Go Back

2001-2021 W 41st Ave and 5683-5685 Maple St rezoning application

Share 2001-2021 W 41st Ave and 5683-5685 Maple St rezoning application on Facebook Share 2001-2021 W 41st Ave and 5683-5685 Maple St rezoning application on Twitter Share 2001-2021 W 41st Ave and 5683-5685 Maple St rezoning application on Linkedin Email 2001-2021 W 41st Ave and 5683-5685 Maple St rezoning application link

This application was approved by Council at Public Hearing on July 13, 2023.


Please note the site address has been updated to include primary and secondary addresses. The rezoning application proposes to redevelop 2001-2021 W 41st Avenue and 5683-5685 Maple Street.



We would like your feedback on a rezoning application at 2001-2021 W 41st Ave. The proposal is to allow for the development of a six-storey mixed-use building. The zoning would change from C-2 (Commercial) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. This proposal includes:

  • 42 secured market rental units
  • Two floors of daycare and co-tutoring space
  • Commercial retail units at grade
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 3.5
  • A gross floor area of 4,980 sq. m (53, 585 sq. ft.)
  • A building height of 21.6 m (70.8 ft.)
  • 47 vehicle parking spaces and 65 bicycle parking spaces

The application is being considered under the Secured Market Housing Policy (Rental 100).

Revised Application (January 24, 2022)

A revised application was submitted following feedback received from the community open house and further staff review. Changes were primarily made to the uses within the building and include:

  • Eliminating the co-tutoring educational centre;
  • Revised childcare facility design;
  • A total of 34 secured rental units;
  • A total floor space ratio of 3.42;
  • Total floor area of 4,871 sq. m (52,434 sq. ft.)
  • 61 vehicle parking spaces and 82 bicycle parking spaces

Application drawings and statistics on this webpage are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.


Please note the site address has been updated to include primary and secondary addresses. The rezoning application proposes to redevelop 2001-2021 W 41st Avenue and 5683-5685 Maple Street.



We would like your feedback on a rezoning application at 2001-2021 W 41st Ave. The proposal is to allow for the development of a six-storey mixed-use building. The zoning would change from C-2 (Commercial) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. This proposal includes:

  • 42 secured market rental units
  • Two floors of daycare and co-tutoring space
  • Commercial retail units at grade
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 3.5
  • A gross floor area of 4,980 sq. m (53, 585 sq. ft.)
  • A building height of 21.6 m (70.8 ft.)
  • 47 vehicle parking spaces and 65 bicycle parking spaces

The application is being considered under the Secured Market Housing Policy (Rental 100).

Revised Application (January 24, 2022)

A revised application was submitted following feedback received from the community open house and further staff review. Changes were primarily made to the uses within the building and include:

  • Eliminating the co-tutoring educational centre;
  • Revised childcare facility design;
  • A total of 34 secured rental units;
  • A total floor space ratio of 3.42;
  • Total floor area of 4,871 sq. m (52,434 sq. ft.)
  • 61 vehicle parking spaces and 82 bicycle parking spaces

Application drawings and statistics on this webpage are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.

This application was approved by Council at Public Hearing on July 13, 2023.

Q&A is available from March 1 to March 21, 2021.

 Q&A replaces in-person open houses, which are on hold due to COVID-19 (Coronavirus).

We post all questions as-is and reply here within two business days. To find out when we reply to your questions, sign in or register.

  • Share 5 households on Maple and Laburnum streets have put forth concerns on this. will adequate consideration be given to our concerns and will anyone contact us so that we may explain in depth our worries here, Thank you on Facebook Share 5 households on Maple and Laburnum streets have put forth concerns on this. will adequate consideration be given to our concerns and will anyone contact us so that we may explain in depth our worries here, Thank you on Twitter Share 5 households on Maple and Laburnum streets have put forth concerns on this. will adequate consideration be given to our concerns and will anyone contact us so that we may explain in depth our worries here, Thank you on Linkedin Email 5 households on Maple and Laburnum streets have put forth concerns on this. will adequate consideration be given to our concerns and will anyone contact us so that we may explain in depth our worries here, Thank you link

