|
|
|
I don't usually support the city getting involved in private business stuff like this, but it might be the best compromise. I understand why the city would want to take advantage and avoid a parking lot and drive through on Centre Street, especially if the city wants to make that location a TOD at some point n the future, but at the same time if you're going to stop someone from trying to rebuild their business that was already a drive through, you'd better be prepared to compensate them somehow.
. 
How is this socialism?
You didn't properly read my post. Not once did I say every business that burns down should be terminated because it doesn't meet my vision. This is one of the few locations in the city where a drive through is a concern, one of the other ones has already been mentioned (McDonald's on 16th). In 99% of the city this wouldn't matter to me at all.. I also have no problem with the city buying them out or offering them some sort of compensation for the loss of the drive through.
Fully agree. I just find it strange and frustrating that while this appeal was happening on Thursday, literally at the exact same time, Councillor Woolley was trying to convince the Planning Commission that permitting a drivethrough onto 17th Avenue would be a better overall outcome for Calgary, despite the policy conflict......
It comes across as a strange hill to die on, but on the other hand, it's a location where the city is trying to promote Mainstreet and TOD initiatives. The link @darwink posted is not available anymore, but in the document the city's explanation for the refusal was to do with their mainstreet, and TOD initiatives, so I can understand where they are coming from. If the city is going to push these initiatives they have to walk the talk. If the drive thru was anywhere else, it wouldn't make any sense at all, but the city is trying to avoid making a mistake now that they might have to deal with later.
Why Woolley would contradict himself is strange. Either the city is doing this or they aren't. The city used it's Mainsteets initiatives as a reason to deny the drive thru at DQ, and I'm pretty sure 17th ave is part of their Mainstreets initiative.
The City (administration) recommended refusal of the McDonalds land use that would enshrine the drive through. Woolley felt that it was the lesser of two evils, and pushed to see it remain, with a DP as shown in the concept. That amendment lost on a tie (both Councillors on CPC, Woolley and Gondeck) were in favour of keeping the driveway. Administration's recommendation only went forward with the chair's tie breaking vote. Woolley asked that his amendment also be forwarded to Council, so expect him to lobby other councillors to allow this drive through at the public hearing when Council votes.
They didn't want to compromise it seems, so the chance for dialog goes away. If they had been willing to 'trade' away their two Centre St curb cuts, and pushed their development to the corner, I bet they'd have even been allowed to keep a drive up window. But no compromise by the applicant leads to no compromise by the city.
