ADVISORY GROUP

Minutes of Meeting – May 20, 2010

 

 Members Attending

Harry Eaglesham- Unionville Ratepayers Assoc.

Gord Mah – Unionville Ratepayers Assoc.

Neil Banerjee – Unionville Villagers Assoc

Reid McAlpine – Unionville Villagers Assoc.

Darina Phillips - Unionville Resident

Michelle Lynch - Unionville Resident

Charles Sutherland - Markham at Large – (Milliken)

 Ted Spence – Markham Res. at Large (Markham Village)

Barry McFarquhar – Markham. Res. at Large (Swan Lake

Brent Mersey - Markham Environmental Advisory Committee(MEAC)

Philip Ling - Markham Environmental Advisory Committee(MEAC)

Richard Jarrell – York University

Bob HunnMarkham Accessibility Ctte

Peter Ronson – District Energy

Randy Peddigrew – Remington Group

 

Staff Attending

Jim Baird – Commissioner of Develop. Services

Ronji Borooah – Town of Markham Architect

Don Hamilton – Councillor, Ward 3

Richard Kendall – Manager, Central District

Scott Heaslip – Sr. Project Coordinator, Central District

Wendy Bond – MC Administrator

Regrets

Alan Graf – Unionville Resident

Tracy MacKinnon – Unionville BIA

Richard Cunningham – Markham Board of Trade

Duncan MacAskill – York Region

Jessica Peake – YRDSB

Christine Hyde -  YRCSB

Guests

Brian Hollingworth – IBI Group

Father Pishoy Salama, Parish Priest - St. Maurice & St. Verena Coptic Orthodox Church

Mrs. Sandra Salama - Spouse of Fr. Pishoy

Ben Quan - Planner - QX4 Investments Limited, Planning & Development Solutions

Len Abelman, Architect - WZMH Architects

Brian Andrew, Architect - WZMH Architects

Medhut Abdou, Principal - WZMH Architects

Tony Masongsong, Civil Engineer - Masongsong Associates Engineering Limited

Nick Poulos, Transportation Engineer - Poulos & Chung Limited

Emad Bishara - Member of Church Building Committee

Abdallah Assaf - Member of Church Building Committee

Ray Samuel - Member of Church

 

 

The Markham Centre Advisory Group meeting convened at 6:00 PM with Philip Ling in the Chair.

 

The Minutes of the Markham Centre Advisory Group meeting held on March 25, 2010 were adopted.

CARRIED 

 

  1. St. Maurice and St. Verena Coptic Orthodox Church

 

Ben Quan of QX4 Investments Limited, Len Abelman of WZMH Architects and Father Pishoy Salama of St. Maurice & St. Verena Coptic Orthodox Church presented a proposal for rezoning to a place of worship.  If Council approves the zoning, site plan review would follow. The property is located in the northwest corner of Rodick Road and Hwy. 7.   The proposal includes a church, Sunday school classrooms, a community centre, banquet hall, computer/employment centre, daycare and gymnasium.

 

The history behind the Coptic Orthodox Church was provided.  The church offers a multicultural approach to worship within a multicultural community. A pedestrian friendly building is proposed to interface with Hwy.7.  The project would be built in two phases; the first phase, a church seating 800 parishioners, church offices, and a visiting bishop’s suite with at grade parking for 200 vehicles. Phase 1 construction is to begin as soon as the necessary application requirements are met, with the anticipated completion in approximately 3 years. Phase 2 would see the other amenities constructed and portions of the at grade parking replaced with below grade parking, to be completed 3 years later.

 

The Advisory appreciated the applicant attempting to complete a Performance Measure Checklist, but with this being a zoning application, not all the site plan details were available for their consideration and therefore the rating was postponed. The Advisory is able to provide the following feedback:

·         The church has been designed with the main entrance located on the west side adjacent to the parking lot away from Hwy. 7, with a large east wall facing out to the community.  The Coptic Church Guiding Principals require an east/west positioning, the altar located on the buildings east side and the entrance on the west.  The Advisory felt the Church gave the impression of turning its back on the community; the design would require improvement, providing greater pedestrian access and community connection from the east side.  

·         Large volumes of traffic were seen as a possibility, 800 parishioners and only 200 parking spots and a busy intersection.  The traffic consultant indicated peak traffic for the church would occur on Sunday mornings and on special celebration days, a time when surrounding businesses were not operating, reducing the traffic in the area. Transit would be encouraged, as the church is located on a main transit route.  The proposed Phase 2 daycare expects 100 students, but it was not anticipated traffic would be affected. Traffic was further questioned; a large church located at Apple Creek and Rodick Rd. spills over into the nearby industrial properties.  The Coptic Church plan has no over spill available in the area, and was seen as a potential safety and traffic issue. Staff noted, the applicant has to provide a Parking Strategy Report and the applicant is investigating overflow parking in the Hydro Corridor. 

·         Concern was expressed that Phase 2 would not be constructed, costs being too overwhelming for the congregation.  Father Pishoy Salama assured the Advisory the church registration being only two years old was committed to the project, having already raising 2/3 the required funds for the land purchase.  The congregation will come primarily from Markham and the surrounding communities.

·         The storm water ditch located on the east side of the property is an overland flow route and directs water into the storm water pond located behind the property. Concerns were expressed regarding pedestrians crossing over.

·         Overall, the Advisory was satisfied with the proposed place of worship use and they liked the multicultural commitment, location and the vision.

 

  1. Markham Centre Transportation Study Update

 

Brian Hollingworth of IBI Group, Transportation Consultant to the Town of Markham presented an overview of the study, its timelines, highlights, key findings, recommended improvements and supporting measures, phasing considerations, the conclusions and next steps.  The study began in the Fall 2008, with the final report anticipated in the Fall 2010. Other studies being considered include the Markham Green Print for Sustainability, the Growth Management Strategy, Markham’s Overall Transportation Policies, the Parking Strategy, Markham’s Development Framework, Public Realm Strategies including the Unionville Mobility Hub, and the additional opportunities and uses presented by Markham Live and the Pan Am Games.

 

With Markham Centre being a high density growth centre, planned transit and road improvements are part of the implementation strategy.  Enhanced rapid transit, and GO Rail service, internal/local transit (YRT is updating their 5 year plan), policies to influence travel behavior (car sharing, bike parking), a network of dedicated bike facilities, GO station/407 Transitway parking supply is in line with urban development objectives and road network capacity, additional local roads to facilitate pedestrian connections and to distribute traffic to Regional roads are among the recommendations. 

A phased approach is recommended, based on the monitoring of performance targets, transit and infrastructure improvements.  By 2031, development levels require all planned rapid transit improvements be in place, plus extensive local transit, cycling improvements, and new road connections for the distribution of traffic.

 

The Advisory agreed and encourages the need for all day GO Service north of the Unionville Go Station, a Partnership between developers and governments to promote transit, and the development of public committees to monitor and promote the recommendations in the study. Discussions have occurred between VIVA and YRT re: the route splitting on Hwy.7.                                                                                               

 

  1. Remington Retail Precinct Plan and Overall Master Plan Update

 

Randy Peddigrew, Vice President of Land Development, Remington Group presented Remington’s plans for Downtown Markham Phase 1 Retail development.  The original master plan was a good plan and saw a northward approach with limited east/west movement.  Peter Calthorpe of Calthorpe Associates has been retained to provide a fresh perspective on the site.  With the identification of the Unionville Mobility Hub, the need to move east to west is as important as north to south.  Additional east/west roads to enhance street connectivity are being recommended and the design contemplates a mixed use retail/residential development stretching out along Enterprise Drive from Birchmount Rd towards the Mobility Hub to connect the two components together.  

 

The first phase of retail development will occur in the south east corner of Enterprise Blvd. and Birchmount Rd.  The presentation made to the Advisory and to DSC on May 11, 2010, can be found with the attached link. 

 

http://www2.markham.ca/markham/ccbs/indexfile/Agendas/2010/Development%20Services/pl100511/remington%20presentation.ca

 

Concerns and questions regarding the plan were expressed.

·         In the new plan, built form is abutting the Tributary; members suggested future plans could integrate the Trib as green space.

·         Staff is concerned with the potential loss of the relationship between the plaza and the urban park, but future plans will have retail, restaurant, etc facing the park and plaza.

·         The Town will investigate permanent on street parking based on the recommendations of Peter Calthorpe.

·         A cinema is part of the Phase 1 Retail plans; they want to be operational by 2013.

·         The opening of this phase would be in conjuction with the opening of Birchmount Rd.

·         The Advisory saw the link with the Mobility Hub as a huge asset, but also expressed concern with the lack of progress regarding the Urban Park.  The Park is needed to help generate interest in the area.

 

 

 

 

  1. Other Business:

 

·   Richard Jarrell has agreed to continue his term as co-chair.

 

Adjournment:   Motion to adjourn was made.

Adjournment – 8:30pm

 

Q:\Development\Planning\Teams\Markham Centre\Advisory\Minutes\2010\Adv minutes May 20_2010.doc