RECOMMENDATION:
That the Official Plan Amendment and
Secondary Plan for the Unionville Core Area (SD 03 106613) attached as Appendix
‘A’ to the report dated May 20, 2003, be approved;
That the Region of York be requested to
expedite approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Secondary Plan in order
that the implementing zoning can come into effect as soon as possible;
That upon approval of the new Official Plan
Amendment by the Region of York, Council adopt a by-law to repeal By-law 266-90
(OPA No. 99) to give effect to this amendment, and to also repeal amending
By-laws 157-97 (OPA No. 50) and 26-98 (OPA No.62);
That the Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law
122-72, as amended, attached as Appendix ‘B’ to the report dated May 20, 2003,
be enacted;
That the Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law
28-97, as amended (Parking By-law), attached as Appendix ‘C’ to the report
dated May 20, 2003, be enacted and that Council determine as per 34(17) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 that no further notice is required prior to adoption;
And that the Unionville BIA and other
interested local stakeholders be requested to form a Historic Unionville
Parking Advisory Committee to assist in the implementation of parking supply
recommendations of the Main Street Unionville Land Use and Parking Study, with
Town staff providing assistance where appropriate.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to implement the
recommendations of the Main Street Unionville Land Use and Parking Study Final
Report and subsequent recommendations from Council and the public, through
amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2002, the Town of Markham retained
consultants to undertake a study of the Unionville Core Area in relation to
maintaining the planned function of Main Street Unionville, and to make
recommendations to the Town in respect of land use policies and zoning
requirements. The consultants examined
the increase in the number of restaurants and pubs on Main Street, the displacement
of retail uses, and the parking supply situation.
The Study confirmed that the proliferation of
restaurants threatens to undermine the planned function of Main Street as a
traditional shopping area, and that further controls on restaurant uses are
warranted. Parking supply was also
identified as a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed from both a
management and supply perspective.
Council endorsed the Study’s Final Report on December 10, 2002. Staff has prepared an Official Plan
amendment incorporating a new Secondary Plan for the Unionville Core Area and
new zoning by-law amendments based upon the recommendations of the Study and
subsequent public input.
BACKGROUND:
Main Street Unionville Land
Use and Parking Study was undertaken in 2002
The Town of Markham retained the firm of
Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited, with John Winter Associates Limited as a
retail market sub-consultant, to undertake a study of the Unionville Core
Area. A number of Main Street
Unionville business representatives and area ratepayers had expressed concern
in relation to the number of restaurants and pubs locating on Main Street, and
the potential impact on the parking supply for the area. Concern had also been expressed regarding
the pressure for ground floor office uses and a general concern with the
“displacement” of retail uses. There
were also issues surrounding the overall supply and demand for parking, whether
by-law parking requirements were adequate, and potential opportunities for
provision of more public parking.
The Main Street Unionville Land Use and Parking
Study confirmed that the number of restaurants threatens to undermine the
planned function of Main Street as a traditional main street shopping area, and
that further controls are required to ensure a vitality of retail uses and continued
variety and mix of land uses.
Specifically, controls on restaurant uses are warranted. The management and supply of parking was
also identified as a legitimate concern.
To implement the recommendations of the Study,
changes are required to the Official Plan (Revised 1987), the Unionville Core
Area Secondary Plan (PD 1-12), Zoning By-law 122-72, as amended, and the Town
Parking By-law. The consultant’s Final
Report, endorsed by Council on December 10, 2002, with a number of necessary
modifications to the current secondary plan document and zoning by-laws
identified by staff, forms the basis of the Official Plan Amendment
incorporating a new Secondary Plan for the Unionville Core Area, and a new
zoning by-law amendment to the parent by-law.
A new Secondary Plan is
proposed
The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is
to modify the Official Plan and adopt a new Secondary Plan for the Unionville
Historic Core Area. After reviewing the
current Unionville Core Area Secondary Plan, it was concluded that due to the
number of modifications required to introduce new policies as recommended in
the Study and to remove redundant policies and make corrections, it would be
more efficient and effective to adopt a new secondary plan. Proposed changes for the new secondary plan
were fully detailed in the Development Services Commission Report of December
3, 2002 and include:
- further articulating what is
meant by a “traditional shopping experience” in the Heritage Main Street
commercial policies;
- ensuring that in excess of 50 percent of
the total at-grade building facades within the traditional shopping area are in
retail use;
- providing guidance to the
Committee of Adjustment to discourage minor variances for parking associated
with restaurants and only permit a variance subject to strict guidelines (i.e.
no reduction shall be greater that 10%);
- controlling the amount of new
restaurant space by requiring an amendment to the zoning by-law to permit new
restaurant space within a defined area ;
- adding bed and breakfast inns
and hotels to the permitted uses;
- prohibiting certain uses not
conducive to a “traditional shopping experience” or that do not contribute to
the animation of retail environment, such as motels, fast food restaurants,
banquet halls, places of worship, daycare centres, funeral homes, private and
commercial schools, banks and financial institutions.
