Proposed Zoning Bylaw

CONCLUSION

Following adoption of Design Regina: The Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2013-48 (OCP), the City conducted a comprehensive review of Regina Zoning Bylaw, No. 9250 (current Zoning Bylaw) and the various policy documents that are intended to support and facilitate the implementation of the objectives set out in the OCP. As a result of that review, a new Zoning Bylaw (Appendix A-1), a separate Sign Bylaw (Appendix A-2) and a number of consequential amendments to other City bylaws are proposed as detailed in this report.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw helps the City to move towards achieving a number of goals set out in the OCP. There are many aspects of the current Zoning Bylaw that the proposed Zoning Bylaw has retained these regulations. However, the proposed Zoning Bylaw simplifies and clarifies many of the existing land use regulations through a consolidation of zones and land uses and by focusing on the intent of the zones and land use impacts. The format of the proposed Zoning Bylaw is intended to make it more user friendly by grouping together land use regulations for a particular zone in one chapter.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw increases development flexibility to make it easier to achieve contemporary development opportunities. It includes provisions intended to make it easier to reuse existing buildings, while still facilitating the construction of new buildings. With the provisions of the proposed Zoning Bylaw, changing between land uses that are contemplated in a zone or mixing those land uses in a single building will be easier, and in some cases encouraged.

Although the proposed Zoning Bylaw facilitates contemporary development, it also includes provisions specifically aimed at ensuring that new development in existing areas is sensitive to the context of development in those areas. For example, it includes development standards that are specific to infill development.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw streamlines the City’s land use regulations by removing non-land use regulations. As such, a number of matters regulated in the current Zoning Bylaw will transition to other City Bylaws that are considered to be more appropriate or effective for regulating those matters.

The proposed Sign Bylaw is intended to improve compliance with the City’s sign regulations by consolidating them into one bylaw rather than having them spread across three bylaws. Consolidating the regulations into a single bylaw will allow a citizen who may be considering installing a sign on their property to obtain all necessary information in one document and reduce the potential for confusion with respect to the requirements. 

The proposed Sign Bylaw includes provisions related to development approval, zoning, construction requirements and placement of signs on City lands. It requires signs of particular types, sizes or other characteristics be designed by an engineer. This ensures these signs are designed in a structurally sound manner.

The proposed Sign Bylaw establishes clear standards for digital signs which are aligned with the Transportation Association of Canada’s Digital and Projected Advertising Displays: Regulatory and Road Safety Assessment Guidelines (TAC Guidelines). These standards will help to minimize the impacts digital signs may have on the amenity of the City and on traffic safety.

BACKGROUND

The OCP was approved by City Council in 2013 (CR13-112). The Planning and Development Act, 2007 (the Act) requires that Council ensure that the City’s zoning bylaw is consistent with the OCP. A zoning bylaw is one of the primary tools used by a municipality to achieve the policies of its OCP for the benefit of residents.

The Act indicates that the purpose of a zoning bylaw is to control the use of land for providing for the amenity of the area within Council’s jurisdiction and for the health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality. Further, the Act stipulates the matters that must be included in a zoning bylaw and provides options for other matters that may be included. Section 49 of the Act specifies that a zoning bylaw must contain provisions:

(a)   prescribing or establishing districts of the number and area that the council considers appropriate;

(b)   prescribing the permitted uses in each district;

(c)   providing for the appointment of a development officer for the municipality to administer the zoning bylaw;

(d)   providing for a system of development permits;

(e)   prescribing types of development for which no development permit is required, if any;

(f)    prescribing the procedures whereby applications for development permits shall be made, processed and issued;

(g)   defining the period that a development permit remains in effect;

(h)   authorizing and prescribing a procedure for making and processing applications for minor variances and, if that procedure is used, requiring a record of minor variance applications be established;

(i)     prescribing procedures for approval of a discretionary use;

(j)     establishing a board to be the Development Appeals Board for the municipality;

(k)   regulating development in proximity to existing or proposed railway operations; and

(l)     providing for any other matter that may be necessary to regulate and control the issuance of development permits as the council considers necessary.

The current Zoning Bylaw was approved in 1992. While the bylaw has been amended on numerous occasions since that time to reflect changes in the community, large portions of it were carried forward from the previous Zoning Bylaw (Regina Zoning Bylaw No. 8484), which was adopted in 1987. The 1987 bylaw also had large portions that were carried forward from the previous Zoning Bylaw (Regina Zoning Bylaw No.7878), both of which were intended to support the OCP in place at the time. Accordingly, a comprehensive review of Regina’s land use regulations has not been undertaken since the 1970’s. Therefore, it was necessary to ensure that Regina’s land use regulations moving forward adequately support the achievement of the vision for Regina as set out in the OCP. The goal of the review undertaken through the comprehensive review is to ensure that the City’s land use regulations are not only consistent with the current OCP, as statutorily required by the Act, but also that they reflect contemporary development practices, market demand and changes in demographics that affect the way land is used and developed.

The process for developing the proposed Zoning Bylaw began in 2015 and was executed over four phases.

Phase 1 - Current State (beginning January 2016) involved a detailed analysis of the current zoning districts and the associated regulations contained within the current Zoning Bylaw. Each zone was evaluated to determine which regulatory items continue to have value, which items required an update or further review and which items were no longer relevant or do not align with City policies. During this Phase, the specific policies from the OCP and other City policy documents that are directly expected to be achieved using the Zoning Bylaw were identified (see Appendix A-3). These policies were essential in guiding the changes to the regulations in the proposed Zoning Bylaw. The inconsistencies and issues between the current regulations and the identified directive policies were documented. In addition, the development applications that had been submitted between the years of 2000 and 2015 were analysed to identify development trends that had occurred within the city and where the existing regulations may be creating barriers to development.

Phase 2 - Community Scan (beginning January 2017) involved conducting comparable community research on land use issues that were not currently regulated by the City, as well as items that were regulated using an outdated approach. After reviewing 23 key characteristics of the 30 largest census metropolitan areas in the country, five communities were identified as being the communities most comparable to Regina. The land use regulations from the cities of Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Calgary, Windsor and London were examined in an effort to understand how similar communities are approaching the identified topics. Recognizing that a comparable municipality’s policy context or needs may differ from those set out in the OCP, these communities were not examined to determine a “best practice,” but rather to identify the potential routes to regulation or non-regulation that may be available to Regina.  

Phase 3 - Bylaw Development (beginning January 2018) involved the development and drafting of the proposed Zoning Bylaw regulations. Using the list of inconsistencies between the current Zoning Bylaw and City policies identified in Phase 1, along with the comparable community research completed in Phase 2, Administration began crafting regulations that would comprise the proposed Zoning Bylaw. A technical consultation on the draft regulations was carried out with highly impacted stakeholders, both internally and externally, including land developers, home builders, architects, surveyors, affordable housing providers and community associations. This was primarily a technical exercise to clarify whether the matters that were desirable were technically feasible from a construction and operational perspective. This feedback was used to refine the proposed regulations prior to them being released for broader public consultation.   

Phase 4 - Bylaw Approval (beginning January 2019) is the current phase, which involved engaging with the public on the proposed regulations, editing the regulations based on the feedback received and preparing the final proposed Zoning Bylaw for consideration by Council.

Through the review process and in developing the proposed Zoning Bylaw, an opportunity to address sign regulations in the city in a better way was also identified. A separate Sign Bylaw is proposed which consolidates and improves on existing regulation that is contained in multiple bylaws. The City currently has three bylaws which regulate signs. The current Zoning Bylaw regulates sign type, size and where they can be located within the city. The Clean Property Bylaw contains provisions regarding signs on City property. The Building Bylaw (A Bylaw of the City of Regina Pursuant to the Provisions of The Uniform Building And Accessibility Standards Act and The Cities Act) includes provisions relating to the construction of signs. The provisions from all three are being moved into the proposed Sign Bylaw.

DISCUSSION

Zoning Bylaw

A zoning bylaw separates the city into specific zones and indicates the land uses that may be contemplated in each of those zones. This allows the City to set rules regarding the type of activities that can occur on a piece of land, what building forms are appropriate, and the placement and orientation of buildings on a given property. Zoning bylaws also prescribe development standards, such as height and setback requirements applicable to buildings within a given zone. The regulations are aimed at allowing complementary uses to be developed close to each other while limiting the possibility of land use conflicts between incompatible uses. While a zoning bylaw authorizes the land uses that can be developed and establishes the standards and requirements that apply to such development, it cannot guarantee that those uses will occur. This will largely be contingent on economic factors such as market demand and the associated cost of development. Essentially the zoning bylaw sets the conditions for future development.

The following discussion focuses on the main changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw relative to what currently exists in the current Zoning Bylaw.

Formatting

The formatting of a zoning bylaw contributes to the ability of users to locate pertinent information and apply it appropriately to a given property. This can directly impact application review times as well as customer service performance standards. The current Zoning Bylaw is comprised of 21 chapters, and an applicant wanting to develop in the city could be required to reference between eight to 12 chapters in order to identify all of the development regulations applicable to their proposal. The feedback received from customers on this aspect of the Bylaw has identified that the City’s current land use regulations are perceived as complicated and cumbersome to navigate. 

The proposed Zoning Bylaw has been reformatted to reduce the number of chapters from the current 21 to 10 chapters (see Table 1). The proposed reformatting will result in an improved customer experience with regard to navigating the Bylaw. Each zone chapter essentially becomes a “one stop shop” which contains the majority of the regulations that an applicant will need to know to develop any particular land use. In the case of the example noted earlier, under the proposed Zoning Bylaw, an applicant wanting to develop within the city would only be required to review a maximum of five chapters, depending on the type and location of the proposed development.  In many cases, applicants will have to review just three chapters.

Table 1: Format of the Current and Proposed Zoning Bylaw

The remainder of this section is organized in line with the chapters in the proposed Zoning Bylaw for easy referencing between this report and the proposed Zoning Bylaw. The key changes that are proposed that apply to all chapters, are discussed first.    

Changes that Apply to All Zones

Parking

The following are the main OCP policies that support the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding parking:

Section D3: Transportation

Goal 1 – Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning

Integrate transportation and land-use planning in order to better facilitate walking, cycling, and transit trips.

5.17              Adopt approaches to parking standards and management that encourage multi-modal transportation options.

5.18              Develop standards requiring the provision of bicycle parking for industrial, commercial, institutional, and multi-family residential land uses.             

Minimum motor vehicle parking requirements in the current Zoning Bylaw vary by use and by zone. In the case of dwellings, the current requirement is one parking stall per dwelling unit for all building types except apartments. For apartments, the requirement is either 1 or 1.5 stalls per dwelling unit, depending on the zone. Tandem parking is only permitted for Bed and Breakfast Homestays, Supportive Living Homes, Live Work units and dwelling units in the Downtown zone. Bicycle parking is required for apartment buildings and for a select few other land uses. Accessible parking stalls are required as a percentage of motor vehicle parking stalls for all uses.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw takes a more simplified and consistent approach to regulating required motor vehicle parking. In the residential zones, tandem parking is permitted for all uses. The minimum motor vehicle parking requirement for dwelling units is the same regardless of the building type – one stall per dwelling unit. This change is supported by data on motor vehicle registration within the city, which shows that the three residential zones where apartments can be built (R4A – Residential Infill Housing, R6 – Residential Multiple Housing, and TAR – Transitional Area Residential) have the lowest ratio of vehicles per property at 0.94. Further, the proposed Zoning Bylaw includes provisions that encourage apartments to be developed along collector and arterial streets in close proximity to transit nodes in order to support and encourage transit use.

For most non-dwelling land uses, the minimum motor vehicle parking requirement is a single consistent standard based on the total floor area of the use. This approach to minimum parking requirements facilitates the reuse of buildings. As long as the building on a site remains unaltered, the uses in the building can change without needing to provide any additional parking stalls.

Bicycle parking is proposed to be required for all land uses within mixed-use and industrial zones. This may be provided in the form of long-term or short-term bicycle parking. Residential bicycle parking requirements only apply to developments of 20 or more dwelling units.

The accessible parking stall requirements have been carried forward from the current Zoning Bylaw, with additional provisions that these must be marked with above ground signage to ensure the stalls are distinguishable in the winter, when covered with snow. Accessible parking stalls must also be located closer to an entrance than non-accessible parking stalls.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw also includes provisions allowing for the relaxation of parking requirements in appropriate circumstances.  These are discussed later on in this section of the report.

Greater Variety of Uses

The following are the main OCP policies that support the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding variety of uses:

Section D5: Land Use and Built Environment

Goal 1 – Complete Neighbourhoods

Enable the development of complete neighbourhoods.

7.1              Require that New Neighbourhoods, New Mixed-Use Neighbourhoods, Intensification Areas and Built or Approved Neighbourhoods are planned and developed to include the following:

7.1.4               Opportunities for daily lifestyle needs, such as services, convenience shopping, and recreation;

7.1.10               Convenient access to areas of employment.

Section D10: Economic Development

Goal 1 – Economic Vitality and Competitiveness

Foster an environment conducive to economic vitality and competitiveness which supports the standard of living of residents in Regina and the surrounding region.

12.2              Minimize regulatory barriers to economic growth to the greatest possible extent while balancing the needs and aspirations of all Regina residents, fee and tax-payers, and the sustainability of the city.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw utilizes thresholding to a greater extent than the current Zoning Bylaw as a means of allowing more land uses in more zones. Thresholding means that land uses are allowed in a particular zone up to a certain size. For instance, a land use may be permitted up to a specified gross floor area, after which it is discretionary up to a higher gross floor area and then finally prohibited beyond the maximum limit of the discretionary requirements. This is consistent with the existing practice whereby certain commercial land uses are considered compatible with nearby residential lands because the size of the commercial use is restricted. This is the general principle behind small scale commercial zones. At the restricted sizes the uses also tend to be more pedestrian oriented, as they are intended to serve the surrounding residents. Larger land uses will draw customers from areas beyond the proposed site, who will likely drive to the location thereby changing the need for parking on-site and impact surrounding traffic patterns.

In the lowest intensity mixed-use zone, ML – Mixed Low-Rise, the permitted size of most commercial uses is lower than that of higher intensity mixed use zones. Accordingly, the maximum size of a permitted use increases with the intensity of the zone. Thresholding does not apply to every land use. Some uses that are permitted in the highest intensity zone are not permitted in the lower intensity zones. This is because they may be unlikely to occur within the permissible thresholds of the lower intensity zone or may not be compatible to neighbouring lands uses even at a small size.

Using this approach with regard to mixed-use zones, industrial zones and direct control districts creates greater development opportunities by affording developers the prospect of tapping into a wider pool of potential tenants.

Simplified Screening and Buffering Requirements

The current Zoning Bylaw defines both screening and landscaping requirements for individual lots. Although the two terms are defined separately in application they are essentially the same thing, which is the concealment of a building, structure, or activity on one site from another site. Both screening and buffering are required to be provided by means of a fence, wall, berm, soft landscaping, or a combination of each. The intent of the requirement is to limit the visual impact of what might be otherwise be incompatible land uses on each other.

Further, the current Zoning Bylaw includes a fairly complicated table that tries to illustrate which uses need to be screened or buffered from other uses. In addition to being difficult to understand, the table also results in an inconsistent application of the screening/buffering requirements, where in some instances, similar uses that are compatible could be required to be screened from each other. What is clear from the screening and buffering table is that dwelling land uses are required to be screened from non-dwelling land uses, regardless of the zone.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw has simplified the screening and buffering requirements from the current Zoning Bylaw by using a single term (screening) and by making this a requirement in all zones. In addition, land uses in industrial zones require screening from an abutting lot zoned mixed-use. In addition, the proposed Zoning Bylaw requires the screening of a number of specific land use activities, buildings, and structures that are generally considered visually unappealing, regardless of the zone that they are in or the zone of the land they abut. These include things such as:

·         collection areas for garbage, refuse or recycling; and

·         outdoor storage areas.

Chapter 1 – Administration

Section 49 of the Act specifies 12 broad provisions that a zoning bylaw must contain. The Administration chapter is where nine of these 12 required provisions are addressed. Although the Administration chapter is not often the focus of zoning conversations, it is a critical part of a zoning bylaw, as this is the section of the bylaw that contains the most direct linkages to the provisions of the Act. Chapter 1 includes provisions about the systems, processes and procedures relating to the review of development applications, how the regulations of the Zoning Bylaw will be enforced and who is authorized to perform these tasks.

A zoning bylaw does not need to include regulations that repeat the provisions of the Act as the Act prevails. The Administration Chapter in the proposed Zoning Bylaw focuses on those matters where the Act specifies that the process for addressing a matter should be outlined in the Zoning Bylaw. There are also situations where the Act gives the City the authority to set out its own requirements for dealing with a matter rather than using the default provision of the Act. In such cases, the provisions for these matters are specifically addressed in the Administration Chapter of the proposed Zoning Bylaw.  

The detailed application requirements noted in the current Zoning Bylaw have not been carried forward into the proposed Zoning Bylaw. Including these requirements in the proposed Zoning Bylaw makes the submission requirements mandatory, even in situations where some requirements may not be necessary based on the type of development and limits Administration’s ability to be nimble and react to changing development needs. The proposed Zoning Bylaw requires that every application for a development permit be submitted in the manner and form specified by the Development Officer. It is proposed that the application requirements will be specified outside of the Zoning Bylaw (e.g. on the application form and application guideline documents) which will allow the Development Officer the flexibility to vary the specific application requirements (within a range of established administrative parameters) depending of the nature of the proposed development.  

Delegated Authority

The following are the main OCP policies that support the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding delegating authority to the Development Officer:

Section E: Realizing the Plan

Goal 1 – Plan Ownership

Foster Plan ownership and execution by City staff and Council.

14.3              Review existing City policies, practices, standards, and other guiding documents predating approval of this Plan, and representing barriers to the successful achievement of this Plan in accordance with the following considerations:

14.3.1              Where such existing approaches provide flexibility, discretion, interpretation or the weighing of choices, or where there is no governing or guiding direction, the City shall be flexible in a manner that supports this Plan’s Community Priorities and goals.

14.3.2              The City will seek to overcome all barriers and obstacles to Plan implementation, and previous Council directions will be brought into alignment with this Plan over time.

14.7              Support creative solutions that may challenge conventional practices to achieve the goals and policies of this Plan.

Goal 13 – Architectural Control Districts

Protect or support architectural character or building design, where appropriate.

14.63               Delegate to the Development Officer the responsibility for reviewing and issuing development permits in Architectural Control Districts through the Zoning Bylaw.             

Currently, all decisions on discretionary use applications are made through a process by which the Development Officer reviews the application and makes a recommendation to Regina Planning Commission (RPC) who then in turn makes a recommendation to City Council. Under this process, proposed land uses that may not have a significant neighbourhood impact and align with City development policies are required to navigate this process, which adds significant time to the development review and approval process. The proposed Zoning Bylaw includes provisions to delegate authority from City Council to the Development Officer respecting the following:

(a)   discretionary use applications;

(b)   approval of plans and drawings in a Direct Control District; and

(c)   Architectural Control District development permits.

For Discretionary Uses

Pursuant to subsection 15(2) of the Act, Council may delegate to the Development Officer the responsibility to exercise or carry out all or any of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Council respecting a discretionary use including the authority to make decisions.

Between 2000 and 2016, RPC and City Council have considered more than 390 discretionary use applications. Of these, Council concurred with Administration’s recommendations at a rate of 98.5 per cent. Using the average from this period, RPC and City Council considered 27 discretionary use applications per year.

Administration has heard from applicants that the process to obtain a decision of a discretionary use application is too lengthy and new ways to expedite the process should be explored.  The current service level, which was agreed to with Industry in 2010, was that applications will be processed in 150-180 days 90% of the time.  Of these days, 60 days are for RPC and City Council processes.