    5 households on Maple and Laburnum streets have put forth concerns on this. will adequate consideration be given to our concerns and will anyone contact us so that we may explain in depth our worries here, Thank you

    Dr Robert Gallacher asked over 3 years ago

    Please feel free to make comments or express your concerns through the comments tab on the project page. You can e-mail the rezoning planner James Boldt directly at james.boldt@vancouver.ca. The rezoning planner does not have any decision making authority but can answer questions on the process and policy. You can also write to mayor and council. Closer to a public hearing date you will also be able to send correspondence directly to mayor and council as well which would be entered into the public record for the project (this would occur after what is called referral and the public hearing which typically occurs three or more weeks after the referral and to which there would be a notification process

  • Share The actual Life Cycle Assessment will affect my opinion of this proposed building. Is this a sustainable design that seeks to minimize its embodied emission carbon footprint? How can concerned members of the public comment on the design without knowing the carbon equivalent per square metre. The B.6.2 statement should be available during the Open House period as per the City's Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning. on Facebook Share The actual Life Cycle Assessment will affect my opinion of this proposed building. Is this a sustainable design that seeks to minimize its embodied emission carbon footprint? How can concerned members of the public comment on the design without knowing the carbon equivalent per square metre. The B.6.2 statement should be available during the Open House period as per the City's Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning. on Twitter Share The actual Life Cycle Assessment will affect my opinion of this proposed building. Is this a sustainable design that seeks to minimize its embodied emission carbon footprint? How can concerned members of the public comment on the design without knowing the carbon equivalent per square metre. The B.6.2 statement should be available during the Open House period as per the City's Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning. on Linkedin Email The actual Life Cycle Assessment will affect my opinion of this proposed building. Is this a sustainable design that seeks to minimize its embodied emission carbon footprint? How can concerned members of the public comment on the design without knowing the carbon equivalent per square metre. The B.6.2 statement should be available during the Open House period as per the City's Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning. link

    The actual Life Cycle Assessment will affect my opinion of this proposed building. Is this a sustainable design that seeks to minimize its embodied emission carbon footprint? How can concerned members of the public comment on the design without knowing the carbon equivalent per square metre. The B.6.2 statement should be available during the Open House period as per the City's Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning.

    j pierce asked over 3 years ago

    The carbon emissions document is provided on the project page and can be found here. Public members can submit their comments in the Comment tab located on the bottom of the project page.

  • Share Normally the allowable height in some C2 zones has been relaxed to six storeys in return for five floors of market rental accommodation, supported by planners due to the need for rental housing in Vancouver. In this case, the developer is proposing only three storeys of secure market rental and three storeys of commercial space. You mentioned in a previous answer that there has been discussion of the Developer providing the day care space as a public amenity but you were not sure if there was enough profit to the developer in this application to make that possible. How could there not be enough profit since the developer has reduced the amount of market rental yet has applied for the same increase in height as if he was providing 5 floors of market rental?. on Facebook Share Normally the allowable height in some C2 zones has been relaxed to six storeys in return for five floors of market rental accommodation, supported by planners due to the need for rental housing in Vancouver. In this case, the developer is proposing only three storeys of secure market rental and three storeys of commercial space. You mentioned in a previous answer that there has been discussion of the Developer providing the day care space as a public amenity but you were not sure if there was enough profit to the developer in this application to make that possible. How could there not be enough profit since the developer has reduced the amount of market rental yet has applied for the same increase in height as if he was providing 5 floors of market rental?. on Twitter Share Normally the allowable height in some C2 zones has been relaxed to six storeys in return for five floors of market rental accommodation, supported by planners due to the need for rental housing in Vancouver. In this case, the developer is proposing only three storeys of secure market rental and three storeys of commercial space. You mentioned in a previous answer that there has been discussion of the Developer providing the day care space as a public amenity but you were not sure if there was enough profit to the developer in this application to make that possible. How could there not be enough profit since the developer has reduced the amount of market rental yet has applied for the same increase in height as if he was providing 5 floors of market rental?. on Linkedin Email Normally the allowable height in some C2 zones has been relaxed to six storeys in return for five floors of market rental accommodation, supported by planners due to the need for rental housing in Vancouver. In this case, the developer is proposing only three storeys of secure market rental and three storeys of commercial space. You mentioned in a previous answer that there has been discussion of the Developer providing the day care space as a public amenity but you were not sure if there was enough profit to the developer in this application to make that possible. How could there not be enough profit since the developer has reduced the amount of market rental yet has applied for the same increase in height as if he was providing 5 floors of market rental?. link

