[Daveography]

@westcoastjos They don't need to go back if it was supported with conditions, they just have to show the Development Officer that the conditions have been either met, or argued that they cannot be, as part of the DP application.

 

[Daveography]

Permit Type Major Development Permit
Permit Class Class B
Permit Date Sep 30, 2019
Status Approved
Description of Development To construct a mixed use building (5 General Retail Stores at ground level and 171 dwellings of Apartment Housing), with an underground parkade.
Address 901, 10850 - 83 AVENUE NW
Neighbourhood GARNEAU

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

I hope this starts a tide of redevelopment on 109 between 82nd Ave and the High level bridge. This area has so much potential. Also, the Safeway site across the street would be perfect for 2-3 towers in a mixed use scheme.

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

Also, the Safeway site across the street would be perfect for 2-3 towers in a mixed use scheme.

Agreed. This would probably be a good discussion for its own thread, but I do know there was a proposal for that Safeway about six years ago. I don't remember any public renders for it, but the design committees thoughts sounded pretty unfavourable. Trudging through Connect2Edmonton I was able to find this;

C.4. Whyte Avenue Food Store
Dialog - Darrell Halliwell
10930 - 82 Avenue NW

The Committee finds that the present design does not achieve the key objective of a pedestrian-oriented character of this commercial area.
• CRU #4 requires a different character than the main building such that it creates interest along 83rd Avenue and 109th Street.
• Utilize articulation or other elements to further break down the monolithic façade of the main building.
• Meet the landscape requirement for the setback along the entire length of the west property line such that this development does not negatively impact the adjacent properties.
• Redesign the blank wall that encloses the loading area such that it provides a level of visual interest for the adjacent residents and pedestrians moving along 82nd Avenue.
• The lack of canopies and weather protection at-grade along 82nd Avenue and 109th Street does not create a pedestrian friendly environment on the shopping streets as per the Pedestrian Shopping Street Overlay.
• The lack of roof line variation along 82nd Avenue and 109 Street does not provide adequate articulation or visual interest for this scale of development.
• The proposed lighting plan does not include pedestrian oriented lighting on the shopping streets as well as within the parking lot. Consideration of Darksky principle should be followed.
• “Lifestyle” imagery and temporary window signage that block views into the buildings do not promote a pedestrian shopping street. The development’s detail signage package must include strict limitations on temporary window signage.
• Rooftop mechanical screening details are required, as this building will be viewed from adjacent multi-family residential projects.
• Vehicular accesses off of 82nd Avenue and 109th Street need to promote a pedestrian first environment. The Committee would support a single access off of 109th Street provided that it is detailed such that the pedestrian movement is uninterrupted. The Committee does not support a mid-block vehicular access off of 82nd Avenue as it interrupts the continuous pedestrian experience along this development.

 

[Kaizen]

Nice find @_Citizen_Dane_ Also, I like the committee's comments & this one in particular stands out for me • “Lifestyle” imagery and temporary window signage that block views into the buildings do not promote a pedestrian shopping street. The development’s detail signage package must include strict limitations on temporary window signage." Apparently we still don't get this !

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Taken October 24, 2020

Just thought I'd also update this thread.

 

[IanO]

Such a sad, sad site...

 

[Clearshades]

Seems to be our city's new decor.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Yup. There have been quite a few properties around the city where there have been buildings that at least occupied the space, could have even temporarily house a business (in some cases for years) until the development moved forward.

 

[EdmTrekker]

Yup. There have been quite a few properties around the city where there have been buildings that at least occupied the space, could have even temporarily house a business (in some cases for years) until the development moved forward.

Or be sites for trailers to house the homeless as temporary shelters.

 

[Skyking]

Does anyone have any idea what's happening with this site? Its such a prime lot!

 

[David A]

Again, we keep on repeating the same thing - tearing down useful older buildings in a good location and leaving an empty unattractive lot for years and years.

They really should have just left the church to be used as a community facility or a dance studio or whatever. It would have looked so much better - the empty lot is not benefiting the area, if anything it is dragging it down.

 

[Skyking]

I’m just really curious as to why the developer just left it. Sad!

 

[quit]

Someone could dial up the owner, Dave Dyrbye, and ask. He was quoted in the CTV Edmonton article when they tore it down.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

This had so much potential.