RECOMMENDATION:
That the report dated October 4, 2005 entitled
“Tate Economic Research Inc. Peer Review – Highway No. 48 Markham, Major
Commercial Impact Study, Dec 2004 ” be received;
And that the Peer Review report entitled “Peer
Review of John Winter Associates Ltd. Report: Highway No. 48 Markham, Major
Commercial Impact Study”, Tate Economic Research Inc., July, 2005 be received;
And that given that John Winter Associates,
Tate Economic Research and staff concur that:
§
there are no identified
market impacts arising from the Major Commercial Area located on Highway 48
north of 16th
Avenue,
§
the amount of land
designated Major Commercial along Highway No.48 north of 16th Avenue and the anticipated retail space is appropriate to serve the planned
population,
§
and the function of retail
space will be sufficiently differentiated from that in Markham Main Street and
Unionville Main Street,
that no further action in regard to the John
Winter Study be required;
And that staff report back on Urban
Design Guidelines and a Streetscape Study will be
forthcoming following completion of the Brook McIlroy
Planning & Urban Design report for
Highway No.48.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to
present the findings of the Peer Review of John Winter Associates Ltd. Report “Highway No. 48 Markham, Major Commercial Impact Study, Dec 2004” conducted by Tate Economic Research Inc. (Appendix ‘A’).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Tate Economic Research Inc.(TER) concurs with the findings of the Highway No. 48 Markham, Major
Commercial Impact Study, completed in February 2005 by John Winter and
Associates Ltd. (JWA), specifically that:
- the amount of land designated Major Commercial along Highway No.48
north of 16th Ave and the anticipated retail space is
appropriate to serve the planned population; and,
- the function of the retail space will be sufficiently
differentiated from that in Markham Main Street and Unionville Main Street, and in conjunction with the planned population growth, results in
there being no significant risk to the function of either the Markham Main Street or the Unionville Main Street area.
BACKGROUND:
In September 2004, Development
Services Committee directed staff to further report on the scope and cost of
preparing a Commercial Impact Study to examine the potential impacts of
proposed retail development to be located on Highway 48 north of 16th Avenue.
In October 2004, Staff was
authorized to retain JWA to study the
potential impact of the anticipated retail development in the study area on Main Street Markham and other nearby retail areas, and to recommend
appropriate mitigating measures to address any identified detrimental impacts,
and to retain a peer review consultant to review the JWA study. A separate
urban design and streetscape study for Highway 48 north of 16th Avenue was also authorized, however, the original impact
study by JWA and the peer review of the impact study by TER are independent of
that study.
John Winter presented the findings of his reports,
Highway No. 48 Markham, Major Commercial Impact Study,
December 2004, and Inventory of Markham’s Commercial Space, December 2004, to the Development Services Committee on February 15th, 2005. Both reports were received by
the Committee at that time.
Staff retained TER in February 2005
to conduct a Peer Review of the John Winter Associates Highway No.48 Markham,
Major Commercial Impact Study, December 2004.
James Tate of TER presented their findings at the Development Services
Committee meeting of May 17th, 2005.
DISCUSSION:
Highway No. 48 Markham, Major
Commercial Impact Study, December 2004
TER Retained
TER was retained to review the
methodology, assumptions, calculations and findings of the JWA report. TER relied on the JWA inventory of commercial
space, completed in December 2004, and the population forecasts derived from
the 2004 Development Charges Background Study used by Winter, and provide
general commentary and opinion with respect to conclusions and analysis in the
JWA report.
TER concurs with JWA’s findings
TER considers the methodology used by JWA to be
reasonable in terms of estimating future retail demands. TER notes that if they had been retained to
undertake the impact study they would have recommended customer surveys or
license place surveys to measure the customer draw of existing retail
facilities in Markham which would quantify the current levels of customer
inflow to existing retailers in Markham. Furthermore, TER would also have
recommended customer surveys of residents to determine where they currently
shop and why, which would quantify the outflow of expenditures to locations
beyond Markham. Nonetheless,
TER considers the JWA analysis reasonable and concurs with JWA’s
findings and methodology.
TER concurs with JWA’s analysis relating to the amount of Major Commercial
Area lands designated on Highway No.48.
TER concludes that the planned population will support at least the
commercial space potential on lands designated in the area.
It is TER’s
opinion that Markham Main Street is differentiated from the Major Commercial
designation as it is representative of an historic downtown which offers
ambiance, architecture and a tenant mix which will continue to differentiate it
from the proposed major retail space, north of 16th Avenue. In TER’s
experience, when there is sufficient expenditure potential (as is the case with
Main Street Markham), that main streets can co-exist with new format
retail centres. The distinct Main Street function will continue to exist during and after the
development of the Major Commercial Area.
TER concurs with JWA in that not all development along
Highway No. 48 will be in the form of big box retail. TER is of the opinion that wall to wall
retail won’t emerge as uses will concentrate in one area, reflect ownership
patterns, and in conjunction with urban design guidelines, result in variation
of the character of the sites.
TER concurs with JWA in that any loss of commercial lands
to residential uses near the GO Station should be accommodated elsewhere.
Based on current and forecast
market trends, TER does not foresee that community sized malls would be able to
satisfy the market demand for new residents in the area, and all trends point
to the demand for Major Commercial retail.
TER concurs with JWA’s implicit comments that Highway No.48 is the best location
for Major Commercial uses to serve the population of the nearby communities.
TER concurs with JWA’s
assessment that Major Commercial uses on Highway No. 48 will not significantly impact
Unionville
Main Street.
TER agrees with JWA in that intensification
of the lands along Highway No.48 would benefit the Town and that the Town
should be flexible enough to provide the opportunity for mixed uses and
intensification, which may take significant time to occur.
Finally, TER also concurs with JWA’s conclusions that there is no need for additional restrictions
on store sizes and that there may be opportunities for the Markham Village
Business Improvement Area to improve their operations, through support of
additional new retailers in the community.
Conclusions
Neither JWA nor TER identified
market impacts arising from the Major Commercial Area along Highway 48 north of
Main Street Markham on either Main Street Markham or Main Street Unionville. Specifically, TER considers the amount of land designated Major Commercial Area along Highway No.48
north of 16th Ave and the anticipated retail space to be appropriate to serve the planned
population. Further, the function of the
retail space will be sufficiently differentiated from that in Markham Main Street and
Unionville Main Street, and in conjunction with the planned population growth, results in
there being no significant risk to the function of either the Markham Main Street or
the Unionville Main Street area.
Inventory of Markham Commercial
Space, 2004
The findings of the inventory were
presented to the Development Services Committee in February 2005 by John Winter
and the inventory report was received at that time. The inventory report does not include any
recommendations; it is available to the public and is being used by staff. No further action is required by staff or
Development Services Committee in regard to the inventory report.
Next Steps
Brook McIlroy
Consulting Planning and Urban Design Inc (BMI) is currently finalizing the
Urban Design Study for Highway 48: 16th Ave. to Major Mackenzie Dr. including detailed Urban Design and Land
Use Guidelines for the properties along the Highway 48 corridor. The
guidelines are intended to steer development towards the vision of a
high-quality, mixed-use and pedestrian-friendly district incorporating the
design principles and concepts of “Lifestyle Centres,”
where appropriate.
FINANCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL and ACCESSIBILITY
CONSIDERATIONS:
None at this time.
ENGAGE 21ST
CONSIDERATIONS:
The discussion contained in this
report is consistent with Corporate Goal No.4 “Managed Growth” and will
contribute to well-planned retail services to be provided to the residents and
businesses of the Town of Markham.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
None outside Development Services
Commission at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix ‘A’ - Peer Review of John Winter
Associates Ltd. Report: Highway No.48 Markham, Major Commercial Impact Study,
Tate Economic Research Inc, July, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Valerie Shuttleworth, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning & Urban Design
|
|
Jim Baird, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner of Development Services
|
Q:\Development\Planning\MISC\MI491 Commercial Policy Review 2004\Peer
Review\Reports\DSC October 4 2005 - Peer Review Highway 48 Major Commercial
Impact Study.doc
