|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO: |
Mayor and Members of Council |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
Jim Baird, Commissioner of Development Services Valerie Shuttleworth, Director of Planning & Urban Design |
|
|
|
|
PREPARED BY: |
Elisabeth Silva Stewart Senior Planner, Policy Group |
|
|
|
|
DATE OF MEETING: |
2004-May-18 |
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
Markham's
Commercial Policy Review |
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
That the staff report entitled “
And that the report entitled “Review of
Markham’s Commercial Policies” by John Winter Associates Limited dated April
2004, be received;
And that staff be authorized to draft an
Official Plan Amendment implementing the recommendations to:
And that staff be authorized to schedule a
Public Meeting to consider this Official Plan Amendment;
And that staff review the implications of:
and report back to Development Services
Committee.
And that staff review opportunities to secure
local commercial centres in the newly developing Secondary Plan Areas of
Official Plan Amendment No. 5, and report back to Development Services
Committee with appropriate recommendations, including possible amendments to
Secondary Plans and Zoning By-laws;
And that staff review and report back on the
possible opportunities for lands to be designated for the Community Amenity
Area category of the COMMERCIAL designation in the
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to outline and
comment on the recommendations coming out of the John Winter Associates Limited
review of the commercial policies of the Official Plan, and to recommend action in relation to those
recommendations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Review
of Markham’s Commercial Policies (April 2004) was prepared by John
Winter Associates Limited.
The Town’s current commercial policy framework,
established by Official Plan Amendment No. 26, has been in place for ten
years. John Winter, who was part of the
team of staff and consultants that formulated Official Plan Amendment No.26,
was recently retained to review the policy’s performance to date, comment on
future directions and specifically comment on certain key challenges being
faced by the Town including:
§
lack of predictability in
the delivery of retail services;
§
pressure on the Business
Corridor Area, Community Amenity Area and Retail Warehouse Area categories of
designation for development contrary to their planned function;
§
the lack of new local retail
and service development within newly developing communities in the Official
Plan Amendment No. 5 area; and,
§
questions regarding the
advisability of encouraging sustainable, local service rather than commercial
development powered by long-distance travel.
The Review
of Markham’s Commercial Policies (RMCP)
found that in broad terms there is enough commercially designated land to
accommodate projected population growth to 2011. The RMCP
also found that to a large extent, the objectives underlying the policies
established in 1994 have been achieved:
The Review recommends that the Town should:
§
identify in Secondary Plans
key locations where a minimum number of Neighbourhood Commercial and Community
Commercial retail developments should be provided;
§
reduce the maximum store
size cap of 6000 square metres in the Business Corridor Area category of
designation to better reflect the planned function of this category;
§
consider reducing the number
of commercial categories of designation, including collapsing the Retail
Warehouse Area category into the Major Commercial Area category;
§
not designate additional
land into the Retail Warehouse Area category of COMMERCIAL designation;
§
facilitate consideration of
whether
§
consider transferring the
Community Amenity Area designation from the north-east part of the
Greensborough Planning District to the intersection of Kennedy Road area, north
of 16th Avenue; and,
§
examine future requirements
for commercial development in
BACKGROUND:
Need for a commercial policy review
The Town’s commercial
policies have been in place for 10 years, and have generally been working
well. Most development has followed the
“planned function” of designations.
However, staff have observed some conditions which have generated the
need to review the commercial policies.
These conditions include:
§
an increase in applications
that do not follow the planned function of the designations (especially in the
Business Corridor Area) and,
§
the mixed-use category of
Community Amenity Area in the OPA 5 new urban area, is being developed
primarily with residential use, rather than a mix of uses (development along
§
there is not a willingness
to provide local commercial retail in newly developing areas (while the
argument from developers is that there is not enough market take-up to warrant
such a use in the early stages of new subdivisions, we need to reserve
strategic locations for future local commercial retail development potential
once there is enough market take-up)
In addition, to these
conditions, the CAO’s report entitled “Council’s Strategic Priorities – 2004 to
2006”, dated April 13, 2004, identified Council’s Strategic Priority No.2 –
“to create a better quality of community”, based on strategic discussions
with Council going into the new term.
The following items were among the actions identified to accomplish this
objective:
§
strive to develop a strong
sense of place in all communities in
§
pursue small neighbourhood
retail focus/community gathering places, in central locations, in those new
communities currently needing such facilities including South Unionville,
Berczy, Legacy, Wismer and Angus Glen;
§
shift planning policies to
discourage auto-oriented big-box retail development and encourage pedestrian
friendly retail activity and mixed land uses at community focal points; and,
§
survey the level of
residents’ satisfaction in new development areas including their preference for
pedestrian friendly retail development.
All these actions
further point to the need to review the Town’s commercial policies.
John Winter Associates Limited was commissioned to review
In December, 2003,
staff commissioned John Winter to review and report on the status of
Objectives
of the policy review
The objectives of the Review of Markham’s Commercial Policies (RMCP) are as follows:
§
To scan the current
Commercial Policy Structure in the Markham Official Plan (arising from OPA
No.26 adopted in 1994, and based on the Commercial Uses Policy Study) and to
analyze how these commercial policies, and the various commercial designations,
have functioned since adoption, particularly in relation to the development of
new communities in the OPA No.5 area.
§
To examine what the ‘big
picture’ is and what strategic issues may arise due to retail change and
evolution in the near future and comment on how best to address these matters.
§
To examine the rationale for
the ‘size cap’ on individual premises in the Business Corridor and Community
Amenity Areas. How relevant is the
current 6000 square metres gross floor area cap in today’s market and that of
the near future? What criteria might be used and what guidance might be offered
in the analysis of any applications for exceeding this (or an amended) size
cap?
§
To examine what type of
retail uses should locate in the Business Corridor Area category of
designation, and appropriate criteria to govern retail uses.
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:
Previous Commercial Uses Policy Study
In the early 1990’s,
it was recognized that there was a need to change the Town’s planning policies
related to the retail sector, including:
§
restructuring in the
commercial sector which made it difficult to regulate the impacts of modern
retail activities, in particular “big box” stores;
§
a number of the Official
Plan policies were founded on a market based retail hierarchy which resulted in
the use of market based studies to determine the amount of permissible retail
development and the prohibition of certain retail uses from some land use
categories and locations;
§
the Official Plan and Zoning
system had become difficult to interpret and administer due to a great number
of site-specific policy amendments and was in need of consistency and
standardization; and,
§
there was a need to better
defined “planned function” of COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL land use designation
categories, and to link land use and urban design policies to planned function.
Council directed that
a Commercial Uses Policy Study be undertaken, and in April 1994, the
recommendations of the Commercial Uses Policy Study formed the basis for an
Official Plan Amendment which changed the planning policies related to
commercial and industrial uses.
Basic changes to the
planning system at that time included:
1)
Changing the policy
structure to better reflect
2)
Providing flexibility to
commercial land use categories to:
§
allow for a wider range of
development forms;
§
provide a basis for less
tightly defined retail uses;
§
anticipate non-commercial
categories; and,
§
encourage mixed land uses at
appropriate locations.
3)
Considering market issues
only if they affect the overall commercial structure or “planned function”.
4)
Using planning tools
differently: Official Plan to articulate planned function, provide use
flexibility and give guidance to built form; Secondary Plans to further refine
the policies for specific geographic areas; Zoning to be more flexible; Urban
Design Guidelines to guide the site plan control process.
5)
Monitoring changes to the
commercial sector to ensure meeting the basic needs of residents and
employees.
Performance
of
The RMCP
found that to a large extent, the objectives underlying the policies
established in 1994 have been achieved.
The RMCP
confirmed that in broad terms there is sufficient vacant commercial land to
take
Contemporary
Challenges
The RMCP
identifies the following contemporary challenges:
1)
Lack of predictability in
the delivery of retail services
§
By relying on generic
categories of COMMERCIAL (such as the Community Amenity Area which permits both
retail commercial and medium to high density residential uses), it is not
possible to ensure that Markham is providing enough commercial space to fulfil
the needs of its residents (both present and future).
§
The actual development of
the Community Amenity Area category of COMMERCIAL is proving to not be as
diverse as initially envisioned.
Examples of this lack include: the primary arterial spine of the new
urban area in the Town -
§
The RMCP explains that this has, in part, occurred due to the
value of residential land being higher than commercial land and to developers
looking for short-term returns on residential development, rather than a
longer-term return from a commercial investment.
§
The impact is that even at
good locations within the Community Amenity Area category of COMMERCIAL
designation (such as arterial intersections), there is no guarantee that a
sufficient amount of commercial space will be built. There is no mechanism in place to require or
mandate, the “community” commercial development needed on a daily or weekly
basis by the consumers living within the general vicinity.
§
The RMCP identifies that such a critical community building
block should not rely on the serendipity of the market to respond to the
mixed-use policies.
2)
Pressures on Business
Corridor Area and Retail Warehouse Area categories of COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL
§
The RMCP identifies that there are pressures on these two
categories, particularly since new proposals are either expected or have been
received in relation to alternative uses for the Business Corridor Area, and
non-retail planning proposals have been identified for portions remaining
vacant or undeveloped in the Retail Warehouse Area.
§
The RMCP identifies that the Retail Warehouse Area category of
COMMERCIAL in the Langstaff area is not considered a desirable location due to
the reduced visibility and access resulting from the construction of Highway
407 and the construction of a larger power centre to serve the market nearby in
§
The RMCP further identifies the Retail Warehouse Area south of
the Home Depot on Highway No.48, as
being the best vacant Retail Warehouse Area location left.
§
There are proposals emerging
to establish large scale retail operations on lands designated Business
Corridor Area. The RMCP identifies that the planned function of the Business
Corridor Area is not for large scale
retail, “but for high quality business, primarily office with some retail and
service commercial, ideally on the ground floor”. Business Corridor Area lands are often in close
proximity to residential uses, and the potential impacts of certain large scale format stores on
residential lands must also be considered.
3)
Location of New Retailing
Although the RMCP
identified that there was enough commercially designated land to meet the needs
of the projected population to the year 2011, which is the time horizon of the
current Official Plan, there are locational issues:
§
The RMCP identifies that there appears to be an imbalance of
retail service in
§
The provision of retail
development has been lacking in the new urban communities – particularly along
the Bur Oak spine. This will result in
longer-than-necessary shopping trips to the typical weekly retail facilities
residents need (such as supermarkets and drug stores).
§
There is also concern that
this may lead to a lack of community focus in new urban areas. The market up-take for small commercial
centres has not been occurring. These
small commercial centres help build a community focal point. The RMCP
identifies that if the balance doesn’t change dramatically between the
residential and local service retail in the mixed-use designation, then
locations to specifically address residents’ local shopping needs should be
identified and designated to require commercial use.
4) The future of the “big box”
The RMCP identifies that some
dissatisfaction is being expressed with the box store concept and that there
are detractors of the format and supporters of the format.
The report identifies
that detractors of this form of retail argue that:
§
it represents low-density
sprawl;
§
it is not a self sustaining
development pattern;
§
the standard parking approach
consumes a large field;
§
many of the stores in a
power centre internalize their format and do not promote conviviality and the
community meeting space that other retail formats do;
§
consumers drive between big
boxes even though they are next to each other;
§
it represents a collection
of low paying jobs in the employment spectrum;
§
it might be preferable to
the community’s interest to have the space of a 130,000 square foot “big box”
store be split into three separate stores servicing three separate communities
to reduce distance away from the consumer;
§
further restriction of
larger stores may reduce the consumption of commercially designated land by the
low-density retailers in favour of smaller scale operations.
The RMCP also identifies support for
this retail format:
§
the commercial goals of the
Official Plan include wording which supports the full range of commercial
activities at appropriate locations and while encouraging pedestrian-supportive
retailing, the municipality shall provide for auto-oriented commercial
development as well;
§
this sector has been
evolving over the past decade and is providing improved merchandise at reduced
prices;
§
the format is very popular
with the shopping public;
§
retail warehousing has
become the style of large corporate business known as “contemporary mainstream
retail”;
§
if this format is restricted
in
Finally, the RMCP calls for a discussion on
this topic to examine the advisability of encouraging sustainable, local
service rather than commercial development powered by long-distance travel.
Recommendations
of the review of
The following are the key recommendations of
the RMCP:
1)
Identify, in Secondary
Plans, key locations where a minimum number of Neighbourhood Commercial and
Community Commercial facilities are expected.
Locations are to generally be at intersections of various streets or
arterials. These will represent the
minimum number of locations necessary to assure basic future service.
Staff Response:
Staff agree with this
strategy and has already begun to “pre-zone” local commercial centres (eg.
Cornell, Greensborough, Legacy and Box Grove).
These local commercial centres not only provide a basic service to
residents but also help new communities establish a community focus. There is a need to take a proactive role in
facilitating the development of local commercial centres, to form local focal
points within the new communities. Staff
will review this matter further and report back to Development Services.
2)
Reduce the store size cap of
6000 square metres in the Business Corridor Area category of INDUSTRIAL designation
to preserve the planned function of this category. The sole large retailers that are relevant to
the planned function are typically office supply stores and computer/software
stores which may be up to 3000 square metres in size. The true planned function for this category
will be preserved by reducing the maximum store size to 1000 square metres with
an exception for office supply stores and computer/software stores to 3000
square metres.
Staff Response:
Staff agree with this
recommendation and will also look at revising the wording of the planned
function for this category to ensure it’s primary development focus is
maintained and more consistent with what the RMCP
identifies as the appropriate planned function. Staff will draft an Official Plan Amendment
to implement this recommendation and bring it back to Development Services
Committee at a public meeting.
3)
Reduce the number of
commercial categories of designation.
Less categories would promote the ability to predict with greater
accuracy the future requirements of the municipality. Specifically, consider:
§
collapsing the Retail
Warehouse Area category into the Major Commercial Area category; and,
§
collapsing the Commercial
Corridor Area category into the Community Amenity Area category.
Staff Response:
Staff agree that
there may be merit in merging these categories of COMMERCIAL land use
designation, but would like to investigate the impacts of such changes. Staff will report back to Development
Services Committee on this recommendation at a later date.
4)
Consider future commercial
intensification of retail development especially large format retail. Consider:
§
site layouts that recognize
that some of the anchor stores may become obsolescent in 10 to 15 years;
§
designing new box stores so that
future re-development may be accomplished and assist intensification;
§
guidelines requiring big box
stores to provide a portion of their parking requirement in underground or
structured parking;
§
the higher-density
residential provisions of the Major Commercial Area category of designation may
provide more future re-use options for key, well-located sites.
Staff Response:
Staff agree in
principle and will consider these elements in dealing with applications for
large format retail development. There
are currently only 2 locations within the Town that have a large amount of
vacant land and a designation with the potential to accommodate large format
retail. These locations are on Highway
48, east side at 14th Avenue and west side south of
5)
Consider transferring the
Community Amenity Area designation from the north-east part of the
Greensborough Planning District to
Staff Response:
Staff agree that the
provision of a more central location for retail serving northern
6)
“Contemplate a debate”
regarding whether
Staff Response:
Staff consider this
type of visioning exercise as something that should take place in the context
of the Town’s overall land use structure and future growth options for the
municipality, possibly in the context of an Official Plan Review. An inventory of the Town’s current commercial
land use and activities should be established as the basis for considering
options in the future. Inventory
activities will be considered as part of the 2005 Business Plan exercise.
7)
Future commercial
requirements must be examined. The
current analysis suggests that the supply of land for retail development is
sufficient to serve the projected population to 2011, but will not be
sufficient to accommodate growth to 2021.
It will be necessary in the near future to further consider what
Staff
Response:
Staff
support the recommendation to prepare an inventory and analysis of retail lands
and services in
Conclusion
Staff regard the following amendments as
necessary and request authorization from Development Services Committee to
pursue implementing them in the form of an Official Plan Amendment. Staff also request authorization to call a
Statutory Public Meeting for public consideration to:
1)
Reduce the maximum retail
gross floor area in the Business Corridor Area category of INDUSTRIAL land use
designation; and,
2)
Amend the wording of the
planned function of the Business Corridor Area category of INDUSTRIAL land use
designation to focus on accommodating the business, retail and service needs of
companies and employees.
Staff regard the following recommendations as
having merit, but would like to further
examine the implications of:
1)
collapsing the Retail
Warehouse Area category of COMMERCIAL land use designation into the Major
Commercial Area category of COMMERCIAL land use designation; and,
2)
collapsing the Commercial
Corridor Area category of COMMERCIAL land use designation into the Community
Amenity Area category of COMMERCIAL land use designation.
Once Staff have reviewed and analyzed the
implications, staff will report back to Development Services Committee.
Staff consider the following recommendations
require further analysis:
1)
Examine appropriate
locations to mandate local commercial centres in newly developing Secondary
Plan areas and report back to Development Services Committee with appropriate
locations to be followed with further Secondary Plan Amendments and Zoning
By-law Amendments;
2)
Examine the opportunities
for lands to be designated for the Community Amenity Area category of
COMMERCIAL in the Kennedy Road area, north of 16th Avenue and report
back to Development Services Committee.
ENGAGE 21ST
CONSIDERATIONS:
The recommendations of this report
are 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.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A – 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 |
``Document4
