The Public Meeting considered applications submitted by Enterprise Boulevard Inc. for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a high density development with a maximum of 1,400 apartment units on the north side of Enterprise Boulevard, immediately east of the Metrolinx-GO Stouffville rail corridor (Ward 3), File No. PLAN 20 113948.
The Committee Clerk advised that 27 notices were mailed on August 18, 2021, and that a Public Meeting Sign was posted on August 25, 2021. There was one written submission received regarding the proposed development.
Sabrina Bordone, Senior Planner, gave a presentation regarding on the location, surrounding uses, policy context, and outstanding issues/next steps on the proposed development.
Laura Gold, Council/Committee Coordinator responded to an inquiry from the Committee and confirmed that the Public Meeting Notice was sent to the owner of the Amica Unionville Retirement Residence at 34 Main Street Unionville. Ms. Gold further explained that notices are only sent to property owners (not to the tenants).
Ms. Bordone clarified that property owners of lands containing seven or more residential units are advised in the notice that they are required to post the notice in a visible location for all residents to view.
The Committee suggested that the notification circulation be discussed offline.
Maria Gatzios, Gatzios Planning + Development Consultants Inc., representing the applicant, provided a presentation on the proposed development. Ms. Gatzios confirmed that the applicant is working with Markham District Energy, and that the applicant commits to provide some affordable housing as part of the proposed development. Ms. Gatzios noted that the applicant is currently working with staff to define affordable housing in relation to the proposed development.
The following deputations were made on the proposed development:
- Peter Miasek, representing the Unionville Residents Association, expressed concern that the height of the proposed development now exceeds the maximum height being proposed in the Preliminary Concept Plan for the Markham Centre Secondary Plan Update and that this and other new information regarding the proposed development was not provided to residents prior to the meeting. Mr. Miasek was pleased that the proposed development includes local retail, affordable housing, community amenity space (such as a daycare), masked or hidden ground level/podium parking, and possibly a multi-use pathway. Mr. Miasek noted that the proposed development should include additional parkland, and questioned if the woodlot is permitted to be used as parkland. Mr. Miasek further questioned what the energy footprint for the proposed development would be given the City has a “net zero” target in place.
Ms. Bordone advised that some modifications were made to the development applications in May 2021, but that the changes did not warrant bringing forward another Preliminary Report (the proposed density remained the same as what was reported in the September 2020 Preliminary Report). The Public Meeting Notice referenced the changes to the proposed development.
Ms. Gold advised that Public Meeting Notices are not currently circulated to the local Ratepayers Associations, but that the notices are posted on the City’s website.
- Hayden Poon asked the following questions regarding the proposed development:
- Will the gym and parking lot be on the same level?
- Is there an issue with the ground water on the site?
- Is the applicant planning on addressing the noise from the proposed Metrolinx storage facility?
Mr. Poon also noted that it is important to have affordable housing incorporated into the proposed development as it is located close to transit, and that the accessibility of the site should be carefully looked at due to the grading of the site (i.e. access to the bridge and elevators).
Committee provided the following feedback on the proposed development:
- Questioned how much of the woodlot would be lost to add the vehicular access driveway and if it could be moved to preserve all of the woodlot;
- Suggested that the fly over pedestrian bridge be built as part of this proposed development so that residents can safely cross Enterprise Boulevard to access public transit;
- Asked if the proposed development will meet the City’s bird-friendly requirements;
- Asked for clarification on what a “pedestrian mews” means, and if the space would be open to the public and could be used by residents to walk their dogs;
- Asked for clarification on the location of the park;
- Suggested that the proposed development should not be approved if the height of development exceeds the maximum height being proposed in the Draft Development Concept for the Markham Centre Secondary Plan;
- Suggested that pedestrian connectivity needs to be carefully reviewed by staff;
- Suggested that the applicant and other developers in the area should contribute to the development of a trail system within the area that connects with Markham’s existing trail network;
- Suggested that passive housing design principles be considered to reduce energy consumption;
- Noted that the retaining wall should be visually appealing;
- Noted that in the future, new information regarding a proposed development should be communicated to residents prior to the Public Meeting so that they can prepare for the meeting;
- Suggested that local Ratepayers Associations should receive a copy of the Public Meeting Notice;
- Noted that the applicant should refer to York Region’s definition of affordable housing when determining what is considered “affordable” in relation to the proposed development;
- Noted that it is challenging to approve the application without the completion of the update to the Markham Centre Secondary Plan;
- Suggested that the applicant’s Architect meet with the City’s Public Art Coordinator to discuss future potential public art projects, such as using public art to make the public space under the underpass more interesting.
The following responses to questions from the deputants and Committee were provided:
Ms. Gatzios advised that the driveway entrance to the proposed development was designed in 2012 to protect all of the woodlot, but due to tree growth since that time, a small portion of the woodlot now needs to be removed. The change is so slight that the entrance is not being re-mapped. Ms. Gatzios clarified that the pedestrian bridge will be built as part of the lands to the south (under the same ownership). She advised the Committee of the complexities involved with the lands to the south that included an approved bus rapid transit way alignment, grade differences, and a future construction area that would result in an unsafe pedestrian bridge connection if built with this proposed development. She further noted that in the interim, residents would be able to cross safely at Enterprise Boulevard as there is a signalized intersection at University Boulevard. Ms. Gatzios further advised that a portion of the subject lands would be used for parkland and that it is at the City’s discretion to determine what to do with the parkland. Ms. Gatzios also confirmed that noise from the proposed Metrolinx storage facility has been considered in the planning of the proposed development.
Stephen Lue, Manager of Development, Central District, confirmed that Metrolinx will likely proceed to build the storage facility in this area, but has advised that it will only use the facility during the day at off-peak times, and that the trains will generate less noise due to the electrification infrastructure.
Andrea Katz, Architect, representing the applicant, advised that the retaining wall would be incorporated into the proposed development. Ms. Katz further advised that the “pedestrian mews” would include a landscaped open space with hard and soft surfaces, casual seating, and loosely programed activities. The space will be open to the public and residents will be able to use the space to walk their dogs. Ms. Katz also confirmed that the planned gym for the proposed development and the P1 level parking would be on the same level, and that the ground water is high in and around the site.
Mr. Lue identified the proposed location of the park to the Committee and noted that there has been some discussions with the City’s trail consultant regarding connecting the proposed area trail system to the City’s trail network.
Biju Karumanchery, Director, Planning & Urban Design, advised that the size of the park cannot be confirmed until the development plans for the adjacent land parcel to the north (28 Main Street) are known. Mr. Karumanchery also advised that staff will review if the proposed development is in compliance with the City’s Bird-Friendly Guidelines as part of the site plan review process.
Ms. Bordone advised that the requirement to build a pedestrian bridge connecting to the lands on the south side of Enterprise Boulevard would be addressed as part of the recommendation report. Ms. Bordone also advised that a crash wall is being proposed adjacent to the rail corridor and that staff are reviewing design options for the wall.