POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT:

Rezoning Policy Issues - 601 West 10th Avenue (Cancer Research Centre)

 

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT the applicant, in co-operation with staff, reconsider the massing of the proposed development and resubmit a design concept more sympathetic to the C-3A Guidelines to address the following objectives:

B. THAT alternatives other than interim surface parking be developed for the Phase 2 portion of the site.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Central Area Plan - Central Broadway Goals and Policy: Council approved these policies in 1991 identifying Central Broadway as an uptown business district of non-residential uses.

C-3A Guidelines: The Central Broadway C-3A Urban Design Guidelines adopted in March 1976 and updated most recently in September 1996, form the basis for approval of conditional developments in the C-3A District proposed to exceed 9.2 m(30 ft.) in height or 1.0 FSR. The guidelines address most aspects of urban design, principal among them being scale, shadow and view impacts of height, massing, and pedestrian amenity. A maximum sub-area building height of 36.6m (120 ft.) is recommended. The massing of the building above (30 ft.) height should be slimmer to allow views and sunlight penetration to the north sidewalk of Broadway.

VGH Precinct Policy Statement: This policy framework, adopted by Council in June 2000, set out parameters for redevelopment, the most relevant for the Cancer Research Site being height and massing. A height of 38.4m (126 ft.) is recommended together with north-south orientation of upper storey massing to relieve scale, shadow and view impacts. Grade level retail uses are sought to animate the ground plane of an otherwise long institutional frontage on the Tenth Avenue pedestrian corridor.

Council Resolution Re: Cancer Research Centre (CRC) - On June 15, 2000 Council resolved:

PURPOSE

This report responds to the Council resolution of June 15, 2000 with respect to policy adjustments which would be needed to accommodate the design concept for a primarily government funded non-profit Cancer Research Centre (CRC) at 601 West 10th Avenue. This report identifies policy issues raised by that proposed design concept in a CD-1 rezoning application by the BC Cancer Foundation. Staff met with Cancer Research Centre representatives subsequent to the referenced Council meeting and agreed to their request that such a report await submission of a rezoning application which would better articulate their concept.

Normally, staff would not entertain nor support a proposal which differed as substantially from normal policy parameters as does this proposal. However, staff recognize that the public objective served by the CRC needs to be weighed against the public objectives of urban design policies. Staff believe this warrants flexibility in applying the normal policies, but also believe that reasonable standards of urban design must still be achieved. To achieve an acceptable solution which respects the regional prominence of this location will require significant changes to height, massing and setbacks shown in the design concept for both phases of the CRC development. The pedestrian amenity of Tenth Avenue and of the long-awaited public open space at Tenth Avenue and Heather Street must also be enhanced, not severely diminished, particularly in the interim phase.

DISCUSSION

Background

VGH Building Scale - Existing buildings at VGH, such as the former Nurses' Residence at 32 m (104 ft.) and Centennial Pavilion at 45 m (147 ft.) have established a pattern of tall and massive buildings. However, this scale, particularly as it is represented by the Laurel Tower (Pattison Pavilion) at 90 m (296 ft.) is not embraced by nearby communities as a desirable direction.

Nearby Broadway Context - Neighbouring blocks on Broadway have several examples of tall buildings dating back prior to adoption of the Central Broadway C-3A Zoning and Guidelines. The Fairmont Medical building at 750 West Broadway is an example often cited as a form with particularly undesirable impacts due to its wide facade affecting the sense of scale for pedestrians, views and overshadowing on Broadway. The C-3A Zone was adopted by Council in 1976 specifically in response to that form of development which generates such negative impacts on pedestrian scale, views and shadowing.

Recent C-3A Development - Recent buildings developed under C-3A Guidelines include successful examples of buildings with desirable upper storey massing. In these cases, concerns regarding visual impacts of height and massing were resolved.

The Proposal

The `Phase 1' high-rise block proposed on the westerly portion of the site would be comprised primarily of laboratories, support spaces and offices above the second level, with a theatre, library and public functions on the first and second levels. Retail is proposed on Heather Street near the lane south of Broadway. The proposed building height, including a 6.2 m (20.3 ft.) mechanical/ventilation penthouse, is 56 m (184 ft.).

The existing research functions would be moved into the tower on the westerly 40 percent of the site. Then the former bakery building, which now contains these functions, is to be demolished. This would allow a parking access ramp to be built mid-block from the lane into the second and third below grade levels of the tower. Surface parking would be provided at lane level on that remaining 60 percent of the site until a second fund raising campaign can be completed for the proposed mid-rise block on the easterly 91 m (300 ft.) of frontage. A number of years may pass before the easterly portion of the site would be developed.

Phase 2 is proposed on the easterly portion of the site with laboratories, support spaces and offices. The proposed mid-rise height for the full length of the building is 36 m (118 ft.) including the mechanical/ventilation penthouse.

The floor-to-floor heights proposed for laboratory floors are 6.2 m (20.3 ft.), including interstitial space for mechanical. The applicant suggests that the FSR over the entire site is 6.0. This figure does not adequately reflect the impact on massing implied by the proposed double-height spaces. The effect of these lab floors is to create a massing approaching the scale normally reflected by 9.0 FSR.

ANALYSIS

Use - Staff support the choice of site for this very important non-profit research facility which will benefit from links to treatment facilities, as well as proximity to VGH, and offers benefits for establishing a nearby research precinct as proposed by VGH. A description of the BC Cancer Research Foundation is attached in Appendix A.

Height - The proposed height, including the mechanical penthouse of the tower, is 56 m (184 ft.) measured from the low lane side (as per the by-law) or 52 m (170 ft.) on the higher 10th Avenue side. This exceeds the height recommended for both the C-3A District at 36.5 m (120 ft) and the VGH Precinct at 38.4m (126 ft). As seen along Tenth Avenue, this would be between four and five conventional storeys higher than recommended. Some increase may be warranted in this location given the desirability of the use. However, at the proposed height, the visual impact of upper storey massing would be dramatic. The 36 m (118 ft.)height of Phase 2 results in yet greater contradiction of the guidelines due to the extent of frontage at the proposed height. More extensive shadows result on Broadway.

Density - The proposed increase in density from 3.0 to 6.0 FSR reflects a doubling of density relative to C-3A development and would substantially exceed permitted densities in other parts of the C-3A District and the VGH Precinct, as well as most parts of the Downtown District. Even then, this figure does not adequately reflect the impact on massing implied by the proposed double-height spaces exceeding 6.1 m (20 ft.) from floor to floor for six laboratory levels. The effect of these lab floors is to create a massing approaching the visual impact of 9.0 FSR, akin to the highest density in the downtown.

Massing and Floor Plate Comparison - The principal questions with respect to the massing of the proposal are the scale, shadow and view impacts on the area surrounding the site and the skyline. The size of the proposed floor plate is compared to other buildings in the area and in the C-3A zone. Appendix B shows that the proposal for this site would make it the largest in the area and that it would be larger than any C-3A development.

It is also important to note the proximity and visibility of this structure from the planned 5.7 acre public open space diagonally across Heather Street at Tenth Avenue. Its combined length and breadth would make it a particularly dominating building as seen from the future public open space.

Impacts on Central Broadway - The C-3A guidelines respond to past concerns about buildings massed broadly on long frontages by suggesting continuous, pedestrian-oriented, low-rise massing across the entire frontage. The remaining density is then achieved through slimmer mid and high-rise massing over a narrower portion of the frontage to allow sunlight access and views through the sites.

Fig. 1 following shows how these guidelines would typically be applied to a minimum of two development sites on a block face such as the 600 block West Tenth Avenue to improve upon pre-guideline patterns, and compares this more typical situation to the proposed CRC development. Fig. 2 following shows the massing which results when the maximum supportable massing for a full block is consolidated onto one site, again in comparison to the proposed CRC development which is on a full block frontage. Clearly, two slim towers have a less concentrated impact than combining the highest elements of both in one broadly massed building. However, the impact of the proposed CRC would considerably exceed the visual impact of even the combined guideline massing.

Fig. 1 Typical C-3A Build-out (2 Developments on Block) Compared to CRC Proposal

Fig. 2 Maximized C-3A Massing (Consolidated Single Site) Compared to CRC Proposal
To illustrate the implications, a comparison with the existing office tower at 686 West Broadway corner of Heather Street, located directly to the north of this site, is informative. This building is significantly cited in the Central Broadway C-3A Urban Design Guidelines (see Fig. 3 following) as an undesirable building form in the Broadway context, due to its broad massing in relation to its narrow frontage. As shown above under guideline massing, a slimmer tower combined with a 9.2m (30 ft) high streetwall component results in more attractive massing and better sunlight and view penetration.

Fig. 3 Excerpt from the Central Broadway C-3A Guidelines Showing Existing 686 West Broadway

Fig. 4 below shows the scale of the proposed CRC buildings overlaid onto the guideline excerpt sketch. This demonstrates that the proposed massing of the CRC would overbear the existing structure on Broadway which the guidelines indicate is already poorly proportioned and out of scale.

Fig. 4 Sketch Showing Proposed CRC Massing Related to Existing 686 West Broadway

Sun Access to Broadway - The Central Broadway C-3A Urban Design Guidelines seek sun access to the sidewalk and storefronts on the north side of Broadway from March to September by limiting the height of the slimmer, higher portion of a building to respect the sun angle at equinox. By limiting this portion of the building to a narrower frontage, balanced with the remainder of the frontage at a lower 9.2 m (30 ft.) streetwall massing overthe entire length of the frontage, the guideline achieves sun access to major portions of the sidewalk on the north side of Broadway for the remainder of the year. The light lined area in Fig. 5 below shows the acceptable shadow, which from September to March leaves the north sidewalk, restaurants, etc. in sun.

Shadow analysis shows that Phase 1 would allow sun access to north Broadway sidewalks during the summer. However, there are two aspects of the design which result in undesirable shadows on the north side of Broadway from September to March. A more concentrated shadow pattern would result from a consolidation of all taller elements for the block in the single Phase 1 tower. However, the impact, illustrated by the dark hatched area in Fig. 5 below, demonstrates the shadow of the proposed Phase 2 mid-rise massing at 36 m (118 ft.) in height. That structure would completely block sunlight access to the remainding easterly two-thirds of the 152 m (500 ft.) long block on the north side of Broadway between September and March. The heavy dashed line in Fig. 5 below indicates a 18.3 m (60 ft.) height and 3.0 m (10 ft.) lane setback for the Phase 2 portion of the site, which preserves sun access on Broadway from September to March.

Fig. 5 Sketch Showing Proposed Sunlight Access to Broadway

Future Development of 600 Block West Broadway - The proposed minimal lane setbacks of this development would constrain options for design of new developments across the lane on Broadway and prevent them from meeting the guidelines. Typically on Central Broadway, the upper mid to high-rise portions of developments are setback from the lane. The setback is typically between 4.6 m (15 ft.) and 10.7 m (35 ft.) from the rear property line. The CRC proposal shows a 1.3 m (4.3 ft.) setback from the lane along the entire length of the proposed building. Staff and the Urban Design Panel are concerned that this will diminish the quality of future development across the lane on the 600 Block of West Broadway. To achieve full density, this future development will likely increase its building width in a fashion similar to the Fairmont Medical Building, to provide a setback from the proposed CRC buildings. As a result, such Broadway developments could have greater scale, shadow and view impacts than otherwise would occurr.

It would be more typical to provide a 7.6 m (25 ft.) setback from the lane for a building of the breadth of CRC. Given that a 3 m (10 ft.) setback is proposed from Tenth Avenue, a 4.6 m (15 ft.) setback would be reasonable from the lane. However, immediate adjacency to the lane at Heather Street does improve the streetscape along Heather, the main floor theatre does need the proposed depth and modular laboratories are designed in 3.0 m (10 ft.) increments. Therefore, a compromise setback of 3.0 m (10 ft.) above the theatre level for portions of the Phase 1 tower and all of the Phase 2 structure is recommended (refer to heavy dashed line in Fig. 5).

