Twin apartment plans approved on Jubilee

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 30/04/2021 (1854 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The appeals committee at City Hall recently turned down the request of Jubilee Avenue-area residents to stop plans for a pair of six-plex apartments.

The appeals for 912 and 914 Jubilee began on the morning of April 22 at a special meeting of the committee and spilled over to an all-day session on April 23 due to the number of residents making presentations.

Ultimately, committee members voted in favour of rezoning two empty lots from residential two-family (R2 duplex) to residential multi-family (RMF), and placed conditions on Vishin Developments and property owner Chong Kim Mok regarding the height of the buildings and the number of trees on the grounds.

The committee first dealt with the rezoning and variance of 912 Jubilee, which saw the project scaled back from an eight-plex to a six-plex, and from three to two storeys in height.

Resident Bennie Gusnowsky, who led the appellants group of over 20 neighbours plus a petition with 86 signatures from other area residents, said the apartments would be too big for the area and additional traffic would put pressure on an already-stressed back lane.

“This part of Jubilee is like an island. There is no parking on the front street, so all deliveries, all taxis and Ubers have to filter down the back lane,” said Gusnowsky, who lives in a duplex adjacent to the sites. “Fifty per cent of the garages in the lane have been hit by a car already. Adding a dozen more vehicles would be an accident waiting to happen.”

Resident Annette Wilborn is worried large apartment complexes will be a trend in the area, due to its proximity to the nearby rapid transit line.

“It was a mistake when the city allowed the six-plex at 868 Jubilee,” she said, adding she surveyed the housing types in the neighbourhood, which primarily consists of single-family homes and duplexes.

Other residents noted there is parking spill-over onto adjacent streets already, something added to during the months when the Bridge Drive-In is operating or when traffic backs up on Pembina.

“Merriam (Boulevard) is the first place people look for parking,” Maria Cotter said. “Those of us without a garage already have trouble finding parking on our street.”

Coun. Sherri Rollins (Fort Rouge-East Fort Garry) spoke in favour of the appeal, saying the apartment would create an adverse effect on the neighbourhood. “People on this part of Jubilee cannot park on the front street,” she said, arguing the safety of residents was at issue, given the amount of traffic in the back lane, which includes patrons of the Cambridge Hotel and Fountain Tire.

“In the end, compatibility should matter,” Rollins said. “Civic life in Fort Garry should matter.”

Speaking in opposition to the appeal, Ishin said it isn’t financially feasible to build fewer than the two six-plex apartments. He also spoke about the community consultation and learning the neighbourhood didn’t want to see anything larger than duplexes on the two sites.

He noted the air conditioning unit for both buildings will be located between them, to reduce spill-over noise to the neighbours. Snow cleared from the parking area would be stored on the grounds, not in the lane.

“I worked with the city planners and we changed the plans from eight to six apartments, eliminated water draining onto the back lane,” Ishin said.

“We’re going to be using high quality materials,” he said of the construction, adding there is a lot of interest by people wishing to live near the bus rapid transit line.

This was the second round of appeals hearings regarding the proposed apartments, with the developer required to do further community consultation after the Feb. 18 appeal hearing.

Vishin hired Richard + Wintrup to hold the community engagement virtual meetings, and noted the company “essentially quit because they could not find common ground with the appellants.”

Vishin spoke with a traffic engineering firm who told him that cars from the new development would have a negligible impact on the back lane.

The committee required the developer to consult with an arborist to maintain as many mature trees as possible on the property at 912. “I’m open to additional trees, and will be donating an equal number of trees, whether on the boulevard across the street or at a community centre or a school,” Vishin said, adding he would plant a line of cedar trees along the western edge of the properties to screen the buildings from the neighbours.

The committee — made up of councillors Matt Allard (chair), Markus Chambers, Devi Sharma and Jeff Browaty — denied the appeal, allowing Vishin to proceed with building the six-plex at 912 Jubilee.

After a lunch break, the committee — minus Chambers, who had another engagement — returned to hear the appellants about their objections to the plans for 914 Jubilee.

Residents expressed disappointment over losing the appeal for 912 Jubilee and asked the councillors to consider allowing only a duplex at 914 Jubilee.

 “I feel you didn’t listen to us,” Flavia Fabio said, while Deborah Slonowsky said she only heard of the issue thanks to articles in the media, and that the developer never contacted her about the proposal.

“I really would like to see more dialogue to work out the details, so a meeting would be appreciated,” neighbour Ferris Vandernat said, adding he would be happy to see the issue sent back to the City Centre community committee for further consideration.

In opposition to the appeal, Ishin noted each of the units will have three bedrooms, but couldn’t estimate how many people would live in each. “It could be a young couple using the other bedrooms for office space, or it could be a young family with three kids,” he said.

The 914 appeal was supported by Rollins, who asked the committee not to “make adjustment to the plans on the fly” and asked for an adjournment.

The councillors agreed to support the development of the six-plex at 914 Jubilee, with the building height limited to two storeys, and a doubling of the trees on the site.

For more information, see https://bit.ly/3eD1c8O and look for the April 22 and 23 appeal committee meetings.