HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-28PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 28, 2013 CITY OF KITCHENER
The Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee met this date, commencing at 6:33 p.m.
Present: Councillor B. Vrbanovic - Chair
Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors K. Galloway-Sealock, S. Davey, J. Gazzola, D. Glenn-
Graham, F. Etherington, Y. Fernandes, Z. Janecki and P. Singh.
Staff: J. Willmer, Chief Administrative Officer
D. Chapman, Deputy CAO, Finance & Corporate Services
M. May, Deputy CAO, Community Services
J. Witmer, Acting Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Services
L. Johnston, Director, Communications and Marketing
A. Pinard, Director, Planning
L. Murphy, Manager, Corporate Customer Service
D. Ross, Manager, Development Review
A. Pinnell, Senior Planner
S. Ross, Assistant City Solicitor
D. Livingstone, Committee Administrator
CSD-13-012 - CORPORATE CUSTOMER SERVICE STRATEGY – PHASE 2 SCOPE
1.
The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-13-012, dated
January 21, 2013 recommending the initiation of Phase 2 of the Corporate Customer Service
Strategy.
Mr. M. May reviewed the staff report, advising that over the past several years’ municipalities
have been pursuing initiatives to improve customer service. He outlined the purpose of these
initiatives, including: increasing customer/citizen satisfaction; improving quality and
consistency in customer service across the corporation; reducing cost through efficiencies; and
implementing a customer-first approach to customer service. He stated that the City of
Kitchener implemented Phase 1 of the Corporate Customer Service Strategy in 2007, and
established solid customer service foundations through the Corporate Contact Centre; the City
Hall Welcome Centre; and the redesign of the City’s website, all of which have been largely
accomplished.
He indicated that with Phase 1 having been chiefly completed, the scope for Phase 2 has now
been established. Phase 2 focuses on three main components intended to strengthen existing
customer service foundations. He explained the three main components of Phase 2, which
include: strengthening corporate customer service through a change management plan; an
analysis of options for customer relationship management (CRM) software; strengthening the
Corporate Contact Centre (CCC); and prioritizing City services to be available online. He noted
that Phase 2 consists of basic elements of good customer service and should not be
considered revolutionary. He added that the implementation of Phase 2 remedies gaps in
corporate customer service that are currently in existence and completes initiatives required to
commence Phase 3.
Mr. May advised that there are budgetary impacts that will be brought forward in 2014 for
consideration relating to potential CRM software and expansion of online City services. He
stated that a Business Case will be completed and presented to Council once Phase 2 has
been completed.
In response to questions, Mr. May indicated that current customer service practices are not
standardized corporate-wide. He stated that the implementation of the Corporate Customer
Service Strategy would ensure standardized practices in customer service, with tools to
monitor, measure and report, which can be utilized to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
Councillor D. Glenn-Graham questioned whether surveys have been used to benchmark
customer satisfaction. Mr. May responded that one-off surveys, such as the 2009 Environics
survey, have touched broadly on customer service; however, the corporation does not
currently have a program in place to gauge customer satisfaction. He indicated that as part of
the third component of Phase 2, the intention is to engage the public to investigate those
services which would be desirable to receive online. With regard to a timeline, Mr. May
indicated that the program for 2013 is aggressive; however he expects a detailed analysis for
CRM software will be prepared by fall in order to be considered for 2014 budget deliberations.
PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 28, 2013 - 3 - CITY OF KITCHENER
CSD-13-012 - CORPORATE CUSTOMER SERVICE STRATEGY – PHASE 2 SCOPE
1.
(CONT’D)
Ms. L. Murphy responded to questions related to the CCC indicating that the average call
volume is approximately 300 calls per day. She advised that at this time there is no capability
to categorize the types of calls, with the exception of those which require a service order for
By-law Enforcement or Operations related matters, accounting for approximately 20% of the
calls received. She stated that currently staff at the CCC are beyond entry-level and have
acquired the knowledge to anticipate the nature of the question or concern. She explained that
the training outlined by Mr. May, as part of the strategy, is corporate wide customer service
telephone training to ensure a consistent customer-first approach.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic requested additional explanation on the corporate implementation of
the CRM software. Mr. May explained that the CRM system is a core element used to elevate
customer service in a corporation. He described it as a workflow program with integration for
follow-up reporting, which would have the potential for compiling data for use to determine
allocation of resources or desired services.
Councillor S. Davey encouraged staff to consider the format of various devices when
considering the CRM, and include the cost benefit when building the Business Case for the
software.
On motion by Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock -
it was resolved:
“That the scope of work for Phase 2 of the Corporate Customer Service Strategy, as
outlined in Appendix ‘A’ of Community Services Department report CSD-13-012, be
approved.”
The Chair then read aloud the following statement:
“This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act. If a person or
public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City of Kitchener before the
proposed applications are considered, the person or public body may not be entitled to appeal
the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board and may not be added as a party to a hearing of
an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board.”
CSD-13-002 - DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 30T-02203
2.
- ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC02/17/Z/TMW
- 1290 OLD ZELLER DRIVE, VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS (ST. JACOB’S) LTD.
