HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-08-006 - Request for Direction - Drive Through Facilities~ ~, ~
T~ E
Development &
Technical Services
Report To: Development and Technical Services Committee
Date of Meeting: January 7, 2008
Submitted By: Rob Browning, General Manager (741-2500}
Prepared By: Brian Page, Supervisor of Site Plan Development (741-2318}
Ward(s~ Involved: All
Date of Report: December 17, 2007
Report No.: DTS-08-006
Subject: REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council provide direction to staff either to initiate amendments to prohibit additional drive-
throughfacilities within Kitchener, or to undertake a review of new design standards for new
drive-through facilities.
BACKGROUND:
In the late 1990s the City of Kitchener completed a thorough review of design standards for drive-
through facilities. This resulted in zoning regulations requiring noise mitigation for intercom order
stations less than 60 metres from residential or other sensitive uses, as well as design standards,
including minimum vehicle stacking requirements. The concept of prohibiting drive-throughs in the
Downtown was considered at the time but met with considerable opposition from the restaurant industry
and the banking sector, and the matter was deferred indefinitely.
Subsequently, the City has been involved in two OMB hearings involving proposed drive-through
restaurants in suburban Mixed Use Nodes. In one (River Road at Holborn Drive) the OMB agreed with
the City that a zone change to allow adrive-through restaurant should not be approved as it
represented an underutilization of land intended for a high intensity of mixed use development and
would not contribute to apedestrian-oriented urban environment. In the other (Homer Watson
Boulevard at Block Line Road) the OMB agreed with the City that a site plan to allow adrive-through
restaurant should not be approved as it compromised pedestrian safety.
At the D&TS Committee meeting of October 18 2004, in discussion of a recommendation from the
City's Environmental Committee to post "No Idling" signs, concerns were raised over the inconsistency
of the City continuing to approve new drive-throughs at the same time as trying to encourage drivers
not to idle their vehicles. Subsequently, as a result of the 2006 report Air Quality in Kitchener, "No
Idling" signs are now posted at City facilities and elementary schools, but no further action has been
taken regarding prohibition or continued approval of new drive-through facilities.
REPORT:
Alternatives
1. Do Nothing continue to permit drive-through facilities in the zoning by-law; continue to use
existing design guidelines and standards to guide the design of new facilities};
2. Conduct a review of existing design guidelines and standards and incorporate any
improvements, including clear priority for pedestrian safety on drive-through sites;
3. Develop policy and zoning to prohibit drive-through facilities in specified pedestrian-oriented
areas only (including Downtown, Mixed-Use Corridors, Mixed-Use Nodes, Neighbourhood
Mixed-Use Centres} and continue to permit them elsewhere (including Arterial Commercial,
Planned Commercial Campus);
4. Develop policy and zoning to prohibit new drive-through facilities throughout Kitchener.
Alternative 1
The City of Kitchener zoning by-law currently permits drive-through facilities in all zones where the
primary use ~e.g., restaurant, bank, pharmacy} is permitted. The zoning by-law establishes noise limits
for intercom order stations. A design brief within the Urban Design Manual provides guidelines and
standards for site design.
If Alternative 1 is approved by council, there would be no change at this time.
The primary disadvantage of this alternative is that staff are negotiating for improved pedestrian safety
ondrive-through design without the clear support of Council policy. The OMB decision on Country Park
Shopping Centre (Homer Watson Blvd at Block Line Rd} agreed with City staff's evidence. However,
we continue to receive site plan applications, with one or more drive-through facilities on a property,
which do not meet the expected standard of pedestrian safety.
Alternative 2'
The recent Ontario Municipal Board decision on Country Park Shopping Centre was clear that the
safety of pedestrians is paramount in new developments with drive-through facilities. R. Rossi,
member of the Board states in his decision:
"...most importantly, how the proposed site plan creates numerous inappropriate and
potentially dangerous pedestrian conflicts."
"...the Board determines that the proposed site plan fails to adequately respond to the City's
legitimate and persuasive concerns regarding the movement of pedestrians on the site and
particularly in respect of the pedestrian conflict points ... "
"The site plan as offered is, in the Board's view, devoted to vehicular traffic at the expense of
safe pedestrian movement on the site. "
Historically drive-through facilities have focused on vehicle movements in mind first and the pedestrian
second. A substantial percentage of existing drive-through facilities require the pedestrian to walk
across the drive-through vehicular traffic lane before entering the facility from the City sidewalk. This is
also true for motorists who, after parking their car, are required to walk through the drive-through
vehicular lane to enter the building. Staff have been working with the development industry towards
improving safety and accessibility for pedestrians coming to the site from the surrounding
neighbourhood as well as those customers coming by car that become pedestrians after parking the
car. Positive changes on some site design elements have been achieved, and staff continues to
provide alternative designs to address the issues on a site by site basis. However, designs where the
drive-through lanes wrap around the building or form a barrier between the building entrance and the
parking lot or sidewalk are the typical standard that is being submitted. Some developers are cognizant
of the issues but do not always share staff's concerns regarding the importance of pedestrian safety.
The safety of pedestrians and their being forced to pass through adrive-through aisle is a primary
concern. Development should not be devoted to vehicular traffic at the expense of safe pedestrian
movement. A site plan designed for vehicular traffic which does not take into consideration the safety
of pedestrians is a poorly designed site plan that does not represent good planning or urban design.
A revision to the current design brief should ensure that these facilities are designed to have minimum
points of conflict between the motorist and the pedestrian, are designed to be consistent with the
Pedestrian Charter, and are accessible to people with disabilities. Updating the Design Brief for Drive-
Through Facilities would provide clear direction to all applicants at the preliminary design stage.
Alternative 3'
It is anticipated that through the development of implementing zoning for Mixed-Use Corridors and
Mixed-Use Nodes there are likely to be implications for drive-through facilities. This may extend to a
revision of the Downtown zones. The outcome may be either a prohibition on drive-through facilities,
as these areas are planned as pedestrian-oriented environments, or regulations on building form and
minimum density which would make it difficult to incorporate drive-through facilities into a proposed
development.
Direction from Council at this time would help staff to focus efforts where they are most needed in
developing the draft zoning for Mixed-Use Corridors.
Alternative 4'
Air quality is a primary concern for Kitchener citizens, as evidenced through the 2004 Environics survey
and the 2005 survey of community priorities as part of the Strategic Plan for the Environment update.
Recently, in the community input for the Strategic Plan update, there has been a significant call for the
City to prohibit drive-through facilities from the standpoint of air quality (reduced idling) and community
health in general (encouraging less car-dependant lifestyles),
It is recognized that drive-through facilities do provide a convenience for their customers, and that they
are a distinct benefit for particular customers (e.g., the disabled, or a parent with very young children in
the vehicle} who may not easily be able to park and walk into the restaurant/bank/pharmacy. However,
there are many existing drive-through facilities throughout the community and one could argue that the
city is adequately served by existing facilities and that no new drive-through facilities are required.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
No capital budget implications are associated with this recommendation.
COMMUNICATIONS:
None required to date. Depending on the direction of Council, community consultation will be
necessary. Before reporting back, staff would meet to consult with the drive-through development
sector, the Built Environment Sub-Committee of the Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee, and
advisory committees of Council including Environmental Committee and Safe & Healthy Communities
Advisory Committee.
CONCLUSION:
Staff request direction as to whether or not any further drive-through facilities should be permitted in the
city and whether or not to review and update the design standards for proposed drive-through facilities.
Brian Page, CET, OALA, CSLA Jeff Willmer
Supervisor of Site Plan Development Director of Planning
Rob Browning
General Manager,
Development and Technical Services
Councillor Ms. Christina Weylie
Chairperson of Development and Technical Services Committee'
City of Kitchener
20v King Street West
P, 4. Box 1118
Kitchener, Ontario a
MN2G 4G7
Dear Councillor V~eylie
Re: Development and Technical Services Committee - January 1, 2008
Staff Report DTS-O8-006 -~ Request for Direction of DriverThrough Facilities
Please be advised that we have been asked by The TDL Group Corp., operators of Tim
Hortvns Restaurants, to review the above-noted staff report and to appear as a delegation
with regard to this item at your Committee Meeting of January 1, 2008.
We realize that the staff report, at this time, request direction from your Committee and
eventually of City Council relative todrive-through facilities in the City of Kitchener. it is
important that Committee and City Council be aware of recent initiatives by many restaurant
facilities that rely ondrive-throughs as a key component to operating their business, of which
Tim Hortons Restaurants represent a significant percentage of these restaurant locations.
The most obvious concern with the recommendation as written in the staff report, is that the
recommendation in part seeks direction to staff to `~o initla~e amendments ~o rahibif add~fr'onal
drive-through facilities wl~hln Kitcf~ener". It is the suggested "prohibition" of the drive-through
facility, based on limited reasoning or justification referred in the body of the report that is an
obvious concern to Tim Hortons, and will be to other brands and businesses that rely ondrive-
through fac[lities. We would like to briefly comment on the limited reasons offered in the staff
report and as such, question why this issue needs to be undertaken at this time.............
With regard to fihe specific comments in the staff report offered as reasons why staff is seeking
direction of Council, we would comment as follows.
The staff report refers to two previous CMB Hearings involving proposed derive-through
restaurants within suburban mixed use node areas. The first OMB Hearing occurred in the
spring of 2005 on an existing vacant parcel of land at the career of River Rvad and Holborn
Drive relative to a proposed zone change from the Residential Nine Zone ~R-9} to
Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone ~C-2} to accommodate convenience commercial uses
and a restaurant with drive-through facility. It is important to note that this Board decision
dealt with fundamental and significant land use planning issue wherein the applicants were
proposing to rezone a parcel of [and zoned from an R-9 Zone the highest density zone
available in the City of Kitchener} to C-2 Zone. This was considered a significant land use
33U-A~ Trillium Drive, Kitchener, Qn~ario f~2~ 3J2 Tel; 5 ~ 9-895-5955 ~ Fax: 5~ 9-896-5355
.. 2 .
change and as indicated in the OMB's decision which noted in part that: "the proposal
represenfs a down zonin of fhe sr'fe as if will resulf in a under ufilizafion of the confemplafed
higher densities of t17e life, as well as an underufr'lization of the exisfing and planned
Infrasfrucfure of fne area." Further the Board finds "tne proposal does not conform fo fhe
Cify's Municipal Plan". The actual drive-through facility was not the thrust of the OMB decision
rather it was the broader land use planning considerations and implications that concerned the
Board. We reviewed the Board's decision and based on our knowledge of the area and the
specifc site, we can appreciate the OMB's decision. The second referred to the OMB Hearing
which occurred more recently in March 2001 was relative to a proposed Site Plan Application
and design for a parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Homer Watson Road and
B[ockline Road. The OMB decision noted that although these lands were properly zoned to
allow neighbourhood and convenience type retail uses under the site's G-2 Zvne, the lands
were designated as a Mixed Use Node Area within the City's Municipal Plan requiring high
regard to urban design and surrounding built form considerations. It was the Mixed Use Node
policies and related design and traffic considerations that were the main consideration for the
OMB and its decision, In addition, it is very important fio Hate that the drive-through restaurant...
was only parr of the larger proposa[ for the site which included a gas bar facility and other
convenience retail type uses. This specifc site is also a very restricted and challenged by the
fact that it is long and narrow shallow} in configuration, and diffcult at such for design options.
This led to the other main concern for the Board and its findings that were simply too many
vehicular and pedestrian conflict paints that would occur on the overall site. In our opinion, it`
would appear upon review of the site plan, that the proposal could be characterized as
"overdevelopment" for this site and its configuration and design requirements of the Municipal
Plan and Design Guidelines for the Gity.
There is some suggestion in staff's report that by referral to these previous two OMB Hearings
that Council needs to provide more policy objectives relative todrive-through facilities given
the OMB's considerations on these two sites. It is very important to put matters into
perspective relative to these OMB considerations and point out that, in our opinion, the
City of Kitchener has an extremely low number of development applications that are
appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board in comparison to other municipalities of
similar size and development activity. Vile believe this is as a result of two factors.
Firstly, City staff makes very positive efforts to work with applicants to assist them with design
and development proposals in order to achieve a balanced compliance to the City policy and
Zoning By-law requirements, as well as those of the applicant. This is exemplified by the
City's effort to provide examples of design alternatives and sketches to applicants through Site
Plan Approval Process. Secondly, the City staff routinely and thoroughly implements the
City's Urban Design Guideline objectives in development proposal making it clear tv the
applicants the objective of the Urban Design from the onset of applications, and even prior to
submission at their required pre-consultation meetings. As far as we are aware, the City has.
only been required to adjudicate twice an application at the OMB once in the last 20
years. Again, this is extremely low in comparison to other municipalities who often
deal with ~ 0 or more site plan applications to the OMB on an annual basis. This
extremely low application appeal or referral ratio to the OMB is indicative of the fact the
current policies, by-laws and Urban Design Guidelines that are in place atthe City of
Kitchener are truly working, and there is no need for further specif c new policies or by-
law regulations to restrict or prohibit these facilities.
The staff report makes reference to prohibiting drive-through facilities from the sfiandpoint of
air quality. As you recall, this was considered a few years ago by the City and not considered..
further upon Council's considerations. Your considerations at that time included
comprehensive study considerations b RWDI Consultin En ineers and Scientists which
concluded that it was marginally better tv have vehicles use the drive-through rather than
.~„ ~ ,,
those vehicles coming to ~ site, turning its vehicle off and then restarting contributing to the
emissions tv the cooling and restark of the vehicle from an overall air quality perspective. It is
important and relevant to note what RvUDI has recently completed an updated study relative to
the analysis of emissions and air quality around adrive-through Tim Hortons compared to a
non drive-through Tim Hortons. The analysis was conducted for current conditions and
Ministry regulations, as well as in the future where the vehicle fleet will have lower
emissions thanks to improved technology. This study is currently being "peer
rerriewed" by the University of Ottawa Science and Engineering Faculty. The study
findings concluded again that from an air quality perspective, drive-throughs do-not
represent a unique public health or environmental concern and dv not warrant special
regulation or sanction.
Lastly, with regard to staff's comments under Alternative 4 page ~ of the repv~t}, it was sfiated,
that `Y~here has been a significant call for the Cify fo prohibif drive-through facilities from the
standpoint of air qualify, from a 2405 survey of community input fo the Strategic Plan': we
have asked staff to provide us the actual statistics in this regards, as we feel that the numbers
are not significant as the Strategic Plan Survey was limited and sent to specific households.
vllith respect to the staff report proposed for alternatives and based on the foregoing
comments, we would respectively request that Alternative 1 be the direction of your
Committee and of City Council to Planning Staff. However, Alternative ~ objectives to review
and update specific Urban Design Guidelines relative to these facilities are appreciated by Tim
Hortons upon your direction, and we would suggest that other related brands under the parent
association of the Ontario Restaurant Hotel Motel Association ~4RHMA} be completed under
an appropriate consultation review process.
Thank you for your time and consideration to the above comments, we can answer any of your
specific questions you may have at the Committee Meeting on January ~t~ ,and elaborate
further on any other related matters to your considerations.
Yours truly,
Labreche Patterson +~ Associ tes lnc.
r
for Labreche, M.C.I,P, R.P.P.
Senior Principal
VLIg k
CCPY.• The TDL Groin Corp.
Mr. Jefi~ 1/~'illmer, Director of Development and Technr`cal Services
Mr. Brian page, Supervisor of Site Plan Development
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 4G7
January 4, 2008
Attention: Mr. Rob Browning, General Manager -Development and Technical
Services (rob.browning@kitchener.ca)
Dear Sir,
Re: Kitchener Planning Report on Drive-Through Facilities (Rep. #
DTS-08-006) submission to Development and Technical Services
Committee of Council meeting scheduled for January 7, 2008.
am writing to you on behalf of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, Ontario
Division (CPPI}. CPPI represents more than fifty percent of the retail petroleum
operators in the province of Ontario and its member companies include Shell, Petro-
Canada, Suncor, Imperial Oil and Ultramar. The majority of automobile service stations
within the City of Kitchener are being operated by CPPI member companies. While
CPPI members are competitors in the market place, they worktogether underthe CPPI
umbrella on various issues which may be common to the industry. Since its creation in
1989, CPPI has represented the views of its membership on business, environmental,
zoning, traffic access, parking requirements, tanker truck circulation and health and
safety issues.
CPPI has a genuine interest in ensuring that its member stations have facility design
standards in place which ensure thattheir retail petroleum services are safe and
financially viable while meeting the customer needs and being compatible with the
needs of the community.
We, the CPPI members have had the opportunity to review and comment on the latest
"City of Kitchener report dated December 17, 2007 to Development and Technical
Committee on the Request for Direction on Drive-Through Facilities".
We commend the City of Kitchener (City) for its interest at ensuring clear policies and
guidelines on this topic considering the current Canadian market trend of increase in
20 Adelaide Street East, Suite 901 Toronto, ON M5C 2T6 I T. 416.492.5677 F. 416.492-2514 Website www.cppi.ca
popularity ofdrive-through facilities and we are pleased to have the opportunity to
provide some comments and input on this topic.
After a review of the City document ourcomments are as follows:
The two main areas of concern related todrive-through facilities in the City staff
document appear to focus on pedestrian safety and air quality/emissions.
The topic of safety (including pedestrian safety} is paramount with all CPPI members.
When new service station designs and site plan layouts are being developed, best
efforts are being made to ensure overall safety of the entire site and vicinity. This will
include for example, locating sidewalk access ramps in such sizes and locations as to
minimize the risks to pedestrians and motorists. Safe fuel tank truck access and fuel
deliveries are also an element of careful design consideration. If the site design is to
include adrive-through, the pedestrian safety can still be achieved through proper
pedestrian walkways and dedicated crossing points. Having pedestrians walk across a
drive-through lane, especially toward the end of the lane and/or in the vicinity of the
pick-up window portion of the lane, is often made safer than where a pedestrian is
walking through a shopping mall parking lot or crossing a street.
On the topic of air quality/emissions, drive-through facilities shouldn't be associated to
this topic any more than parking lots and streets in general. It should be noted that
contrary to motor vehicles which may occasionally be parked and idling near a school or
stopped and idling at a red traffic light, vehicles in adrive-through lane are not
stationary for any significant amount of time but rather are moving up the lane until they
reach and leave the pick-up window point.
Additionally, it shouldn't be forgotten that drive-through facilities provide many
advantages such as:
• Buildings can be smaller and require less space for seating area.
• Less energy is required for a smaller building.
• Less parking area may be required and therefore better land use.
• Convenience and time saving for customers in a hurry.
• Added convenience for persons with disabilities and families traveling with small
children.
• Customer protection from inclement weather.
• Customer and operator safety during the night.
For the above reasons we feel that new drive-through facilities should continue to be
permitted within the City of Kitchener zoning by-law. Site specific design and Site Plan
-2-
controls can ensure that proper pedestrian safety measures are included within any new
projects having drive-through facilities.
We hope that these comments by CPPI will be well received and we will be pleased to
have the opportunity to continue the dialogue with the City staff at a later date if
necessary.
Please consider this document as our written comments to the Development and
Technical Services Committee of Council meeting scheduled for January 7, 2008.
Sincerely,
r~
i1
~' h ~ ti
-~ -
Jean Roy P.Eng.
CPPI Ontario Division
cc. D.J. Williams, Davies Howe Partners (williams Jdavieshowe.com}
Janet Billett, City of Kitchener (ianet.billett lkitchener.ca)
Diane Gilchrist, City of Kitchener (di~gilchrist _lkitchener.ca}
Brian Page, City of Kitchener (brian.pa~ ,kitchener.ca}
Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener (Christine.kompter lkitchener.ca}
-3-