3410 Marpole Avenue - DP-2018-01076

Scott Posno Design has applied to the City of Vancouver for permission to develop on this site:


A new two-and-one-half-storey plus cellar one-family dwelling, and a separate accessory building (two-car garage) at the east side of the property, having vehicular site-access from fronting street (Matthews Avenue), with:

      • proposed total Height of approximately 39.08 ft.; and
      • proposed total Floor Space Ratio: 0.30 FSR (approximately 6,837 sq. ft.)


Under the site’s existing FSD zoning, the application is “conditional” so it may be permitted; however, it requires the decision of the Director of Planning.

We welcome your written comments (letter or e-mail) on this development application. Comments should be received on, or before May 10, 2019, to be included in the staff review. However, comments will be considered up until the date of decision.


Application

Contact: Cody Profili, Project Coordinator, cody.profili@vancouver.ca, 604.829.9237

To assist you, a Glossary of key technical terms and a brief explanation of the application process is posted on our website at: vancouver.ca/devapps

In reviewing this application, and before making a decision, the Director of Planning will also need to consider City by-law regulations, and Council-adopted policies and guidelines. Once a full application review is completed, a decision will be made.

Copies of City by-law regulations, policies and guidelines are available at the City's website at https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/land-use-and-development-policies-and-guidelines.aspx or at the Development and Building Services Centre (1st Floor, 515 West 10th Avenue).

Please note that all comments and responses to this notification are subject to, and may be released, pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Act does, however, protect your privacy by prohibiting disclosure of personal information (such as names, addresses and other identifying information) where such a disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.

‹‹‹ go back