A comprehensive amendment to
the zoning by-law is recommended
The purpose of the zoning amendment is to
repeal a number of existing zoning by-law amendments and adopt a new zoning
by-law amendment that applies to the Unionville Core Area. After reviewing the existing zoning by-law
amendments affecting the Unionville Core Area and the recommended amendments for
the Study, it was concluded that a new zoning by-law amendment should be
adopted. This approach will enhance
comprehension and provide greater clarity for both Town staff and the general
public. Proposed changes to the zoning
provisions are fully detailed in the Development Services Commission Report of
December 3, 2002, and include:
- removing all forms of
restaurant type uses as permitted use;
- identifying existing
restaurants as permitted uses; and
- adding a definition for ‘bed
and breakfast inn’ and adding it to the list of permitted uses.
Statutory public meeting
identified a number of concerns from the public
A statutory public meeting was held on January
7, 2003. The following concerns were
raised at the meeting and are addressed in the ‘Discussion’ section of this
report:
- definitions in the new zoning
by-law amendment should clarify ‘retail use’ and ‘hotel’;
- concerns related to the proposed boundary
of the ‘traditional shopping area’ and the method used to calculate the
percentage of existing land uses;
- concerns from two property
owners (the Planing Mill and 159 Main Street) requesting exemptions to allow
additional restaurant use;
- examine other tools that
could be used to control the amount of restaurant floor space other than
prohibiting restaurants in the zoning by-law;
- the need to consider retail
incentives;
- issues related to the
introduction of a cash-in-lieu of parking by-law;
- comments from certain property owners on
the west side of Main Street opposed to parking integration (pooling of parking
resources);
- the need for a Parking
Authority should be examined;
- review of the intent and
wording of the grandfathering exemption related to the Parking By-law;
- consider adding the existing
recycling depot lands and the Town-owned lands north of Carlton Road on Main Street
as potential parking supply options;
- a desire to exclude major
chains from Main Street to maintain a unique retailing ambiance;
- clarify Station Lane Office
Designation
A number of the issues raised at the public
meeting were further expanded upon in subsequent correspondence sent to the
Town from the Unionville BIA, the Unionville Villagers Association and from
Talbot Consultants International Inc.
Additional consultation
meetings were held with affected parties
Councillor Virgilio, staff from the Planning
Department and our Study consultants from Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited met
with representatives from the Unionville BIA and the Unionville Villagers
Association on January 17, 2003 to address their issues and concerns (see
Appendix ‘D’). A public information
meeting hosted by Councillor Virgilio and Planning staff was held on February
3, 2003 at the Civic Centre to update the public on potential changes to the
secondary plan and zoning by-law amendment documents based on the additional consultation
with the public.
Staff also met with the owners of 139 Main
Street (Planing Mill) and 159 Main Street (J.Vallianes) on February 7, 2003 to
explore their concerns related to the potential impact of the proposed changes
on their identified restaurant expansion plans. Based on the result of these meetings, it was determined that a
proposed second public information meeting tentatively scheduled for February
24, 2003 would not be needed.
Interim Control By-law was
extended
The initial Interim Control By-law was to
expire on February 7, 2003. On January
14, 2003, Council extended the Interim Control By-law to September 1, 2003 to
provide sufficient time to allow the necessary land use and zoning documents to
be adopted by Council.
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:
The areas of concern as expressed by members of
the public, the Unionville BIA, the Unionville Ratepayers Association and
members of Council are addressed below:
a) The mechanism to be used to
control future restaurants
Staff is recommending that in
the zoning by-law amendment, all forms of restaurants would be removed from the
list of permitted uses and that a site specific exception would permit the
floor space associated with existing
cafes, restaurants and taverns identified by address. Any new restaurant use (expansion or new sites) would require a
zoning by-law amendment. Staff was
requested to explore other potential alternatives to this approach.
The recommended approach was
chosen as it would permit Council to support new restaurants subject to a
specific development proposal and an amendment to the zoning by-law. The applicant would have to satisfy Council
that there is sufficient parking available and that the new use will not
negatively affect the predominance of at-grade retail uses along Main
Street. The objective would be to not
permit a restaurant use if it resulted in at-grade retail uses declining below
50% within the defined area.
Staff examined the
possibility of using a holding provision in the Heritage Main Street zone to
obtain the same result. The main
difference between the by-law amendment approach and the removal of a holding
provision is that the former approach requires a statutory public meeting while
the latter approach only requires the applicant to satisfy conditions attached
to the “Hold”. Another major difference
is with respect to appeal rights- any interested party may appeal a general
by-law amendment to the OMB, whereas only the applicant has the right of appeal
in the case of a Hold removal. With the
“Hold” approach, identified conditions normally relate to a matter that the
applicant has some amount of control over (e.g. provision of services,
execution of a site plan or subdivision agreement). In this instance, the proposed 50% retail measure will be a
major criterion as to whether a by-law gets passed. This criterion is outside the applicant’s direct control,
suggesting a general by-law amendment approach (where the decision is made at
the discretion of Council) rather than the Hold removal approach (based on the
applicant meeting conditions). A second
issue related to using a holding provision is that once the conditions are
satisfied and the “Hold” is removed from a property, there is no longer an ability
to control the floor area of restaurant use.
Without further controls, the owner could potentially expand the
restaurant space within a building without the need for additional municipal
approval.
The Study consultants
indicated that the requirement for a zoning amendment is an effective tool to
ensure Council control and provides for staff and community review of
restaurant proposals. This approach
evolved through a process involving considerable community consultation. It is recommended that all new restaurants
or restaurant expansion be required to apply for an amendment to the zoning
by-law.
b) Tools to encourage retail
uses
A number of tools were
identified during the study process that could be used to encourage retail uses
on Main Street including requiring no parking or reducing the parking standard
for retail uses, strict enforcement of the current zoning by-law concerning
offices on the ground floor and the designation of a Community Improvement
Area.
Staff did not pursue the reduction in the
requirement for retail-related parking as it was clear that the existing
parking supply would be further taxed by this approach, and it is questionable
as to whether this alone would overcome the floor space rent differential
between retail and restaurants.
However, staff supported the removal of restaurants from the parking
‘grandfathering’ provisions of the Parking By-law. This “grandfathering” required an applicant to only provide (in
addition to the existing parking spaces on the lot), the difference in the
number of spaces required in the parking by-law between the existing use and
the new use. The affect of removing
restaurants from the “grandfathering” provision would be to take away an
incentive for the conversions of floor space to restaurant use. Unionville (and the other heritage
districts) already has a reduced parking standard for restaurants compared to
the rest of Markham (1 parking space per 15 m2 of net floor area
versus 1 parking space per 9 m2),
and it is not recommended that this be changed.
Unionville was designated a
Community Improvement Area in the 1980s.
If the Town chose in the future to adopt a specific Community
Improvement Plan for the area, Council could provide grants and loans to retail
establishments for façade or other improvements. Ultimately, the success of retail space relates to the success of
Main Street as a whole and the proper balance of uses. The Town should continue to support and
promote Main Street through programming, beautification and promotions.
c) Methodology used to
calculate the 50% retail calculation
One of the key policies
proposed in the secondary plan is for Main Street Unionville to provide a
traditional shopping environment in the form of a historic commercial area
where the at-grade uses are predominately retail. To achieve this objective, it was originally recommended that
within a defined district identified as the ‘Main Street Unionville Traditional
Shopping Area’, in excess of 50 percent of the total at-grade building facades
facing Main Street shall be in retail use.
For the purpose of this policy, a building façade or portion thereof
would only be considered to be in retail use if retail is the principal use of
the ground floor of the specific building.
This was included to prevent a street of shallow, potentially non-viable
retail boutiques with restaurants and pubs located behind this veneer.
Planning staff did prepare a
database of linear facades for all properties on Main Street zoned Heritage
Main Street. This involved measuring all the facades of buildings facing onto
Main Street and a building façade was only considered to be in retail use where
retail was the predominant use of the ground floor. Staff felt that this database would be easy to maintain and would
reflect the amount of retail, restaurant and other land uses that a pedestrian
would encounter along the Main Street.
However, concerns were expressed about using a linear façade measurement
approach. Mr. Talbot, President of
Talbot Consultants International Inc.- Market Research, Analysis and Strategies
who is also a resident of Unionville and President of the Unionville Villagers
Association indicated by letter that in his professional opinion, the standard
commercial use measurement world-wide is Gross Leaseable Area (GLA), but that
Gross Floor Area (GFA) is also utilized.
His concern is that staff is proposing an untried and contentious
methodogy that was not used by the Study consultants. In addition, concern was expressed regarding what is considered
‘frontage’ on Main Street. Mr. Talbot
recommended using Gross Leaseable Area for the entire building.
John Winter, the
Study’s retail consultant, utilized Gross Ground Floor Area. Mr. Winter made it very clear that the
significant issue is ground floor retail space. He was not concerned about above or below grade uses, as it is
the at-grade uses that define the character of the street, in his opinion. However, there is no accurate information
base regarding at-grade gross floor area.
While the Town’s assessment database permitted Marshall Macklin Monaghan
and John Winters to separate out at-grade GFA when they completed their
previous studies in the early 1990s, the data base has been altered and now
provides only the total GFA by address (i.e. the ground floor spaced is not
separate). Both consultants used their
former data updated by site visits and estimations for the current analysis.
Estimating the
at-grade GLA would be difficult and time consuming, and would be of
questionable accuracy, particularily where there is more than one use on the
ground floor. There was also the issue
of Town staff having to maintain whatever data base was chosen and to use it
when considering new restaurant applications.
It is for these reasons that staff and the planning consultants agreed
to the use of the linear façade measurement.
However, given the
concerns raised in the community, a new database was created by Planning staff
(see Appendix ‘D’). This process
involved a review of development plan files available at the Town to determine the at-grade floor space,
supplemented by using the Town’s aerial photography database of building
footprints, site visits to each property and a voluntary floor space survey
prepared by staff and administered by the Unionville BIA. The result is a reasonably accurate database
of the at-grade floor space classified as retail, restaurant and other (e.g.
services, offices, residential).
According to our analysis, the at-grade floor space breakdown is as
follows:
|
|
Measurement (m2)
|
Percentage
|
|
Retail
|
3,576.00
|
45.7%
|
|
Restaurant
|
2,187.00
|
27.9%
|
|
Other (office, personal service, residential,
vacant)
|
2,064.00
|
26.4%
|
|
Total
|
7,827.00
|
100%
|
Feedback received by
staff from the public consultation sessions has indicated that as a first
principle, retail uses should comprise at least 50% of the at-grade land uses,
and until such time as retail reaches 50% of the at-grade, gross floor area,
there should be no conversion of other uses to restaurant use. This position was also advocated by John
Winter, the Study’s retail consultant who reported:
“The
future trends indicate that a “restaurant row” or a “restaurant campus” is
forming along Unionville Main Street and, while this may increase the diversity
and the choice of eating areas, it can be seen as contrary to the planned
function of Unionville Main Street, which focuses on ‘a traditional shopping
experience’…the success of the restaurants is threatening to choke off the
amount of space devoted to retailers, who were the original draw”
John Winter reports that
already the restaurant component in Historic Unionville is about four times
higher than the average restaurant component of commercial uses in generic
urban areas, and that “experience has shown that successful retail nodes,
particularly Main Streets, sell merchandise” and a “decline in the number and
proportion of retail stores could be a predicator of impending decline”. Consequently, Mr. Winter recommended that
the municipality maintain the proportion of retail stores in Unionville Main Street
at or (preferably) above the 50% level of ground floor space.
Based on
the further consultation with the community concerning the method of
measurement, the Study’s planning consultant recommended that subsection 5.1.2.
of the proposed secondary plan be modified to indicate that Council should not
approve restaurant uses within the Traditional Shopping Area shown when retail uses represent less than 50% of
the total at-grade, gross floor area.
Staff has revised the secondary plan to reflect this concept and remove
references to the at-grade building façade approach of measurement.
Therefore, the test for
restaurant rezonings would be how the proposal impacts the at-grade, gross
floor area calculation, and whether the parking requirement can be
achieved. Until the overall retail
figure rebounds to over 50%, new restaurants rezonings would not be recommended
for approval.
d) Boundary of the Traditional
Shopping Area
As mentioned in section (c)
above, the 50% retail objective was to be achieved within a defined district
identified as the ‘Main Street Unionville Traditional Shopping Area’ (Figure
2). This boundary included all the Main
Street properties between Carlton Road and Victoria Avenue. The following properties zoned Heritage Main
Street were considered to be outside the traditional main street shopping area:
141, 145, 145 Main Street (located north of Victoria Avenue on the old
concession road), 139 Main Street (Planing Mill Complex) and 136 Main Street/ 2
and 4 Station Lane (north of the former Unionville Train Station).
The boundary of the ‘traditional shopping
area’ was recommended in the Study by the consultants. The consultant and staff were of the opinion
that the three lots on the old concession road were physically removed from the
principal main street, and restaurant or office uses on these properties would
not alter the character of Main Street.
These properties also have had retail zoning permission for at least ten
years with no interest shown in retail conversion. Further,the existing zoning on these properties already restricts
the type and nature of restaurant use on the lands, in order to ensure
compatibility with residential uses on Victoria Avenue. We also felt that the Planing Mill Complex
appeared to function like a stand-alone shopping centre with its own parking
lot, and was not part of the area of concern.
The three properties at the corner of Station Lane and Main Street
appear separated from the traditional main street and have limited parking
opportunities.
However, both the Unionville
BIA and the Unionville Villagers Association disagreed with this
assessment. Both organizations were
concerned that the proposed boundary is smaller than the Study Area, does not
include all the Heritage Main Street zoned properties and excludes many members
of the BIA. The BIA describes the
Planing Mill as the gateway to the BIA, a major focus of the retail street and
a reflection of the historic beginnings of Unionville. Concern was expressed that the Planing Mill
building could be converted from retail uses to a large pub or restaurant
complex.
Based on the feedback from
the public, Planning staff has re-evaluated
the situation and has revised the boundaries of the traditional shopping
area to include all the Heritage Main Street zoned commercial properties.
e) Requests for exemptions to
permit additional restaurant use
Mr. J. Valiannes, owner of 159 and 159A
Main Street has requested an exemption from the proposed cap on restaurants
given that he had indicated to Council during a recent rezoning application to
allow a hotel use on his property that his redevelopment plans included a
restaurant component. No site plan
application has been submitted to date for the hotel/restaurant/retail
proposal. Planning staff met with this
owner to review his preliminary plans.
It was suggested that the proposed restaurant, which would service the
hotel guests as well as others, could be accommodated on the second floor of
the development. Other options that
were explored involved exploring whether the restaurant use could be combined
with hotel lobby function or a combination retail store/restaurant. However, these proved not feasible from a
zoning perspective. Planning staff does
not recommend that this property be exempted from the proposed cap on
restaurants. The Town could consider
the merits of an application if submitted in the future.
Mr. D. Di Bernardo, owner of the Planing
Mill, has also requested an exemption from the proposed cap on
restaurants. At present, the upstair
units of the complex are in office use with one restaurant and a number of
retail stores on the ground floor.
Staff met with the owner to review his concerns. The owner has asked that he be permitted to
develop up to 50% of the ground floor for restaurant use and has demonstrated
that he has the parking spaces to accommodate this scenario.
Planning approvals for the Planing Mill
development were obtained in 1985-86.
During this process there was ongoing concern related to the proposed
amount of restaurant space and the provision of parking. Council approved an amendment to the Site
Plan Agreement in 1986 restricting the gross floor area of the one
permitted restaurant to a maximum of 232 m2 (2500 sq. ft.). In 1987, an application to expand the
existing restaurant to 311 m2 (3348 sq. ft.) was abandoned following publication of a
negative staff report. The report
indicated that in light of the aggravated parking situation on the subject
property and the immediate area, and the floor area cap in the site plan
agreement, expansion of a use that required a high ratio of parking was not
considered appropriate.
The existing restaurant is 203 m2
(2182 sq. ft.) in size. It is
recommended that given the maximum floor area restriction in the site plan
agreement for this site, the proposed zoning by-law amendment should recognize
this and restrict the maximum gross floor area to 232m2 for
restaurant use on this property. A
preliminary review by the Zoning Section has indicated that sufficient parking
would be available.
f) Definitions
desired for retail store and hotel
The Unionville Villagers Association has
requested that the current definition of retail to be used in the zoning by-law
amendment be tightened up to avoid a situation where office use on the ground
floor is considered to be retail by the sale of a few goods or materials. It has been suggested that the words
“principal use” need to be in the definition.
John Winter has indicated that Statistics Canada defines a retail
location as one “in which the principal activity is the sale of merchandise and
related services to the general public, for household or personal
consumption”. Mr. Talbot, in his
capacity as a professional retail consultant, has suggested the definition of
“a traditional retail store as a premise of which a minimum of 80% of the
ground floor is utilized for the display and sale of merchandise to the general
public for household or personal consumption (excluding wholesale) with the
majority of sales being conducted by traditional ‘over the counter’ means
direct to the consumer (excluding rentals or indirect sales such as vending
machines, catalogues or internet sales)”.
Given that retail sales in Unionville can occur in basement or second
floor locations, staff is suggesting a definition that combines elements of
both Statistics Canada and Mr Talbot’s suggestion be used in the zoning by-law
amendment:
STORE,
RETAIL means a premise in which the principal activity is the display and sale
of merchandise to the general public for household or personal consumption (excluding
wholesale) with the majority of sales being conducted by traditional ‘over the
counter’ means direct to the consumer (excluding rentals or indirect sales such
as vending machines, catalogues or internet sales)”.
The definition for ‘Hotel’ is in the
parent zoning by-law. A member of the
public suggested that people should not be required to hunt for these
definitions and that the definition should be included in the proposed zoning
by-law amendment. Zoning staff has
indicated that it is common practice to only include definitions in zoning
by-law amendments where they differ from the definition in the parent by-law.
g) Clarify Station Lane Office Designation
The designation of the properties on
Station Lane for office was introduced through the secondary plan in 1990, and
the subsequent zoning by-law amendment.
Analysis of these properties was not part of the current study and the
designation and zoning was merely being transferred from the former secondary plan and zoning by-law amendment.
h) Exclusion of major chain stores from Main
Street
It was requested that staff attempt to
exclude major chain stores from Main Street Unionville in an attempt to retain
Unionville’s unique retailing ambiance and character. However, the Town can only control the “use’ not the
“users”. John Winter has stated that
most large chain stores would find the buildings in Unionville too small for
their operations. The secondary plan
also acknowledges the value of the small, independent commercial establishments
to the overall amenity and vitality of the Core Area.
i) Cash in lieu of parking
The secondary plan indicates that “where
site planning considerations result in a small deficiency in the amount of
on-site parking available, Council may, in lieu of enforcing the standard
parking requirements, accept a payment into a Town parking fund….” It was suggested that staff should define
what would be considered a small deficiency.
Staff will be bringing forward a separate report regarding a cash in
lieu of parking policy to be adopted by Council, and this issue will be
addressed in the specific policy.
j) Parking supply issues and the need for a
co-ordinating body.
As requested by Council, staff will add
the existing recycling depot land and the Town-owned lands north of Carlton
Road on Main Street to the list of potential parking supply options identified
in the Secondary Plan. The issue of
integration of parking lots on both the west and east side of Main Street as
well as the exploration of other related parking supply solutions, needs to be
addressed by some form of co-ordinating body.
There has been the suggestion that a parking authority is needed for
Main Street. This approach may be
appropriate, although there currently isn’t a revenue base to manage this and
the majority of parking is on private lands.
However, the merits of a parking authority could be explored in the
context of a broader assessment of the need for a parking authority in Markham
considering the parking management needs in other areas of the community.
In the absence of a parking authority, the
‘champion’ of the parking supply cause should be a motivated local
organization. It has been suggested
that the BIA or even a revamped version of the Study’s Community Advisory
Committee could undertake this role.
Staff, after consultation with the Ward Councillor, is recommending that
the Unionville BIA and other interested local stakeholders (such as residential
ratepayer representatives) be requested to form a Historic Unionville Parking Advisory
Committee to assist in the implementation of parking supply recommendations of
the Main Street Unionville Land Use and Parking Study with Town staff providing
assistance where appropriate. The role
of the committee could involve the following tasks:
- to identify and
prioritize parking supply improvements recommended in the Land use and Parking
Study (e.g. examination of the potential parking lots identified during the
study process, initiate discussion with the owners of Fred Varley Plaza concerning
the potential of of-site BIA staff parking at the Plaza during peak period and
the possible expansion of the Plaza parking lot);
- to alert staff and
Council of needed municipal parking related investments (e.g. striping of
parking spaces and the implications of public use of the train station parking
lot, introduction of strategically placed bicycle racks and the preparation of
supporting material to encourage cycling, better signage to guide visitors to
parking areas); and
- to generally
encourage fellow residents and business owners to contribute to improving Main
Street’s parking challenges such as the issue of integration of private parking
lots.
k) Amendment to the Parking By-law
The wording in the proposed amendment to
the Parking By-law has been revised to reflect the ‘grandfathering’ provision
in the by-law ‘shall not apply’ to the Unionville properties rather than
‘exempting’ these properties from the provisions, as was originally stated in
our Development Services Commission report of December 3, 2002.
Conclusion
Main Street Unionville is a continually evolving
area. The Historic Unionville Core Area
is a special place with one of the finest collections of historic buildings in
Ontario, concentrated in a manner that creates an intimate and highly
attractive destination for people. In
the early 1990’s, the key issues facing this area were parking and pressures
for expansion of the commercial district.
In 2002-03, there is concern regarding the number of restaurants and the
displacement of retail uses, as well as parking supply issues. The Unionville Land Use and Parking Study
has confirmed after many months of analysis and community consultation that:
- the proliferation of
restaurants threatens to undermine the planned function of Main Street as a
traditional shopping area. Further
controls on restaurant uses are warranted in order to maintain the viability of
the retail component on Main Street, ensure the adequacy of parking and to
maintain consistency with the intent of the Official Plan.
- parking is a
legitimate concern as parking demand presently mirrors supply. Should the trend of granting parking relief
for restaurants continue, demand will exceed supply.
The study process and subsequent public
consultation has allowed local organizations such as the Unionville BIA, the
Unionville Villagers Association and the Unionville Ratepayers Association, as
well as local residents and business owners and operators to fully participate
in the development of recommendations to address the identified concerns. To implement the necessary changes to Town
policies, Planning staff has prepared a new secondary plan for the Unionville
Core Area and zoning by-law amendments based on the consultant’s recommendations
in the Final Report of the study, modification and revisions to existing
documents and by-laws as recommended by Planning Department staff and
consideration of submissions received at the statutory public meeting and
subsequent community input.
Staff
recommend that the Official Plan Amendment and Secondary Plan
for the Unionville Core Area attached as Appendix ‘A’ to this report, be
approved and that upon approval of the new Official Plan Amendment by the
Region of York, Council adopt a by-law to repeal By-law 266-90 (OPA No.99) to give
effect this amendment, and to also repeal amending By-laws 157-97 (OPA No. 50)
and 26-98 (OPA No.62). The Region of
York should also be requested to expedite approval of the OPA and Secondary
Plan in order that the implementing zoning can come into effect as soon as
possible.
Staff also recommends that the Zoning By-law
Amendment to By-law 122-72, as amended, attached as Appendix ‘B’ to this report
be enacted. Zoning By-law Amendment to
By-law 28-97, as amended (Parking By-law), attached as Appendix ‘C’ to this
report should also be enacted. However,
given that the Parking By-law is a Town-wide by-law and the amendment includes
a definition and parking standard for Bed and Breakfast Inns, Council should
indicate as per 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 that no further
notice is required prior to adoption.
The Unionville BIA and other interested local
stakeholders should also be requested to form a Historic Unionville Parking
Advisory Committee to assist in the implementation of parking supply
recommendations of the Main Street Unionville Land Use and Parking Study, with
Town staff providing assistance where appropriate.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None at this time.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
Staff from the following departments or
agencies has been consulted: Planning and Urban Design, Legal Services and
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix ‘A’ Official
Plan Amendment and Secondary Plan
Appendix ‘B’ Amendment
to Zoning By-law 122-72, as amended
Appendix ‘C’ Amendment
to Zoning By-law 28-97, as amended (Parking By-law)
Appendix ‘D’ Summary
of Ground Floor Area
Appendix ‘E’ Correspondence
|
|
|
|
|
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\Heritage\SUBJECT\Unionville
Core Study 2002\Official Plan and Zoning Amendments\DSC Report May 20 03.doc
FIGURE 1
DOCUMENT:
Q:\Development\Heritage\SUBJECT\Unionville
Core Study 2002\Official Plan and Zoning Amendments\DSC Report May 20 03.doc
STUDY AREA
