Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

 

Date: May 17, 1999

 

Author/Local: RWhitlock/7814

 

LU&D No. 99011

 

RTS No. 00618

 

CC File No. 5306

 

Council: May 18, 1999

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Director of Central Area Planning on behalf of Land Use and Development

SUBJECT: CD-1 Text Amendment for 4500 Oak Street - Children’s and Women’s Hospital, Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Relevant Council policies for this site include:

· CD-1 By-law No. 5091, enacted on June 14, 1977.

· February 20, 1979: Council adopted the Shaughnessy Hospital and Surrounding RS-1 Rezoning Policies (as amended May 15, 1979; and reaffirmed March 9, 1982 and April 17, 1984):

· October 22, 1991: Council resolved that a CD-1 text amendment application for the re-development and expansion of Children’s and Grace+ Hospital be considered; that the application consider the phasing-out of the University Hospital general hospital function, while retaining the Spinal Cord Unit and Women’s Health Care Centre; and that the Medical Health Officer consult with the Ministry of Health and the Greater Vancouver Regional District Hospital Board and report back prior to the Oak Street Hospital’s rezoning application on the overall role of general hospitals in Vancouver.

· March 12, 1992: Council resolved that it was not prepared to approve a redevelopment plan until additional information is provided; that a tertiary care hospital was not supported as a replacement for Shaughnessy; that the replacement of Shaughnessy Hospital must be limited to the provision of essential services to Children’s and Grace Hospital, and services to meet the needs of Vancouver residents; and that the GVRHD and the Ministry of Health provide a comprehensive picture of the hospital service needs of Vancouver residents and a hospital facilities plan for the region.

· January 28, 1999: Council adopted the Interim City-wide Development Cost Levies and Community Amenity Contributions policies;

· February 16, 1999: Council enacted an amendment to the subject CD-1 to permit a minor increase in FSR from 0.60 to 0.616 to allow for completion of a research and education centre at 980 West 28th Avenue, following a Public Hearing held January 14, 1999.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report assesses applications to amend CD-1 By-law No. 5091 for the Children’s & Women’s (C&W) Health Centre of British Columbia to:

· increase the floor space ratio from 0.616 to 0.85 to provide for a 20-year master plan [Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4]; and
· to increase the floor space ratio from 0.616 to 0.70 to provide only for Phases 1 & 2, that being the Ambulatory Care building, the Emergency Room addition, Child Psychiatry Building and Womens’ South addition.

Staff recommend that the application to accommodate all phases of the master plan, with a reduction in height to three and four storeys along Oak Street (as agreed by the applicant andreflected in Appendix A), be referred to a public hearing and be approved subject to a further reduction along Oak Street to all three storeys. The applicant and staff will meet with residents to the west of Oak Street prior to the public hearing to obtain their opinions.

Staff have put forward for consideration referral of the application for only Phases 1 and 2 should Council not wish to proceed with the master plan proposal at this time.

MAP HERE

DISCUSSION

General Commentary: Two separate rezoning applications were submitted for the proposed additions to C&W. The application for Phases 1 and 2 reflects the components for which the hospital is anxious to proceed. The application to accommodate a master plan for Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 was submitted to provide a context against which the more imminent components could be evaluated. The general direction of the master plan and most of its elements are supported by staff, but issues have been raised by the neighbourhood with respect to the Oak Street frontage.

The following discussion provides an assessment of the master plan proposal, with a conclusion that all four phases can be supported except for the proposed building heights along Oak Street. The applicant has agreed to reduce height from five storeys down to three and four storeys, whereas staff believe height should be reduced to an even three storeys along Oak Street. Staff therefore recommend that the application to accommodate the master plan be referred to a public hearing with the height along Oak Street reduced to three and four storeys as agreed by the applicant, but recommend approval subject to the height on Oak Street being reduced to an even three storeys.