    Normally the allowable height in some C2 zones has been relaxed to six storeys in return for five floors of market rental accommodation, supported by planners due to the need for rental housing in Vancouver. In this case, the developer is proposing only three storeys of secure market rental and three storeys of commercial space. You mentioned in a previous answer that there has been discussion of the Developer providing the day care space as a public amenity but you were not sure if there was enough profit to the developer in this application to make that possible. How could there not be enough profit since the developer has reduced the amount of market rental yet has applied for the same increase in height as if he was providing 5 floors of market rental?.

    j pierce asked over 3 years ago

    Staff will be reviewing the design of the building with respect to the requirements of the policy. If changes are required then staff may require a revised application and/or include form of development conditions as recommendations for council’s consideration at a public hearing.

  • Share I appreciate the Sustainable Design Strategy report. However under Vancouver's policy they must provide an additional statement as B.6.2. All projects shall report the life-cycle equivalent carbon dioxide emissions (i.e. global warming potential impact, or ‘embodied carbon’) of each building, in kgCO2e/m2, as calculated by a whole-building life-cycle assessment (LCA). Can you please provide this information? Thank you on Facebook Share I appreciate the Sustainable Design Strategy report. However under Vancouver's policy they must provide an additional statement as B.6.2. All projects shall report the life-cycle equivalent carbon dioxide emissions (i.e. global warming potential impact, or ‘embodied carbon’) of each building, in kgCO2e/m2, as calculated by a whole-building life-cycle assessment (LCA). Can you please provide this information? Thank you on Twitter Share I appreciate the Sustainable Design Strategy report. However under Vancouver's policy they must provide an additional statement as B.6.2. All projects shall report the life-cycle equivalent carbon dioxide emissions (i.e. global warming potential impact, or ‘embodied carbon’) of each building, in kgCO2e/m2, as calculated by a whole-building life-cycle assessment (LCA). Can you please provide this information? Thank you on Linkedin Email I appreciate the Sustainable Design Strategy report. However under Vancouver's policy they must provide an additional statement as B.6.2. All projects shall report the life-cycle equivalent carbon dioxide emissions (i.e. global warming potential impact, or ‘embodied carbon’) of each building, in kgCO2e/m2, as calculated by a whole-building life-cycle assessment (LCA). Can you please provide this information? Thank you link

    I appreciate the Sustainable Design Strategy report. However under Vancouver's policy they must provide an additional statement as B.6.2. All projects shall report the life-cycle equivalent carbon dioxide emissions (i.e. global warming potential impact, or ‘embodied carbon’) of each building, in kgCO2e/m2, as calculated by a whole-building life-cycle assessment (LCA). Can you please provide this information? Thank you

    j pierce asked over 3 years ago

    The carbon emissions document is provided on the project page and can be found here. All matter has been brought to the attention of the Sustainability staff who will take this into consideration as part of their review.

  • Share Normally staff have already reviewed the designs as submitted for rezonings and have agreed that the project design is suitable for submission of the actual rezoning application. Has staff already looked at this design and agreed that it is suitable for going ahead with the application, or, has the applicant gone ahead despite concerns being raised by staff as to whether the design meets the C2 guidelines with respect to articulating the facades? on Facebook Share Normally staff have already reviewed the designs as submitted for rezonings and have agreed that the project design is suitable for submission of the actual rezoning application. Has staff already looked at this design and agreed that it is suitable for going ahead with the application, or, has the applicant gone ahead despite concerns being raised by staff as to whether the design meets the C2 guidelines with respect to articulating the facades? on Twitter Share Normally staff have already reviewed the designs as submitted for rezonings and have agreed that the project design is suitable for submission of the actual rezoning application. Has staff already looked at this design and agreed that it is suitable for going ahead with the application, or, has the applicant gone ahead despite concerns being raised by staff as to whether the design meets the C2 guidelines with respect to articulating the facades? on Linkedin Email Normally staff have already reviewed the designs as submitted for rezonings and have agreed that the project design is suitable for submission of the actual rezoning application. Has staff already looked at this design and agreed that it is suitable for going ahead with the application, or, has the applicant gone ahead despite concerns being raised by staff as to whether the design meets the C2 guidelines with respect to articulating the facades? link

    Normally staff have already reviewed the designs as submitted for rezonings and have agreed that the project design is suitable for submission of the actual rezoning application. Has staff already looked at this design and agreed that it is suitable for going ahead with the application, or, has the applicant gone ahead despite concerns being raised by staff as to whether the design meets the C2 guidelines with respect to articulating the facades?

    j pierce asked over 3 years ago

    Staff concluded the application could be accepted and reviewed as proposed.

  • Share The project's Sustainable Design Strategy does not give the numbers for the required B.6.2 statement showing the embodied carbon emissions- both total emissions and carbon emissions per square metre. These numbers are important in order to analyze the carbon emissions being created by the construction of this building and how they compare to other emissions from other building construction. This is an important priority of the recently adopted Climate Emergency Action Plan. Can you please make these numbers avaiable? Thank you. on Facebook Share The project's Sustainable Design Strategy does not give the numbers for the required B.6.2 statement showing the embodied carbon emissions- both total emissions and carbon emissions per square metre. These numbers are important in order to analyze the carbon emissions being created by the construction of this building and how they compare to other emissions from other building construction. This is an important priority of the recently adopted Climate Emergency Action Plan. Can you please make these numbers avaiable? Thank you. on Twitter Share The project's Sustainable Design Strategy does not give the numbers for the required B.6.2 statement showing the embodied carbon emissions- both total emissions and carbon emissions per square metre. These numbers are important in order to analyze the carbon emissions being created by the construction of this building and how they compare to other emissions from other building construction. This is an important priority of the recently adopted Climate Emergency Action Plan. Can you please make these numbers avaiable? Thank you. on Linkedin Email The project's Sustainable Design Strategy does not give the numbers for the required B.6.2 statement showing the embodied carbon emissions- both total emissions and carbon emissions per square metre. These numbers are important in order to analyze the carbon emissions being created by the construction of this building and how they compare to other emissions from other building construction. This is an important priority of the recently adopted Climate Emergency Action Plan. Can you please make these numbers avaiable? Thank you. link

    The project's Sustainable Design Strategy does not give the numbers for the required B.6.2 statement showing the embodied carbon emissions- both total emissions and carbon emissions per square metre. These numbers are important in order to analyze the carbon emissions being created by the construction of this building and how they compare to other emissions from other building construction. This is an important priority of the recently adopted Climate Emergency Action Plan. Can you please make these numbers avaiable? Thank you.

    j pierce asked over 3 years ago

    The matter has been brought to the attention of the Sustainability staff who will take this into consideration as part of their review.

  • Share The Design guidelines for the current C2 zoning in Section 4.2.2 a say that monotonous facades should be avoided for sites with larger frontages. Is there a reason why the need for more articulation of the facade on Forty First Avenue is not being considered? Also the C2 Guidelines require stepbacks along the rear of the property to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. How does the proposed stepback on the upper floors of the proposed building compare to the requirements in the C2 Guidelines? on Facebook Share The Design guidelines for the current C2 zoning in Section 4.2.2 a say that monotonous facades should be avoided for sites with larger frontages. Is there a reason why the need for more articulation of the facade on Forty First Avenue is not being considered? Also the C2 Guidelines require stepbacks along the rear of the property to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. How does the proposed stepback on the upper floors of the proposed building compare to the requirements in the C2 Guidelines? on Twitter Share The Design guidelines for the current C2 zoning in Section 4.2.2 a say that monotonous facades should be avoided for sites with larger frontages. Is there a reason why the need for more articulation of the facade on Forty First Avenue is not being considered? Also the C2 Guidelines require stepbacks along the rear of the property to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. How does the proposed stepback on the upper floors of the proposed building compare to the requirements in the C2 Guidelines? on Linkedin Email The Design guidelines for the current C2 zoning in Section 4.2.2 a say that monotonous facades should be avoided for sites with larger frontages. Is there a reason why the need for more articulation of the facade on Forty First Avenue is not being considered? Also the C2 Guidelines require stepbacks along the rear of the property to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. How does the proposed stepback on the upper floors of the proposed building compare to the requirements in the C2 Guidelines? link

    The Design guidelines for the current C2 zoning in Section 4.2.2 a say that monotonous facades should be avoided for sites with larger frontages. Is there a reason why the need for more articulation of the facade on Forty First Avenue is not being considered? Also the C2 Guidelines require stepbacks along the rear of the property to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. How does the proposed stepback on the upper floors of the proposed building compare to the requirements in the C2 Guidelines?

    j pierce asked over 3 years ago

    The setbacks generally aligned with the C-2 requirements at both the front and rear of the site. Staff are currently gathering comments from the public and from staff review groups on the design of the building including setbacks, materials, landscaping, and shadowing. Further design development is anticipated and typically required as the design of a building is refined.

  • Share Under Vancouver's Green Building Rezoning Policy, the applicant must provide an estimate of the embodied carbon emissions that will be created during construction as part of a sustainable design strategy. They do not seem to be provided. When will these be availabe. This is an important consideration that needs to be part of the evaluation of the project by the public since the City has declared a Climate Emergency and has made it a priority to reduce embodied carbon emissions. on Facebook Share Under Vancouver's Green Building Rezoning Policy, the applicant must provide an estimate of the embodied carbon emissions that will be created during construction as part of a sustainable design strategy. They do not seem to be provided. When will these be availabe. This is an important consideration that needs to be part of the evaluation of the project by the public since the City has declared a Climate Emergency and has made it a priority to reduce embodied carbon emissions. on Twitter Share Under Vancouver's Green Building Rezoning Policy, the applicant must provide an estimate of the embodied carbon emissions that will be created during construction as part of a sustainable design strategy. They do not seem to be provided. When will these be availabe. This is an important consideration that needs to be part of the evaluation of the project by the public since the City has declared a Climate Emergency and has made it a priority to reduce embodied carbon emissions. on Linkedin Email Under Vancouver's Green Building Rezoning Policy, the applicant must provide an estimate of the embodied carbon emissions that will be created during construction as part of a sustainable design strategy. They do not seem to be provided. When will these be availabe. This is an important consideration that needs to be part of the evaluation of the project by the public since the City has declared a Climate Emergency and has made it a priority to reduce embodied carbon emissions. link

    Under Vancouver's Green Building Rezoning Policy, the applicant must provide an estimate of the embodied carbon emissions that will be created during construction as part of a sustainable design strategy. They do not seem to be provided. When will these be availabe. This is an important consideration that needs to be part of the evaluation of the project by the public since the City has declared a Climate Emergency and has made it a priority to reduce embodied carbon emissions.

    j pierce asked over 3 years ago

    The document is now provided on the webpage here.

  • Share Does City consider Point Grey Secondary's palyground as public space? How does City balance the shadow impacts on this public space vs. the 70ft Height and all other things provided as a whole? In short, 70ft will be enormous comparing with adjacent property as well as casting long hours and lasting shadows on the aforementioned playground. Does City consider the current shadow impact illustration page sufficient for a full disclosure to general public? Lastly, for the "Housing Vancouver strategy" that this rezoning is subjected to, it states that "The City has form of development guidelines to ensure new buildings provide a pleasant street experience, do not shadow public spaces, etc." (Form of Development, Page 76/80). I was wondering if I can be informed that what exact guideline(s) will this rezoning application be subjected to. And whether current proposed Form of Development has met the criteria of not shadowing public space. on Facebook Share Does City consider Point Grey Secondary's palyground as public space? How does City balance the shadow impacts on this public space vs. the 70ft Height and all other things provided as a whole? In short, 70ft will be enormous comparing with adjacent property as well as casting long hours and lasting shadows on the aforementioned playground. Does City consider the current shadow impact illustration page sufficient for a full disclosure to general public? Lastly, for the "Housing Vancouver strategy" that this rezoning is subjected to, it states that "The City has form of development guidelines to ensure new buildings provide a pleasant street experience, do not shadow public spaces, etc." (Form of Development, Page 76/80). I was wondering if I can be informed that what exact guideline(s) will this rezoning application be subjected to. And whether current proposed Form of Development has met the criteria of not shadowing public space. on Twitter Share Does City consider Point Grey Secondary's palyground as public space? How does City balance the shadow impacts on this public space vs. the 70ft Height and all other things provided as a whole? In short, 70ft will be enormous comparing with adjacent property as well as casting long hours and lasting shadows on the aforementioned playground. Does City consider the current shadow impact illustration page sufficient for a full disclosure to general public? Lastly, for the "Housing Vancouver strategy" that this rezoning is subjected to, it states that "The City has form of development guidelines to ensure new buildings provide a pleasant street experience, do not shadow public spaces, etc." (Form of Development, Page 76/80). I was wondering if I can be informed that what exact guideline(s) will this rezoning application be subjected to. And whether current proposed Form of Development has met the criteria of not shadowing public space. on Linkedin Email Does City consider Point Grey Secondary's palyground as public space? How does City balance the shadow impacts on this public space vs. the 70ft Height and all other things provided as a whole? In short, 70ft will be enormous comparing with adjacent property as well as casting long hours and lasting shadows on the aforementioned playground. Does City consider the current shadow impact illustration page sufficient for a full disclosure to general public? Lastly, for the "Housing Vancouver strategy" that this rezoning is subjected to, it states that "The City has form of development guidelines to ensure new buildings provide a pleasant street experience, do not shadow public spaces, etc." (Form of Development, Page 76/80). I was wondering if I can be informed that what exact guideline(s) will this rezoning application be subjected to. And whether current proposed Form of Development has met the criteria of not shadowing public space. link

    Does City consider Point Grey Secondary's palyground as public space? How does City balance the shadow impacts on this public space vs. the 70ft Height and all other things provided as a whole? In short, 70ft will be enormous comparing with adjacent property as well as casting long hours and lasting shadows on the aforementioned playground. Does City consider the current shadow impact illustration page sufficient for a full disclosure to general public? Lastly, for the "Housing Vancouver strategy" that this rezoning is subjected to, it states that "The City has form of development guidelines to ensure new buildings provide a pleasant street experience, do not shadow public spaces, etc." (Form of Development, Page 76/80). I was wondering if I can be informed that what exact guideline(s) will this rezoning application be subjected to. And whether current proposed Form of Development has met the criteria of not shadowing public space.

    Ben Lin asked over 3 years ago

    The shadowing to the north across the lane and its impacts were identified early on in the enquiry process. For six-storey secured rental projects, it is a challenge to meet the objectives of providing sufficient density to make the projects viable but also to minimize impacts on the public realm. Staff will look at opportunities to improve daylight access where possible. Additional information such as a shadow analysis of a typical four-storey C-2 building hypothetically built on the project site could help inform people of the relative impacts compared to a six-storey development. Staff will discuss providing this information with the developer.

    Shadow study mass comparison provided by the applicant: https://shapeyourcity.ca/19077/widgets/75752/documents/51943 

  • Share Will the day care space a turn key to City as part of CAC for extra density, or it will be a private held asset for Developer? on Facebook Share Will the day care space a turn key to City as part of CAC for extra density, or it will be a private held asset for Developer? on Twitter Share Will the day care space a turn key to City as part of CAC for extra density, or it will be a private held asset for Developer? on Linkedin Email Will the day care space a turn key to City as part of CAC for extra density, or it will be a private held asset for Developer? link

    Will the day care space a turn key to City as part of CAC for extra density, or it will be a private held asset for Developer?

    Ben Lin asked over 3 years ago

    Currently the daycare is in discussion with staff and the developer. If it is supportable and viable it will be secured by an agreement which could involve a turnkey approach or other measures to ensure it is meeting the City’s requirements, including operation by a non-profit organization. If the daycare is not viable or supportable in this regard in the end, then the City may require the space be proposed as commercial space (in line with the underlying zoning) and/ or additional rental housing. The commercial space could still be a daycare but it would not be considered a public benefit with respect to the City’s requirements. However, as noted before, the reviews of all of this have not been completed.