RECOMMENDATION:
That the report dated October 4, 2005 entitled
“Peer Review of John Winter’s Report on the Review of Markham’s Commercial
Policies, April 2004” be received;
And that the Peer Review report entitled “Peer
Review of John Winter Associates Ltd. Report: Review of Markham’s Commercial
Policies” Tate Economic Research Inc. and Scott Burns Planning Consultants, July
2005”, be received;
And that the recommendations from the original
JWA Study, not already dealt with, be resolved as
follows:
- staff report back to Development Services Committee on the implications
of merging the Retail Warehouse Area category of COMMERCIAL land use
designation into the Major Commercial Area category of COMMERCIAL
designation;
- staff continue to incorporate consideration of future redevelopment
and intensification of existing low density commercial developments, and
endeavour to achieve more intense mixed-use development where mixed-use contributes
to achieving policy and urban design objectives;
- future retail potential be addressed in the context of further
development approvals in the area of Kennedy Road, north of 16th
Avenue, and that the potential for retail development on designated lands
in Greensborough, adjoining the Markham Bypass, should be retained until a
detailed market assessment is undertaken;
- future
commercial requirements beyond 2011, and public debate on the future of
commercial development in Markham,
be incorporated into Official Plan Review(s).
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to present
the findings of the “Peer Review of John Winter Associates Ltd. Report: Review of Markham’s Commercial Policies, July 2005”. This peer review
was conducted by Tate Economic Research in association with Scott Burns
Planning Consultants.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Tate Economic Research/Scott Burns
Planning Consultants (TER/SBPC) conclude that the research and analysis
conducted by John Winter Associates Ltd. (JWA) is sufficient to support the conclusions drawn by John
Winter Associates (JWA) in the Review of Markham’s Commercial Policies (RMCP)
report, April 2004.
TER/SBPC provide comments and
discussion regarding the RMCP report. The
specific conclusions and recommendations of the RMCP were examined and TER/SBPC
provide comments for each.
BACKGROUND:
In December, 2003, the Town of Markham commissioned JWA to review
and comment on the status of the commercial policies in the Town’s Official
Plan and on their performance since their adoption 10 years ago.
On April 21, 2004, JWA’s report entitled the ‘Review of Markham’s Commercial Policies” (RMCP)
was submitted to the Town. John Winter
presented the findings of his report to Development Services Committee in May
2004. Staff also reported on the RMCP in
May 2004.
In September 2004, Staff was directed
by the Development Services Committee to retain a qualified retail market
consultant to undertake a peer review of the RMCP. Staff retained Tate Economic
Research in association with Scott Burns Planning Consultants in February 2005
to conduct this peer review. James Tate of TER presented the findings of the
peer review at the Development Services Committee meeting of May 17th,
2005.
The RMCP was also referred to the
Commercial Policy Review Sub-Committee of Development Services Committee which
reviewed the recommendations and then sent it back to Development Services
Committee. The Commercial Policy Review Sub-Committee did not recommend any
change in the recommendations included in the JWA report. The Sub-Committee
endorsed an Official Plan Amendment to revise policies of the Business Corridor
Area land use designation and the adoption of a Neighbourhood Commercial
Strategy. Council adopted the Business Corridor
Area Amendment in March 2005 and endorsed the Neighbourhood Commercial Strategy
in April 2005. The Business Corridor Area
Amendment (OPA No. 132) was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in August
2005.
DISCUSSION:
TER/SBPC is of the opinion that the research and analysis
conducted by JWA was sufficient to support the conclusions drawn by the RMCP
report.
The specific conclusions and
recommendations of the RMCP were examined.
The following provides a synopsis of TER/SBPC’s
comments:
1. Identify in
Secondary Plans key locations where a minimum number of Neighbourhood and
Community Commercial facilities should be provided
JWA
recommended that a minimum number of Neighbourhood Commercial and Community
Commercial facilities should be provided at key locations such as intersections
of various streets or arterials in Secondary Plans.
TER/SBPC concurred that there has been a “less than normal” provision of
smaller commercial centres, and that convenience commercial service levels should
be provided in residential communities. However, in their opinion:
§
policy at the
neighbourhood level defines and protects an adequate supply of land mass for
neighbourhood scale commercial sites;
§
there is a need
for change in the community amenity area policies to prescribe that these areas
be developed in whole or in part for retail uses where:
o these areas are reserved for community scale retail
rather than large format retail;
o approval decisions are prioritized based on the
importance of defined permitted uses which best serve the local residents; and,
o provisions have been incorporated to determine if the option for developing these
sites with alternate uses is appropriate over the course of the development of
future neighbourhoods if the needs of the resident populations are being met
elsewhere.
§
when defining sites, appropriate locational criteria are taken into consideration.
TER/SBPC recommend
that a minimum number of Neighourhood Commercial
sites be flexible enough to provide the opportunity to adequately service local
residents in developing areas and, that sites carrying community scale retail have a minimum
land area of 12 acres in order to accommodate an adequate range of service and
commercial uses as well as provide options for a range of possible anchors.
In May 2004 Staff identified their agreement with the
JWA recommendations that there is a need to take a proactive role in
facilitating the establishment of local commercial centres to serve the
convenience commercial needs of residents and provide a community focus in newly developed
communities. In April 2005 Council
approved a Neighbourhood Commercial Strategy that identifies sites which
require protection to provide the opportunity to adequately service local
residents in the new developing residential areas.
Staff will take account of the suggested minimum of 12
acres in planning future community scale retail sites.
2) Confirm
the Planned Function of the Business Corridor Area Designation
TER/SBPC
concur with the recommendations of JWA and express
support for OPA No. 132 which reconfirms and strengthens the planned function and
policies of the Business Corridor Area land use designation. Council adopted
OPA No.132 in March 2005; the Amendment was approved by the OMB in August 2005.
3) Fewer
Commercial Designations
TER/SBPC do not agree with the JWA
recommendation to merge the Commercial Corridor Area and Community Amenity
categories of commercial designation. In their view these two categories
function differently and to merge them would create problems with
function. They suggest that only Retail
Warehouse Area and Major Commercial Area should be considered for a merge since
these two have evolved to function in a similar manner. They also suggest that more land designated Major
Commercial Area will be required to supply the municipality beyond 2011.
Staff will be reporting back to Development Services Commission
regarding the implications of merging the Retail Warehouse Area category of
designation into the Major Commercial Area category of COMMERCIAL designation.
4) Commercial
Intensification
TER/SBPC concur with the JWA recommendation that low density commercial developments
be intensified by considering site plan layouts that will facilitate
redevelopment in a more intensified manner.
Such site plan layouts are appropriately related to the street to
facilitate redevelopment, driveways are designed so as to eventually become
municipal streets, provision for parking to be underground or in structured
facilities is addressed and incorporated, and provision for higher density
residential development is addressed as a future option at appropriate
locations under the Major Commercial Area designation.
TER/SBPC recommend that the Town should be flexible enough to provide
the opportunity for mixed use and intensification, but identify that current
market forces may mean that intensification may take a significant amount of
time to occur.
Staff agree that intensification opportunities should be addressed in lower density
commercial development of Major Commercial lands and will continue to
incorporate consideration of future redevelopment in site plan reviews. Where mixed use development is essential to
achieving stated policy and urban design objectives, staff will endeavour to
achieve earlier, more intensive development.
5) Consider
Transferring the Community Amenity Area Designation from northeast Greensborough
to Kennedy Road,
north of 16th Avenue
TER/SBPC
are of the opinion that this JWA recommendation needs
to be considered in the context of a more detailed market assessment that
should address whether one or both locations should be provided. Staff believes that the matter of possibly adding further
retail potential can be addressed in the context of further development
approvals in that area of Kennedy Road, north of 16th
Avenue, and
that the potential for retail development on designated lands in Greensborough,
adjoining the Markham Bypass, should be retained until a detailed market
assessment is undertaken. Such an assessment could form part of the review of
future commercial requirements identified in item 7, below.
6) Contemplate
a Debate
JWA suggested that the Town “contemplate a debate” whether Markham wishes to accommodate more big box stores in the
future.
TER/SBPC suggest that the Town seek outside
expertise to facilitate any process involving the public. Once a set of draft objectives from public is
obtained, these can be the subject of a debate.
Staff consider such a “debate” to be an appropriate component part of future visioning
exercises that should take place in the context of addressing the Town’s
overall land use structure and future growth options. This type of exercise
would be most effective in the context of a growth management review, likely in
conjunction with an Official Plan Review. A growth management review will need
to be initiated in future, following completion of the anticipated Provincial Plan
for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
7) Future
Commercial Requirements
TER/SBPC recommend that the Town needs to
identify additional opportunities for retail development to continue to serve Markham residents to beyond 2011.
Staff suggest that a review of future commercial requirements should also take place
in the context of a growth management review.
JWA completed an inventory of commercial lands and development within Markham which was presented to and received by the
Development Services Committee in February 2005. This inventory will serve as a basis for a
future review of commercial requirements.
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
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A - Peer Review of John Winter
Associates Ltd. Report: Review of Markham’s Commercial Policies
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