The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-13-002, dated
January 7, 2013 recommending approval of a draft plan of subdivision and zone change
application for lands located in the Grand River South Planning Community. In addition, the
Committee was in receipt of correspondence from Mr. A. Pinnell, dated January 28, 2013
containing revised wording for the staff recommendation contained within Report CSD-13-002.
Mr. A. Pinnell reviewed the staff report, advising that the subject lands, owned by Valleyview
Heights (St. Jacob’s), are approximately 4.01 hectares in size. He stated that an original
development application was circulated in 2002, and has recently been reactivated by the
applicant. He indicated that the proposal includes 55 single detached dwellings and 4 “lot
addition” blocks to be combined with adjacent lands to form parcels for future development. He
elaborated on the contents of the proposal, indicating that 1 hectare of land be dedicated for
parkland and open space, with a connection to the Walter Bean Trail. He referred to Schedule
No. 37 in the staff report, which illustrates the R-4 Special Regulation southwest of Block 64
that covers Areas 8 & 9 on Map No. 1; and should correctly read R-4, 640R. He added that a
retaining wall is being proposed for lots 14 through 23, which will sit at a maximum height of
5m, and will be privately owned and included in the statement of all purchase and sale
agreements. He added that there are also housekeeping zone changes to be considered,
outside the planned area, and in conjunction with this staff report, to remedy zoning
inconsistencies on publicly owned lands.
PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 28, 2013 - 4 - CITY OF KITCHENER
CSD-13-002 - DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 30T-02203
2.
- ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC02/17/Z/TMW
- 1290 OLD ZELLER DRIVE, VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS (ST. JACOB’S) LTD.
(CONT’D)
Councillor Z. Janecki requested clarification on Special Regulation R-4, 640R. Mr. Pinnell
responded that the purpose of this provision is to protect the view corridor from Old Zeller
Drive to the stormwater management pond; and accordingly, prohibits development in the area
illustrated as affected by the Special Regulation. He added that the developer currently owns
Block 64, and that the publicly owned right-of-way would have to be declared surplus and sold,
before development on Block 64 could occur. Mayor C. Zehr agreed with the zoning provision
restricting building that could obscure the vista to the stormwater management pond; however,
he expressed concern that growth of large vegetation is not restricted. Mr. S. Ross indicated
that it is anticipated that the closure of the right-of-way, and the surplus land declaration, will
be brought forward for consideration by Council in March. He suggested that additional
restrictions to preserve the view corridor could be addressed at that time.
Mr. Brandon Flewwelling, GSP Group, advised his firm is the consultant for Valleyview Heights
(St. Jacob’s). He spoke in support of the staff recommendation, advising that Block 64 is
planned for development of four single detached homes. Regarding the status of developing
Block 64, he confirmed that the road allowance/right-of-way has not yet been made available
to purchase by the developer and indicated that the required Record of Site Condition has
been completed. He further advised that the developer is working with City staff to determine
acceptable lot fabric, to ensure that Block 64 can be developed and the view corridor retained.
Councillor Y. Fernandes echoed Mayor Zehr’s concern in that once developed, trees and large
vegetation cannot be restricted. Mr. Ross indicated that a restrictive covenant is possible;
however, he stated that the vista would be protected by the vast amount of the road allowance
which is being preserved and the required front yard setback of 4.5m.
Several members expressed concerns regarding soil drainage and the proposed retaining wall.
Mr. Flewwelling responded that there are no issues expected with the gravity based retaining
wall. He stated that there are swales designed in the rear yards directing a small amount of
stormwater away from the wall, adding that the construction of the retaining wall is partially
attributed to the necessity of a slope which directs flow of water away from the Grand River to
ensure a stable surface.
Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned if the Development Manual has been updated to require
an adequate amount of topsoil be placed on the lots to ensure nourished trees. Mr. A. Pinard
responded that Development Manual Standards are applied during the detailed design phase
and are a requirement for final approval. He agreed to provide an email update on the topsoil
provision within the development manual prior to the Council meeting on February 4, 2013.
In response to further questions from Councillor Fernandes, Mr. Pinard advised that the terms
of reference for the Heritage Impact Assessment were circulated via email and subsequently
approved under delegated approval authority by Heritage Planning Staff. Mr. Flewwelling
confirmed that a full heritage inventory was completed on the house and barn, which
concluded that the structures were of no cultural heritage value or significance. He noted that a
demolition control application had been sought and approved.
On motion by Councillor Z. Janecki-
it was resolved:
“That Zone Change Application ZC02/17/Z/TMW for Valley View Heights (St. Jacob’s)
Ltd. for the purpose of changing the zoning from Agricultural Zone (A-1) and Open
Space Zone (P-2) and Residential Four Zone (R-4) with site-specific provisions to
Residential Four Zone (R-4), Residential Four Zone (R-4) with site-specific provisions,
Residential Three Zone (R-3) with Special Regulation Provision 326R, Open Space Zone
(P-2), and Hazard Land Zone (P-3), be approved in the form shown in the ‘Proposed By-
law’ dated December 17, 2012 attached to Community Services Department report
CSD-13-002 as Appendix ‘B’; and further,
PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 28, 2013 - 5 - CITY OF KITCHENER
CSD-13-002 - DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 30T-02203
2.
- ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC02/17/Z/TMW
- 1290 OLD ZELLER DRIVE, VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS (ST. JACOB’S) LTD.
(CONT’D)
That pursuant to Section 51 (31) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P 13 as
amended, and Delegation By-law 2002-64, draft approval be granted to Plan of
Subdivision Application 30T-02203 in the City of Kitchener, for Valley View Heights (St.
Jacob’s) Ltd. (Appendix ‘A’), subject to the conditions outlined in Report CSD-13-002.”
CSD-13-008 - STREET RENAMING – SECTION OF ZELLER DRIVE
3.
- CITY-INITIATED
The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-13-008, dated
January 10, 2013, recommending the preparation of a by-law and reference plan to rename
sections of Zeller Drive. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of correspondence
from Mr. A. Pinnell, Senior Planner, with revised wording for the staff recommendation.
Mr. Pinnell spoke to the staff report advising that the recommendation proposes that the
section of Zeller Drive located south of Pebblecreek Dive and north of Fairway Road North be
renamed “Old Zeller Drive”, and a section located south of Fairway Road North and north of
the Grand River would be renamed “Woolner Trail”. He explained that the discontinuous
sections of Zeller Drive are causing concern to residents, emergency services, mail delivery
personnel, and visitors to the area. In addition, the renaming of Zeller Drive will prevent
additional addresses from being assigned to future lots created within the Rockway Holdings
Limited Subdivision, which received draft approval in January 2012.
Mr. G. Woolner attended in support of the street name change, advising that the Woolner
family is very pleased and thankful to have their family name commemorated. He encouraged
planning staff to consider heritage and historical landmarks when determining street names in
new subdivisions as it plays an important part in preserving the history of the area.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic advised that Mr. Gusto Amorium had registered as a delegation but
was unable to attend. Mr. Pinnell indicated that he had been contacted by Mr. Amorium, a
resident of Zeller Drive, who expressed concern that his residence was adorned with an
address keystone that would require costly replacement if the street name change was
approved.
Councillor Vrbanovic commented that he had spoken with all residents on the east side of
Zeller Drive and all were amenable to the street name change. He added that two questions
were posed to him by the residents; the first inquired as to why the street name was being
changed to “Woolner Trail” rather than “Woolner Lane”. Mr. Pinnell provided a technical
answer, stating that the Street Naming Policy requires a lane to be less than 12m in width. He
then confirmed that the entire length of Zeller Drive is greater than 12m in width. The second
question posed to Councillor Vrbanovic was regarding the replacement of an address keystone
and whether the cost would be reimbursed.
On motion, Mayor C. Zehr brought the revised recommendation, distributed earlier this date,
forward for consideration advising that he is in support of the street name change as it will
occur due to emergency service concerns.
In response to questions, Mr. Pinnell confirmed that the street numbers between Pebblecreek
Drive and Fairway Road North would remain the same and that Mr. Amorium had indicated it
would cost $300. to replace the address keystone on his residence.
Mayor Zehr commented that costs usually associated with a street name change are limited to
minor inconveniences such as an address change at Canada Post. He expressed a
responsibility to reimburse those inconvenienced with having to change address keystones,
noting that there are four properties on Zeller Drive between Pebblecreek Drive and Fairway
Road North that are affected and possibly 2 on the south section.
Mayor Zehr then modified his motion with an additional clause for reimbursement up to $200.
inclusive of taxes, per street name keystone replacement.
PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 28, 2013 - 6 - CITY OF KITCHENER
CSD-13-008 - STREET RENAMING – SECTION OF ZELLER DRIVE
3.
- CITY-INITIATED (CONT’D)
Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock expressed concern with the amount being set at $200. stating
that additional costs for labour could add further inconvenience to home owners.
Councillor D. Glenn-Graham agreed and suggested staff be directed to obtain quotes for
labour and material and return to Council.
Councillor S. Davey indicated he would support the recommendation; however, he stated that
he was not comfortable using tax dollars to replace the keystones. He encouraged staff to
investigate, comprehensively, when planning subdivisions to avoid having to change street
names in the future.
Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock put forward an amendment, which was accepted as friendly by
Mayor Zehr, to direct staff to provide information to Council on an up-set limit for
reimbursement to homeowners for replacement of address keystones on Zeller Drive, prior to
the February 4, 2013 Council meeting.
On motion by Mayor C. Zehr -
it was resolved:
“That staff proceed with the preparation of a by-law and reference plan to rename the
section of Zeller Drive located south of Pebblecreek Drive and north of Fairway Road
North to “Old Zeller Drive” and the portion located south of Fairway Road North and
north of the Grand River to “Woolner Trail” and as outlined in Community Services
Department report CSD-13-008; and,
That notice of the proposed street name change by-law be advertised in advance of it
being considered by Council; and further,
That staff be directed to provide information on the up-set limit for reimbursement to
homeowners for replacement of address keystones on Zeller Drive, prior to the
February 4, 2013 Council meeting.”
ADJOURNMENT
4.
On motion, this meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
D. Livingstone
Committee Administrator