Existing Policies: Since this site was rezoned to CD-1 in 1977, Council has approved numerous policies, the more important of which are outlined in the Council Policy section at the front of this report. These policies have been generally aimed at the following objectives:

1. to ensure that no hospital-related rezoning initiatives occur in the surrounding single-family zoned areas; and

2. to ensure that any proposal for the hospital site must occur in the context of a development plan for the site and within the context of hospital needs for residents of Vancouver.

C&W has provided staff with information which deals with many of Council’s past concernsabout this site, including an understanding of the roles the various hospitals will play in the city, the region and the province. VGH and C&W will continue to serve as provincial resources for specialized and emergency situations. C&W has also provided a site plan which is consistent with that role and does not endeavour to establish multi-purpose hospital services on their site.

The applicant’s submission entitled “Master Plan Update/Rezoning Report” dated February 1, 1999, lays out a number of initiatives which have been consistent with Council policies which have led to consolidation of functions and operations related to the two primary hospitals on the site: Children’s & Women’s. The Vancouver/Richmond Health Board is continuing the focus of C&W to children and women and the master plan reflects reasonable expansion of those identified interests within a form of development that is also modest in scale relative to the overall size of the site.

The initiatives are described in Appendix C.

Density: Analysis of respective FSRs for hospital sites in Vancouver is included in Appendix E. In the immediate area, G.F. Strong and St. Vincent’s Hospital maintain FSRs of 1.0 on much smaller sites.

Staff generally feel that the 18.6 ha (46 ac.) site can sustain development at the proposed 0.85 FSR limit as demonstrated in the master plan document (see table of statistics and site plans in Appendix F).

Change to Building Height Envelope: In addition to the FSR increase, the most significant changes are proposed alterations to the designated height envelopes on the site.

The existing CD-1 by-law contains setbacks and building height envelopes, broken into the following categories:

- setbacks: from the property line, in which no buildings are permitted;
- height envelopes: buildings are permitted to a height limit of two storeys or five storeys.

The applicant proposes to adjust the regulations related to the location of two-storey and five-storey buildings.

WEST 28TH AVENUE ENVELOPE: Table 1 shows the existing and proposed heights along West 28th Avenue. While the distance of five-storey buildings from West 28th Avenue is reduced from 60.96 m (200 ft.) to 42.0 m (137.9 ft.), the distance is still felt to be adequate in terms of the effects of this building mass on single family dwellings on the north side of West 28th Avenue.

Table 1 - West 28th Avenue Height Envelope [Phases 1& 2]

Building Envelopes & Setback

Existing

Proposed

“No building” setback from W. 28th Avenue

8.29 m (27 ft.)

Unchanged

Two-storey buildings

Between 8.29 - 60.96 m
(27 and 200 ft.)

Between 8.29 - 42.0 m
(27 and 137.8 ft.)

Five-storey buildings

No closer than 60.96 m
(200 ft.)

No closer than 42.0 m
(137.8 ft.)

Staff support the five-storey building setback being reduced to 42.0 m (137.8 ft.) for the Ambulatory Care building and the Clinical Research building in Phase 3 but no further reductions to the east along West 28th Avenue. As no other buildings are proposed in the master plan, this will not be a problem. The applicant agrees with this revision.

HEATHER STREET ENVELOPE: Staff note that no further development is proposed adjacent to Heather Street, other than renovation of the existing Plant Services Building and the Jean Matheson Pavilion.

In recognition of the importance of the generous green space on this portion of the site, staff believe that the existing five storey setback should be increased as shown on Diagram 2. The applicant agrees with this revision.

OAK STREET ENVELOPE: Table 2 shows the existing and proposed heights along Oak Street:

Table 2 - Oak Street Height Envelope [Phases 3 and 4]

Building Envelopes & Setback

Existing

Proposed

“No building” setback from Oak Street

18.29 m (60 ft.)

Unchanged

Two-storey buildings

Between 18.29 & 109.12 m (60 & 358 ft.) from Oak Street

Eliminated

Five-storey buildings

No closer than 109.12 m
(358 ft.) from Oak Street

No closer than 18.29 m
(60 ft.) from Oak Street

In reviewing an initial draft of the master plan, Planning staff advised that it would be inappropriate to develop any significant building component along West 28th Avenue in the area immediately adjacent to existing single family residences. Oak Street was suggested asan alternate location for these uses and five-storey buildings are now proposed.

Residents living in the single family area to the west have expressed concern about the breakdown of the green buffer along Oak Street. Presently a significant landscaped area extends east of the inner road to the existing C&W hospital buildings, where potential building heights are two storeys.

Staff acknowledge the residents’ concerns regarding the imposition of five storey, rather than permited two storey, buildings along Oak Street and loss of green open space. In response, the applicant is prepared to reduce building heights along Oak Street to three storeys, north of the entry road, and four storeys south of the entry road; the latter being preferred by reason of the proposed heli-pad on the roof-top. Planning staff would prefer to set three storeys as the upper limit in keeping with the height of the Canadian Blood Supply building to the south. The three-storey limit will allow for the build out of the master plan at the proposed 0.85 FSR.

Staff and the applicant will meet with the residents to the west of Oak Street prior to the public hearing to obtain their views.

[space for Diagram]

Exclusion of Parking and Mechanical Space from FSR: The existing CD-1 allows up to 0.616 FSR for hospital and related uses, and 0.25 FSR for parking uses, above or below grade. The applicant proposes to increase the FSR for all uses to 0.85 FSR (for the master plan) and measure parking in the manner consistent with almost all standard zoning districts, and many CD-1s (i.e., parking at or below grade would be exempt from FSR calculation). The applicant wishes to exclude areas for below-grade mechanical and similar uses from FSR calculation.

The ability to construct up to 0.25 FSR for parking is a benefit that would not have been possible under the existing RS-1 and RT-2 zoning districts, which would both have excluded parking only if it were at or below grade. In a technical sense, it represented a significant potential increase in building bulk if the hospital had decided to build above-grade parking structures, which it did not. The newer C&W buildings have underground and at grade parking.

The proposed re-structuring of FSR is consistent with almost all standard zoning district schedule provisions. It will provide an incentive to locate parking at- or below-grade, by penalizing the hospital if they build above-grade parking.

Heritage: Heritage staff support the proposed master plan as it does not propose to demolish or adversely effect the heritage buildings on the site, namely:

· Shaughnessy Veterans Hospital (block A and B, and the Acute wing);
· Jean Matheson Memorial Pavilion; and
· Plant services.

These buildings have been included on the "Recent Landmarks Inventory" of heritage buildings from 1940 on, and as such, are eligible for incentives under Council's adopted Heritage Policies and Guidelines.

Traffic and Parking: Three open houses were held on the master plan/Ambulatory Care and Emergency Room addition proposals. The majority of people are most concerned about present and future traffic circulation and parking in the surrounding residential district. Most residents are supportive of hospital initiatives if these problems can be resolved. Staff propose a neighbourhood parking and traffic review for the area surrounding the hospital, with the following objectives in mind:

1. increase incentives for staff to car pool, take transit, etc. (some of which the hospital is doing, but with some difficulty because of shift work);

2. increase incentives for staff to park on-site (not suggesting that parking be free, but some way to move the 300 people parking in the neighbourhood onto the site);

3. introduction of further prohibitions in the surrounding neighbourhood (e.g., eliminate parking on the north side of West 32nd Avenue and on the south side of West 28th Avenue east of entry point near Oak Street after 9:00 p.m., etc.); and

4. calm traffic in surrounding area, on Heather Street (in association with bike route), and entry points into area along King Edward Avenue and perhaps some of the streets in from Cambie Street.

Some of these measures, such as the traffic calming, would not have to be done immediately, as the impacts from expansion would not be felt for some time. This allows time to consult with the neighbourhood on a traffic calming and parking plan. The temporary measures that are determined as of result of this consultation, as well as a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM), to look at the broader issues of traffic to and from the site, would be reported to Council with a timing that would allow for temporary traffic calming measures to be in place, at least, prior to the occupancy of Phase 1. This has been established as a condition in Appendix B.

Other Institutions: In 1977 one of the major concerns raised by residents in the area was the large number of institutions in the area. Of those existing at the time, only the Workman’s Compensation Board has left the area, with the RCMP having taken over their buildings (see map on next page).

Staff are aware of development inquiries for the following institutions in the area:

· St. Vincent’s Hospital: redevelopment of other components of hospital, no FSR increase contemplated; time frame 5 years;
· G.F. Strong: inquiry regarding relocation of some components of Pearson Hospital, now located at West 57th Avenue and Cambie Street; FSR increase in the range of 25% anticipated; time frame 5-10 years;
· Beth Israel Synagogue: inquiry regarding addition of housing (this proposal would need to be vetted with Council immediately upon application because it is potentially at odds with Council’s RS-1 Policy for sites surrounding the Shaughnessy Hospital, as the site is zoned RS-1); and
· RCMP site - Heather Street between West 33rd and 37th Avenues: evaluating full or partial departure from facilities at Heather Street and examining best future use of site.

A number of other institutional uses exist in the immediate area which are shown on the map on the next page. Discussions have occurred amongst the various hospital agencies, who meet regularly, but as far as staff are aware no comprehensive planning has occurred in terms of area impacts and mitigation. A condition is proposed in Appendix B to review traffic and parking for the area between Oak and Cambie Streets, West 25th and 33rd Avenues.

[page for institutional uses]

Staff intend to further explore overall development patterns and impacts on all of these sites with the affected institutions.

Amenity Contributions: The hospital will be required to pay a Development Cost Levy (DCL) of $2.50 per square foot when the City-wide DCL is implemented in January 2000. The Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) policy establishes a flat rate of $3 per square foot of increased density for standard sites, or that a CAC be negotiated in the case of a non-standard site. The C&W site at 46 acres is considerably over the 10 acre criterion for non-standard sites. A separate report will be presented to Council on this issue before the Public Hearing.

CONCLUSION

Staff believe that C&W and their consultants have responded to many of Council’s past concerns with respect to the development of this site. The program for the site is focussed on maintaining and enhancing the functions of the two principle hospitals, and a solid planning effort has been presented for the overall physical plan of the site. Hospital planners are anxious to deal with traffic and parking impacts in the surrounding residential neighbourhoods.

One significant issue remains outstanding. Concerns have been raised about the buildingform along Oak Street and staff believe that further time should be devoted to a careful examination of that interface.

Staff therefore recommend that Council refer to a public hearing the application to accommodate the master plan, along with the requested FSR, with a reduction in height to three and four storeys along Oak Street as agreed by the applicant. Staff recommend the application be approved, subject to a further reduction along Oak Street to all three storeys. Staff further recommend a condition of approval to require the applicant to carry out a neighbourhood traffic and parking plan, with implementation of temporary calming measures in time for occupancy of Phase 1.

Staff and the applicant will undertake further discussion with residents west of Oak Street and will report on their opinions at the public hearing.

- - - - -

INDEX OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

DRAFT AMENDMENT TO CD-1 BY-LAW No. 5091

[Master Plan - Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4]

1. General reconstruction of the CD-1 by-law in keeping with current CD-1 by-law format. Specific adjustments are as follows:

APPENDIX B

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

(a) THAT the proposed Master Plan, dated February 18, 1998, as amended in accordance with Appendix A and condition (c) outlined below, be approved by Council in principle, to serve as a general guide for development of the Children’s & Women’s Health Care Centre site;

(b) THAT the proposed form of development for the Ambulatory Care and Emergency Room addition be approved by Council in principle, generally as prepared by Henriques & Partners Architects, and stamped “Received City Planning Department, February 18, 1999", provided that the Director of Planning may allow alterations to this form of development when approving the detailed scheme of development as outlined in (d) below;

(c) THAT section 1(c) in Appendix A be amended to delete the words “except allow four storeys adjacent to the Canadian Blood Supply site”;

(d) THAT, prior to approval by Council of the form of development for any phase of this development, the applicant shall obtain approval of development applications by the Director of Planning, having concern for the following:

(e) THAT, prior to occupancy of Phase 1, the applicant shall complete, in conjunction with Engineering Services, other institutions in the area and the community, a neighbourhood parking and traffic plan to examine:

(f) THAT, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the registered owner shall:

(v) provide a detailed landscape plan illustrating both common and botanical name, size and quantity of all proposed plant material. Proposed plant material should be clearly illustrated on the landscape plan; and

APPENDIX C

BACKGROUND

Regional and Local Changes in Hospital Delivery: Since 1977, Council policies have responded to a number of initiatives for the C&W hospital site. A number of changes in regional and site-specific conditions have changed, as follows:

September 1993: the Ministry of Health decides to close University Hospital Shaughnessy Site, effective September 1993 (1992 rezoning application withdrawn in February 1993 after this announcement);

September 1993: Spinal Cord unit moves to Vancouver General Hospital;

July 1993: Facility programming for the site starts including the B.C. Children’s Hospital, B.C. Women’s Hospital & Health Centre and related components of the University of B.C. Faculty of Medicine;

February 1994: Salvation Army Grace Hospital merges with Women’s Health Centre to become the British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre;

January 1995: Facility Program completed for the newly formed B.C. Research Institute forChild and Family Health [consolidated several research components of the UBC Faculty of Medicine and also included the approved Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics (CMMT)];

September 1997: Children’s and Women’s combine to become the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia;

February 1996: Greater Vancouver Regional District Hospital Board replaced by the Vancouver/Richmond Health Board (V/RHB); and

July 1998: V/RHB produces “Review of Acute and Rehabilitation Services” report, which focuses on adult community health service capacity in the region.

Review of Hospital Services: The V/RHB report “Review of Acute and Rehabilitation Services”, while focussing on adult health care services, provides specific recommendations for C&W. Of specific interest to this report is support for Phases 1 and 2 of the Master Plan, including the Children’s Ambulatory Care and Emergency Room Expansion and the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry project. The report notes that day surgery, or ambulatory care, procedures have increased by 21 percent since 1991/2.

In discussions with representatives for C&W, it is clear that C&W will continue to specialize in health services, education and research related to children and women.

The V/RHB will act to co-ordinate the delivery health services in the region. Hospitals and institutions themselves are being grouped as follows:

APPENDIX E

HOSPITAL DENSITIES IN VANCOUVER

Hospitals in Vancouver have been developed under existing standard zoning schedules, where they are permitted as a conditional approval use, or under CD-1, where the zoning is tailored for the specific use of hospital.

Four of the more significant hospitals that are regulated by standard zoning schedules are:

1. St. Paul’s Hospital at 1081 Burrard Street: DD Downtown District (4.0 FSR for non-residential uses);

2. Mount St. Joseph Hospital at 3080 Prince Edward Street [at Kingsway]: C-2 and RM-4 zoning (3.0 and 0.75 FSR);

3. Holy Family Hospital at 7801 Argyle Street: RS-1S zoning (0.60 FSR); and

4. Sunny Hill Health Centre at 3644 Slocan Street: RS-1 zoning (0.60 FSR).

Several major hospitals were rezoned to CD-1 to accommodate development beyond the permitted capability of the former standard zoning districts where they are located. These are:

1. Vancouver General Hospital: CD-1 with a present maximum FSR of 2.40 set by resolution of Countil (flexibility above and below has been given in order to accommodate transition from old to new buildings). The original zoning of this site was RT-2.

2. Children’s and Women’s Hospital: CD-1 had an FSR of 0.60 plus 0.25 for above-grade parking, for a total FSR of 0.85. An increase to 0.616 for hospital uses was recently approved by Council [February 1999] to allow for a proposed research addition. The 0.60 FSR was derived from the original RS-1 and RT-2 zoning of the site, with the CD-1 providing for greater height, more flexibility on building location, and the additional FSR for parking.

3. G. F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre (originally RS-1); and
4. St. Vincent’s (originally RT-2): CD-1s permit a maximum FSR of 1.0 which appears to represent the level of development needed at the time of the rezoning requests in the early 1970s.

With the larger sites such as VHG and C&W, Council has been anxious to understand initiatives in the context of overall site plans and off-site impact mitigation. With smaller sites, such as G.F. Strong, there has been less concern because of the relatively minor impact on surrounding neighbourhoods. CD-1 zoning is based on individual site characteristics and is by its very nature non-standard. Staff therefore deal with CD-1 rezoning applications and text amendments based on their individual merits, neighbouring context and community response, and provide Council with advice accordingly.

APPENDIX F

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND STATISTICS

Proposals: On the advice of City staff, the C&WHC has broken their proposal into two applications:

1. A master plan proposal with accompanying FSR increase from 0.616 to 0.85, which accommodate anticipated hospital needs over the next 20 years. Along with other minor adjustments to the CD-1 by-law, the master plan would serve as guidance for the review and consideration for development applications.

2. A second application would provide for components of the master plan for which funding has either been secured or is expected in the immediate future:

TABLE - Master Plan: Four phases are outlined in the following table.

Phase

FSR

Total m²

Total sq. ft.

Present

0.616

115,164

1,239,658

Phase 1 - Ambulatory Care and Emergency addition

0.649

121,334

1,306,068

    Increase over present

  

6,170

66,410

Phase 2 - New Psychiatry building & BCW South addition

0.70

130,869

1,408,703

    Increase over Phase 1

  

9,535

102,637

Phase 3 -New Oncology/Clinical Wing; Education and Research Extension and Research Centre Addition

0.767

143,394

1,543,535

    Increase over Phase 2

  

12,525

154,951

Phase 4 - New Shaughnessy Wings; Hi-tech research buildings

0.85

158,912

1,710,570

    Increase over Phase 3

  

15,518

167,035

       

Total Increase from Present

0.234

43,748

470,915

Master Plan Document [overall plan]

Master Plan Document [overall plan]

APPENDIX G

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Public Input: Rezoning information signs were posted on the site on February 15, 1999. Three Open Houses were held involving City staff and representatives for the Childrens’ & Womens’ Hospital, on February 24th, April 10th, and April 14th, 1999. Approximately 100 people attended. Concerns are broken into two general areas:

1. Staff parking on residential streets and lanes in the area surrounding the hospital, and associated traffic circulation with individuals looking for parking; and

2. Limited concerns with the intrusion of new hospital buildings into areas presently providing green space.

For the most part, individuals were supportive of initiatives on the hospital site if parking andtraffic in the surrounding residential area was better controlled and managed.

Six letters and a number of phone calls have also been received in response to the early notification letter and the Open Houses. Concerns were similar to those expressed above.

Engineering Services: Engineering Services has no objections to the proposed zoning amendment. However, since service demands can only be identified as detailed drawings become available, there is the potential that the cumulative effect of development will place a demand on the water and sewer system that cannot be met. If this happens, the applicant will have to bear the cost of any upgrading of the system to met the demands of the development on site.

Child Care: As part of Phase 3 submissions, Social Planning will require a child care needs assessment study of employee and users needs, and that the applicant should be prepared to identify a potential site for a child care facility within the hospital complex or on a neighbouring site within a two block radius. This would then allow the hospital to expand/re-develop the existing childcare facility at GF Strong, if necessary.

A letter of confirmation from the Hospital about the licensing status of the child-minding programs required.

Soils: Environmental Protection Division has requested a soils assessment.

Landscape Resources: The applicant is required to provide the following information before enactment of the CD-1 by-law:

1. Provide an arborist report, specifically evaluating the condition of existing trees impacted by the proposed Phase 1 development (Ambulatory Care Facility and expansion of the

2. Provide a detailed landscape plan illustrating both common and botanical name, size and quantity of all proposed plant material. Proposed plant material should be clearly illustrated on the landscape plan.

3. Provision of dimension tree protection barriers (illustrated on the landscape plan) around all existing trees 20 cm caliper, or greater, which may be impacted by construction, as per City of Vancouver Guidelines.

Urban Design Panel: The Panel reviewed this application on March 24, 1999. The Panel deferred a decision on the Master Plan and supported Phase 1.

Master Plan Proposal: The majority of Panel members thought there was not enough information to be able to comment effectively on the master plan proposal. The lack of a traffic study was of particular concern. The quadrangle concept and general organizing principles were generally supported and should be pursued. However, a clear strategy should be shown for the edge treatment (all sides), as well as a clear indication of how vehicular and pedestrian traffic moves through the site, with updated information provided on traffic patterns as each phase proceeds. There also needs to be strategy for heights of buildings (scale and datum lines for the massing). Site coverage might also be a consideration.

Some concern was expressed about providing commentary on Phase 1 while deferring the master plan; however, the majority felt prepared to proceed with Phase 1. One Panel member, who subsequently withdrew from the meeting on this site, felt there was enough information to comment on both the master plan and Phase 1, but thought that deferring the master plan and commenting on Phase 1 was inappropriate.

In discussion, the applicant advised the traffic study material should be available within a few weeks. Mr. Taller added Phase 1 must be opened in January 2001. A development application will be submitted in May 1999 and a building permit applied for in September in order to break ground by November 1999.

Phase 1: The Panel unanimously supported this application. The Panel found the building architecturally interesting and supported its simplicity of form and the minimalist approach to the materials used. The treatment of the building edge in terms of its transparency and relationship to the future quadrangle was also supported.
Several Panel members commented that the proposed form seems more appropriate than the existing massing on the site, and it could be the start of a good trend away from the more suburban forms. There was, however, a recommendation from one Panel member to try to create a massing relationship to the existing children’s hospital, noting the strength of the new design could serve to emphasize the inadequacies of the older building. An important aspect of the Master Plan will be to create a hierarchy of form as a framework for dealing with future developments. As a first phase, the Panel considered this building appropriately located. Its relationship to the existing hospital is good and the connection to the emergency is well done. There was strong support for the weather protection at the emergency entrance as well as for the proposed activities that will add a level of interest to this area.

There were a number of concerns expressed about how the traffic will be managed. Conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the emergency drop-off were noted in particular, with problems relating to orientation and legibility, and in general how people will find their way around.

There was support for the quadrangle as the major hub for the site. Given its importance, it was stressed that the water feature in the centre should make a significant contribution to defining it as an entrance and as a very important space within the hospital campus.

There was support for the emphasis on public open spaces, with some concerns expressed about ensuring the playgrounds are appropriately located. Attention should also be given to the relationship between indoor and outdoor waiting areas.

Applicant’s Response: Mr. Taller noted this is a very complex site with approximately 20 building over 45 acres. The emergency building cannot be moved because changing its location would be too costly. Fire access requirements also impose some restrictions. “Layering” of traffic is impossible to achieve; however, most of the traffic problems can be alleviated by routing the traffic around the future quadrangle and handling the ambulance traffic at the same time. Mr. Taller noted that some of the issues raised by the Panel have already been addressed.

Environmental and Social Implications: The proposed text amendment neither contributes to, nor detracts from, the objective of reducing atmospheric pollution.

The Research and Education Centre will be of benefit to society at large. Expansion of both the Children’s and Women’s Hospital will benefit children directly in terms of expanded services.

Comments of the Applicant: The applicant has been provided with a copy of this report and has provided the following comments:

“In response to the Planning Department Policy Report, Children’s & Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia (C&W) reiterates its request that City Council approve the proposed FSR density of 0.85 subject to conditions that meet the City’s desire to clarify development fronting on Oak Street. A brief rationale for this request is outlined below.

In February 1999, C&W submitted a Master Plan Update/Rezoning Report and rezoning application for the C&W Oak Street site. This rezoning application asks for the consolidation of the existing densities (FSR’s) for buildings (0.616) and parking structures (0.25) to total 0.85. The application also asks for a number of other conditions related to setback and building height proposals, and below-grade parking and mechanical exclusions.

