St Boniface Area | Winnipeg | Development

[bomberjet]

That's too bad. The locals will want it for free because "heritage".

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

That's too bad. The locals will want it for free because "heritage".

LOL

That stretch with St. Boniface City Hall holds potential but the challenges there are proving to be more difficult to overcome than I would have expected.

[Jeff]

the notion of another development at des meurons and marion is amazing! we have the budding of a new little urban node happening in st b of all places.

[Biff]

…

[WinCitySparky]

Oh shit Biff is silent, something’s cooking

[optimusREIM]

174 Provencher being appealed, shock of the century….

https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/ppd/Publi...-21-197719%2FC

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

174 Provencher being appealed, shock of the century….

https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/ppd/Publi...-21-197719%2FC

The one appeal is the chocolate lady next door…

[bomberjet]

Her reasons. Nothing this time about blocking her signage.

1. Due to safety reasons to my building, the project as presented is in breach of Part 4
of the National Building Code. No consideration was taken of the effect of the snow loads on buildings 5 metres of the higher roof.
2. I have no interest in allowing a material difference to my building of the benefit of others. I would recommend re-designing the building to adhere to the National Building Code (and, as well, flipping the building frontage so that the lower end of the build resides next to 180 Provencher instead as I mentioned to Daniel Serhal).
3. I do find the mass of the proposed building not fitting in the with the current 2-story character the south side of Provencher is currently offering. Also, I would encourage the design of the upper floors to be stepped up away from my building or pushed back from my building.
4. I do urge for reasonable onsite guest/contractor parking (2-4 spaces) so as to not overload existing parking on Provencher.
5. Loading zone to be created in front of building.
6. Sufficient green-scaping (naturalization) to be created in front and back of building.

I would say the snow load one is reasonable. IIRC this issue is considered on the Bannatyne Ave development. Maybe some of the folks in the know can comment.

[drew]

I believe that if the development next to your building will subject it to higher snow load (snow shadow) it is the responsibility of the developer to complete the necessary investigation and any required reinforcing of the existing building roof structure to support the higher loading.

So, whether or not it was considered as part of the this development - this existing owner seems to simply want to refuse any work to be done to her building - and that the development is altered to reduce any snow shadowing.

I agree that this investigation is required as part of the new development - but disagree that this owner can simply refuse to allow any reinforcing to be completed on her building. In this case the developer should be able to show that this snow shadow study has been completed, is working in good faith to complete any necessary improvements to the neighbouring buildings. If she refuses, she can then accept any future liability for roof damages.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by drew

I believe that if the development next to your building will subject it to higher snow load (snow shadow) it is the responsibility of the developer to complete the necessary investigation and any required reinforcing of the existing building roof structure to support the higher loading.

So, whether or not it was considered as part of the this development - this existing owner seems to simply want to refuse any work to be done to her building - and that the development is altered to reduce any snow shadowing.

I agree that this investigation is required as part of the new development - but disagree that this owner can simply refuse to allow any reinforcing to be completed on her building. In this case the developer should be able to show that this snow shadow study has been completed, is working in good faith to complete any necessary improvements to the neighbouring buildings. If she refuses, she can then accept any future liability for roof damages.

Yeah, I mean, if the developer is prepared to compensate the externality, then I don't see what sort of argument she really has. Refusing to cooperate with the process is kind of dumb. I don't really see any reasonable argument if the developer pays for reinforcement. You can't just hold a veto over your neighbour's property, especially considering that her building would face the same variance process today if she was trying to develop it there, kinda rich.

Edit: I find the green-space/naturalization in the front and back to be kind of rich too coming from the owner of a property whose wall comes up to the property line in the front and has no plants there or behind. As proposed, the new development would bring more greenery to the streetscape than the chocolate shop currently does...

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I find the green-space/naturalization in the front and back to be kind of rich too coming from the owner of a property whose wall comes up to the property line in the front and has no plants there or behind. As proposed, the new development would bring more greenery to the streetscape than the chocolate shop currently does...

By her logic, her building should be torn down and rebuilt to accommodate green-scaping.

[esquire]

What an incredibly short sighted perspective. I can tell you whose chocolates I won't be buying for gift-giving occasions

[WinCitySparky]

It was approved.


From the Freep

Plans to add a four-storey, mixed-use residential building to a vacant lot on Provencher Boulevard have been approved, after Winnipeg city councillors were assured the new construction wouldn’t create too great a snow load for a neighbouring business.

Concern the proposed structure for 174 Provencher Blvd. could spill too much heavy winter precipitation onto a shorter, one-storey building next door led its owner to file an appeal of the development plan.

However, the neighbouring owner stressed she didn’t oppose the project itself but filed an objection because it was the only formal way to ensure her concerns were considered.

Rendering for 174 Provencher Blvd. Plans to add a four-storey, mixed-use residential building at the site have been approved.

“I wish they had a middle ground (in the city approval process) where you could say, ‘Good idea, but could you please consider these factors?’” Constance Menzies, owner of Chocolatier Constance Popp at 180 Provencher Blvd., said in an interview.

“The big (concern) for us is the snow load… This gets overlooked often. (Bigger) buildings get built beside little buildings a lot, and then it’s obviously too late to fix it.”

Menzies told the Free Press she is also concerned the new building will have too little parking, insufficient green space and would be too large to fit the character of the surrounding area.

“These are all small things, but they really just help the livability of the residents that live in the building (and) also the larger community, aside from my shop.”

On Tuesday, city council’s appeal committee approved a variance to allow the project without changes, following a civic staff recommendation.

The committee members were assured any potential snow-loading issues will be addressed during the permitting process. The vote will allow the building with 45 residential suites and two surface-level commercial units to have no rear yard, reduced landscaping and less parking.

Danny Serhal, the project’s development manager, said snow loads are routinely addressed during the permit application process, since buildings that are even slightly taller can increase the amount of snow that accumulates on neighbouring roofs.

“The snow-loading issue will happen the moment that one building is one metre taller than the next… (and) the new (construction developer) has to bear the cost of whatever has to happen to (protect) the building next door,” said Serhal.

He stressed many community members support the project, deeming the vacant lot it will replace “a bit of an eyesore.”

“I think that Provencher Boulevard is a tremendous jewel in our city and we have this… gravel parking lot that we want to fill in with something.”

Serhal said the project can also incorporate a loading zone and some plants and minimal landscaping to address other concerns. However, the building is designed to be placed next to a sidewalk to support pedestrian access, which limits the amount of room for green space, he noted.

Constance Menzies, owner of Chocolatier Constance Popp, has filed an appeal of the development plan at 174 Provencher Blvd., arguing the building could spill too much heavy winter precipitation onto a shorter, one-storey building next door.</p>

RUTH BONNEVILLE / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS

Constance Menzies, owner of Chocolatier Constance Popp, has filed an appeal of the development plan at 174 Provencher Blvd., arguing the building could spill too much heavy winter precipitation onto a shorter, one-storey building next door.

After the appeal was dismissed, Coun. Sherri Rollins said she looks forward to the new density.

“I think it will be a beautiful addition to Provencher and the neighbourhood,” said Rollins, a member of the appeal committee.

In an interview, the Fort Rouge-East Fort Garry councillor noted the applicant confirmed the snow-loading matter will be dealt with prior to construction.

[trueviking]

Great news.

For the record. Snow loading on adjacent buildings is never overlooked. To get a building permit you need to submit certification from a structural engineer that ensures capacity for added loading. If it isn’t sufficient, the developer of the new building must upgrade the structure at his own cost. At Osborne as an example, the developer had to pay to reinforce the roof structure of the wild planet building.

Also. Dead shrubs at the base of a commercial storefront on a high street is stupid.

[1ajs]

this is interesting

. That prior to the issuance of any development permits, a signed service agreement with a
car share provider shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning,
Property and Development. The service agreement shall include one (1) car share vehicle
and one (1) dedicated parking stall for the car share vehicle, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning, Property and Development, to be thereafter maintained to the
satisfaction of the Director.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Great news.

For the record. Snow loading on adjacent buildings is never overlooked. To get a building permit you need to submit certification from a structural engineer that ensures capacity for added loading. If it isn’t sufficient, the developer of the new building must upgrade the structure at his own cost. At Osborne as an example, the developer had to pay to reinforce the roof structure of the wild planet building.

Also. Dead shrubs at the base of a commercial storefront on a high street is stupid.

I'd rather see them plant a couple more trees

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I'd rather see them plant a couple more trees

"1. That prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall, at no expense to the
City, enter into an agreement to plant one tree in Provencher Boulevard, and all related
works including but not limited to soil cells and restoring the sidewalk to its original
condition, fronting on the Planned Area, as determined by and to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. The Developer shall, at no expense to the City engage an
Engineering Consultant to submit construction drawings to the City's Underground
Structures Branch and oversee construction within the public right-of-way, all as
determined by and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works"

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

"1. That prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall, at no expense to the
City, enter into an agreement to plant one tree in Provencher Boulevard, and all related
works including but not limited to soil cells and restoring the sidewalk to its original
condition, fronting on the Planned Area, as determined by and to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. The Developer shall, at no expense to the City engage an
Engineering Consultant to submit construction drawings to the City's Underground
Structures Branch and oversee construction within the public right-of-way, all as
determined by and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works"

I saw that, I just saw that they were only planning on planting one. Just checked and there are a couple smaller trees already there. That said, they could easily get away with planting a second or third.

[ColdRain&Snow]

I'm glad the project was approved. Thanks to everyone who wrote in their comments in support of the project.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

"1. That prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall, at no expense to the
City, enter into an agreement to plant one tree in Provencher Boulevard, and all related
works including but not limited to soil cells and restoring the sidewalk to its original
condition, fronting on the Planned Area, as determined by and to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. The Developer shall, at no expense to the City engage an
Engineering Consultant to submit construction drawings to the City's Underground
Structures Branch and oversee construction within the public right-of-way, all as
determined by and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works"

My osborne project has the same...the city uses the zoning requirement for 'foundation plantings" to bargain for street trees. Its not cheap. Osborne is getting two.