Report to: Development Services Committee Report Date: September 14, 2010
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Evaluating Municipal Addressing Criteria and Address Change Policy
PREPARED BY: Robert Tadmore, Senior Project Coordinator, GIS and Data Management ext. 6810
RECOMMENDATION:
1) That the report entitled “Evaluating Municipal Addressing Criteria and Address Change Policy”, dated September 14, 2010, be received.
2) And that the Council adopted street addressing criterion number 11 be altered to remove the requirement for permanently reserving the unused (dormant) number for a corner lot by revising it to read: “Corner lots are initially assigned a number for the abutting street that contains the longer lot frontage at the subdivision registration stage. A second number is temporarily left in reserve for the other frontage. The final number used for that lot will depend on a verification of the street the house will face.”
3) And that the address change policy be revised to replace the text prior to the approval criteria to read: “That all requests for an address number change be reviewed and considered by the Planning and Urban Design Department, and approval given by the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate, only if the following criteria are satisfied:”
4) And that clause 1) (B) of the Council adopted address change policy be revised to read: “In no case shall an existing address number be changed so as to conflict with the address numbering criteria administered by the Planning and Urban Design Department.”
5) And that Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to these resolutions.
Not applicable.
PURPOSE:
This report was requested by Development Services Committee to examine Council’s current street addressing criteria and address change policy administered by Staff, in light of recent recommendations for address change approvals by the Committee. Staff was requested to examine whether address change approval authority should be delegated to Staff and to respond to issues raised about the street addressing criteria.
BACKGROUND:
On June 15, Development Services Committee dealt with several address change deputations involving properties addressed with the number “4”. These properties are adjacent to corner lots that were addressed on to the flanking street, leaving the alternate street address (#2) reserved for the corner lots theoretically available for assignment to the properties currently numbered “4”. These requested address changes had previously been denied by Staff because they conflicted with the Council adopted street addressing criteria and address change policy as described below and noted in Appendix ‘A’.
The issue over the unused corner lot addresses relates to criterion number 11 in the street addressing criteria, (see Appendix ‘B’) which stipulates that corner lots be provided with two addresses, one for each road frontage. Only one address can be used, depending on the orientation to the street of the main entrance of a building on a corner lot. The unused number is meant to remain dormant for possible future use in the event that the orientation of the main entrance to the building changes due to building renovation or reconstruction. This aspect of criterion 11 was meant to prevent a situation where possible future redevelopment on a corner lot would result in a building being addressed onto a street that the front entrance did not face. This could create property identification issues for delivery services, or in a worst case scenario result in a delay for emergency response vehicles. Some committee members did not consider this policy requirement of holding an alternate address for corner lots in reserve to be necessary and the Committee approved the address number change requests from “4” to “2”.
As part of the address change discussion, other scenarios were raised by Committee members. Some members expressed concern with regard to the extent to which change requests should be entertained. Committee members also questioned why address change requests were being dealt with by Development Services Committee and why Staff could not handle these requests. Staff confirmed that the Council adopted address change policy only permits address changes approvals at the Staff level that meet the requirements of the policy. In the event of a disagreement with a Staff decision, anyone seeking a number change can request a deputation to bring the matter before the Committee.
The Committee then recommended that Staff look into the issues raised related to the street addressing criteria and whether address change requests should be delegated to Staff.
OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:
The assignment of addresses to properties takes a long term approach. Staff must consider the possibilities for future redevelopment on both single and multiple properties, which may involve the reconfiguration of lot and road patterns. Address number assignments must therefore accommodate all numbers along the length of a road to account for these possibilities. Addressing must follow a consistent, predictable and logical sequencing that requires:
- all numbers being included, where possible
- odd numbering on one side of a street and even numbering on the other
- a numbering progression beginning and ending in a consistent fashion, remaining consecutive along the same and opposite sides of a street, and
- the maintenance of a consecutive numbering sequence on opposite sides of a street where it curves
Addressing scenarios like the one mentioned at the Development Services Committee meeting involving address number gapping (removal of numbers) along Dancer’s Drive (Figure 1) resulted from the need to maintain a consecutive numbering sequence along both sides of the street for the majority of its length. The alignment of lots on opposite sides of Dancer’s Drive is skewed at the north end of the street where the address numbering begins. Queen’s Plate Drive separating the south-eastern corner lot from the adjacent lot provided an opportunity for number gapping to realign the numbers so they would be consecutive along both sides of the street.
In the case of corner lots where two addresses are assigned to the lot, the unused (dormant) number is kept in case future redevelopment on the property requires its use. This aspect of criterion 11 (see Appendix’B’) has contributed to the preservation of a coherent addressing system and represents a convenience to the owner of a corner lot if redevelopment occurs. Removal of this opportunity might represent an inconvenience for the owner of a corner lot, but would not fundamentally impact the address assignment process. A series of recent Committee decisions to allow street number changes based on reassigning the corner lot “reserve” number to adjacent properties requires Staff to re-assess the merit of the current corner lot reserve policy.
It is therefore recommended that street addressing criterion number 11 be revised to exclude that portion of the criterion requiring the preservation of the unused (dormant) address for a corner lot in the event of building re-orientation due to renovation or redevelopment. The revised criteria would read as follows: “Corner lots are initially assigned a number for the abutting street that contains the longer lot frontage at the subdivision registration stage. A second number is temporarily left in reserve for the other frontage. The final number used for that lot will depend on a verification of the street the house will face.”
An example of another type of possible address change request brought forward by committee members involving “single” number gapping to alter a street number, such as the elimination of the number 4 or 13 would not present a significant problem for the addressing system so long as there is an “adjacent” available number. These situations would not necessarily offend the existing street addressing criteria, as criteria 7 and 8 (see Appendix’B’) that deal with consecutive numbering on the same and opposite sides of a street both require that street numbers should be consecutive “wherever possible”. These criteria therefore do not require modification.
Committee members were also concerned that address change requests were being dealt with at the Committee level, when such requests could be taken care of at the Staff level.
The Council adopted address change policy (see Appendix’C’) was instituted to prevent the wholesale change of addresses, thereby maintaining a coherent addressing system. Staff was charged with administering this policy and the decisions regarding address change requests were meant to be final. Once a decision had been made the only option left to a property owner would be a request to be heard as a deputation by Development Services Committee or Council. Staff does not have the authority to preclude a submission or deputation to the Development Services Committee if someone chooses this approach. It would then be up to Committee or Council to decide whether or not to alter Staff’s position.
In order to more accurately reflect the level at which address change policy decisions are initially made, it is recommended that the initial text in clause 1) be revised as follows: “That all requests for an address number change be reviewed and considered by the Planning and Urban Design Department, and approval given by the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate, only if the following criteria are satisfied:”
Clause 1) (B) of the address change policy should also be revised to ensure consistency by replacing the “Planning Department” at the end of the clause with “Planning and Urban Design Department”.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND TEMPLATE: (external link)
Not applicable.
HUMAN RESOURCES CONSIDERATIONS
Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:
Not applicable.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDED
BY: ________________________ ________________________
Biju Karumanchery, M.C.I.P. R.P.P. Jim Baird, M.C.I.P. R.P.P.
Senior Development Manager Commissioner of
Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Figure 1 – Address number gapping example
Appendix ‘A’ – Address change request example
Appendix ‘B’ – Council adopted addressing criteria
Appendix ‘C’ – Council adopted address change policy
File path: Q:\Development\Planning\Teams\Geomatic\Admin\Reports\Address change policy.doc