The proposed process is the same as the current process for internal (includes applicable Councillor and Mayor), external and public circulations, however, it would allow for two potential streams for approval once all feedback is received (see Appendix A-4).  In its simplest terms, if after the appropriate circulations no concerns were received on the application, the Development Officer, (the Executive Director of City Planning and Community Development), would have the discretion to approve the application with appropriate conditions or send the application through to RPC and City Council for consideration.   Should comments of concern be received from the public on the application, the application would proceed to RPC and City Council. 

The rationale to have this type of approval process is to address concerns over the processing times of applications and to be more efficient with staff, RPC and City Council agendas.  The circulation process is required and has been streamlined for efficiencies; however, the backend to get applications onto agendas is currently a fixed process. Therefore, by allowing straight forward applications which have no objections from the public to go through the Development Officer approval process will save approximately 60 days to the process for simple applications as the more complex report and process to get an application onto the RPC and City Council agendas would be eliminated. The proposed process, however, does allow for the applicant to request to have City Council review any decision of the Development Officer.  The appeal process would remain the same for the applicant and the public as it currently is.

For Direct Control Districts and Architectural Control Districts

City Council may delegate to the Development Officer the responsibility to exercise or carry out all or any of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Council respecting the approval of plans and drawings in a Direct Control District (DCD) and the issuing of development permits in an Architectural Control District, pursuant to section 15 and 75 of the Act, respectively. This includes authority to make decisions. The delegation of authority for these matters to the Development Officer would reduce the time it takes for the applicant to get a decision compared to what it would take if all the applications went to City Council.

A Direct Control District is a special type of zoning used to identify areas of the city where sensitive control of the use, development and location of buildings is - in the opinion of City Council - necessary in order to establish, preserve or enhance:

(a)   a unique character;

(b)   a special environmental concern; or,

(c)   a special historic, cultural, archaeological, natural, scientific or aesthetic site identified in any municipal, provincial or federal legislation.

An Architectural Control District is a zone that is intended to preserve the physical character of an area or promote an established theme for an area. It may be used to control building sites and the architectural detail of the buildings within that area.

The designation of DCDs has become increasingly common in recent years with the inclusion of DCD-11 and DCD-12 in the current Zoning Bylaw in 2009 and 2011, respectively. A total of 2,915 building permits were approved in DCDs between 2000 and 2015. The delegation of authority to the Development Officer for these matters will support the achievement of OCP policy to deliver on community priorities, demonstrate responsiveness to customer concerns and enhance customer service delivery to development proponents.

There is currently only one Architectural Control District in the city, the former Diocese of Qu’Appelle lands. Development in this area is subject to City Council approved architectural, material and colour codes that ensures consistency in the look of the buildings. The majority of the area is already built, therefore if the delegated authority is approved, the Development Officer would primarily be making decisions on the uses that can go into the buildings. The permitted and discretionary land uses that can be contemplated in the Architectural Control District are identified in the Zoning Bylaw.

The upcoming work to develop new neighbourhood plans and refresh existing neighbourhood plans may lead to the designation of additional Architectural Control Districts based on community feedback. It should be noted that any new Architectural Control District will be subject to specific architectural codes for the area that would be included in the Zoning Bylaw, which would have to be approved by City Council. As such, if the proposed Zoning Bylaw is approved, City Council would still approve the framework that guides the style of development within an Architectural Control District, yet the Development Officer would have the authority to make decisions, within the approved framework, on subsequent individual applications for a permitted use or discretionary use.

If the proposed delegation of authority to the Development Officer to make decisions on applications in DCDs and Architectural Control Districts is approved, the process for making decisions would not be much different from what already exists. Permitted uses in these areas are subject to greater review by Administration than what applies for permitted uses in conventional zones as they have to meet specific criteria laid out for the area. Discretionary uses will continue to be circulated to owners of properties in close proximity to the site of the proposed development to solicit their opinion on the application. In all cases, the Development Officer may choose not to exercise their delegated authority where they are of the opinion that an application requires the attention of City Council due to its potential implications on the community or City infrastructure.  

