ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: December 4, 1998
Author/Local: Annetta Guichon/6627
RTS No. 330
CC File No. 5307/113

TO:	Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM:	Subdivision Approving Officer
SUBJECT:	Proposed Amendment to Subdivision By-law No. 5208 - Site Reclassification at 5154 and 5160 Ruby Street

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council refuse the application to reclassify the properties at 5154 and 5160 Ruby Street 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, RS-5S 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 two properties; 5154 Ruby Street and 5160 Ruby Street (Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 10, D.L.s 36 and 51, Plan 8673, respectively) 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 the 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, RS-5S 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.

As shown in Appendix A, the east side of Ruby Street, from Vanness Avenue to approximately mid-block, which contains the subject parcels, 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 subdivision. The properties immediately to the north 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.

Both Lot 1 and Lot 2 maintain widths of 15.240 m (50.00 ft.) and areas of approximately 475.385 m² (5,117.00 sq. ft.). Under Category `B', the subject parcels cannot be subdivided, individually or together, because they would not meet the minimum width or area requirement for each new parcel created. If the reclassification is approved, the applicant proposes to apply to subdivide the two properties into three parcels, each having a width of 10.160 m (33.33 ft.) and an area of approximately 316.900 m² (3,411.00 sq. ft.).

HISTORY OF SUBDIVISION IN THE BLOCK

The original subdivision pattern in the south half of this block of Ruby Street was created by the registration of Plan 8673 in August, 1952. There have been no subsequent changes to this original subdivision plan. The original plan for the north half of the block was registered in 1909, creating five, equal, 20.117 m (66.00 ft.)-wide parcels, all of which have been re-subdivided at various points in the past, into parcels with widths ranging from 10.055 m (32.99 ft.) to 13.411 m (44.00 ft). The average parcel width in the north half of the blockis approximately 11.173 m (36.66 ft.). In contrast, the south half of the subject block contains parcels with an average width of 17.069 m (56.00 ft.).

HISTORY OF CATEGORIZING A `MID-BLOCK SPLIT'

During the process of designating the RS-1 lands into one of the seven subdivision categories enacted by Council in 1988, staff studied subdivision patterns across the city on a block-by-block basis. Blocks having no definitive subdivision pattern were classified into a category most reflective of the surrounding neighbourhood. A relatively common form of subdivision throughout the city was characterized by blocks as having a `mid-block split'. These blocks were noted to contain distinct development and streetscape patterns, due to the substantial difference in parcel sizes from one part of the block to the other. It was determined that mid-block splits, without exceptions, would be preserved if part of a continuous pattern of two or more half-blocks, whether or not part of the same block.

Differing categories in blocks of this type provide subdivision opportunities for the remaining large parcels in the small-parcel portion of the block, while not establishing a precedent for consideration of similarly sized parcels in the large-parcel portion of the block.

Block 10 exhibits such a pattern of differing parcel sizes and for this reason, it and the block to the west have both Category `A' and `B' classifications.

NEIGHBOURHOOD NOTIFICATION

To gauge neighbourhood support for, or opposition to, this reclassification request, fourteen property owners in the immediate area were notified in writing and asked to comment. Only one response was received. In opposing this reclassification, the respondent cited concerns regarding increased density in the neighbourhood resulting from the potential subdivision, which the respondent felt should occur only through area rezoning. The respondent was also opposed to the potential creation of a back lane through the remainder of this block as a result of dedication of land to the City over the years, through the subdivision process.

ASSESSMENT

Based on the original principles of categorizing the RS -1 lands, the subject block meets the criteria for preservation as a mid-block split. There has been no subsequent subdivision in the larger-parcel portion of the block since the registration of the original subdivision plan in 1952. In addition, there is a significant difference between the larger-parcel portion of the block, and the smaller-parcel portion, with respect to parcel size.

Category `B' was chosen for the south half of the subject block to reflect the predominately larger parcels of land comprising this portion of the block, and to ensure that there would not be subsequent subdivision which would be inconsistent with the existing, predominant subdivision pattern. If this reclassification is approved, a precedent would be established, potentially allowing for further reclassification requests in this area, and elsewhere in the City where mid-block splits occur.

In 1993 and 1994, respectively, Council refused two similar reclassification requests, in which the sites then under consideration were also situated in the large-parcel portion of blocks split into two different categories.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the established pattern of subdivision, and that the approval of this reclassification request would establish a precedent which could potentially jeopardize the preservation of mid-block category splits in this and other areas of the city, there is no convincing rationale for changing the category of Lots 1 and 2 to a smaller standard.

Therefore, the Subdivision Approving Officer does not support the reclassification of Lot 1 and Lot 2 from Category `B' to Category `A'.

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver