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 . * * * * *