SUPPORTS ITEM 1
                                                                         P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
                                                                         APRIL 10, 1997

                             ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

                                           Date: February 26, 1997
   C.C. File No.: 113


   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 3791 West 26th Avenue

   RECOMMENDATION

        THAT  Council approve the application to reclassify the property at
        3791 West 26th Avenue 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-1S, 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 facilitate or prevent subdivision.

   PURPOSE

   This report addresses a proposal to reclassify the property at 3791 West
   26th  Avenue (Lot  H of 3  of A, Block  82, D.L. 2027,  Plan 10727) 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 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, RS-5 and  RS-6 have been
   included  as  well.    All  lands in  these  six  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  C .  This category prescribes a minimum
   width of 15.240 m (50.00 ft.) and a minimum area of 464.515 m2 (5,000.00
   sq. ft.) for each parcel created by subdivision.  The blocks immediately
   to the  north, west, and south  of the subject parcel  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.  

   The subject  parcel (Lot H) maintains a  width of approximately 21.640 m
   (71.00  ft.) and an area of approximately 854.700 m2 (9,200.00 sq. ft.).
   Under Category  C , Lot  H cannot be subdivided, either  individually or
   in conjunction with the adjoining parcel, in accordance with the minimum
   parcel width and area requirements. 

   The property owner has  submitted this reclassification proposal because
   Lot H  is the  largest remaining  parcel in the  blockface, and  because
   there  are no  opportunities  to combine  with  an adjacent  parcel  and
   resubdivide, in  accordance with the Category   C  minimum requirements.
   If  this application  is approved,  the owner  of Lot  H could  apply to
   subdivide  into two parcels, each having a width of approximately 10.820
   m  (35.50 ft.)  and an  area of approximately  427.350 m2  (4,600.00 sq.
   ft.).

   RESULTS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD NOTIFICATION

   Twenty-two property  owners, excluding  the applicant, were  notified in
   writing  of this reclassification request.   Five owners responded, with
   the following results:

        Oppose reclassification:       3
        Support reclassification:      2
        No response:                  17
                                      22

   The owners in opposition to the reclassification felt that the resulting
   subdivision would  increase density and detrimentally  affect the area s
   character. The owners in  support of the reclassification did  not offer
   comments. The location of the respondents is illustrated in Appendix A.

   HISTORY OF SUBDIVISION IN THE BLOCK

   As shown in Appendix B, the subdivision pattern established by Plan 5284
   in  1924, created mostly 15.240  m (50.00 ft.)-wide  parcels on the west
   half of  Block 82, with the exception  of the two corner  parcels at the
   west end of the  block (Lot D on West  King Edward Avenue, and Lot  F on
   West 26th Avenue).   Subsequent subdivisions on  the north side of  West
   26th  Avenue have  continued the  pattern of  15.240 m  (50.00 ft.)-wide
   parcels, with the  exception of two C-2 zoned  parcels at Dunbar Street,
   which have been subsequently  consolidated into one large parcel  (shown
   as Lot 1,  Plan LMP1883, on  Appendix A).   In 1960,  Lot H was  created
   through a consolidation and  resubdivision involving Lot F and  the site
   directly to the east, now shown as Lot G.

   With regard to the north half  of Block 82, which fronts onto  West King
   Edward  Avenue,  subsequent subdivisions,  all  occurring  prior to  the
   categories  being  established  in  1988, have  resulted  in  a somewhat
   inconsistent subdivision  pattern, with several parcels  that maintain a
   width, but not an area, that is less than the Category  C  standard.

   PAST RECLASSIFICATION APPROVALS

   In June, 1989,  Council approved an application for  reclassification of
   two properties  in the nearby vicinity of the subject site.  As shown in
   Appendix C.1, the  approval resulted in  the two larger parcels  on West
   23rd Avenue and West 24th Avenue, respectively,  being reclassified from
   Category   C   to Category   A .   Both  parcels have  subsequently been
   subdivided.     The  Director   of  Planning   did   not  support   this
   reclassification in view of opposition  from neighbours, and the concern
   that   this  reclassification   would   set  a   precedent  for   future
   reclassification requests in this area.

   As  shown   in  Appendix   C.2,  Council  approved   a  reclassification
   application for a parcel at the northeast corner of Macdonald Street and
   West   34th  Avenue,  in  July  1994.    Despite  objections  from  some
   neighbouring owners,  this parcel was reclassified from  Category  D  to
   Category  B ,  with  the  support of  the  Director of  Planning.    The
   rationale used  to support  this reclassification  was that  the ensuing
   subdivision  of that parcel would be consistent with the area s existing
   subdivision pattern of smaller parcels created by previously subdividing
   large corner parcels in the surrounding blocks.

   STAFF ASSESSMENT

   This   reclassification   application   proposes  to   allow   for   the
   consideration of parcels  no less than 9.144 m (30.00  ft.) in width and
   278.709 m2 (3,000.00 sq. ft.) in area.

   As reflected  in the  table attached as  Appendix D, the  average parcel
   area in  Block 82 is approximately 599.270 m2 (6,450.00 sq. ft.).  Lot H
   currently has an  area of  approximately 854.850 m2  (9,200.00 sq.  ft.)
   which  is  almost  30%  larger  than  the  average  parcel area  in  the
   blockface;  and a  width of  21.629 m  (70.96 ft.)  which is  almost 30%
   larger  than the  average width. If  the owners are  successful in their
   application to reclassify their property and are subsequently allowed to
   subdivide Lot H into  two parcels, those parcels would  be approximately
   29% smaller than  the average parcel  size, in terms  of both width  and
   area.

     

   CONCLUSION

   Category  C  was selected for this block to reflect the existing pattern
   of  predominately larger parcels and because there are several blocks to
   the  east and southeast which  have similar subdivision  patterns.  This
   block,  however,  does  not  maintain a  pristine,  uniform  subdivision
   pattern.   Subdivision  of Lot  H  into two  parcels would  be  somewhat
   inconsistent  with the parcel sizes  in this block,  however, several of
   the  existing parcels  also do  not conform to  the minimum  parcel size
   requirements for Category  C . Further, the block is surrounded on three
   sides by  blocks classified as Category  A ,  which permits considerably
   smaller parcel sizes. As  well, a precedent was established in  1989 and
   again in 1994 in this area with the approval of similar reclassification
   applications, as previously noted.

   Therefore, despite the  objections of some of the  neighbouring property
   owners,   the  Director  of  Land   Use  and  Development  supports  the
   reclassification of Lot H from Category  C  to Category  A .




                                   * * * * *