Arvin Prasad, Commissioner of Development Services, provided an overview of work undertaken to date in regards to the Markham Centre Secondary Plan Update.
Stephen Lue, Senior Manager, Development, introduced the consultants and advised that they will present an overview of the work conducted to date on the Development Concept for the Markham Centre Secondary Plan, and the transportation assessment that will describe the implications of the Development Concept for the Markham Centre Secondary Plan. Mr. Lue advised that today’s presentation represents the completion of the second of three major tasks in the Markham Centre Secondary Plan Update Study, which include (1) the creation of development options that resulted in the preliminary concept; (2) the creation of the development concept; and (3) the recommended concept, which is to be completed in early 2023. Mr. Lue advised that the Markham Centre Secondary Plan policies will be based on the recommend concept. Mr. Lue advised that more engagement with stakeholders will occur over the summer, and that the results of the engagement are targeted to be presented in late fall.
Andrew Davidge, Gladki Planning, provided a presentation on the Markham Centre Development Concept.
Francois Tomeo, and Joran Talker, Steer Group, provided a presentation on the Markham Centre Transportation Assessment.
The following deputations on the Markham Centre Plan Update – Development Concept + Transportation Assessment:
Nick Pileggi, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., representing the Wyview Group, property owner of 4151 Highway 7, expressed concern that his client’s lands can accommodate for greater height and density than proposed in the Development Concept for the site, and that the permitted density cannot be achieved without providing for greater height. Mr. Pileggi recommended that Council refer the proposed Development Concept back to Staff to resolve these discrepancies and achieve greater consensus.
Nick Pileggi, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd, representing Kingdom Development Inc., who owns properties at 4077, 4101, and 4121 Highway 7, expressed the following concerns: (1) that there is a disconnect between the proposed building heights and FSI, as the permitted density cannot be achieved without increasing the maximum height; (2) that the preferred Development Concept does not reflect the building heights in Kingdom’s development proposal for Phase 3 of their development; and (3) it does not reflect the discussions between Kingdom and Staff in regards to their development proposal. Mr. Pileggi asked Council to not endorse the Development Concept prior to these matters being resolved.
Andrew Ferancik, WND Associates, representing New World Centre (Markham) Development Corporation, 100-110 Clegg Road, expressed the following concerns regarding the Development Concept: (1) it proposes a conceptual building and an east-west road that conflicts with his client’s development proposal; (2) that further clarity be provided for the portion of their site that is designated as “Business Park Office Priority Employment” and that permissions for their lands located in the “Business Park Office Park Employment” designation be considered for mixed-use and residential uses to supports the concept of a walkable community; and (3) that the proposed heights and density for his client’s site do not reflect the 7 to 46 storeys included in their development proposal, which predates the Development Concept. Mr. Ferancik recommended that Staff report back with a revised Development Concept that is supportive of intensification.
Alfred Szeto, Szeto Architects + Engineers, also representing New World Centre (Markham) Development Corporation, 100-110 Clegg Road, expressed the following concerns: (1) that the proposed Development Concept does not reflect his client’s Draft Plan of Subdivision, which was submitted in 2018; (2) there is a discrepancy between the permitted FSI and height, as the permitted density cannot be achieved without increasing the height; and (3) that the project will no longer be viable with the proposed FSI and height for the subject lands.
Randy Peddigrew, Remington Group, displayed a video of what he has been envisioning for Markham Centre. Mr. Peddigrew suggested that focusing too greatly on the height and density will place a barrier on creating a walkable community. Mr. Peddigrew expressed concern that his lands have been provided with the lowest FSIs in the Development Concept, as this is where population is needed now to support existing businesses. Mr. Peddigrew explained that the developments to the east will not be built for some time, and that the City has a responsibility to support the existing businesses in the area. Mr. Peddigrew suggested there should be more flexibility in the FSI of office buildings, as this flexibility is required to attract larger corporations to the area and having this type of employment is critical to supporting other uses in the area. Mr. Peddigrew suggested that Remington will not accept an FSI of 2 for their properties located within close proximity to the GO Station. Mr. Peddigrew suggested that allowing for greater height helps create a buffer of built form around Highway 7, as Highway 407 is elevated in this area. Mr. Peddigrew suggested not including the height and FSI in the Secondary Plan, as they are overly restrictive and will lead to delays in development due to appeals of the plan. Mr. Peddigrew noted that Remington is trying to build a unique downtown.
Matthew Cory, Malone Given Parsons, representing Dorsay Development Corporation, landowner of lands on the southwest corner of Warden and Highway 7, expressed concern that the proposed height and density for his client’s lands is too low given its location in an adopted major transit station area (MTSA) in the new York Region Official Plan where the density target is 200 people and jobs per hectare. Mr. Cory advised that the height and density being proposed is more suitable for sites on the peripheral of an MTSA. Mr. Cory advised that the proposed FSI of 4 for his client’s lands would not permit his client to achieve the density targets required in an MTSA, and suggested that an FSI of 7 would be more suitable. Mr. Cory further suggested that the heights of 6 to 25 proposed for eastern portion of his client’s overall landholdings should also permitted on the undeveloped portions located on the north side of Highway 7, east and west of Circa Drive. Mr. Cory also expressed concern with the “Mixed Use Office Priority” designation proposed on a portion of his client’s lands and recommended a redesignation to “Mixed Use High Rise”. Mr. Cory noted that a lot of work on the Development Concept has been completed, but there are still a lot of outstanding issues, which he feared could lead to hold-ups later on if not corrected.
Maria Gatzios, Gatzios Planning + Development Consultants Inc., representing Metropia, noted that Metropia (North) conforms to the Development Concept and, therefore, should be permitted to proceed. Ms. Gatzios noted that Metropia (South), located immediately adjacent to the GO Station, generally conforms to the Development Concept which proposes a maximum of 40 storeys in height, and that her client’s proposal consists of three towers with height of 36, 40, and 44 storeys. Ms. Gatzios supported adding more flexibility into the Development Concept to consider how height and density work on a site, as this may differ from site to site. Ms. Gatzios suggested that adding caps to sites creates issues, noting that some municipalities provided a minimum density to provide for more site to site customization, and to avoid Official Plan Amendments.
Ms. Gatzios, Gatzios Planning + Development Consultants Inc., representing Longos Supermarket, 3085 Highway 7, noted that the Smart Centres development application to redevelop the Markham Woodside plaza looks very different than what is proposed for these lands in the Development Concept, suggesting that the City will need to work with the landowner.
The Committee provided the following feedback on the Development Concept:
- Questioned if the City is proposing enough density to support the commercial establishments, and how the City can ensure that development gets built in a timely manner;
- Noted that there are practical reasons why residents choose not to bike;
- Suggested that the Museum should be relocated to Markham Centre, and that there is a lot of valuable land that should be used for a variety of purposes;
- Expressed concern regarding the current frequency of transit in Markham Centre;
- Suggested there should be a designated carpooling area included in the Development Concept;
- Clarified that transit frequency will increase over time as the population grows and the demand for transit increases;
- Noted that there are inconsistences between development applications that have already been submitted and the Development Concept;
- Supported comments from deputants regarding the inconsistency between the height and density, and providing more flexibility in regards to the employment lands and the arrangement of density in the proposed Development Concept;
- Noted that residents living in Markham Centre will likely still want a car to drive to the grocery store, or to take their child to an extracurricular activity;
- Need to consider the movement of people in the greater community rather than just within Markham Centre, as the impact of the density on the existing nearby communities also needs to be considered;
- Suggested possibly rerouting the rapid transit along Highway 7 to align with where density is being proposed;
- Suggested that Markham Centre will need transit connections to other parts of the Greater Toronto Area to achieve the modal split;
- Expressed some concern regarding reducing the width of Enterprise Boulevard to provide more room for pedestrians and cyclists, suggested that programing of the street needs to be flexible, adjustable, and consider the seasonal variations of its use;
- Noted the importance of the built forms in Markham Centre having a nice urban design;
- Questioned how the Markham Centre Secondary Plan can be created so that when implemented it still permits for flexibility to create a distinct downtown core, and to do things outside of the box.
The Consultants and Staff responded and provided clarification to inquiries from the Committee.