ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: April 8, 1997
Dept. File No. AG
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 1708 East 56th Avenue
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council approve the application to reclassify the property at
1708 East 56th Avenue from Category B 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 1708 East
56th Avenue (Lot 1, Block 4, Fraserview, Plan 8393) from Category B 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 B . This category prescribes a minimum
width of 12.192 m (40.00 ft.) and a minimum area of 334.451 m2 (3,600.00
sq. ft.) for each parcel created by sub-division. The blocks
immediately to the north, east, and south of the subject parcel are also
classified as Category B . The block to the southwest of the subject
parcel is 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.).
The subject parcel maintains a width of approximately 19.200 m
(63.00 ft.) and an area of approximately 723.800 m2 (7,791.00 sq. ft.).
Under Category B , the subject parcel cannot be subdivided, either
individually, or in conjunction with the adjacent parcel, as the
resulting parcels would not meet the minimum parcel width requirement,
although they would exceed the area requirement for Category B .
The property owners have submitted this reclassification proposal
because the parcel is one of the largest remaining in the blockface, and
there are no opportunities to combine with the adjoining parcel to
resubdivide, in accordance with Category B , in order to meet the
minimum parcel width requirement.
If this reclassification is approved, the owners of Lot 1 could apply to
subdivide into two parcels, each having a width of approximately 9.600 m
(31.50 ft.) and an area of approximately 361.900 m2 (3,896.00 sq. ft.).
RESULTS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD NOTIFICATION
Twenty-two property owners, excluding the applicant, were notified in
writing of this reclassification request. Thirteen owners responded
with the following results:
Oppose reclassification: 10
Support reclassification: 3
No Response: 9
22
Although ten property owners opposed the reclassification, only four
offered reasons for their opposition. These owners felt that the
reclassification and resulting subdivision potential would detrimentally
affect the value of the surrounding properties, as well as create
traffic and parking problems. Several of these owners also felt that
the subdivided parcels would be too small to support adequate homes.
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
The original subdivision pattern established by the registration of Plan
No. 8393 in 1952, created blocks consisting of primarily larger parcels,
in the area bordered by Argyle Street east to Victoria Drive, and from
East 55th Avenue south to East 61st Avenue. Block 4, which contains the
subject site, remains unchanged, as there have been no subdivisions
subsequent to Plan 8393.
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.
If Lot 1 were only 0.305 m (1.00 ft.) wider, it would qualify for
consideration for subdivision under Section 9.1(a) of the Subdivision
By-law, which provides the Approving Officer the discretion to approve a
subdivision which creates parcels having a lesser width or a lesser
area, than the minimum prescribed in Schedule A. In order to qualify
for this consideration, the parcel must be on record in the Land Title
Office prior to January 19, 1988, and the parcels created must not have
less than 80% of the minimum width or area prescribed in Table 1 of
Schedule A.
Although the seven parcel size categories were meant to reflect the
predominant subdivision pattern of an area on a block-by-block basis, it
was recognized that there would be anomalies. Section 9.1(a) was
established to enable subdivision consideration for parcels that:
- are unusually large relative to the prevailing pattern in the
blockface, yet not large enough to permit subdivision in accordance
with the Table 1 standards;
- do not have an opportunity to combine with an adjacent parcel to
meet minimum standards; and
- if approved, would not set a significant precedent for other
parcels in the vicinity.
It should be noted that based on past and current practice, the
Approving Officer would likely have supported a proposal to subdivide
Lot 1 into two parcels, if those parcels created met the 80% criteria of
Section 9.1(a). In the immediate vicinity, there are two parcels which
do meet those criteria (Lot 33 of Block 1 - 1711 East 56th Avenue, and
Lot 5 of Block 1 - 1738 East 55th Avenue), which therefore have that
subdivision potential. These parcels are highlighted with an * on the
Appendix A map.
As reflected in the table attached as Appendix B, the average parcel
area in Block 4 is approximately 564.700 m2 (6,079.00 sq. ft.). Lot 1
currently has an area of approximately 723.800 m2 (7,791.00 sq. ft.),
which is almost 22% larger than the average parcel area in the block.
The five adjacent parcels to the east of Lot 1 each have a width of
approximately 13.700 m (45.00 ft.). In comparison to these parcels, Lot
1, with a width of approximately 19.200 m (63.00 ft.), is almost 29%
larger in width. If the owners are successful in their application to
reclassify their property and are subsequently allowed to subdivide Lot
1 into two parcels, those parcels would be approximately 36% smaller in
area than the current average parcel width in Block 4.
In addressing concerns from neighbouring property owners regarding
property values, Real Estate Services reviewed other recent subdivisions
of similar properties in the Fraserview area. From sales data, it was
determined that if Lot 1 were subdivided into two parcels, it would be
doubtful that a decrease in land values of the surrounding properties
would ensue. Instead, the subdivision would likely place upward
pressure on the value of the surrounding homes, despite the smaller
parcel sizes resulting from the subdivision.
CONCLUSION
Category B was selected for this block to reflect the existing pattern
of predominately larger parcels and to prevent subsequent subdivision
into small parcels, except in cases which qualify for Section 9.1(a)
consideration. However, given that this property is only 0.305 m (1.00
ft.) short of qualifying for subdivision under Section 9.1(a) of the
Subdivision By-law, without reclassification, it would seem reasonable
to support this reclassification request.
Therefore, despite the objections of some of the neighbouring property
owners, the Director of Land Use and Development supports the
reclassification of Lot 1 from Category B to Category A .
* * * * *