Vancouver City Council |
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: August 12, 2004
Author/Local: AGuichon/6627
RTS No. 04478
CC File No. 113/5306Meeting: September 16, 2004
TO:
Standing Committee of Planning and Environment
FROM:
The Subdivision Approving Officer
SUBJECT:
Proposed Amendment to Subdivision By-law No. 5208 -Reclassification of 3570 McGill Street
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council refuse the application to reclassify the property at 3570 McGill Street from Category `C' to Category `A' of Schedule A, Table 1, of Subdivision By-law No. 5208.
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-3, RS-3A, RS-5 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 either facilitate or prevent subdivision.
PURPOSE
This report addresses a proposal to reclassify the property at 3570 McGill Street from Category C 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, 1998, Council enacted an amendment 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-3, RS-3A, RS-5 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 of the Subdivision By-law.
As shown in Appendix A to this report, the south side of the 3500-block of McGill Street is classified as Category C, which prescribes a minimum width of 50.00 ft. and a minimum area of 5,000.00 sq. ft. for each new parcel created by subdivision. Under Category C, none of the parcels within the subject block can be subdivided individually, because they do not meet the minimum width or area requirement for each new parcel created.
The blocks immediately to the north and northeast of the subject block are also classified as Category C. The properties directly to the south across the lane, as well as to the east of the subject block, are classified as Category A, which prescribes a minimum width of 30.00 ft. and a minimum area of 3,000.00 sq. ft., for each parcel created by subdivision.
If approved, this reclassification will allow for consideration of a subdivision proposal of the subject parcel to create two new parcels measuring 33.00 ft. in width and 3,860.00 sq. ft. in area.
HISTORY OF SUBDIVISION IN THE BLOCK
The original subdivision pattern for this area was established by the registration of Plan No. 100 in February, 1908, which created blocks consisting primarily of 20.117 m (66.00 ft.)-wide parcels, in the area north of Cambridge Street to Wall Street, and between Rupert Street and Boundary Road.
The north half of the subject block consists of larger parcels which are consistent with the original subdivision pattern in the area. The three 66.00 ft.-wide parcels have remained unchanged since 1908. The three 44.00 ft.-wide parcels, and the small, triangular, City-owned parcel at the west end of the block at Fellowes Street, were created in 1944. There have been no subsequent subdivisions in this portion of the block. The north half of the block was designated as Category C as most reflective of the larger parcels.
The south half of the subject block, which originally consisted of 66.00 ft.-wide parcels, has been subdivided into mainly 33.00-ft. wide lots. As the majority of the parcels in this half of the block were smaller, they were designated as Category A.
NEIGHBOURHOOD NOTIFICATION
Twenty-two property owners in the immediate area were notified in writing of this application and asked to comment. Nine responses were received, with the following results:
Support reclassification: 2
Oppose reclassification: 7
Did not respond: 13
22
Some owners in opposition to the reclassification felt that the resulting potential subdivision would detrimentally affect both the character of the block and property values. One owner expressed concern regarding the style and quality of the homes that might be constructed should the reclassification be approved and the site subdivided. The owners in support of the reclassification did not offer rationale for their support. A map showing the location of the respondents is available for Council to review.
PRIOR RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATIONIn 1999, Council refused an application to reclassify the entire south side of the 3500-block McGill Street. Staff recommended refusal of the application based on the established pattern of subdivision in the area and on the lack of support for the proposal by neighbours both in the subject block and in the notification area.
ASSESSMENT
The reclassification process was established to allow property owners the opportunity to pursue a change in the classification of their properties, especially in situations where there was strong neighbourhood support.
Although several parcels in the north half of the subject block maintain a width that is less than the 50.00 ft. minimum width required in Category C, that category was chosen to reflect the predominate subdivision pattern of larger parcels in the blockface and in the neighbouring blocks to the north and northeast. If the reclassification were approved, and the site subsequently subdivided, the resulting parcels would be inconsistent with the larger parcels in this portion of the block.
Excluding the small, triangular City-owned and undevelopable parcel at the west end of the block, the average parcel width and area in the north half of the subject block of McGill Street are 55.00 ft. and 6,435.00 sq. ft., respectively. Currently, the subject site is 20% larger in width and area. If this reclassification is approved and the subject site subdivided into two 33.00 ft. parcels, they would be 40% smaller in width and area than the average parcel. Theresulting parcels would therefore be less consistent with the prevailing parcel size in the north half of the block than is the current situation.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the established pattern of subdivision, and the objections of the property owners residing in the notification area, there is insufficient convincing rationale for changing the category of this parcel to a smaller standard. In addition, approval of this reclassification would establish a precedent to consider individual reclassifications of other larger parcels throughout residential areas in the city. For these reasons, the Subdivision Approving Officer recommends refusal of the reclassification application.
* * * * *