The Public Meeting this date was to consider an application submitted by Lifetime 8200 Warden Avenue GP Inc. for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a high rise residential mixed-use development located at the Southwest Corner of Cedarland Drive and Warden Avenue, Markham Centre (Ward 8) File No. PLAN 20 123292.
The Committee Clerk advised that 6569 notices were mailed on March 16, 2021, and a Public Meeting sign was posted on March 16, 2021.
There were 13 written submissions received regarding this proposal either expressing concern or in opposition of the development proposal.
Committee requested that staff investigate whether notification still needs to be provided within a 1 KM radius in the Markham Centre area.
Kate Cooper, Bousfield Inc., representing the applicant, provided a presentation regarding the proposal, the location, surrounding uses and outstanding issues.
David Pontarini, Hariri Pontarini Architects, representing the applicant, presented the proposed architecture design of the development proposal.
The public provided the following feedback on the development proposal:
1) Peter Miasek, representing the Unionville Residents Association
- Commented on the beautiful architecture;
- Expressed concern in regards to the height and density of the development proposal, and that there is no mention of parklands, affordable housing, or the uses (employment versus residential);
- Suggested the development proposal should support the principles of a sustainable walkable community;
- Suggested the development proposal needs to be re-worked.
2) Haydeen Poon
- Expressed concern that the development proposal will have a negative impact on the Viva Rapid Transit if the signaling is not adjusted (i.e. causing bus delays).
3) Paul Chiang, resident of 38 Cedarland Drive, and President of the Condominium Board
- Expressed concern in regards to the density and height of the development proposal, and that it does not fit the character of the neighbourhood.
4) Raymond Hau
- Suggested that there is a high demand for this type of condominium in Markham, and that the development proposal is suitable for the location.
5) Resident that called in comments (name unknown)
- Suggested that Markham Centre condominiums do not have enough parking, and asked if the development proposal will have parking spots available for residents to rent.
Committee provided the following feedback on the development proposal:
- Requested a letter confirming that the development proposal complies with the Buttonville Airport height restrictions;
- Suggested adding more transit stations or running a shuttle service for the condominium residents, as a way to mitigate traffic;
- Concerned that a project of this magnitude will set precedent for future developments in the Markham Centre area;
- Suggested the architecture was interesting and also noted that it may be a good location for landmark or iconic design;
- Requested that the development proposal include an automated waste system;
- Suggested moving building C back to its original position to preserve the northern view;
- Discussed the potential opportunity of having a park on the IBM daycare lands, and why the previous proposals for parkland on site were not approved by staff;
- Noted the importance of building parks in suitable locations and ensuring there is enough parkland within the Markham Centre area, but recognized that not all developments will include suitable land for parks;
- Suggested that Markham Centre include iconic or signature sites and that the City consider: how many of these sites there should be; where they should be located; and how they should be positioned.
Ms. Cooper responded to inquiries from the Committee and the public. The density of the development proposal has been reduced since the previous proposal. The FSI seems higher than it is due to the inclusion of a public road, and Markham’s requirement to include above grade parking as part of the gross floor area. The applicant has a letter indicating that the development proposal complies with height restriction imposed due to the Buttonville Airport. The applicant is also working closely with City and Regional staff on addressing transit concerns. Adjusting the bus signals to address development in the area is currently being reviewed. Other ways of mitigating traffic will continue to be looked at, including the suggestion to operate a shuttle bus. If IBM decides to develop its daycare lands, the applicant will be unable to provide their parkland dedication. However, it was noted that there is not much developable land on the IBM daycare lands due to its proximity to the Rouge River.
Mr. Pontarini advised that Building C was moved to address staff comments to reduce the northern shadow over the parklands, and to provide greater separation between the towers to provide the northern buildings with a better view of the valley lands. Sustainability is being considered in the design of the development proposal.
Brian Brown, Lifetime Developments, responded to inquires from the Committee and the public. The applicant is investigating the possibility of including purpose built rentals in the development proposal. It is too early to confirm the price per parking spot, but it cost approximately $65-75K to build an underground parking spot. Any extra parking spots will likely be available for residents to rent or purchase. Parkland on site was previously considered, but staff did not support the proposed location on Warden Avenue as it presented several shortcomings.
Staff responded to inquires from the Committee and the public. Meetings are currently being held with York Region and Viva to discuss transit availability relative to the development in the area and opportunities to enhance services. Staff are currently reviewing the height and density of the development proposal.