POLICY REPORT
PLANNING AND BUILDING

Date: March 12, 2002
Author/Local: E. Fiss /7929

RTS No. 02568

CC File No. 2606

P&E: March 28, 2002

TO:	Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM:	Director of Current Planning
SUBJECT:	8982 Hudson Street - Development Application DE406323

CONSIDERATION

A. THAT the Director of Planning be advised that Council would favour approval of a 5-storey residential building up to 16.8 m [55 ft.] in height at 8982 Hudson Street, as submitted under DE406323, subject to refinements to the development application to address the issues as detailed in this report.

If Council does not support "A", "B" is presented for Council's consideration:

B. THAT the Director of Planning be advised that Council would favour retention of the Heritage "B" listed Nurses Residence as part of the development scheme for 8982 Hudson Street, including a density bonus above 2.5 FSR and a height relaxation potentially above 16.8 m (55 ft.) as compensation for the rehabilitation and designation of the heritage building.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services submits "A" for CONSIDERATION but if Council does not support "A", "B" is then submitted for CONSIDERATION.

COUNCIL POLICY

On June 2, 1998, Council instructed the Director of Planning to:

A. refer all proposed height relaxations under Sections 4.3 (a) and (b) C-2 Residential Guidelines to Council for advice;
B. delete Section 4.3(c) of the C-2 Residential Guidelines permitting height relaxations over 16.8 m (55 ft.) pending a full review of the C-2 zone;
C. amend the C-2 Residential Guidelines to add a general clause indicating that projects should have a very good architectural design and should use quality exterior materials and that projects should be referred to the Urban Design Panel (UDP) for advice;
D. report back to Council before the summer break with a timetable, work program and resourcing to undertake a C-2 review; and
E. instruct staff that the Guidelines take precedence where there is a conflict between the District Schedule and the Guidelines.

C-2 Residential Guidelines also specify that: "Council policy is to give special attention to the resources on the Vancouver Heritage Register. Upon approving any conditional use or in an area zoned comprehensive development, whenever possible, resources on the Register are to be conserved."

SUMMARY

In accordance with Council's instructions of June 2, 1998, this development application is being referred to Council for advice as the proposal requires a building height relaxation.

The proposed development is for the construction of a five-storey all-residential concrete building and will require a height relaxation from 12.2 m (40 ft.) to 16.8 metres (55 ft.). The building contains 134 dwelling units with two levels of underground parking having vehicular access from Hudson Street. Staff have assessed the proposed design against the C-2 Residential Guidelines and applicable policies and support the scheme, including the proposed height relaxation, taking into account the uniqueness of the site. Staff conclude that with some additional refinements to further address livability and enhance its appearance as seen from the Arthur Laing Bridge ramps, it will achieve a high design standard and will generally meet the intent of the Guidelines.

The proposed development includes demolition of a Heritage "B" building on the site. Staff met with the applicant both prior to the submission of the development application and during the application process to review retention alternatives. The applicant has stated thatit is economically not feasible to retain and incorporate the heritage building into the development. Real Estate staff have reviewed the applicant's development pro forma, researched the market and analysed alternate development scenarios and have concluded that the analysis supports the applicant's statement. As a basis for analysis, an all-residential building with an FSR of 2.50 was considered by Planning Staff to be approvable on this site if it was unencumbered by the heritage building. The costs associated with heritage retention would require a substantial bonus density and possibly additional height relaxations beyond 16.8 m (55 ft.). High construction costs for additional underground parking in this high water table location and a much higher market risk for the mid-rise to high-rise form of development make the heritage retention alternative economically unviable.

Although the heritage objective is identified in overall City policies as well as C-2 guidelines, staff, on balance, conclude that the peculiarities of this site with respect to its configuration, adjacent development (in particular, Airport Square) and location next to the Arthur Laing Bridge ramps, make the proposed development, without heritage retention, supportable. The Director of Planning is therefore inclined to support this application. However, before making a decision, this application is being reported to Council for advice with option "A" for consideration. Council may, however, believe that a redesign of the development incorporating the heritage building, with bonus density and possibly further height relaxation, is warranted, in which case Staff have provided option "B" for Council's consideration.

PURPOSE

In accordance with Council's instruction concerning height relaxations in C-2, this report seeks Council's advice on a development application requesting permission to construct a building at 8982 Hudson Street which would have a height of 16.8 m (55 ft.), which exceeds the outright height of 12.2 m (40 ft.). This report also considers the requested height relaxation in light of the proposed demolition of the heritage building on site.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

Height in C-2: Since the change in C-2 policies in 1998, no height relaxations beyond 13.8 m (45 ft.) have been approved. Prior to the change in C-2 policies, a number of developments were approved with height relaxations beyond 13.8 m (45 ft.), two of which have recently been constructed in Kerrisdale at 5700 Larch Street at the corner of 41st Avenue, 21.3 m (70 ft. in height) and the London Drugs site at 42nd Avenue and East Boulevard, up to 16.8 m (55 ft. in height).

The site: The site is located at the northeast corner of Hudson Street and Southwest Marine Drive. There is no abutting lane serving the site. The C-2 zoning district extends several blocks east and west from this site, along Southwest Marine Drive. An I-1 zoning district is located to the north, and to the south are I-2 and M-2 zoning districts. The I-1 Hudson Street "Let-go" area to the north is currently before Council for consideration of a proposed rezoning to the MC-1 District Schedule. Significant adjacent developments include the14-storey Airport Square office building to the northeast with its three-storey podium extension directly to the north, a recently built four-storey all-residential building to the west across Hudson Street (both under C-2 zoning) and the approach and exit ramps for the Arthur Laing Bridge to the south. The site is currently developed with three buildings, one of which is the former Nurses Residence for the Marpole Infirmary, built in 1928, which is in the `B' category on the Heritage Register. The Marpole Infirmary Building, originally constructed as the Grand Central Hotel in 1912, a large four-storey brick and stone building, was demolished in 1967. Owing to the impacts of the adjacent streets and bridge ramps, this is a harsh and challenging site to develop. The site, surrounding zoning, and location of existing buildings are shown in Appendix A. The Development Application: The proposal involves the construction of a five-storey, all-residential, concrete building containing 134 dwelling units with two levels of underground parking having vehicular access from Hudson Street. The proposed U-shape, unusual for C-2 developments, allows for a south-oriented landscaped courtyard, approximately 21.3 m (70 ft.) wide by30.5 m (100 ft.) deep, into which many of the proposed units orient. The majority of the proposed units are studio type, with a median size of 47.75 m² (514 sq. ft.) A ceiling height of 3.1 m (10 ft.) is proposed to improve livability and marketability. Retention of five significant existing mature trees on Hudson Street is proposed. The proposed FSR is 2.5, the maximum permitted for residential use in C-2. Simplified plans, including a site plan and elevations, have been included in Appendix B.

DISCUSSION

The proposed development has been assessed against the C-2 Residential Guidelines and generally meets the intent, with one exception. It does not meet the heritage retention objectives. The most significant issues are discussed below.
Height and Massing: A height relaxation of up to 4.6 m (15 ft.) beyond the outright 12.2 m (40 ft.) height is requested for this proposed development under Section 4.3 (b) of the C-2 Residential guidelines which states:

For sites that are exceptionally large in both depth and width, it may be possible to achieve a fifth storey. This will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that there is no increased over-shadowing or reduction of views for surrounding streets and neighbours, and where other benefits such as increased neighbourliness, open space, and amenity result. The maximum height that will be considered for these development will be 16.8 m ( 55 ft.).

Site size: This unique development site is unusually large in both depth and width, measuring 52.67 m (172.8 ft.) north to south on Hudson Street, and 75.86 m (248.9 ft.) east to west. The site area, at 3209.6 m² (34,549 sq. ft.), is double the size of many typical large C-2 developments. The site also slopes down from north to southapproximately five feet, which is a contributing factor in the requested height relaxation.

Over-shadowing: There are negligible shadowing impacts on the surrounding medium density residential properties to the west and the recommended height relaxation will have no impact on the pedestrian commercial portions of Hudson Street. Noon and afternoon over-shadowing from the proposed development will occur on the Airport Square surface parking areas directly to the north and east but these would be evident in an outright 12.2 m (40 ft.) high building.
Views: Southerly views for neighbours located to the north are currently limited by the Arthur Laing Bridge and ramps and are not further impacted by the height relaxation for this proposed development. It should be noted that most, if not all of the three-storey, residential buildings to the north are oriented east and west, not toward the proposal.

The applicant has submitted a view analysis (Appendix C) , in support of the height relaxation, which confirms that the views of the city and North Shore Mountains from the Arthur Laing Bridge and ramps are not impacted. At its closest, the proposed development is 27.43 m (90 ft.) from the west bound bridge on-ramp, which is comparable to the setback recommended for buildings exceeding the bridge deck height on the South Burrard and South Cambie Bridgeheads. Staff believe that the overall view from the Arthur Laing Bridge and access ramps to the proposed building is actually improved at this entry to Vancouver and is preferable to a view onto an unattractive flat roof that would result with a lower, four-storey building.
Other benefits: The proposed five-storey massing provides noticeably less site coverage than a four-storey development at the same density. This allows additional site area for landscaped open space, providing improved site amenity and livability for units fronting on the proposed large south-facing courtyard, as well as retention of the existing trees within the property along Hudson Street. The five-storey, U-shaped massing also addresses the harsh acoustic environment created by the proximity to the Arthur Laing Bridge. According to an acoustic assessment prepared by the applicant's acoustic engineer, orientation of the dwelling units away from, rather than facing the access ramps, will reduce sound levels. With further confirmation addressing detailed acoustic measures and privacy, staff conclude the five-storey U-shaped massing is the most appropriate form for this site.

The Urban Design Panel has unanimously supported the proposed height relaxation and considers this site uniquely appropriate for the increased height. The Panel noted that this is a prominent site for motorists entering Vancouver from Richmond and the Airport and that the site would benefit from height even beyond 16.8 m (55 ft.).

In summary, Staff believe that the proposed height relaxation up to 4.6 metres (15 ft.) is supportable given the size and slope of the site, the advantages of concrete construction, no demonstrated impacts on neighbouring views or overshadowing, improved livability, and increased open space and amenity. The peculiarities of the site's location and adjacencies are such that this would not set a precedent for neighbouring or other C-2 sites. In terms of urban design, the added height is a benefit for this unique site at the apex of the Arthur Laing Bridge, as it will provide a positive visual feature as seen from the bridge ramps rather than a view to a flat roof. Staff therefore consider that the site, based on the evaluation against the Guidelines, qualifies for a 16.8 m (55 ft.) high building.
Other Issues: The proposed all-residential Multiple Dwelling is a conditional use in the C-2 zone. Staff have previously approved an all-residential development on the site across Hudson Street, to the west, and consider multiple dwelling an appropriate exclusive use for the subject site. The proposal has been assessed against the proposed changes to the Hudson Street "Let-go" area MC-1 zoning and guidelines, currently before Council, and staff conclude that an all-residential building is compatible with the proposed direction for the adjacent neighbourhood.
The proposed maximum density of 2.5 FSR is consistent with the Guidelines which state that this density, "may only be achievable in exceptional situations such as an all-residential development containing larger units on a corner site, and/or where the building height exceeds four storeys." This five-storey proposal, situated on a large corner site, contains a good mix of unit types, with approximately 50 percent studio, 40 percent one-bedroom, and 10 percent two-bedroom units. Staff conclude that the maximum of 2.5 FSR is achievable on this site.

Heritage Value: The "B" listed heritage building on the subject site has been commonly, but erroneously, referred to as the "Marpole Infirmary". A historian was recently retained by the City to confirm the history of the building. This further research determined that the heritage building was constructed in 1928 as a Nurses Residence. In 1917, VGH acquired the former Grand Central Hotel (1912) , which was located to the immediate south of the Nurses Residence, and established the "Home for Incurables". The Provincial Government assumed responsibility for the facility in 1922 , at which time it was renamed "The Marpole Infirmary". The Infirmary was demolished in 1967. The extant heritage building provided a residence for staff working at the Infirmary.

The Nurses Residence was used by the Provincial Government as a "Correctional Centre" starting in the 1970s. It has been used by the City as a shelter for the homeless. It will no longer be required for this purpose when the new shelter at West 5^th Avenue and Yukon Street is completed.

The heritage building is a two-storey, shingle clad building, in the style of a "Classic Box". The overall design features two open porches, supported by square posts. Some of the original windows have been replaced by aluminum windows. In the early 1980s, when the building was being used by Correction Services, a porch extension was added to the west, and the kitchen area was renovated. Overall, the building is largely intact.

The heritage value of the building is based on both its architectural value and early association with health services for the city. A photo of the building is provided in Appendix D.

HERITAGE COMMISSION

At its meetings of February 25 and March 11, 2002, the Heritage Commission was presented with historical research on the heritage building, and advised of the pending development application. Based on this information, the Commission passed the following resolutions:

THAT the Vancouver Heritage Commission, having reviewed the merits of the heritage building at 8982 Hudson Street, has found it to be a valuable "B" category building. (This was confirmed at the March 11th meeting of the Commission when further historical information was presented.)

THAT the Vancouver Heritage Commission strongly recommends that staff quickly meet with the applicant to further explore options to develop the site while retaining the existing heritage "B" building.

THAT the Vancouver Heritage Commission is in favour of supporting an application that utilizes the full extent of relaxations available.

Options for Retaining the Heritage Building: Staff have met with the applicant, both pre-application and during the review process, to discuss options for retention of the heritage building, either in its current location, or, less preferably, re-located on the site. The applicant has concluded that adaptive reuse would not be practical considering the proposed residential program without significantly altering the structure to incorporate additional windows, doors and balconies to achieve residential marketability standards. As well, the applicant believes that compliance with the Vancouver Building By-law would be very difficult to achieve without removing the original exterior wood shingle cladding.
The applicant has reviewed the options for heritage retention, including additional density on the site over and above a base density of FSR 2.50 (see Real Estate Services comments below). The applicant has concluded that there would be a significant negative impact on the livability and marketability of the units, on the scale and character of the neighbourhood (particularly if a building higher than five-storeys results), on construction costs for excavation and de-watering of the site for underground parking (the site has a high water table), marketing considerations for the units, and costs and code compliance difficulties in restoration of the existing building and conversion to residential use.

REAL ESTATE SERVICES

Staff analysis supports the applicant's statement concerning the economics of heritage retention. As Development Planning staff has advised, a 2.5 FSR low rise residential project is approvable on the site, assuming it to be unencumbered by the heritage building. The retention of the heritage building, including to move it off site for construction of the underground parkade, then move back on site and conversion to strata townhouse or apartments, would suffer a net financial loss, which requires approximately 0.65 FSR of bonus density (to be used on site) to offset. In this scenario, the total density would be approximately 3.3 FSR (i.e. 2.5 plus 0.15 -the heritage building- plus 0.65), which exceeds the zoned maximum density. Furthermore, to build out the higher density on the site in practice may be unviable due to high water table at the site, hence a high cost for deeper layer of underground parking. Of greater significance is the enormous market risk of going against the established demand of low rise residential in the Marpole area, since a higher density development will be of mid-rise or high-rise form. Therefore, even if a density higher than the zoned maximum could be offered, the project will face significantly higher market risk, which may prohibit its development under present market condition.

URBAN DESIGN PANEL

At its meeting on January 9, 2002, the Urban Design Panel unanimously supported the proposed development, including the proposed use, demolition of the existing heritage building, and height relaxation. The Panel did not consider heritage to be an issue, and fully supported the applicant's assertion that retention was not a viable option. The proposed height was considered preferable a conventional four-storey wood frame building at this visually significant location. Overall, the Panel found the architectural design and the materials to be of very high quality. The Urban Design Panel minutes are attached as Appendix E.

NOTIFICATION

As part of the review of this development application, 240 neighbouring property owners were notified of the proposal. In addition, a site sign was placed on the site. In response, Planning staff received one letter of support and one letter of objection. The objection was with respect to building height.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development has been assessed against the C-2 Residential Guidelines and responds well to the parameters contained therein. The peculiarities of the site's size, configuration and location adjacent to Airport Square and at the apex of the Arthur Laing Bridge and ramps are such that a five-storey building with lower site coverage yields a moreoptimal massing for both livability and the view from the bridge ramps. Staff therefore support the proposed height relaxation from 12.2 (40 ft.) to 16.8 m (55 ft.), subject to design refinements to further address livability and enhance the building's architectural treatment.

With respect to heritage, the proposed demolition of the "B" listed former Nurses Residence is, of course, the major shortcoming of the proposal. However, staff acknowledge the difficulties of retaining of the building and incorporating the bonus density and consequent potential of further height relaxations into the scheme and conclude, on balance, that the proposed development, without heritage retention, is supportable.

The Director of Planning is therefore inclined to approve this application subject to design refinements that would further improve its architectural treatment as seen from the bridge ramps but before making a decision, is reporting the application to Council for advice with option `A' for consideration. Council may, however, believe that a redesigned scheme incorporating the heritage building along with commensurate bonus density and, possibly, further height relaxation is preferable, in which case option `B' is submitted for consideration.

LINK TO APPENDICES

 

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver