ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets

FROM:

Subdivision Approving Officer

SUBJECT:

Proposed Amendment to Subdivision By-law No. 5208

 

RECOMMENDATION

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

PURPOSE

This report addresses a proposal to reclassify the property at 3630 West King Edward Avenue (Lot 1 of Lot B of Lot 1 of Lot A, Block 82, D.L. 2027, Plan 6145) from Category C to Category A for the purpose of subdivision in accordance with the minimum parcel size requirements of Table 1, Schedule A, of the Subdivision By-law.

GENERAL SUBDIVISION INFORMATION

The Subdivision Approving Officer is appointed by City Council, pursuant to Section 77(1) of the Land Title Act and Section 3.1 of the City's Subdivision By-law. Council may amend the Subdivision By-law, but the Approving Officer has sole jurisdiction for the approval or refusal of subdivision applications. Decisions made by the Approving Officer can only be appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

BACKGROUND

Prior to 1988, there was one single city-wide minimum width and area standard for subdivision in the RS-1 Zoning District. In 1988, Council amended the Subdivision By-law to create seven categories of minimum parcel width and area to govern the subdivision of lands zoned RS-1. The introduction of subdivision categories eliminated the city-wide standard and allowed for several standards which reflect and reinforce the historic, prevailing subdivision pattern in blocks across the city which vary markedly with regard to parcel size.

In subsequent years, other single-family zones as defined in the Zoning and Development By-law, including RS-1S, RS-3, RS-3A, RS-5, RS-5S and RS-6, have been included as well. The specific subdivision category applicable to lands in these zoning districts is shown on 279 sectional maps which are on file with the City Clerk. The minimum standards for each of the seven categories are shown in the table below.

Subdivision Category

Minimum Width

Minimum Area

A

30 ft. (9.144 m)

3,000 sq. ft. (278.709 m²)

B

40 ft. (12.192 m)

3,600 sq. ft. (334.451 m²)

C

50 ft. (15.240 m)

5,000 sq. ft. (464.515 m²)

D

60 ft. (18.288 m)

5,400 sq. ft. (501.676 m²)

E

75 ft. (22.860 m)

6,750 sq. ft. (627.095 m²)

F

100 ft. (30.480 m)

12,000 sq. ft. (1 114.836 m²)

G

150 ft. (45.720 m)

18,000 sq. ft. (1 672.254 m²)

The reclassification of a property from one assigned category to another is an amendment to the Subdivision By-law. When the categories were introduced, a reclassification process was established in anticipation of property owners seeking to change their parcel-size category, either upwards or downwards in an effort to facilitate or prohibit subdivision.

SUBJECT SITE

As shown in Appendix A, the parcel which is the subject of this reclassification request is classified as Category C, which prescribes a minimum width of 50 ft. and a minimum area of 5,000 sq. ft. for each parcel created by subdivision. The subject parcel, Lot 1, has a width of 63.12 ft. and an area of 8,366.55 sq. ft. There is, therefore, no opportunity for the subject parcel to be subdivided at present, as the parcels to be created would not meet the Category C minimum width or area requirements. In some circumstances, the Subdivision By-law does afford the Approving Officer some discretion to relax the minimum requirements for subdivision, but this discretion is not applicable to this parcel.

The blocks immediately to the north, west and south of the subject parcel are classified as Category A which allows the creation of smaller parcels having a minimum width of 30 ft. and a minimum area of 3,000 sq. ft.

This application for reclassification has been submitted by the property owner of Lot 1. If the reclassification to Category A (minimum width of 30 ft. and minimum area of 3,000 sq. ft.) is approved, it is the owner's intention to subdivide the site into two equal parcels, and construct two new single-family homes.

NOTIFICATION RESULTS

Twenty-three property owners in the immediate area were notified in writing of this reclassification request. Five owners responded to the notification, all in support of the proposal. Only one of the respondents offered comments, which focussed on the retention of existing landscaping, should the reclassification be approved, and a subsequent subdivision be proposed. A map showing the location of the respondents is available for Council to review.

SIMILAR RECLASSIFICATION APPROVALS

In March, 1997, Council approved a similar application for reclassification of a property in the same block as the subject site at the corner of West 26th and Highbury Street. As shown in Appendix B.1, the approval of this reclassification resulted in the larger parcel being reclassified from Category C to Category A, and subsequently being subdivided.

As shown in Appendix B.2, Council approved a reclassification application from Category B to Category A for a parcel at 766 East 54th Avenue, in July, 1994. The parcel remains unsubdivided. As shown in Appendix B.3, Council approved a reclassification application for a parcel at the northeast corner of West 34th Avenue and MacDonald Street, in July, 1994. The Approving Officer supported all three reclassification applications.

HISTORY OF SUBDIVISION IN THE BLOCK

Four separate subdivision plans were registered over Block 82 between the years 1923 to 1925, creating parcels of various sizes, all 50 feet in width or wider. The subject site was originally a 113.12 ft.-wide parcel in 1923 at time of registration of Plan 5268. In 1929, the subject site was re-subdivided into two parcels which remain unchanged: Lot 1 (63.12 ft.) and the 50 ft. parcel to the west. Many subsequent subdivisions have occurred over time in the north portion of the block, resulting in a somewhat inconsistent subdivision pattern, with six of the thirteen parcels maintaining widths that are less than the Category C standard of 50 ft., the narrowest being 40 ft.

With regard to the south half of the block, several subdivisions over time have created a more consistent subdivision pattern, with eight parcels maintaining a 50 ft. width. Two parcels at the east end of the block at Dunbar Street have been consolidated into a large parcel zoned C-2, and the three parcels at the west end are all less than 50 ft. in width. The most recent subdivision in this block, occurring subsequent to the approval of the 1997 reclassification to Category A of 3791 West 26th, previously cited, created a 32.93 ft. parcel and a 38 ft. parcel.

ANALYSIS

Subdivision categories were assigned in 1988 on a block-by-block basis, to reflect the typical subdivision pattern in the block, and to ensure that subsequent subdivisions would be consistent in width and area with surrounding parcels. In blocks such as this, where the parcels vary quite substantially with respect to width and area, a category was assigned based on the average of the widths and areas of all the parcels. Category C was selected for this block to reflect the existing pattern of predominantly larger parcels. This block, however, does not maintain a pristine, uniform subdivision pattern, and nine of the existing twenty four single-family parcels do not conform to the minimum parcel width requirement for Category C.

Currently, Lot 1 is approximately 34% larger in width (63.12 ft.) and 41% larger in area (8,366 sq. ft.) than the average of the width (47 ft.) and area (5,939 sq. ft.) of the other parcels in the block. Should this reclassification be approved and the property subsequently
be subdivided, the parcels created would be approximately 31.56 ft. in width, which is 33% smaller than the average width of the remaining parcels in the block, and each have an area of approximately 3,550 sq. ft., which is 40% smaller than the average area of the remaining parcels. The resulting parcels will therefore be no more inconsistent with the prevailing parcel size than the current situation.

As previously noted, the subject block is surrounded on three sides by blocks classified as Category A, which permits smaller parcel sizes of 30 ft. and 3,000 sq. ft. While the proposed reclassification would create smaller than average parcels on this site, staff note that the block's existing varied parcel sizes include nine lots which do not meet the minimum width requirement of Category C, and two parcels which do not meet the minimum area requirement. It should be noted that this reclassification request involves a single larger-than-average parcel remaining in the block. Should the owners of two of the fifty-foot properties in this block submit a request for reclassification, anticipating subdivision into three 33.3 ft. parcels, such a request would not be supported.

CONCLUSION

Staff recommend approval of this application, based on the following:

· the block does not maintain a pristine, uniform subdivision pattern, and 37.5 % of the existing parcels in the block do not maintain widths consistent with Category C;

· the surrounding blocks consist of smaller parcels in Category A;

· the precedent established in previous reclassifications of similar parcels, including a parcel in this block; and

· the absence of neighbourhood opposition to the application.

* * * * *

Link to Appendices

cs20030213.htm

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver