maximum building height of 40 storeys/125 metres; and a reduction in parking to permit a parking ratio of 0.85 spaces per dwelling unit (including visitor parking). Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Craig Dumart Neighbourhood Meeting Date: February 13, 2024 Owner: Vicner Inc. Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Page 326 of 343 Attachment B — Housing Accelerator Fund Projects Current Housing Accelerator Fund Projects Quarter 1, 2024 Update CITY-WIDE Affordable Housing Construction Offset on City -owned Lands Description: This initiative involves looking for new opportunities to provide lands for below-market rental and ownership housing and working directly with affordable housing providers to access the lands and collaborate on the delivery of affordable or supportive housing projects. Current Status: Staff are reviewing the City's land inventory to determine viable IN PROGRESS opportunities for this initiative. Next Steps: Staff plan to bring a report to Council on potential options in Q2 2024. Project Lead: Target Completion: 2026 Rosa Bustamante — Director of Planning and Housing Policy Affordable Rental & Co-op Housing Incentive Pilot Program Description: With the support of Kitchener's Housing Accelerator Fund, this project aims to establish a financial incentives pilot program to assist with the predevelopment costs of building new not-for-profit affordable rental and co-op housing units. Current Status: Staff are consulting with affordable and co-operative housing IN PROGRESS providers and other stakeholders, staff and agencies to develop the bylaw amendments as presented in staff report DSD -2024-066 for program framework. Next Steps: A staff report will be presented to Council in April 2024 for a With the support of the Housing Accelerator Fund, a staff working decision. Once the program has been established, staff will prepare team will support implementation by streamlining processes and for a call for submissions to evaluate applications and award grant creating simplified resources to support uptake of additional units. funding to projects that meet the program criteria subject to the Target Completion: Q3 2024 (including post -decision funding allocation. Project Lead: Target Completion: Tanya Roberts — Project Manager Q2 2024 Council approval and launch of the pilot program (Planning) Q3 2026 Conclusion of the pilot program Enabling 4 Units Description: In response to Council's motion at the October 16, 2023 Council meeting, staff are undertaking a review of zoning bylaw amendments that would enable up to four units on a lot which currently permit a single detached, semi-detached or street fronting townhouse dwelling for a Council decision in Q1 2024. Current Status: Staff have conducted research, community engagement and staff REPORT FOR DECISION and agency consultation to prepare draft Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendments as presented in staff report DSD -2024-066 for Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee on March 25, 2024. Next Steps: With the support of the Housing Accelerator Fund, a staff working team will support implementation by streamlining processes and creating simplified resources to support uptake of additional units. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q3 2024 (including post -decision Katie Anderl — Project Manager implementation) (Planning) Page 327 of 343 Strategic Land Acquisition and Supporting Infrastructure Description: This initiative will involve acquiring lands for the purposes of affordable housing development with a focus on lands within the major transit station areas and working with affordable housing provides to collaborate on the delivery of affordable housing and necessary related community infrastructure. Current Status: Staff are reviewing potential opportunity sites that would be satisfy IN PROGRESS the criteria for affordable housing projects. Next Steps: Staff will bring a report to Council on potential land acquisition opportunities in Q2 2024. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q4 2024 Rosa Bustamante — Director of Planning and Housing Policy Climate Adaptation Plan Description: This initiative includes the development of a climate adaptation plan that will be used in the short term to inform land use policy updates for the next Official Plan. Current Status: The project team will be established in mid -2024 and they will NOT STARTED prepare a project charter, key deliverables and milestones. Next Steps: The project team will work closely throughout 2024 to advance work The project team will work closely throughout 2024 to advance work on this initiative. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q2 2026 Janine Oosterveld — Manager, Lucas Van Meer -Mass — Senior Customer Experience and Project Management Housing Needs Assessment Description: This initiative includes the preparation of a Housing Needs Assessment for the City of Kitchener which will be used to inform housing -related initiatives and land use policy updates for the next Official Plan. Current Status: The project team will be established in mid -2024 and they will NOT STARTED prepare a project charter, key deliverables and milestones. Next Steps: The project team will work closely throughout 2024 to advance work on this initiative. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q4 2025 Lucas Van Meer -Mass — Senior Planner (Housing) WARD 1 — There are no Ward 1 specific projects at this time. WARD 2 — There are no Ward 2 specific projects at this time. WARD 3 Growing Together Major Transit Station Area Planning Framework Review Description: Comprehensive review and update of land use, zoning, and urban design guidelines for the Block Line, Fairway, and S ortsworld Major Transit Station Areas. Current Status: N/A TO COMMENCE Q2 2024 Next Steps: To commence work on project planning once Growing Together for the 7 MTSAs west of the Conestoga Expressway is complete. Project Lead: Target Completion: 2025 Adam Clark — Senior Urban Designer (Architecture & Urban Form) WARD 4 — There are no Ward 1 specific projects at this time. Page 328 of 343 WARD 5 — There are no Ward 2 specific projects at this time. WARD 6 — There are no Ward 1 specific projects at this time. WARD 7 — There are no Ward 2 specific projects at this time. WARD 8 — There are no Ward 1 specific projects at this time. WARDS 9 & 10 Growing Together (Protected Major Transit Station Area) Planning Framework Review Description: Comprehensive review and update of land use, zoning, and urban design guidelines for the 7 Major Transit Station Areas west of the Conestoga Expressway. Current Status: A report was considered by Committee of Council at a statutory IN PROGRESS public meeting on January 29, 2024 where staff recommended a new planning framework for these 7 protected major transit station areas. This matter was deferred to the March 18 Council meeting with a direction to staff to have further dialogue with those that delegated at the statutory public meeting. Throughout February and early March meetings were held with landowners and their consultants as well as the community to better understand concerns and share information. A supplemental report will be considered by Council on March 18tH Next Steps. Staff are currently preparing the supplemental report. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q1 2024 Adam Clark — Senior Urban Designer Architecture & Urban Form Inclusionary Zoning Description: Inclusionary Zoning can be used to require new, multi -unit housing developments to include affordable units. The Region, Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge are coordinating their approach to implementing inclusionary zoning within MTSAs. A portion of this work is being funded through the Provincial Streamline Development Approvals Funding. This work is being coordinated with Growing Together. Current Status: A report was considered by Committee of Council at a statutory IN PROGRESS public meeting on January 29, 2024 where staff recommended an inclusionary zoning framework for Kitchener's protected major transit station areas. This matter was deferred to the March 18 Council meeting with a direction to staff to have further dialogue with those that delegated at the statutory public meeting. Throughout February and early March meetings were held with those that delegated which were members of the Waterloo Region Homebuilders Association and members of Build Urban. A supplemental report will be considered by Council on March 18th Next Steps. Staff are currently preparingthe supplemental report. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q1 2024 Tim Done ani — Senior Planner Page 329 of 343 Attachment C — Significant Planning Projects (Q1 2024) Current Significant Planning Projects Quarter 1, 2024 Update CITY WIDE Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Description: Review of Kitchener's Zoning By-law 85-1. Approved in phases with the latest phase (residential zones) being approved in 2022. Final phase includes specific properties previously deferred. Current Status: IN PROGRESS Zoning updates in 2023 and 2024 have focused on Major Transit Station Areas which is occurring through Growing Together. Next Steps: Final phase includes specific properties previously deferred and specific geographies. Project Lead: TBD Target Completion: 2024/25 Housing for All Implementation Description: Kitchener Housing for All Strategy was approved in 2020 and identifies actions for the City to address homelessness and housing issues in Kitchener. Current Status: IN PROGRESS An update was provided to Council on the progress of Housing for All action items in March 2022. Lived Expertise Working Group Staff are currently working with the Lived Expertise Working Group on their year 2 work plan. Lodging Homes In October 2023 Council considered updates to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law that would permit lodging houses across the city where other residential uses are permitted. This matter was deferred to allow it to be considered together with in progress updates to the Lodging House (Licensing) By-law in 2024. Next Steps: At this time, pending resource capacity, a second update on Housing for All actions items is anticipated in 2024. Lived Expertise Working Group Staff are currently working with the Lived Expertise Working Group on their year 2 work plan which is focused on providing input on a Rental Replacement By-law and Kitchener's new Official Plan process. Staff are also in the early stages of assessing and determining next steps for lived expertise on Kitchener's housing related matters. Lodging Homes Continued work with Licensing Services to coordinate updates to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law as well as updates to the Lodging House(Licensing) By-law for Council's consideration in Q2 2024. Project Lead: Target Completion: 2024 for Lodging Homes; 2024 for LEWG pilot Natalie Goss — Manager Policy & program; 2025+ for Housing for All implementation. Research Garett Stevenson — Director Development and Housing Approvals Page 330 of 343 Partial Housing Accelerator Fund Initiative - New Official Plan Description: A comprehensive review of Kitchener's Official Plan to, among other things, align with changes in Provincial legislation, policies, and plans and the Region of Waterloo's Official Plan Amendment No. 6. Current Status: A report was considered by committee of council on February 26th IN PROGRESS that included a statutory special meeting of Council to launch work Since the December 2023 quarterly report Planning Staff have on developing a new Official Plan for Kitchener. Council and the worked with Corporate Planning staff to provide responses on the community had an opportunity to provide input on the scope of the following matters: Official Plan at the special meeting of Council. The Official Plan • Modernizing Environmental Assessment for Municipal project will include several technical background studies in addition Infrastructure to a fulsome engagement process. Full details of the Official Plan • Bill 162, Get It Done Act, which proposes, among other work program are within the February 26, 20234 report. Two of the things, to amend the Official Plan Adjustments Act from technical studies, the housing needs assessment, and the climate 2023 that will expand Kitchener's urban boundary within adaptation plan, are initiatives under Kitchener's Housing Accelerator southwest Kitchener aligning with ministerial modifications to Fund. The new Official Plan project is a Strategic Plan priority. Next Steps: Staff are developing consultant terms of reference, and an 2023 and Kitchener Council's motion from November 27, engagement and communications plan to guide the new Official Plan 2023. work. A community working group is expected to be established in Staff comments will be provided on the above through Corporate 022024. Project Lead: Target Completion: 2026 Tim Donegani — Senior Planner Planning Management Team John Zunic — Senior Planner Provincial legislation, policies, plans review Description: A significant number of Provincial legislative and policy changes have occurred throughout 2022 and 2023. The Planning Division has formally added this review to their workplan due to the significant time and resources that have been required to review changes and provide comments. Current Status: ONGOING Since the December 2023 quarterly report Planning Staff have worked with Corporate Planning staff to provide responses on the following matters: • Modernizing Environmental Assessment for Municipal Infrastructure • Bill 162, Get It Done Act, which proposes, among other things, to amend the Official Plan Adjustments Act from 2023 that will expand Kitchener's urban boundary within southwest Kitchener aligning with ministerial modifications to the Region of Waterloo's Official Plan enacted on April 11, 2023 and Kitchener Council's motion from November 27, 2023. Next Steps: Staff comments will be provided on the above through Corporate Planning staff. Project Lead: Target Completion: N/A Planning Management Team Rental Housing, Eviction and Displacement Study Description: In January 2023 Council directed that staff look at tools that are within Kitchener's jurisdiction with respect to rental replacement and other tools and advocacy opportunities for the transitioning of displaced residents. Current Status: ONGOING In December 2023 staff provided an update to Council on this work outlining legal tools available to Kitchener in the area of eviction and displacement. At that time Council directed staff to prepare a rental replacement by-law and engage with the development industry and community stakeholders on it. Page 331 of 343 Rental Housing, Eviction and Displacement Stud Description: A comprehensive In early 2024 a "renting in Kitchener" website was launched to share phases. The last phase was approved resources and sources of information on rental displacement and Current Status: ONGOING evictions and an online eviction survey was launched to collect information from tenants who have been or will be evicted from their Next Steps: rental units because of the landlord's intent to demolish, renovate, Next Steps: convert, or occupy their rental unit. Project Lead: Staff have prepared a workplan for developing a rental replacement Gaurang Khandelwal — Planner by-law and are currently obtaining a better understanding of this tool (Policy) through conversations with staff at the cities of Mississauga, Toronto and Oakville — the only 3 other municipalities in Ontario with this type of by-law. Next Steps: Prepare the principles of a draft rental replacement and supporting changes to other by-laws like demolition control and a rental replacement by-law implementation guide for conversations with the development industry and community stakeholders. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q2 2024 Natalie Goss — Manager Policy & Research Garett Stevenson — Director Development and Housing Approvals Tree Conservation Tools Review — Phase 2 Description: With Council's approval of Kitchener's tree canopy target in January 2022, Council directed staff to review existing tree conversation processes within the City to explore opportunities for strengthened measures. This work includes a review of Kitchener's Tree Bylaw and Tree Conservation Bylaw, tree planting requirements within the Development Manual, and Tree Management Policy. Current Status: In April 2023, Council authorized a second phase work to further ONGOING evaluate specific enhancement opportunities to existing tools and processes. Work planning for phase 2 is underway. Next Steps: Develop a comprehensive work plan for phase 2 including a community and stakeholder engagement plan. Project Lead: Target Completion: 2024 Gaurang Khandelwal — Planner (Policy) Urban Design Manual Review — Part C Description: A comprehensive review of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual which has been occurring in phases. The last phase was approved in 2019. Final phase includes the urban design standards Part C). Current Status: ONGOING Internal review of existing standards to understand opportunities for improvement. Next Steps: Draft updates to urban design standards and stakeholder Next Steps: engagement. Project Lead: Target Completion: 2024 Gaurang Khandelwal — Planner (Policy) Green Development Standards Description: A harmonized Green Development Standard across all urban and rural local area municipalities in Waterloo Region. Current Status: ONGOING Background research and review of existing policies and standards to identify gaps and opportunities for a harmonized green development standard. Next Steps: Preparation for community and industry engagement. Page 332 of 343 I Green Develoament Standards I City Project Lead: Target Completion: 2025 Janine Oosterveld — Manager, Customer Experience and Project Management with WR Community Energy leading the project WARD 1 — There are no Ward 1 specific projects at this time. WARD 2 — There are no Ward 2 specific projects at this time. WARD 3 Hidden Valley Secondary Plan - Growing Together (Major Transit Station Area) Planning Description: Development of updated land uses and Official Plan policies, including technical studies to inform them to implement the land use master plan approved by Council in 2019. Current Status: IN PROGRESS Series of consultants retained to undertake technical work related to Current Status: transportation and noise, water, cultural heritage, and the natural TO COMMENCE Q2 2024 heritage system. Next Steps: Technical studies are nearing completion. Community engagement approved by the Region of Waterloo. The Zoning By-law amendment on draft land uses targeted for April/May April/May2024. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q2 2024 Carrie Musselman — Senior Project Lead: Environmental Planner John Zunic — Senior Planner Housing Accelerator Fund Initiative - Growing Together (Major Transit Station Area) Planning Framework Review policies/guidelines, and zoning to Description: Comprehensive review and update of land use, zoning, and urban design guidelines for the Block Line, Fairway, and Sportsworld Major Transit Station Areas. Current Status: N/A TO COMMENCE Q2 2024 Next Steps: To commence work on project planning once Growing Together for approved by the Region of Waterloo. The Zoning By-law amendment the 7 MTSAs west of the Conestoga Expressway is complete. Project Lead: Target Completion: 2025 Adam Clark — Senior Urban Designer Project Lead: (Architecture & Urban Form) John Zunic — Senior Planner WARD 4 Lower Doon Land Use Implementation Study Description: Review of existing secondary plan and updates to Official Plan policies, cultural heritage policies/guidelines, and zoning to implement the land use stud 2021 recommendations. Current Status: COMPLETE In October/November 2023 Council considered and adopted/approved amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By- law for Lower Doon. In March 2024 the Official Plan amendment was approved by the Region of Waterloo. The Zoning By-law amendment is currently under appeal. Next Steps. None at this time. Project Lead: Completion Date: November 6, 2023 John Zunic — Senior Planner WARD 5 Dundee North Secondary Plan Description: Development of a new secondary plan (land use, transportation, natural heritage system, complete community) for lands in south-west Kitchener. The project will also fulfill the