Go Back

466-476 W 27th Ave Rezoning application

Share 466-476 W 27th Ave Rezoning application on Facebook Share 466-476 W 27th Ave Rezoning application on Twitter Share 466-476 W 27th Ave Rezoning application on Linkedin Email 466-476 W 27th Ave Rezoning application link

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from R1-1 (Residential Inclusive) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 10-storey rental building and includes:

  • 63 units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 4.0; and
  • A building height of 34.4 m (113 ft.).

This application is being considered under the Cambie Corridor Plan and Transit-Oriented Areas Rezoning Policy.

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

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from R1-1 (Residential Inclusive) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 10-storey rental building and includes:

  • 63 units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 4.0; and
  • A building height of 34.4 m (113 ft.).

This application is being considered under the Cambie Corridor Plan and Transit-Oriented Areas Rezoning Policy.

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

​The Q&A period has concluded. Thank you for participating.

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from April 23 to May 6, 2025. 

We post all questions as-is and aim to respond within two business days. Some questions may require coordination with internal departments and additional time may be needed to post a response.

Please note that the comment form will remain open after the Q&A period. The Rezoning Planner can also be contacted directly for any further feedback or questions.

  • Share Followup question regarding view cones. The application booklet says that the city's maximum allowable height (based on view cone 3.1) is 36 metres. If each storey is about 3.3 metres, then a 12-storey building would be 39.6 metres. Is this incorrect? on Facebook Share Followup question regarding view cones. The application booklet says that the city's maximum allowable height (based on view cone 3.1) is 36 metres. If each storey is about 3.3 metres, then a 12-storey building would be 39.6 metres. Is this incorrect? on Twitter Share Followup question regarding view cones. The application booklet says that the city's maximum allowable height (based on view cone 3.1) is 36 metres. If each storey is about 3.3 metres, then a 12-storey building would be 39.6 metres. Is this incorrect? on Linkedin Email Followup question regarding view cones. The application booklet says that the city's maximum allowable height (based on view cone 3.1) is 36 metres. If each storey is about 3.3 metres, then a 12-storey building would be 39.6 metres. Is this incorrect? link

    Followup question regarding view cones. The application booklet says that the city's maximum allowable height (based on view cone 3.1) is 36 metres. If each storey is about 3.3 metres, then a 12-storey building would be 39.6 metres. Is this incorrect?

    russilwvong asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your question. The current rezoning application is for a 10-storey building with a height of 34.37 m. Staff is currently reviewing the proposal to ensure no encroachment into the view cone, overall urban design performance as well as unit livability.

  • Share The province's guidelines require that the city allow at least 12 storeys within 400 metres of a SkyTrain station. (The city is of course free to allow more height.) The city's interpretation is that its view cones override this requirement. Given that housing is maddeningly scarce and expensive, with vacancy rates near zero, and younger people are being crushed and driven out by the high cost of housing, resulting in labour shortages (e.g. in healthcare), has the city considered prioritizing housing over view cones, instead of vice versa? on Facebook Share The province's guidelines require that the city allow at least 12 storeys within 400 metres of a SkyTrain station. (The city is of course free to allow more height.) The city's interpretation is that its view cones override this requirement. Given that housing is maddeningly scarce and expensive, with vacancy rates near zero, and younger people are being crushed and driven out by the high cost of housing, resulting in labour shortages (e.g. in healthcare), has the city considered prioritizing housing over view cones, instead of vice versa? on Twitter Share The province's guidelines require that the city allow at least 12 storeys within 400 metres of a SkyTrain station. (The city is of course free to allow more height.) The city's interpretation is that its view cones override this requirement. Given that housing is maddeningly scarce and expensive, with vacancy rates near zero, and younger people are being crushed and driven out by the high cost of housing, resulting in labour shortages (e.g. in healthcare), has the city considered prioritizing housing over view cones, instead of vice versa? on Linkedin Email The province's guidelines require that the city allow at least 12 storeys within 400 metres of a SkyTrain station. (The city is of course free to allow more height.) The city's interpretation is that its view cones override this requirement. Given that housing is maddeningly scarce and expensive, with vacancy rates near zero, and younger people are being crushed and driven out by the high cost of housing, resulting in labour shortages (e.g. in healthcare), has the city considered prioritizing housing over view cones, instead of vice versa? link

    The province's guidelines require that the city allow at least 12 storeys within 400 metres of a SkyTrain station. (The city is of course free to allow more height.) The city's interpretation is that its view cones override this requirement. Given that housing is maddeningly scarce and expensive, with vacancy rates near zero, and younger people are being crushed and driven out by the high cost of housing, resulting in labour shortages (e.g. in healthcare), has the city considered prioritizing housing over view cones, instead of vice versa?

    russilwvong asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your question and your interest in this project: While the site is under the Queen Elizabeth Park view cone 3.2.1, the view cone is not the limiting factor, as it’s higher than the maximum height allowed by the Policy. More generally, staff has been and continuous to update our public views to allow for more housing opportunities. More info at https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-public-views.aspx

     

    Please not that currently there is an active public engagement for a Council directed motion to revisit the Trout Lake protected views to enable more housing in the Commercial-Broadway TOA. Please see here for more information, including details about an open house tomorrow night (May 6) and an online survey open until May 19.

Page last updated: 07 May 2025, 09:20 AM