ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Standing Committee of Planning and Environment

FROM:

The Subdivision Approving Officer

SUBJECT:

Proposed Amendment to Subdivision By-law No. 5208 -Reclassification of 400 - 600 Block of East 52nd Avenue, and the South Half of the 400 - Block of East 51st Avenue

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

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 Districts, 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 properties at the 400 - 600 block of East 52nd Avenue and the south half of the 400 - block of East 51st Avenue from Category D 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 AND SUBDIVISION HISTORY

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, the 400 to 600 - block of East 52nd Avenue, and the south half of the 400 - block of East 51st Avenue are classified as Category D, which prescribes a minimum width of 60 ft. and a minimum area of 5,400 sq. ft. for each new parcel created by subdivision. Under Category D, none of the parcels within the subject blocks can be subdivided either individually or by combining with an adjacent parcel, because they do not meet the minimum width and area requirement for the new parcels proposed.

The large predominantly 72.55 ft. parcels were created by the registration of subdivision Plans 5466 and 6002 in the 1920s. Subsequent subdivisions over the years in the subject blocks have created the present subdivision configuration.

NEIGHBOURHOOD NOTIFICATION

Sixty-nine property owners in the immediate area were notified in writing of this application and asked to comment. Forty-three responses were received, with the following results:

Support reclassification: 21
Oppose reclassification: 22
Did not respond: 26 69

Responses within the subject blocks showed the following results:

Support reclassification: 9
Oppose reclassification: 10
Did not respond: 3 22

It should be noted that of the ten owners within the subject blocks who opposed the reclassification, three own smaller, 40 ft. parcels. The location of the owners who responded is available for Council to view.

The owners in support cited the following comments:

· the large lots are prohibitively expensive to maintain and/or sell
· the large lots are not in keeping with the rest of the Sunset area which is made up of mostly 33 ft. lots
· there are currently few or no young families who own the large lots; allowing smaller lots would attract more young families with children
· allowing smaller lots would be in keeping with Council's recent decision to permit secondary suites in RS zones to allow for more affordable housing

The owners in objection cited the following comments:

· the large lots are unique in the Sunset area and should be preserved
· some owners purchased their properties specifically because of the uniqueness of the large lots
· smaller lots would result in increased density and the loss of character homes
· allowing for subdivision would see large trees lost
· traffic would be increased, especially near the school
· there would be less street parking

ANALYSIS

Nine property owners in the subject block have submitted this application for reclassification to Category A, which prescribes a minimum parcel width of 30 ft. and a minimum parcel area of 3,000 sq. ft. The blocks immediately to the north and south of the subject blocks are classified as Category A. The properties directly to the south across the lane, as well as to the east of the subject block, are also classified as Category A.

If the reclassification is approved, the owners of the large parcels would have the potential to subdivide their parcels into smaller lots which would meet Category A standards, either by dividing individual parcels into two, or by combining with adjacent parcels to create lots which meet the minimum standards. Appendix B illustrates a possible subdivision configuration should all parcels be subdivided to their maximum potential.

Subdivision of the large lots in the subject block may occur slowly over time, as there have been several newer homes recently constructed. Demolition of these existing homes would be a condition of subdivision approval, so subdivision may not be economically viable in the short term. The approval of this reclassification request would permit subdivision into smaller parcels, but would not necessitate subdivision.

Categories A-G were introduced in 1988 to reflect the predominant parcel size in RS-zoned blocks throughout the city. The intent was to maintain predominant patterns and the diversity of choice they offered, while offering modest opportunities for subdivision that would reinforce the prevailing pattern. These large parcels were classified as Category D, which best reflected the subdivision pattern in the 400 to 600 - block of East 52nd Avenue and the south half of the 400 - block of East 51st Avenue.

This pocket of very large, predominantly 72.55 ft. single-family parcels is unusual for this portion of Sunset Community. In the blocks bounded by East 49th Avenue, Ontario Street, S. E. Marine Drive, and Fraser Street, these are the only single-family parcels over 50 ft. While there are some 44 ft. parcels within these boundaries, the vast majority of RS-zoned parcels in this area are 33 ft.

In the recently completed Community Visioning process for Sunset Community, staff conducted surveys of residents with regard to Sunset residents' opinions on, among other things, various forms of housing. Visioning staff concluded that Sunset residents preferred to maintain single-family areas, retain character homes, and explore alternative forms of housing, such as infill dwellings and duplexes. Subdivision and reclassification of subdivision categories were not considered as part of the Visioning process, nor was this pocket of large parcels looked at specifically during the public process.

DIRECTOR OF CITY PLANS COMMENTS

The Director of City Plans supports the conclusions of the Subdivision Approving Officer with regard to this application given the divided support of the owners of property proposed for reclassification. However, the application raises some interesting policy issues for future consideration. In both the initial CityPlan public process and Sunset Community Vision, residents of the south east area of the city supported increasing housing choice through infilland other lower impact development options. Given this preference, there may be other future applications for reclassification or subdivision of multiple lots. If these applications are supported by all or most property owners, the City may wish to give further consideration to the role of subdivision in meeting broader housing choice objectives.

CONCLUSION

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
is strong neighbourhood support for such a change. In this circumstance, the property owners in the notification area are almost equally divided. Within in the subject blocks, the owners are also quite evenly divided.

With regard to previous reclassification applications which involved several properties and/or an entire block of properties or more, Council has consistently approved those applications which had a strong measure of neighbourhood support, and refused those which showed strong opposition. This application is unique in that Council has not addressed a reclassification involving more than one property where there is quite evenly divided neighbourhood support and objection.

On the basis of the established pattern of subdivision as reinforced by the current Category D standard, and the lack of a clear majority of support for this application, there is insufficient convincing rationale for changing the category of the subject parcels to a category with lesser parcel width and area. For these reasons, the Subdivision Approving Officer recommends refusal of the reclassification application.

 

APPENDICES A & B

* * * * *

pe20041202.htm

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