Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Oling_Roachinen]

Oh ####, I just remembered they installed those bike only barriers on 1st street and 18th avenue to prevent thru-traffic. I believe it's only temporary (at this time as they assess it and receive comments) but if they do make it permanent, then this decision is even all the more baffling.

So maybe once in a decade during some amazing promo you'll have a car waiting in line on 18th avenue where thru-traffic is discouraged?



From my amazing photoshop skills here you can see the red and yellow are how cars must travel as the barrier prevents them from going straight through that intersection. The blue is (was) the drive-thru, keep in mind that it really does need about 10 cars before it would get onto 18th avenue.

Again this assumes they keep the layout relatively the same.

I understand that the drive-thru is not the only reason for the denial but really it is a red herring being used. There's really no impact or safety concerns from it.

[Fuzz]

All those traffic barriers in the area are the stupidest thing they could possibly come up with. Grid streets function because they are grids. Now you have to go way out of your way, and it forces you onto the already busy major roads. It's inefficient, which means people burn more gas. It's baffling, too, because they aren't busy streets. But they prevent you from accessing business off of 16th ave that have parking on the side streets, so you have to loop all the way around. Traffic engineers looking to justify their jobs.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Then the city should buy the land at fair market value rather than bullying and boning around land and business owners who have a completely compliant proposal running through the permitting process.

I don’t have an issue with policy based on this.

If it takes the city to be the developer to get the right development close to LRT stations, than the city should be the developer.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Now you have to go way out of your way.

Not if you're a bike or a pedestrian though. Hmm, seems like a pattern going on here.

[getbak]

If the main concern for allowing a drive-thru is the possibility of traffic backing up onto Centre Street, I don't see any reason they couldn't just block off the driveways to and from Centre Street and require everyone to enter from 18th Ave.

They could set it up similar to the nearby McDonald's on 4th Street. You can't access the McDonald's from 4th Street. You must enter the parking lot from 23rd Ave. and the drive-thru wraps around the building, leaving you back on 23rd when you exit. The way it's set up, even if the drive-thru backs up, it goes into the parking lot. There would probably have to be 25-30 cars in line before it would disrupt traffic on 4th Street.

I've lived in the area for over a decade now, and I don't think I've ever seen more than 3 or 4 vehicles in line at the DQ drive-thru. So, I don't think backing up would ever be an issue there.

[Weitz]

I’ve got no issues with what the city wants. Just make the landowner whole.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not if you're a bike or a pedestrian though. Hmm, seems like a pattern going on here.

As an all weather cyclist, I still take the car when I'm going to pickup takeout. Plus it makes it more difficult for those who live in the area to get to their apartments and houses. It's pretty anti-environmental, really. The roads dept excels at that kind of ####.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Yeah, so I think we're on the same page? The drive-thru excuse isn't about safety or other impacts, its about "#### your cars" lol.

The desire for higher-density and the like, I think is a fair argument by Farrell and the city, one I disagree with given the circumstances, the drive-thru thing though is BS.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Oh ####, I just remembered they installed those bike only barriers on 1st street and 18th avenue to prevent thru-traffic. I believe it's only temporary (at this time as they assess it and receive comments) but if they do make it permanent, then this decision is even all the more baffling.

So maybe once in a decade during some amazing promo you'll have a car waiting in line on 18th avenue where thru-traffic is discouraged?



From my amazing photoshop skills here you can see the red and yellow are how cars must travel as the barrier prevents them from going straight through that intersection. The blue is (was) the drive-thru, keep in mind that it really does need about 10 cars before it would get onto 18th avenue.

Again this assumes they keep the layout relatively the same.

I understand that the drive-thru is not the only reason for the denial but really it is a red herring being used. There's really no impact or safety concerns from it.

I don’t think that is the right area.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don’t think that is the right area.

Yes it is. The blue arrow is where the DQ used to be.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I’ve got no issues with what the city wants. Just make the landowner whole.

Yep. The problem here is that the DQ owners were leasing the location so aside from being the unfortunate victims of an electrical fire and the city's plans evolving, they don't get a lot of say in the matter or compensation.

If anyone is the bad guy here it's the insurance company, not the City.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by getbak

Yes it is. The blue arrow is where the DQ used to be.

Oh yeah, the Beacon Heights threw me.

The size of that lot though. That’s about the same as that apartment building across from it. It does seem like an awful waste to just use it for a single DQ when the chance comes around. Like put it on the ground floor the way they were doing around Kensington or even further up Centre St where they put Rosso and a few shops below condos.

[Bunk]

There's an incredible amount of misinformation on this (shocking, I know). I'd expect you'll see a statement from the City within the next little bit.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Bunk

There's an incredible amount of misinformation on this (shocking, I know). I'd expect you'll see a statement from the City within the next little bit.

Is it misinformation or lack of information / speculation?

For all the talk we know surprising little information. It doesn’t help that the majority of the information came from corbella

[Oling_Roachinen]

The only real misinformation I bet is that it's Farrell's fault as though she somehow makes the decision for the planning department. And MarchHare already covered that. She really doesn't get a say. However, it is her ward and she can speak up when she thinks the city gets it wrong as the ward's representative. Corbella is an idiot blaming it on Farrell, but we already know Corbella is an idiot.

Otherwise most of what we know has already been confirmed by the department and city. That they want multiuse, high density, pedestrian friendly, limited auto-oriented developments and as such denied the application on that ground.

[PsYcNeT]

You would figure getting rid of the 3 or 4 rub and tugs employing human trafficked women in the area would be job #1 if they want a pedestrian friendly walkable district

[Regorium]

I think the only information that could bring me onto the City's side of things is if the city offered to make the franchisee whole (paying them 15 years of potential lost profits, franchisee fees etc.) and also offered to buy the land for the upzoned value from the landowner but were rejected.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Wormius

The size of that lot though. That’s about the same as that apartment building across from it. It does seem like an awful waste to just use it for a single DQ when the chance comes around. Like put it on the ground floor the way they were doing around Kensington or even further up Centre St where they put Rosso and a few shops below condos.

Directly south of the DQ was a building (pizza hut, bank etc.) that was demolished and turned into a couple never used Safeway parking spots. You can see the outline of the building in the Google maps photo as the darker part of the parking lot.

An actual business has to be infinitely more appealing than an empty lot, which is what the land owner said would happen if the restaurant is denied.

It's nice to want to have multi-use commercial and residential, high density, pedestrian friendly, amazing idea businesses but it's another to actually get a developer willing to build them.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Oh yeah, the Beacon Heights threw me.

Yeah, I never understood why it's called Beacon Heights Safeway. It's very confusing.

Also, the Co-op on 16th Ave and 5th Street NE is called North Hill. Which is also confusing.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I think the only information that could bring me onto the City's side of things is if the city offered to make the franchisee whole (paying them 15 years of potential lost profits, franchisee fees etc.) and also offered to buy the land for the upzoned value from the landowner but were rejected.

That's not whole. That's bloated