Winnipeg Construction VIII - Page 291

Biff · #**5801** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

yeah. mental note. don't tweet stuff until you have the details....oops.

blind rage is a bad place to start from.

I still don't understand how it could be approved for demolition.

You raised awareness of the situation and regardless, the buildings will still be demolished for a parking lot. The facts of the actual entities will come out. Obviously the Calvary Temple is one, the other........I'm sure Hydro was involved in there somewhere as they are building on a parking lot used for Calvary Temple church goers (or what ever church people are called). There was some kind of land swap.

esquire · #**5802** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:00 PM**

Unless the official boundaries of downtown Winnipeg were changed subsequent to the new(ish) Downtown Zoning by-law, the Luke's site is most certainly downtown (see yellow circle... Hargrave is the actual boundary, I inadvertently blotted it out with the circle):

Source: http://www.winnipeg.ca/ppd/planning/pdf_folder/DTZ_guide.pdf

Riverman · #**5803** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

St James Volkswagen will be renovated into a exclusive VW dealership.

It is already built and operating.

Biff · #**5804** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

It is already built and operating.

Yes but after Audi moves they will need to renovate the overall facility into an exclusive VW dealership.

Cyro · #**5805** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

The Audi portion of St James Volkswagen will be moving. All combined Volkwagen/Audi/Porsche etc are becoming singular entities. I am not sure if St James Audi will retain the same name when it relocates to the Seasons shopping area. St James Volkswagen will be renovated into a exclusive VW dealership.

Is this the case for Knight Auto Haus Volkswagen on Pembina, 600 block I believe?

esquire · #**5806** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Unless the official boundaries of downtown Winnipeg were changed subsequent to the new(ish) Downtown Zoning by-law, the Luke's site is most certainly downtown (see yellow circle... Hargrave is the actual boundary, I inadvertently blotted it out with the circle):

Took a cursory scan of the DTZB, and it appears to me that in the particular sector where Luke's is, you can have an accessory surface parking lot unless it takes up more than 10% of the site, at which point it becomes conditional.

I sure hope the City is on top of this, because the last thing I'd want to see is the demo crews rip everything down one day and then have PP&D show up telling them they weren't allowed to do that.

Biff · #**5807** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyro

Is this the case for Knight Auto Haus Volkswagen on Pembina, 600 block I believe?

Yes, that's why Porsche moved into their own building (albeit on the same property).

rkspec · #**5808** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:20 PM**

Does True North Sports & Entertainment really have until the end of the day to finalize its deal to purchase 220 Carlton St.?

Source is facebook...but you guys are much more reputable lol.

esquire · #**5809** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkspec

Does True North Sports & Entertainment really have until the end of the day to finalize its deal to purchase 220 Carlton St.?

Source is facebook...but you guys are much more reputable lol.

Freep reports that the deadline has been extended to May 15. TNSE is reportedly taking the extra time to "consider the future of the True North Square project" (i.e., Chipman is still sore about Bowman's remarks).

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/busines...nt-298000771.html?cx_navSource=d-tiles-1

rkspec · #**5810** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:24 PM**

interweeb search shows its extended for a second time until May 15

http://globalnews.ca/news/1911413/deadli...-winnipeg-true-north-square-development/

Biff · #**5811** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:38 PM**

It is either viable or not. It really will be too bad if they crunch the numbers and can't make it work but spin it like it was the City's (Bowman) fault. A lot of people will surely fall for it and it could really damage the City's ability to attract new development.

.......a real clusterf*#k

esquire · #**5812** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

It is either viable or not. It really will be too bad if they crunch the numbers and can't make it work but spin it like it was the City's (Bowman) fault. A lot of people will surely fall for it and it could really damage the City's ability to attract new development.

That's what I've been half-expecting from the moment the deadline was first extended. Bowman is about to become the pariah... the price to be paid for incurring the wrath of Chipman.

Authentic_City · #**5813** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Took a cursory scan of the DTZB, and it appears to me that in the particular sector where Luke's is, you can have an accessory surface parking lot unless it takes up more than 10% of the site, at which point it becomes conditional.

What makes a parking lot accessory versus just being a parking lot? I am guessing that the new lot (like the existing lots around Calvary) would rent spaces by the month (M-F) or casually by the hour at other times, but permit free parking on Sunday's for patrons of the church. Does this qualify as accessory parking for the church? I'm not sure the parking would be primarily for users of the church.

esquire · #**5814** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

What makes a parking lot accessory versus just being a parking lot? I am guessing that the new lot (like the existing lots around Calvary) would rent spaces by the month (M-F) or casually by the hour at other times, but permit free parking on Sunday's for patrons of the church. Does this qualify as accessory parking for the church? I'm not sure the parking would be primarily for users of the church.

I assumed it would be an accessory parking lot given that it would presumably be owned and operated by the church for the primary benefit of its congregation. Would renting the spaces weekdays when nothing is happening at the church necessarily change that? (Rhetorical question; I don't know the answer.)

Simplicity · #**5815** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I assumed it would be an accessory parking lot given that it would presumably be owned and operated by the church for the primary benefit of its congregation. Would renting the spaces weekdays when nothing is happening at the church necessarily change that? (Rhetorical question; I don't know the answer.)

This is pretty much the answer. Accessory is "accessory to principal use" whereas parking as a "principal use" is considered "conditional" in most cases.

Everybody got that? Good.

esquire · #**5816** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 8:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicity

This is pretty much the answer. Accessory is "accessory to principal use" whereas parking as a "principal use" is considered "conditional" in most cases.

Everybody got that? Good.

But wait! Multi-use sector rules state that accessory becomes conditional when the surface parking takes up more than 10% of the lot. So unless Calvary Temple only plans to clear 10% of the site and leave the rest of the buildings in place, presumably they'd have to go to the city to get the CU approved.

Simplicity · #**5817** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

That's what I've been half-expecting from the moment the deadline was first extended. Bowman is about to become the pariah... the price to be paid for incurring the wrath of Chipman.

Then we'll point to all of the evidence that has existed for a good long time that always threw into doubt the viability of that project to begin with.

Outside of some media speculation and True North fanboys, I don't think anybody ever seriously considered that a serious proposal. I think I made the point that the square footage on a $400MM project is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 750K but that was a throwaway figure to a laughable concept. The square footage would more likely be in excess of a million increasing the total class A space in this city by about 10% all on its own.

So yeah, everybody can draw their own conclusions from that...

Simplicity · #**5818** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

But wait! Multi-use sector rules state that accessory becomes conditional when the surface parking takes up more than 10% of the lot. So unless Calvary Temple only plans to clear 10% of the site and leave the rest of the buildings in place, presumably they'd have to go to the city to get the CU approved.

They sure would.

And this is a pretty rare case given that only the downtown zoning by-law even has a 'multiple use sector'. The larger zoning by-law the city works from doesn't.

But we're getting a little ahead of ourselves on this one because, in my experience, tearing down a building within that boundary for parking is strictly verboten (as in not even a conditional use). And any demolition permit at all in the area requires a redevelopment plan subject to design review.

This one isn't going to be able to stay quiet for long.

Labroco · #**5819** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicity

They sure would.

And this is a pretty rare case given that only the downtown zoning by-law even has a 'multiple use sector'. The larger zoning by-law the city works from doesn't.

But we're getting a little ahead of ourselves on this one because, in my experience, tearing down a building within that boundary for parking is strictly verboten (as in not even a conditional use). And any demolition permit at all in the area requires a redevelopment plan subject to design review.

This one isn't going to be able to stay quiet for long.

The Carlton site had a demo permit issued without a redevelopment plan subject to design review and that site had a much larger and I must say viable building and business on it...

Simplicity · #**5820** Posted **Mar 30, 2015, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labroco

The Carlton site had a demo permit issued without a redevelopment plan subject to design review and that site had a much larger and I must say viable building and business on it...

I wonder if they were able to accomplish that because of CV's status as an arm's length organization of the city?