Surface Parking - The easterly 60 percent of the site will be cleared and may be undeveloped for many years until future fund raising permits a Phase 2 development. The VGH Precinct Policies strive for a more amenable pedestrian environment to encourage people to arrive and conduct their business here by means other than single occupant vehicles. Surface parking is not acceptable under C-3A zoning and a 91 m (300 ft.) long parking lot would not contribute to VGH Precinct policy objectives. To contribute positively to the urban fabric of the precinct, the treatment of the easterly portion of the site must be reconsidered, preferably contributing temporary green space as VGH has done with undeveloped residual sites. Below grade parking and an access ramp could still be accommodated.

Grade Level Treatment - Integration of the grade level of the building with the pedestrian atmosphere of Tenth Avenue requires active public oriented uses, including retail and restaurant, with more doorways opening to the street to animate this frontage and make it less institutional.

Pedestrian Overpass - While the City Engineer does not support overpasses over city streets, an application will be considered based on the minimum physical requirements to transfer patients from the treatment centre to the research labs. Planning staff remainconcerned about the visual impact of such a structure over Tenth Avenue and will require in-depth design analysis of this proposal.

Urban Design Panel - This proposal was supported by the Urban Design Panel. Minutes are attached in Appendix C.

CONCLUSION

Development of a major non-profit, primarily government-funded, Cancer Research Centre at 601 West Tenth Avenue would be an important achievement for Vancouver. It would have positive linkages with nearby medical facilities and have a symbiotic relationship with other research functions in the area. However, the proposed form of that development is clearly inconsistent with C-3A guideline standards, other built form policies for this vicinity (including height and upper storey massing recommendations of the VGH Precinct Policy Statement), the character of the area, and neighbourly urban design practises. Given that those guidelines are based on experience with past inappropriate design directions, significant visual impacts are expected. It would be particularly unfortunate if such impacts visually dominated and diminished the value of a much needed and regionally prominent public open space focussed on the Heather Pavilion diagonally across Tenth Avenue.

The hospital precinct has massive buildings. However, those which compare most directly to the proposed scheme have not been well received by surrounding communities and do not perform well in basic urban design terms. This is particularly evident with respect to the visual impacts of upper storey massing, resulting from relationships between the height and breadth of upper storeys. In some cases these have been the impetus for C-3A guidelines. It was certainly a factor in the built form policies for the VGH Precinct approved in June 2000. More recent buildings, which exemplify more desirable massing forms, have resulted from adherence to the guidelines on other parts of West Broadway.

In this case, the combined impact of proposed higher density, increased height and broad massing in both the east-west and north-south directions would result in substantial over-massing of the site. The first phase itself contains the full extent of massing typically acceptable on a site of this size, though disbursed more across the site. The whole of the second phase exceeds the built volume which such a site is capable of accepting within its general context. The net result of overloading the site and cramming extra mass into both phases will be some view impacts, extraordinary shadow impacts on the north Broadway

- 11 -

sidewalks and building scale impacts on Broadway and the future VGH public open space, all clearly counter to established urban design directions for the Broadway corridor and for the city.

Given the context of a scattering of bulky buildings in the precinct and the public benefit anticipated to be derived from this project, staff support significant adjustments to the current policy framework with respect to both increased height and horizontal dimensions to accommodate this project. However, the impacts would still be severe enough that the phasing of the proposed development needs to be re-examined to allow redistribution of the upper-storey floor plates to create an overall scheme with less visual impact. This should include a combination of reduced height, reduced horizontal dimensions of upper storeys, increased setback from the lane, and splitting of the mechanical penthouse. The height and rear setback of the second phase must also be reconsidered, which may reduce long term achievable floor area for the site. To maintain any acceptable level of pedestrian amenity along Tenth Avenue requires reconsideration of the proposed surface parking during the potentially lengthy `interim phase'.

ATTACHMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE ELECTRONIC COPY ARE AVAILABLE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

* * * * *