Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

Subdivision Approving Officer

SUBJECT:

Proposed Amendment to Subdivision By-law No. 5208 - Site Reclassification at 5154 and 5160 Ruby Street

 

RECOMMENDATION

CONSIDERATION

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Council policy regarding amendments to the subdivision categories in the RS-1, RS-1S, RS-3, RS-3A, RS-5, RS-5S and RS-6 Zoning Districts is reflected in the Manager’s Report as approved by Council on October 28, 1987. As well as establishing seven parcel size categories for subdivision in the RS-1 District, the report provided for possible future changes in the categories in cases where property owners seek to classify their parcel category either up or down, to facilitate or prevent subdivision.

PURPOSE

This report addresses a proposal to reclassify two properties; 5154 and 5160 Ruby Street (Lots 1 and 2, Block 10, D.L.s 36 and 51, Plan 8673, respectively) from Category ‘B’ to Category ‘A’ for the purpose of subdivision in accordance with the minimum parcel size requirements of Schedule A, Table 1, of the Subdivision By-law No. 5208.

BACKGROUND

Subdivision Category Classification

On January 19, 1988, Council enacted an amended Schedule A to the Subdivision By-law by introducing seven categories of minimum parcel width and area to govern the subdivision of lands zoned RS-1. Subsequently, lands zoned RS-1S, RS-3, RS-3A, RS-5, RS-5S and RS-6 have been included as well. The classification of all lands in these zoning districts is shown on 279 sectional maps which are on file with the City Clerk and which form part of Schedule A.

During the process of designating the RS-1 lands into one of the seven subdivision categories adopted by Council in 1988, staff studied subdivision patterns across the city on a block-by-block basis. A relatively common form of subdivision throughout the city was characterized by blocks having a ‘mid-block split’. These blocks were noted to contain two distinct development and streetscape patterns, due to the substantial difference in parcel sizes from one portion of the block to the other, and it was determined that mid-block splits should be preserved if they comprised part of a continuous pattern of two or more half-blocks.

As shown on Appendix A, the east side of Ruby Street, from Vanness Avenue to approximately mid-block, is classified as Category ‘B’. This category prescribes a minimum width of 12.192 m (40.00 ft.) and a minimum area of 334.541 m² (3,600.00 sq. ft.) for each parcel created by subdivision. The properties immediately to the north are classified as Category ‘A’, which prescribes a minimum width of 9.144 m (30.00 ft.) and a minimum area of 278.709 m² (3,000.00 sq. ft.) for each parcel created.

The subject properties are both located in the larger-parcel portion of this mid-block split block. When this block was classified in 1988, it was intended that the change in categories would reflect the prevailing subdivision pattern and would serve to maintain the diversity of parcel sizes in this neighbourhood, but not necessarily to preclude future potential subdivisions.

History of Subdivision in the Block

The original subdivision pattern for the south half of this block of Ruby Street was created by the registration of Plan 8673 in August 1952. There have been no subsequent changes to this original subdivision plan. The original plan for the north half was registered in 1909, and created five equal 20.117 m (66.00 ft.)-wide parcels, all of which have been re-subdivided at various points in the past, into parcels with widths ranging from 10.055 m² (32.99 ft.) to 13.411 m (44.00 ft.). The average parcel width in the north half of the block is approximately 11.173 m (36.66 ft.). In contrast, the south half of the subject block contains parcels with an average width of 17.069 m (56.00 ft.).

Previous Reclassification Application and Outcome

In September, 1998, an identical application to reclassify these two properties was submitted. Staff undertook a notification of surrounding property owners and received only one response, which stated opposition to the application. In the absence of a strong indication of neighbourhood sentiment, staff recommended refusal of the application, based on the established pattern of subdivision and that approval of the reclassification request would have established a precedent which could potentially jeopardize the preservation of mid-block category splits in this and other areas of the city. Council refused that application on January 7, 1999.

CURRENT APPLICATION

Description

As noted above, both Lot 1 and Lot 2 maintain widths of 15.240 m (50.00 ft.) and areas of 475.385 m² (5,117.00 sq. ft.). Under Category ‘B’, the subject parcels cannot be subdivided, individually or together, because they would not meet the minimum width or area requirement for each new parcel created. If the reclassification is approved, the applicant proposes to apply to subdivide the two properties into three parcels, each having a width of 10.160 m (33.33 ft.) and an area of approximately 316.900 m² (3,411.00 sq. ft.).

Neighbourhood Notification

To gauge neighbourhood support for, or opposition to, this reclassification request, fourteen property owners in the immediate area, the same owners who were notified at the time of the previous application, were contacted in writing and asked to comment. In contrast to the previous notification where only one (opposing) response was received, the current notification resulted in eleven responses, all in favour of this reclassification.

Previous reports on subdivision reclassification requests have included a map indicating which notification respondents supported or opposed the reclassification. Staff have recently been advised that in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, this is protected personal information. A map identifying the location of supporting/opposing respondents will be circulated to members of Council when this report is being considered.

From comments provided, it appears that the support of some respondents is an attempt to address a problem with troublesome tenants who are currently renting the dwellings on the subject properties. These respondents stated that their primary reason for supporting this application was that reclassification and the subdivision that would likely follow, would lead to demolition of the existing dwellings. City records confirm that there have been two complaints registered against one of the dwellings, with regard to untidiness of the front and rear yards.

Several other respondents cited the lack of equity between the north half and the south half of the subject block with regard to subdivision potential as their reason for supporting this proposal. These respondents felt they should be afforded the same subdivision opportunities which exist in the smaller-parcel portion of the block and, in addition, preferred to see the creation of smaller parcels elsewhere in their neighbourhood, versus maintaining the existing parcel size diversity.

ANALYSIS

It should be noted that in 1988, when the minimum standards for subdivision across the RS-1 zone were established, the reclassification process was also established to allow property owners the opportunity to pursue a change the classification of their properties, especially in situations where there was strong neighbourhood support.

Staff recommended refusal of the previous reclassification application for these two properties based, in part, on the absence of support from the neighbouring owners who were notified. With only one response previously received, staff relied largely on the fundamental principles of the classification process - the preservation of the mid-block split - in recommending that the application not proceed.

The new application, with its high level of response, and unanimous support among respondents, requires reflection on the initial classification principles, and on the purpose behind the reclassification process itself. In this circumstance, there is a clear majority of owners who wish to depart from what has been a long established subdivision pattern, and who would prefer to see smaller parcels in their area, albeit for some as a means of dealing with troublesome tenants on the subject parcels.

CONSIDERATION

Many respondents to the notification did not limit their support to the application before them, but expressed support as well for the idea that reclassification and the opportunities which it presents should be available to all of the owners in the south portion of this block.

In view of this, staff are seeking Council’s advice as to whether to solicit feedback from owners whose properties remain in the larger-parcel portions of both Ruby Street and Ann Street, to determine whether those owners would support a reclassification of all of the larger parcels in this mid-block split.

Should there be strong support from these area residents, staff could initiate the process to reclassify all the remaining large parcels in the south half of Ruby Street and in the southeast portion of Ann Street from Category ‘B’ to Category ‘A’, with the exception of Lot F, a vacant site abutting the SkyTrain corridor, which is owned by B.C. Hydro. The location of the parcels which could be potentially reclassified as a result of this process, is shown in Appendix B.

CONCLUSION

When a mid-block split classification was created for this block, it was intended to reflect the prevailing subdivision pattern and to maintain diversity of parcel sizes in this neighbourhood, but not necessarily to preclude future subdivisions. Given the strong support for this application from both the property owners in the subject block, as well as neighbouring property owners, staff recommend approval of this application and further, seek Council’s direction regarding pursuing a wider area of reclassification.

NOTE FROM CLERK: Appendices A-B are not available in electronic form - on file in the City Clerk's Office.

* * * * *

pe000316.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver