2.0 RESIDENTIAL AREAS

a. New Subdivisions

There was general support for infill subdivision and for ensuring that new
subdivisions develop with a variety of housing types and attractive
streetscapes.

b. Smali Lots

On the issue of small lots (33 feet to 39 feet wide), over 60% felt that
the City should not permit them as regular lots.

Support to smaller lots increased to about 35% when proposed in
combination with size and site restrictions.

To allow small lote in single family designated areas where others
currently exist was supported by 48%. This support dropped to 36% when
within multi-family areas.

Cc. Cluster Townhouses

Over 50% of respondents did not support cluster townhouses in single
family areas. There was also fairly strong opposition to all of the
alternatives for cluster housing in single family neighbourhoods; support
remained weaker even when restrictions on size, height and design were
mentioned.

Most respondents (53%) did feel that the City should create a designated
area for townhouses.

There was more support for keeping the Northeast Sector as farmland at
this time rather, than for designating all or part as “Urban Reserve”.

Opposition to designate parts of the N.E. Farmlands aa "Urban Reserve",
dropped to 47%, when referring to areas adjacent to developed lands.

There was high support for designating portions of the Northeast Sector
adjacent to bodies of water as a "Special Study Area" (74%).

e. Special Needs Housing

The policies and location criteria for special needs housing (social
housing, seniors' housing and group homes) were met with very high support.

DOWNTOWN APARTMENT AREA

“There is support for the expansion of the (High Density) Downtown
Apartment area.

People were generally neutral about the extent and location of the
expansion.

There were low levels of support for the consideration of RM-5 (Downtown
Apartment Residential) zoning outside of the Downtown area.

20 e3/

| ITEM | PAGE

|