As noted in the Planning Department Policy Report, C&W submitted a second rezoning application for a building FSR of 0.7 only on the advice of city planners, who recommended this as a contingency measure in case there was extensive community opposition to the proposed redevelopment.

C&W has engaged in an extensive consultation process with its neighbours, and has found there is not significant community opposition to the proposed redevelopment. The consultation process has included sending 10,000 introductory letters to the surrounding community, writing to and offering to meet with 12 organized community groups, holding three separate open houses in February and April, sending a newsletter to 10,000 neighbours, holding a focus group with neighbours concerned about parking, and receiving direct contact from 16 neighbours. The primary concerns of neighbours identified through these activities relate to street parking and side street traffic. C&W reiterates its commitment to continuing to work with the neighbours, the City and the other institutions to reduce street parking and traffic and to increase use of on-site parking.

In the Policy Report, City planners have noted their belief that the C&W site can support a density of 0.85. However, planners have also expressed concerns about the development proposed along Oak Street in the report. C&W wishes to note that development fronting on Oak Street was increased on the advice of City planners following an enquiry submission of the first Master Plan Update / Rezoning Report in November 1998. When C&W’s planning staff and architect met with City planners to review that proposal, the City’s planners advised C&W to increase development on Oak Street and eliminate development on the eastern half of West 28th Avenue. C&W also wishes to note that throughout its consultation process, only two homeowners have expressed concern over development on Oak Street.

Given the lack of significant community opposition to proposed redevelopment in general, and redevelopment on Oak Street in particular, and recognizing the Master Plan presents a long-term vision of development that is subject to further review and consultation, C&W proposes the following: That the requested density of 0.85 and other conditions be approved on the condition that C&W defer any development fronting on Oak Street outside the ring road until further review and neighbourhood consultation take place.

Approval of the 0.85 FSR will permit the 20-year staged redevelopment of the Oak Street site to proceed as funding permits. It is important to note that the requested density of 0.85 permits the retention of several former Shaughnessy Hospital buildings identified in the City’s Recent Landmarks Inventory, rather than demolishing these buildings to achieve additional density. C&W will continue to work with the City to upgrade and protect these buildings, but heritage incentives remain outside this current rezoning application.

With respect to other elements of the Policy Report, we wish to provide the following response.

The Policy Report refers to traffic and parking as being the primary concern of the neighbours. Recognizing this, C&W has conducted a street parking and traffic analysis and has submitted a report to the City. This report analyzes the existing situation and proposes improvements to both the street parking and traffic, as well as the on-site parking to increase usage of the C&W parkingfacilities. It also addresses travel demand management measures and confirms the poor public transit service to the site. Whereas C&W is prepared to encourage transportation alternatives to single-occupancy-vehicles, many conditions are outside C&W’s authority and the City and the GVRD/TransLink must work to improve service to the site.

The Policy Report also proposes a number of conditions prior to Council approving the form of development of any phase. C&W will work with the City to:

Children’s & Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia requests Vancouver City Council to approve the rezoning application and repeats the commitment to continue close liaison with the City.”

APPENDIX H

APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION

Street Address

4500 Oak Street

Legal Description

Blk 1009 Bal. Exc. Pl. 12393, 12719 & 14318 DL 526 Plan 10359

Applicant

Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of B.C.

Property Owner

Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of B.C.

SITE STATISTICS

 

GROSS

DEDICATIONS

NET

SITE AREA

186 955 m²

-

186 955 m²

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

 

DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDED
DEVELOPMENT (if different than proposed)

ZONING

CD-1

CD-1 Amended

-

USES

Hospital & customarily ancillary

Same

-

MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO

0.616 FSR buildings
0.25 FSR parking structures

To raise FSR for Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 to 0.85, with exclusions for parking and mechanical, heating, storage below grade

Alternate application to raise FSR to 0.70 for Phases 1 and 2 only

Adjustments to various building height envelopes and setbacks

* * * * *

ag990518.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver