Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by SebC

Can't speak so much to Asia, but for the great cities of Europe:

- their old stuff is much older and often more beautiful/culturally important than what we have in North America
- they were built and structured before the automobile existed, and already have higher density because in the old days you had to walk everywhere or maybe ride a horse

So... historical preservation there is hardly a comparable situation to refusing a permit for a replacement Dairy Queen with a drive-through.

I will be the first to admit I had zero business comparing the actual two. DQ's on Center Street and 500 year old churches or historical buildings in Europe are not a comparison. I kind of got side tracked.

Even property that I have or my family has had that is 100 + years old is always being pushed to be sold by the city and by developers. It's always the same selling feature. Let's get rid of this brick building and build some large scale project with the same category of condos and stores that are available everywhere or let's build a road through it. We don't preserve any element of history in our buildings in Calgary

[Mull]

Well first I thought this was quite stupid on the City and the City was acting in bad faith. Turns out a certain columnist Corbella decided to omit a tiny detail that new DP was self inflicted by the DQ owners.

Wonder if she has mud on her face or she omitted this little bit to get clicks and a story, as without it, a lot less interest.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Mull

Wonder if she has mud on her face or she omitted this little bit to get clicks and a story, as without it, a lot less interest.

100% the latter. This is a textbook Corbella click bait piece masquerading as journalism. She’s made a career doing it, she’s very effective at it, and it keeps getting clicks and shares. There will be no clarification or retraction, I assure you.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

https://twitter.com/cityofcalgary/st...127408642?s=20

City of Calgary
@cityofcalgary
We have heard concerns circulating about the development permit for a Dairy Queen at 1906 Centre St NE. The original building was destroyed in a fire in 2019. We empathize with the owner and franchisee in navigating a difficult situation in trying to rebuild this business. 1/5

In circumstances such as this, applicants have the ability to build a like-for-like structure to replace the original building. This is an option for any business owner in this situation. 2/5

However, the applicant proposed changes to the previous structure and site plan which included a different configuration for the drive-thru and a modest expansion of the building. This then triggered the project to be evaluated against current bylaws and policies. 3/5

The City tried to work with the applicant to align their new proposal with current City standards. They decided to proceed with their new plans, and then filed an appeal of The City’s decision with the Subdivision & Development Appeal Board (SDAB) 4/5

Upon decision of the SDAB, The City is prepared to continue to work with the applicant on this project, as we recognize the importance of small business success to the Calgary community. 5/5

What an outrageous family run small business asking to modestly expand their restaurant and reconfigure their drive through after their business burns down. Just because their plan matches the zoning on the privately owned land. How dare they.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

What an outrageous family run small business asking to modestly expand their restaurant and reconfigure their drive through after their business burns down. Just because their plan matches the zoning on the privately owned land. How dare they.

If anyone else was in the same situation the same thing would apply. Big business, multimillionaire, or anyone else. Why should the city change the rules that are in place?

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by kermitology

If anyone else was in the same situation the same thing would apply. Big business, multimillionaire, or anyone else. Why should the city change the rules that are in place?

This is it. We have rules for how land can be used. It’s what keeps your neighbours from building a nightclub next to your residential home.

Luckily, all these rules are written down, so we can know what they are.

It seems like there are plenty of other locations to build a new structure with a drive through or to repurpose an existing building to add a drive through, as we see this happen all the time.

Also, I’ve picked up my fair share of dq cakes. They have to be the deadest fast food joints and I have always wondered how they stick around. It’s not like calgarians are clamouring for more dq.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by kermitology

If anyone else was in the same situation the same thing would apply. Big business, multimillionaire, or anyone else. Why should the city change the rules that are in place?

If the rules don't allow you to rebuild your building on land zoned for that type of building after a fire with changes the city itself described as "modest" then the city should change the rules for everyone.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

This is it. We have rules for how land can be used. It’s what keeps your neighbours from building a nightclub next to your residential home.

Yeah, building the same DQ that was there a bit bigger with a different drive through layout isn't comparable to putting a nightclub in a residential neighbourhood. This use meets the zoning for that parcel.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Yeah, I'm still not a fan of Farrell's comments.

"We are mindful that a standalone restaurant with drive-through existed on this site previously and would still exist had the previous use not burned down. However, that did happen. As such, we must review..."

"There is significant potential for a mixed-use high development.. Such a project could even include a new Dairy Queen, but of course without a drive-through."

"The proposed design is a generic Dairy Queen that is well below the quality expected and needed for this location."

There's not much in Farrell's comments that seem to express concerns with the changes. Instead I feel like she's taking a devastating fire as an excuse to push through with her vision of the area.

She might not be on the planning department but she does get to comment as the councilor for the ward. Of course her voice holds more than some random and instead of using her voice to support a small business and private property owner in her ward she used it as an opportunity to continue her crusade against cars.

She's going against the community association who expressed support of the development. So she went against the business owner, land owner, community association, and I would say individual voices like myself.

Still think Farrell's in the wrong here. Willing to cut some slack to the actual planning department if the changes result in impacts that would not have existed if it was built "brick-by-brick" but without Farrell using those in her comments I doubt they are substantial.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Yeah, building the same DQ that was there a bit bigger with a different drive through layout isn't comparable to putting a nightclub in a residential neighbourhood. This use meets the zoning for that parcel.

Would be interested in what they actually were trying to propose be developed in the location.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If the rules don't allow you to rebuild your building on land zoned for that type of building after a fire with changes the city itself described as "modest" then the city should change the rules for everyone.

I think the clarification was meant to address the narrative that the City was not allowing a rebuild - full stop. And that it was demanding a high density development, or nothing. That isn't the case. When a structure burns down, you can use the existing permitting to build back what was there. When changes are proposed a new Development Permit was required. This is not discretionary - and if a landowner builds what is not on the current permit, if appealed, they are very exposed. It's the same thing with a house - to "rebuild" on your current permitting, you have to do things like keep the footprint the same. If you want a different house, you go through the normal process with the rules that apply to building envelopes, height, lot coverage, etc. The current regulations called for a different access and drive-thru configuration than was ideal in the minds of the applicant. The applicant disagreed, went for refusal so it could see if SDAB would agree with their argument. Again, there is perfectly reasonable space to debate whether the City's drive thru design standards are good or bad, but to frame this the way it was as City evildoers destroying the dreams of immigrant family out of some dogmatic crusade, I think was the reach.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Would be interested in what they actually were trying to propose be developed in the location.

I think if there was a huge change that was obviously inappropriate the city would have called that out in their tweets defending the position. They specifically used the word modest.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If the rules don't allow you to rebuild your building on land zoned for that type of building after a fire with changes the city itself described as "modest" then the city should change the rules for everyone.

These rules are black and white. If they maintained the same footprint and general design they’d be fine, but as Bunk said, any change to the building design requires a DP.

Same thing with your home. If you built a sun room, you’d need a DP. And you’d have to adhere to the rules.

The city isn’t being heavy handed, just following the rules.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Burninator

City councilors do not approve or refuse Development Permits. Development Permits are circulated to councilors and they can provide their comments to the Development Authority (City of Calgary Planning and Development Department) if they wish. The councilors comments are only part of the permit application process. The back and forth between an applicant and the City of Calgary would be happening through the planning and development staff, not a councillor. The applicant for this permit would have gotten their refusal from the Development Authority explaining why it was refused. Druhs comments may have also been included with it.

https://www.calgary.ca/pda/pd/permit...t-process.html

I understand how the process works. Did you feel that Druh's comments in the application (posted within the link I provided) were appropriate for the councillor, and that those comments did not affect the Development authority's decision?

In addition, I still do not see any reference to the application not meeting requirements from a law standpoint. Only the fact that the DQ does not meet the planning document's goals for the area. We keep talking about following the rules - everything I've read on this is that all the rules have been followed and the design meets every Calgary bylaw.

Bunk refers to things like building envelopes, height, lot coverage - all of which passed inspection in the application. There are also no regulations to my knowledge around drive-through configurations, only that it is discouraged based on the planning document.

To be fair, it is potentially possible that a planning document has the strength of a building code issue, which made the grounds for the rejection of the application. This is something I would also highly disagree with, as planning documents are intrinsically vague, and this allows the city to basically reject or approve anything based on interpretations of a bunch of buzzwords.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by kermitology

These rules are black and white. If they maintained the same footprint and general design they’d be fine, but as Bunk said, any change to the building design requires a DP.

Same thing with your home. If you built a sun room, you’d need a DP. And you’d have to adhere to the rules.

The city isn’t being heavy handed, just following the rules.

The proposed development doesn't violate any rules, just the planning goals. Which aren't rules. The denial is discretionary. This development meets the rules in place for that land.

The offensive part here is that they are being heavy handed, and blocking a development that does meet the rules.

[Weitz]

City is reconsidering their position on the DQ after a public outcry according to CTV news.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

City is reconsidering their position on the DQ after a public outcry according to CTV news.

Big win for the fans of slightly changed Dairy Queen drive-thru layouts. Can you imagine if we were stuck with the previous Dairy Queen drive-thru layout? My god.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by SebC

Can't speak so much to Asia, but for the great cities of Europe:

- their old stuff is much older and often more beautiful/culturally important than what we have in North America
- they were built and structured before the automobile existed, and already have higher density because in the old days you had to walk everywhere or maybe ride a horse

So... historical preservation there is hardly a comparable situation to refusing a permit for a replacement Dairy Queen with a drive-through.

We will all look back in 30 years and think, what if we kept those DQ buildings!

In all seriousness, historical preservation in Calgary is laughable. Just because our buildings aren’t that old doesn’t mean they don’t have historical value.

Might be controversial but the old CBE building is a
Prime example

[SebC]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Even property that I have or my family has had that is 100 + years old is always being pushed to be sold by the city and by developers. It's always the same selling feature. Let's get rid of this brick building and build some large scale project with the same category of condos and stores that are available everywhere or let's build a road through it. We don't preserve any element of history in our buildings in Calgary

You have more direct knowledge of this than I do. Are you talking warehouses around the inner city?

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by SebC

You have more direct knowledge of this than I do. Are you talking warehouses around the inner city?

In my case it's residential and commercial in the Beltline, Kensington and Marda Loop.

It's the same song and dance all the time and it's really something to see how conveniently things seem to come together with all elements of developer, city council, city administration and more.

Sometimes it's comical when you see elements of this play out and I kid you not when I say there are elements of fraud. Cash is changing hands or city owned land get's sold off for pennies on the dollar or for deals that don't really make sense. Certain friends of the previous mayor in Calgary literally made off like bandits. How do people who started off with so little end up literally owning huge swaths of top tier, riverfront land in downtown Calgary?

Like I said in a previous post, I have zero idea what specifically was proposed with this DQ but I doubt it was anything radical. I doubt it was something that would have enraged the local area. It was declined but if a big monied developer would drop tens of millions on the project and everybody get's rich that the project gets approved.

A friend of mine who comes from a country with extreme levels of corruption said it best. Canadians are naïve to think it's not the same thing here, our growing economy in general is able to hide the fraud. The POS countries where this happens in plain sight can't hide it cause the economy can't support it.

Either way, I hope that this family and this landlord are taken care of as I don't like the optics of this.