ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: April 13, 2000
Author/Local: AGuichon/6627
RTS No. 1385
CC File No. 5308/113

P&E: May 4, 2000

TO:	Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM:	Subdivision Approving Officer
SUBJECT:	Proposed Amendment to Subdivision By-law No. 5208 - Reclassification of Properties at 2395, 2415, 2435 and 2455 East 38th Avenue

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application to reclassify the properties at 2395, 2415, 2435 and 2455 East 38th Avenue from Category ‘B’ to Category ‘A’ of Schedule A, Table 1, of Subdivision By-law No. 5208 be refused.

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing.

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 reclassify their parcel category either up or down, to facilitate or prevent subdivision.

PURPOSE

This report addresses a proposal to reclassify four properties on the north side of the 2300-2400 block of East 38^th Avenue 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.

BACKGROUND

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. All lands in these zoning districts are classified on a block-by-block basis, as shown on 279 sectional maps which are on file with the City Clerk and which form part of Schedule A.

As shown in Appendix A, the four parcels which are the subject of this reclassification request are classified as Category ‘B’, which prescribes a minimum width of 12.192 m (40.00 ft.) and a minimum area of 344.451 m² (3,600.00 sq. ft.) for each parcel created by subdivision. The properties immediately to the south and the adjacent properties to the west are also classified as Category ‘B’. The properties to the east 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 by subdivision.

This application for reclassification has been submitted by an agent acting on behalf of the owners of the subject parcels. Under the current Category ‘B’ standards, there is no opportunity for the subject parcels to be subdivided individually, as the resulting parcels would not meet the minimum width requirement. There is however, the opportunity for adjoining parcels to combine and subdivide in accordance with the Category ‘B’ standards.

In 1988, the owner of Lot 13 Amended (2455 East 38^th Avenue) applied to subdivide that property into two parcels, but was refused as the parcel did not meet the minimum width standard of Category ‘B’. In refusing the application, the Approving Officer advised the applicant that he would favourably consider a proposal in conjunction with the adjoining parcel (Lot 14 Amended) to create three parcels which would meet or exceed the minimum width requirement.

The owner submitted an appeal against the Approving Officer’s decision to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Approving Officer’s decision was overturned, but was subsequently upheld on an appeal by the City to the Court of Appeal.

NEIGHBOURHOOD NOTIFICATION

Thirty-three property owners in the immediate area, including the owners of the four subject parcels, were notified in writing of this reclassification request. Nineteen owners responded with the following results:

Support reclassification: 4
Oppose reclassification: 15
No response: 14

33

The four respondents who supported the reclassification are the owners of the subject properties. Two of these owners offered comments, stating that their properties were unusually large in relation to the surrounding parcels, and that larger parcels are difficult to market. The fifteen respondents who opposed the application offered the following reasons to support their position. The comments are listed in descending order of frequency:

Reclassification and subdivision would:

· detrimentally affect the character and streetscape of East 38^th Avenue
· increase traffic/create more hazards for cyclists on the bikeway
· increase on-street parking difficulties
· lower property values
· increase density

A map showing the location of the respondents is available for Council to review.

ANALYSIS

As shown in Appendix A, the majority of properties in the 2300-2400 block of East 38^th Avenue maintain a width of approximately 14.730 m (48.33 ft.), which is greater than the minimum width of 12.192 m (40.00 ft.) prescribed for this area. Although there are smaller parcels in the vicinity of the subject block, this block is characterized by larger parcels and Category ‘B’ was chosen to reflect this prevailing subdivision pattern.

If approved, this reclassification will allow for the creation of parcels which are at least 9.144 m (30.00 ft.) in width and 278.709 m² (3,000.00 sq. ft.) in area. If all four owners of the subject parcels decided to pursue subdivision, the subdivision pattern illustrated in Appendix B could result.

Without reclassification, however, the owners of the subject parcels could combine their parcels and re-subdivide in accordance with Category ‘B’, into a total of six parcels, each having a width of approximately 14.725 m (48.31 ft.), as shown in Appendix C. These parcels would have a nearly identical width to the properties directly to the south.

CONCLUSION

Based on the established pattern of larger parcels in this block, there is no convincing rationale for changing the category of the subject parcels to a smaller standard. In addition, under the present Category ‘B’, the owners have the opportunity to combine with the adjoining parcels and re-subdivide, in a manner that would be consistent with the existing pattern of subdivision.

Therefore, the Subdivision Approving Officer does not support the reclassification of the subject properties from Category ‘B’ to Category ‘A’.

APPENDICES A-C (MAPS) ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM - ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver