Winnipeg | St. Boniface | 470 Rue Des Meurons | Gaboury Place | 6F | In Development

[ColdRain&Snow]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

If the developer can demonstrate that at least 10% of the units will be affordable and that they will provide a car-share program, they should be permitted to reduce parking requirements even further.

It is difficult to understand why the City is pushing back on the required 10-foot setback and parking variances. These adjustments are modest and would otherwise force the building to be scaled back, resulting in the loss of multiple residential units.

Should this proceed to appeal, the developer should strongly emphasize the project’s alignment with the City’s Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) targets. The City is currently behind in the critical category of new multi-family units near frequent or rapid transit, sitting at only 73% of the required approvals. By the end of December 2026, the City must reach 2,025 approved units in this category or risk having its HAF funding scaled back. With just six months remaining, every single approved unit near F & FX transit counts. This development represents a clear net positive contribution toward that target. Losing units over minor variances would be counterproductive and puts the City’s HAF funding unnecessarily at risk.

If I'm understanding correctly, 73% of the required 2025 units in the frequent or rapid transit category have been approved. Meaning that an additional 547 need to be approved by December 2026 to receive the full HAF funding?

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by ColdRain&Snow

If I'm understanding correctly, 73% of the required 2025 units in the frequent or rapid transit category have been approved. Meaning that an additional 547 need to be approved by December 2026 to receive the full HAF funding?

7,529 units were required under the Multi-Family within proximity of frequent/rapid transit agreement, as of June 4th 2026, 5,504 units have been approved in this category, which is 73% of the target, that leaves 2,025 units required for approval by December 2026.

[ColdRain&Snow]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

7,529 units were required under the Multi-Family within proximity of frequent/rapid transit agreement, as of June 4th 2026, 5,504 units have been approved in this category, which is 73% of the target, that leaves 2,025 units required for approval by December 2026.

Yikes, that's still a lot of units that needs to be approved by the deadline.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by ColdRain&Snow

Yikes, that's still a lot of units that needs to be approved by the deadline.

That's why it's surprising the city is nitpicking over such minor variances which risks losing units from this development that fits into the near transit category.

Regarding the HAF targets, all other categories (Missing Middle, Multifamily-other) have surpassed their targets.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by ColdRain&Snow

Yikes, that's still a lot of units that needs to be approved by the deadline.

Little do you know there are two 100 storey towers in the pipeline that are earmarked for those 2,000 units.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by Biff

Little do you know there are two 100 storey towers in the pipeline that are earmarked for those 2,000 units.

But are they near frequent transit?

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by Biff

Little do you know there are two 100 storey towers in the pipeline that are earmarked for those 2,000 units.

lmao

[Winnipeg Grump]

Surprised he didn't post that picture of his, to be honest, LOL!

[Wpg_Guy]

Appeal – Variance – 470 Des Meurons Street – DAV 116786A/2026D

The battle continues, on September 2, 2026, the Appeal Committee will hear appeals about this proposed apartment building at 470 Des Meurons Street. The Riel Community Committee already approved the project even though it doesn’t meet some of the usual zoning rules. Neighbours and the developer/architect have appealed that approval. The builder is asking for these exceptions:

For the building itself:

Front yard: 10 feet instead of the required 25 feet
North side yard: 8 feet instead of 18 feet
South side yard: 6 feet instead of 20 feet
Back yard: 20 feet instead of 25 feet
Balconies on the south side can stick out 5 feet instead of the usual 2 feet

For the parking lot:

The driveways between parking rows would be 19 to 19.5 feet wide instead of the required 20 feet

The developer wants to build closer to the property lines and with slightly narrower parking aisles than the zoning would normally allow. The Appeal Committee will decide whether that approval stands or not.

Supporting documentation from the architect to overturn the decision of the The Riel Community Committee and approve the appeal:

[trueviking]

variances approved....what a day.

[Wpg_Guy]

Every delegate in support of the appeal, "im not against development and im not against housing, I'm just opposed to this in my backyard."

[trueviking]

They were crazy organized. I have to give them props for that.

https://sites.google.com/view/470desmeurons/accueil

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by trueviking

variances approved....what a day.

Thank goodness for Councillor Durand-Wood for her attentive listening and real grasp of the variances and correcting Gilroy. Councillor Gilroy came across as a bit aloof when she introduced the motion and laid out her supporting reasons.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Thank goodness for Councillor Durand-Wood for her attentive listening and real grasp of the variances and correcting Gilroy. Councillor Gilroy came across as a bit aloof when she introduced the motion and laid out her supporting reasons.

It's refreshing to see someone who (especially being new to the role) takes the role seriously and puts real effort into understanding the work. I hope she gets elected right back in (and more like her!)

[trueviking]

100%. Emma is awesome. It was clear the others didn’t even take the time to look up the site before they sat down. Never mind read any of the reports or submissions.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by trueviking

100%. Emma is awesome. It was clear the others didn’t even take the time to look up the site before they sat down. Never mind read any of the reports or submissions.

I've never understood this like it's your fucking job. This is systemic throughout all the committees, they waste everyone's time focusing on questions that are already answered in the reports and they come across as uninformed and ill prepared to make big decisions that affect a lot of stakeholders.

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

I've never understood this like it's your fucking job. This is systemic throughout all the committees, they waste everyone's time focusing on questions that are already answered in the reports and they come across as uninformed and ill prepared to make big decisions that affect a lot of stakeholders.

Sounds like a typical board meeting!

[ColdRain&Snow]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

I've never understood this like it's your fucking job. This is systemic throughout all the committees, they waste everyone's time focusing on questions that are already answered in the reports and they come across as uninformed and ill prepared to make big decisions that affect a lot of stakeholders.

I know right, it drives me crazy. Like the first questions the councillors usually ask are "where is the building located?" and "how tall is it?" Like if you took 2 minutes to read the administrative report prepared by the city planners you would know this already.

[bomberjet]

I don't watch many of the meetings TBH. The ones I have seemed painful. Do they ask these questions to get it on the record? Like the important points of interest, as opposed to just stating things?

The whole purpose of your job on these committee's is to be tuned in to what's going on in the City.

[WinCitySparky]

Many bureaucrats are imbeciles, this is nothing new. Glad to hear the positive outcome.