requirements for an environmental assessment and will recommend infrastructure to service the area. Page 333 of 343 Dundee North Secondary Plan - Growing Together (Protected Major Transit Station Area) Current Status: IN PROGRESS In April 2023 the Province issued a decision on Regional Official Plan Description: Comprehensive review and update of land use, zoning, and urban design guidelines for the 7 Amendment 6 which added additional land in south-west Kitchener Current Status: to Kitchener's urban area. Further, in October and November 2023 REPORT FOR DECISION the Provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing signaled a reversal of the April decision pending input from the Region of Waterloo and Kitchener's Mayor. Kitchener Council provided input to the Minister in November 2023 recommending that the April 2023 decision remain which would have the effect of adding additional lands in southwest Kitchener to the city's urban area. In February 2024 the Province tabled Bill 162, Get It Done Act, which proposes, among other things, to amend the Official Plan Adjustments Act from Next Steps. 2023 that will expand Kitchener's urban boundary within southwest Project Lead: Kitchener aligning with ministerial modifications to the Region of Adam Clark — Senior Urban Designer Waterloo's Official Plan enacted on April 11, 2023 and Kitchener (Architecture & Urban Form) Council's motion from November 27, 2023. City staff have been working with the landowners in the Dundee North and southwest Kitchener area on advancing work on this Secondary Plan. Next Steps: City staff will continue to work with landowners, and pending a decision on Bill 162, will advance work for lands within southwest Kitchener. A full community, stakeholder, and Indigenous engagement process will occur Project Lead: Target Completion: Q2/Q3 2025 Carrie Musselman — Senior Environmental Planner Gaurang Khandelwal — Planner (Policy) WARD 6 — There are no Ward 6 specific projects at this time. WARD 7 — There are no Ward 7 specific projects at this time. WARD 8 — There are no Ward 8 specific projects at this time. WARDS 9 & 10 Housing Accelerator Fund Initiative - Growing Together (Protected Major Transit Station Area) Planning Framework Review Description: Comprehensive review and update of land use, zoning, and urban design guidelines for the 7 Major Transit Station Areas west of the Conestoga Expressway. Current Status: A report was considered by committee of council at a statutory public REPORT FOR DECISION meeting on January 29, 2024 where staff recommended a new planning framework for these 7 protected major transit station areas. This matter was deferred to the March 18 Council meeting with a direction to staff to have further dialogue with those that delegated at the statutory public meeting. Throughout February and early March meetings were held with landowners and their consultants as well as the community to better understand concerns and share information. A supplemental report will be considered by Council on March 18tH Next Steps. Staff are currently preparing the supplemental report. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q1 2024 Adam Clark — Senior Urban Designer (Architecture & Urban Form) Page 334 of 343 Housing Accelerator Fund Initiative - Inclusionary Zoning Description: Inclusionary Zoning can be used to require new, multi -unit housing developments to include affordable units. The Region, Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge are coordinating their approach to implementing inclusionary zoning within MTSAs. A portion of this work is being funded through the Provincial Streamline Development Approvals Funding. This work is being coordinated with Growing Together. Current Status: A report was considered by committee of council at a statutory public REPORT FOR DECISION meeting on January 29, 2024 where staff recommended an inclusionary zoning framework for Kitchener's protected major transit station areas. This matter was deferred to the March 18 Council meeting with a direction to staff to have further dialogue with those that delegated at the statutory public meeting. Throughout February and early March meetings were held with those that delegated which were members of the Waterloo Region Homebuilders Association and members of Build Urban. A supplemental report will be considered by Council on March 18tH Next Steps. Staff are currently preparing the supplemental report. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q1 2024 Tim Donegani — Senior Planner District Energy Business Case Description: Pre -feasibility study endorsed by Council in 2020. Current phase of work includes conducting detailed technical and financial feasibility to connect new/existing public and private buildings in downtown to a system primarily powered by geothermal energy. Current Status: Consultant work on pre -feasibility has been completed. In November IN PROGRESS 2023 Council directed work on the next steps for district energy. Next Steps: Staff will proceed with the next phase of work as directed by Council. Project Lead: Target Completion: Q1/2 2024 Tim Donegani — Senior Planner Page 335 of 343 Attachment D — Affordable Housing and Significant Streamlining Initiatives (Q1 2024) 2024 Active Affordable Housing Development Status Address and Total Units Affordable Status City incentives applicant Units 83-97 Victoria St N, 44 44 Clearing conditions of Project manager The Working Centre site plan approval Affordable rental housing incentives (planning and building application fees waived) 82 Wilson Ave, 123 32 (net Under construction Affordable rental housing Region of Waterloo (existing) increase) incentives (planning and building application fees waived) 49 Queen St N, 41 41 Under construction Affordable rental housing Indwell Community incentives (planning and Homes and St. Peter's building application fees Lutheran Church waived 137 Queen St S, 57 21 Clearing conditions of Project manager St Paul's Lutheran site plan approval, Affordable rental housing Church shoring permit issued incentives (planning and building application fees waived 210 Duke St E, 100 40 Final site plan approval Project manager Knossos Housing issued, foundation Affordable rental housing permit issued incentives (planning and building application fees waived) 47 Charles St. E 172 172 Site plan application Project manager House of Friendship under review Affordable rental housing incentives (planning and building application fees waived) Total New Units: 414 350 Significant Projects to Streamline Development Approvals Site Plan folder updates Description: Updating the file management software (AMANDA) for site plan applications to continue process improvements and prepare for the public portal which will allow applicants to submit applications, make payment and monitor progress. Current Status: Underway A multi -disciplinary team of development review staff are working with the technology project manager to identify workflow improvements to integrate into folder updates. Next Steps: The working team will be testing folder updates once complete later this spring. Once testing is complete, the updated folders will go live for use on site plan applications with updated procedures and training to support staff. Project Lead: Tanya Roberts, Project Manager (Planning) Completion date: Q3 2024 Page 336 of 343 >wn2 cr: :RE6 §f!§}( \§ \)((((§\){))! §f\\\\ ( \!i§( j/\\\/) M V M O 00 co co N L71 a 0000 0 0 0o aoaooaaa 7777 a 4m4n �Qa 4444 4 4�4 4A�� X494 9 rv� �4�rv�rvN 4444 4 4 44 4�« d ni O O o rQ w �= oo3's o�oy 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O z z z zzzzzzzzzzz zzzzz z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z N N O N O> c0 V � r � 4�4R4NgN�4N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN NNNNNNNNNNN N N N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 'm 'm a . . m . . 'm 'm 'm m . 'm 'm 'm 'm 'm 'o 'o o 'o o 'o o 'o o '0 0 0 0 'o o 'o o '0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q > > > > > a s a a a a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q a Q a a s Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q a a a Q C (O O 10 6, �L W N & & & 0 0 0 66—' N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N O �D N N N N �tl r V M 0 N M N N N N n n O n n 7 01 tp O O N R 4N N �v r r r�o�mrnrno mo cn 040 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V ry n V M N tt�� J M M I m lw � V IN W Z Y Z d N N Y Q m O U X N xx x U ¢Umx¢m C7x0 W u mx m C7 U Y U (7 x x a x Y m K C7 W a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z J Z d m F W K ❑ H a' (~n Y K of ❑ W❑ Y W> d W t~lJ K ❑Z CC ~ K ❑ Z K `�' ❑ Q m� Q �mU�NW�Q�Z J of >- z W a > w w �3z o o �w w N ❑Z wwxr~ii�¢ 0w��'w w of z¢ a o z w ?gym = F m z ❑wc7mz z OWmU z z Q U Q m W wCm U O m z > K Y Q O w CLW w 2 Z n� x Z Z x N O O x ¢ ❑ ox x ��[L wfL_cc_¢¢ ¢_ Q = r a acL w w O m¢ ❑ Y 7oLL3LLoYmY z �axmm U Y m 3 x Amo m 3 x m Y 1 ❑ m N m N Q d' m¢ m m Q � aa d d Q m m K ❑ N ¢ aa m ❑ m d ❑ Q ❑ ¢ � KQ Y C70LLOYJ Yij Z �Ea 2w U ij F m E�: 2 E�: m [L 3: 2 U] Y F N h O . N V . N V . N V C. n M d �tJ �tJ N �tl N O . t0 . t0 O n n n n n n n n n n of of of of M M O O O O O am m a a a a a a a a a a a a m m a m a a m m m m m m m m m m m m m a a a 0m m 0 mmmmmmmmmmCl) mmmmm 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) Cl) m m m m 0 0 0 m m m co V co O co co co N L71 a \ \ \ \ 7 { \ 7 \ \ / / \ / / / / / /// § \ § & § \ 5 7 \ § ( y § 3 ( ¥ Of § /)§ § (D \ ( § ! \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \ \\: \ \ \ \\\ \ >D \ \ \ \\\\:\af \ , z § : e G : : G , : ! a o&2 : ! : ::e : :Br ! 3 ! !,lw:%> 7 7 7 7 \ \ \ \ ( ) \ ( ) 7 7 7 7 7 \\( ) ( 7 7 7 7 7-c? }}\ r r r r N N N N N 4 N O O O O N N A M M M A M N N N N N N O O O O O O N N N N N N 44444 MMM N N N N N N N N O O O O O N N N N N N N N h h O M V m m N U m W m m �P d Y N N N N N N N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z H LU Q d j d r 7 Z Z o Q Lu m (if0 U) Z � W �zz0 CC Ofm =� w D Lu LiJ W o m OU O 00�Q w comorin �n �n oNm vM<o r r �n in N t0 r CJ 07 O N M M M M M V V V V 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N N N mmmmm mmm co V co O V M N L71 a N V co N 0) m a § § k 3 2 3 2 3 2 y 7 G§§ k 9 §§ (§ 2 ( § § w 4 \ / \CL z « D)\ \ y ( j § / k (! \ }k (\f ; ( § §