SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
NOVEMBER 9, 1995
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: October 16, 1995
Dept. File No. JF
TO: Standing Committee of Planning and Environment
FROM: Director of Land Use and Development
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Subdivision By-law No. 5208 - Site
Reclassification at 2925 West 37th Avenue
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council refuse the application to reclassify the property
at 2925 West 37th Avenue from Category 'D' 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 RS-
1, RS-1S, RS-3, RS-3A and RS-5 zoned 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 the property at 2925 West
37th Avenue (Lot 33 Amended, Block 30, D.L. 2027, Plan 2035A) 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 Subdivision By-law No. 5208.
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 and RS-5 have been included
as well. All lands in these five 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 subject parcel is contained within a block
which is classified as Category 'D', which prescribes a minimum width of
18.288 m (60.00 ft.) and a minimum area of 501.676 m› (5,400.00 sq. ft.)
for each parcel created by subdivision. The blocks immediately to the
north and east are also classified as Category 'D'. The blocks to the
south and west are classified as Category 'C', which prescribes a
minimum width of 15.240 m (50.00 ft.) and a minimum area of 464.515 m›
(5,000.00 sq. ft.) for each parcel created. The block to the southeast
is classified as Category 'B', which prescribes a minimum width of
12.192 m (40.00 ft.) and a minimum area of 334.451 m› (3,600.00 sq.
ft.).
The subject parcel has a width and area of 22.490 m (73.80 ft.) and
893.000 m› (9,612.00 sq. ft.), respectively. Under Category 'D', the
subject parcel cannot be subdivided, either individually or in
conjunction with an adjacent parcel, because the resulting parcels would
not meet the minimum width or area requirements.
The property owners have submitted this reclassification proposal
because the parcel is the largest parcel in this blockface, and they
would like an opportunity to subdivide in accordance with the Category
'A' minimum parcel size requirements.
If this application is approved, the owner of Lot 33 Amended would apply
to subdivide into two parcels, each having a width of approximately
11.250 m (36.90 ft.), and an area of approximately 446.500 m› (4,806.00
sq. ft.).
HISTORY OF THE BLOCK
As illustrated in Appendix 'A', the vast majority of parcels in Block 30
maintain a width of 18.105 m (59.40 ft.). It was for this reason that
Category 'D' was chosen for these lands in 1988, as being most
reflective of the predominant pattern of subdivision.Lot 33 Amended was
created by a subdivision done in conjunction with Lot 34, directly to
the west, in 1952. The two 18.105 m (59.40 ft.)-wide parcels were re-
subdivided into the 13.716 m (45.00 ft.) and 22.494 m (73.80 ft.)-wide
parcels which exist today. Only two other subdivisions involving Lot
38, and Lots 39 and 40 (now Lots A, B and C) have occurred.
ASSESSMENT
Thirty property owners, excluding the applicant, were notified in
writing of this reclassification request. The sixteen owners who
responded were all opposed to this reclassification. The location of
the respondents is illustrated on Appendix 'A'.
Most of the respondents opposing the reclassification cited increased
density, loss of mature landscaping and trees and interruption of the
existing "uniform" lot pattern as reasons for their objection. Several
respondents indicated they felt that a change of category would
detrimentally affect the area's character and property values.
Although several parcels in the subject block have a width that is less
than the 18.288 m (60.00 ft.) minimum required in Category 'D', that
category was assigned to the block to ensure that there would not be
subsequent subdivision which would be inconsistent with the existing,
predominant subdivision pattern.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the established pattern of subdivision and the
objections of the neighbouring property owners, there is no convincing
rationale for changing the category of Lot 33 Amended to a smaller
standard.
Therefore, the Director of Land Use and Development does not support the
reclassification of Lot 33 Amended from Category 'D' to Category 'A'.
* * * * * * *