Arvin Prasad, Commissioner of Development Services, advised that this presentation will provide an update on the Markham Road – Mount Joy (MRMJ) Secondary Plan Study, specifically the work completed since the Interim Report and the draft demonstration plan, which were received by this Committee in April of 2021. The presentation today includes an overview of the feedback received from stakeholders and members of the public, revisions to the draft demonstration plan, the results of the technical transportation and municipal servicing modeling, an update of the development applications in the secondary plan area, and the next step to finalize the Secondary Plan Study.
Darryl Lyons, Senior Manager, Policy & Research, introduced the consultants and advised that today’s presentation continues the engagement with Council and stakeholders on the MRMJ Secondary Plan Study.
Shonda Wang, SvN Architects + Planners Inc., Jonathan Chai, HDR Inc., Patrick Turner, Counterpoint Engineering, Darryl Lyons, City of Markham, and Stacia Muradali, City of Markham delivered the presentation on the MRMJ Secondary Plan Study Update.
The following deputations were provided on the MRMJ Secondary Plan Study Update:
- Marshall Smith, KLM Planning, representing 9781 Markham Road Limited Partnership, expressed concern that his client’s development application for two mixed use high rise towers, 32 and 27 storeys respectively in height, on the Phase 2 lands at 9781 Markham Road was in alignment with the draft demonstration plan received in April 2021. Mr. Smith advised that his client has been actively involved in the secondary planning process, and had not heard any concerns regarding the application until June 2022. Mr. Smith noted that his client is not content with the three tower configuration shown in the revised demonstration plan. Mr. Smith advised that he looks forward to continuing to work on refining the demonstration plan to achieve optimal outcomes for the subject lands.
- Billy Tung, KLM Planning, representing 9781 Markham Road Limited Partnership, advised that he was surprised by the changes shown in the revised demonstration plan, as the configuration for his client’s lands had remained the same for some time.
- Rohan Sovig, Malone Given Parsons Ltd, representing 9900 Markham Road, advised that his client’s 2021 development application was well received by staff, and was in alignment with the draft demonstration plan for the MRMJ Secondary Plan Study. Mr. Sovig advised that his client is generally okay with reducing the height of their proposed development to 20 storeys. However, his client does not support the hybrid option of less density being permitted on the northern portion of the subject lands if a GO station at Major Mackenzie is not approved by the Province, as a sufficient amount of density needs to be planned for to obtain approval of the GO station.
- Adam Layton, Evans Planning, representing 2585231 Ontario Inc., the owners of 9999 Markham Road, requested clarification about arrangements for public access, specifically pedestrians, on the private road and laneway on his client’s lands connecting to the proposed pedestrian crossing across the rail corridor. Mr. Layton agreed that the pedestrian crossing across the rail corridor will be a key feature in this area and that the details of the crossing, such as how it is constructed, funded, maintained, and accessed are important. Mr. Layton spoke in support of having a Major Mackenzie GO Station, and inquired how it will affect the signalization of the intersection at Anderson Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive. Mr. Layton also inquired about the timelines for the sewer upgrades on Markham Road, such as how the project will be phased. Mr. Layton also looked for clarification on whether the capacity of 9,000 people for the northern portion the study area lands includes existing developments that have already been approved and allocated, or if it includes the remaining capacity for these lands.
The Committee discussed the following relative to the MRMJ Secondary Plan Study Update:
General Comments
- Noted that there is an opportunity to develop the area without having a great impact on the existing communities;
Height and Density
- Questioned how strict the City will be in regards to the height restrictions;
- Questioned why permitted heights have decreased, but the population projections have increased;
- Clarified that staff received public feedback that some of the development proposals in this area were too high, noting that staff need to ensure that the land uses are appropriate and do not conflict with the surrounding uses.
Pedestrian Crossing and Greenspace by the west side of the Railway
- Suggested that landowners be spoken to in regards to the conveyance of the green space along the west side of the railway corridor to the City, so that it can be designed and planned for alternative transportation uses;
- Encouraged the landowners to form a landowners group to ensure a consistent approach is applied within the secondary plan area;
- Suggested that something special can be done from a design perspective for the proposed pedestrian crossing, as it brings benefits to both sides of the tracks and supports the concept of a walkable community.
Sanitary Sewer System
- Noted that upgrades to the sanitary sewer system on 16th Avenue have been underway for the last few years, and that this data should be considered in the Study;
- Clarified that new sewers on Markham Road are recommended that will extend to 16th Avenue and connect with the existing sewer system, noting that the timing of the service upgrade is not clear at this time;
- Questioned if existing communities will be impacted by the new developments if the sanitary sewer system is not being updated for some time;
- Clarified that extra flows will be diverted to 16th Avenue rather than flow through Markham Village and that the diversion will occur prior to intensification of the area.
Secondary Plan Buildout Timing
- Questioned the estimated timeline for complete build-out;
- Clarified that the area is anticipated to be fully built out in 20-30 years.
Retail
- Questioned if there is enough retail being planned for in the secondary plan area;
- Clarified that redevelopment is intended to maintain existing retail uses, and that the revised demonstration plan provides for mixed use developments, which will include retail;
- Noted that the long term buildout of the area will vary based on if a Major Mackenzie GO Station is approved.
On Street Parking on Markham Road
- Questioned the portion of Markham Road that would have on street parking, as the narrowing of road may be problematic as traffic is already congested in this area;
- Suggested the impact of the reduction of lanes on other roads needs to be understood;
- Clarified that the portion of Markham Road to include street parking is still to being determined, but it should be an area where the parking will support the land use.
Traffic Congestion
- Questioned how traffic congestion will be managed in the area;
- Advised that York Region is planning to build a rapid bus transit lane on Major Mackenzie Drive, and that the proposed Major Mackenzie GO Station would have a commuter parking lot, which would help address some of the traffic infiltration on Markham Road;
- Suggested that there needs to be more discussion on the road network and its capacity in this area, as there will be a greater reliance on the roads if the Major Mackenzie GO Station is not approved by the Province.
GO Stations
- Suggested that GO station areas need to be planned as a corridor rather than just as a station;
- Suggested that the proposed Major Mackenzie GO Station should be planned to encourage a two-way flow of passengers by designing the station to be a destination;
- Noted that the current transportation networks will not be able to handle intensification if the Major Mackenzie GO Station is not approved;
- Suggested that the City needs to have a plan if the Province does not approve the GO Station;
- Questioned how the double tracks would be built to support 15-minute GO service in this area;
- Supported the phasing in of development if the Major Mackenzie GO Station is not approved by the Province.
Employment
- Questioned if there are plans for office buildings to be built in the secondary plan area;
- Clarified that the demonstration plan is targeting one job per every four people living in the area;
- Noted there is currently limited market interest for office buildings in this area, but that this could change as many businesses like having their offices near GO stations;
- Questioned the anticipated GO train usage given recent employment trends;
- Advised that the employment landscape is changing, but that it is still good planning to create complete communities around transit stations and that it is anticipated that more people will take public transit for affordability reasons in the future.
Cycling and Pedestrian Facilities
- Suggested that separate cycling and pedestrian facilities should be built on Markham Road now rather than later;
- Clarified that Markham Road was only re-built in 2013 and that it still has a significant lifecycle left, and that work is scheduled to be done this year on the existing multi-use pathway (MUP) on the west side of Markham Road by adding cross-rides at driveway and public street crossings. The proposed interim plan is to build an MUP on the eastside of the road to provide additional space for cyclists.
Affordable Housing
- Suggested that there should be affordable housing close to the GO Station;
- Suggested that purpose built rentals should be integrated into the community, and that there should be planned sites for rental buildings included in the area;
- Noted there should be a strategy for rental housing in this community;
- Questioned how the provincial government could help the City achieve its affordable housing goals in this community;
- Clarified that the new York Region Official Plan will require 35% of new housing units to be affordable within the proposed Mount Joy GO Major Transit Station Area, and that staff are also looking at how inclusionary zoning can help increase the supply of affordable housing in the secondary plan area.
Parkland
- Supported the additional parkland that has been included in the revised demonstration plan;
- Requested the calculation of parkland on school or municipal sites in this area;
- Questioned how much parkland there would be if Mount Joy Creek was covered west of the railway corridor.
Schools
- Questioned if the revised demonstration plan includes vertical schools or schools that are integrated with municipal services, such as a community centre or library;
- Noted that land for traditional schools has been protected in the demonstration plan based on input from the school board, but potential policy direction could support lands being used for vertical or integrated schools in this community;
- Suggested midrise buildings rather than four storey buildings fronting the school and parkland west of Markham Road, as it will make for a better transition from the high rise buildings.
The Committee advised that there is still more work to be done, and issues to be resolved with respect to the MRMJ Secondary Plan Study.