Where authority is delegated to the Development Officer respecting applications in DCDs, and Architectural Control Districts, the appeal options are prescribed in sections 67 and 73(5) of the Act, respectively, and cannot be varied by the City. The appeal options are the same as what applies when the decision is made by City Council. That is, any appeal must be made to the Development Appeals Board.

Utilizing the provisions of the Act to delegate authority to the Development Officer allows the City to increase the efficiency of the processing of development applications. This will positively contribute to the ease of doing business in Regina and increases the attractiveness of the city to investors. 

Criteria for Direct Control Districts

Section 63 of the Act authorizes the City to designate an area as a DCD where Council considers it desirable to exercise particular control over the use and development of land or buildings within that area. Unlike a conventional zone, a DCD gives City Council the approving authority over additional aspects of the design and siting of buildings. For this to happen, the OCP must contain guidelines respecting the development of areas designated as DCDs.

The OCP includes policy regarding DCDs that indicates that they should be used to establish, preserve, or enhance an area’s unique character and or a specific historic, cultural, archaeological, environmental or site conditions.

The majority of lands within the city zoned DCD are found in the newly built areas of Harbour Landing, Greens on Gardiner and The Towns subdivisions, without being associated with any unique character or specific condition.

The current Zoning Bylaw includes criteria for the application of DCDs based on the previous Regina Development Plan. Although these criteria are not necessarily misaligned with the policies of the OCP, it was apparent through the comprehensive review that they needed to be strengthened based on the inconsistency between how DCDs are being used and how the Act prescribes that they should be used. In large part, the broad use of DCDs reflected the need to update the conventional zones to meet the demands of the modern market, which were being satisfied using DCDs.

Accordingly, the proposed Zoning Bylaw includes improved criteria directing the application of DCDs. These will allow the high-level policies in the OCP about the designation of DCD to be applied in a more consistent and appropriate matter that conforms to the direction contained in the Act. 

Railway Fence

The Act was amended in 2018 to include a requirement that an Official Community Plan and a Zoning Bylaw must include provisions regarding the management of lands that are in proximity to existing or proposed railway operations.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw includes provisions requiring a fence be erected along every lot line abutting a railway right-of-way. This is consistent with the recommendations in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) ‘Guidelines For New Development in the Proximity of Railway Operations’. As indicated in the document, trespassing onto a railway corridor can have dangerous consequences given the speed and frequency of trains, and their extremely large stopping distances. The inclusion of this requirement in the proposed Zoning Bylaw is aimed at increasing safety along rail corridors by limiting public access to these areas.

Parking Relaxation

The following is the main OCP policy that supports the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding relaxing parking requirements:

Section E: Realizing the Plan

Goal 10 – Exceptions to Development Standards

Support improvements to the public realm, or other public benefits, through the relaxation of specified Zoning Bylaw requirements, bonusing and other mechanisms.

14.49              Support the relaxation of specified Zoning Bylaw requirements to support or achieve improvements to the public realm or other public benefits in cases where:

14.49.1              The relaxation will not be contrary to the general purpose of the zone; and

14.49.2              The Zoning Bylaw establishes the facilities, services or other matters which will be provided where the general standards have been relaxed.

The transportation goals of the OCP prioritize developing complete communities that increase options for public transit use and active transportation. Although these goals are not explicitly linked to parking reduction mechanisms, they do affect the provisions the City would set aside for motor vehicle use, such as minimum parking requirements. The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) provides the City’s goals regarding increasing access to multi-modal and public transportation. The parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw were reviewed to assess whether there were opportunities to strengthen the Zoning Bylaw’s alignment with these policies. The TMP prescribes that the quantity and location of parking should be tailored to the surrounding land use.

Minimum off-street parking requirements can play a key role in the design and function of building and streets within a city. When minimum off-street parking requirements are incorporated within a Zoning Bylaw, the intent is to find the balance between the number of parking stalls required to support specific uses with on-site parking, without creating on-street parking problems or forcing developers to underutilize prime developable land.

The minimum number of parking spaces that a land use needs to function can depend on many factors including location, the availability and proximity to transit or other modes of transportation and the demographics of the target users. In some cases, the appropriate amount of parking not only varies amongst different land uses but also within the same land use. For example, a barber shop within a neighbourhood hub in close proximity to residences may encounter more pedestrian traffic and require less parking than another barber shop on the outskirts of the city in a shopping mall.  

With the innovations in technology such as the development of autonomous vehicles and the emergence of ridesharing services, there may potentially be less demand for parking in the future. An autonomous vehicle would allow a person to get driven to work and then send the car back home to park and schedule it to pick them up at the end of the work day, eliminating the need for parking at their place of employment. This is an emerging concept and it may still take some time before this type of technology is universally available.  

Section 61 of the Act specifies that City Council, if authorized to do so by its Zoning Bylaw, may exempt a use from the requirements of providing parking facilities and require the applicant to pay to City Council, a sum based on a fixed amount for each parking space not provided.

The current Zoning Bylaw includes a number of parking relaxation provisions to allow for a reduction in the minimum required parking, which have rarely been used. These are:

(a)   payment-in-lieu of providing all or some of the minimum required parking. It can only be applied in the D – Downtown zone and WH – Dewdney Avenue Warehouse zone.

(b)   a 20% parking reduction for the non-residential uses in a building containing a mixed-use in which the gross floor area devoted to non-residential uses exceeds 5,000 square metres

(c)   a 50% parking reduction for the reconstruction of an existing building WH - Dewdney Avenue Warehouse Zone.

(d)   a reduction of up to 20% in the minimum parking requirement for a new expanding administrative or manufacturing building or complex that is located in a commercial or industrial zone and within 76.2 metres of a transit route that is serviced every 20 minutes during morning or evening rush hours.

(e)   a reduction of up to 30% in the minimum parking requirement for a new expanding administrative or manufacturing building or complex with a vanpool programme.

(f)    a reduction of up to 40% in the minimum parking requirement for a new expanding administrative or manufacturing building or complex with a carpool programme.

(g)   an exemption from minimum parking requirements for the development of designated municipal or provincial heritage properties.

The options for parking relaxation in the current Zoning Bylaw are limited in scope and only apply to a few types of land uses or in few locations.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw includes provisions to allow the Development Officer to vary the minimum parking requirements of any use in any zone in prescribed circumstances or when certain conditions are met. To apply for consideration of a parking relaxation, an applicant must submit a parking analysis, undertaken by a qualified professional that demonstrates that the parking the applicant is proposing is appropriate for the use on the site. The maximum size of the parking exception that can be received is dependent on the location of the development. A proposed development in an area of the city that is expected to accommodate future population growth (both existing and new areas), as identified in the OCP, may obtain a larger reduction in its minimum required parking. This provides an incentive for development to occur in these areas, which support OCP policy intended to direct a significant proportion of the expected population growth to these locations. 

The proposed approach to parking reductions will support the efficient use of land. Although the proposed Zoning Bylaw sets a minimum parking requirement, this minimum may still be more than what is actually needed for a particular development depending on its unique circumstances. In this situation, the proposed parking relaxation provisions provides an opportunity for the applicant to obtain a reduction in their minimum required parking where it can be substantiated that the reduction is appropriate.

Depending on the size of the parking relaxation that is requested, the applicant may be required to either provide a contribution of $7,000 ($2,500 in DCD-WH – Dewdney Avenue

Warehouse Direct Control District) for each required parking space exempted or an equivalent amount in transit facilities or public amenity. Where money is paid to the City in lieu of parking, the Act prescribes that these funds must be held in a separate account and are required to be expended only for the acquisition, construction, operation or maintenance of parking facilities or the capital costs of the transit system. No payment or public amenity is required for a reduction of five or fewer parking spaces.  

Chapter 2 - Interpretation

Consolidation of Land Uses

One of the primary purposes of a zoning bylaw is to regulate land use. Providing a definition for each land use in a zoning bylaw helps to ensure clarity, consistency and enforceability.

The current Zoning Bylaw lists nearly 200 unique land uses. However, from an intensity of use perspective, many of these uses are the same and have identical impacts on the surrounding area but are regulated differently in the bylaw. For example, the current Zoning Bylaw defines a Licensed Beverage Room, Licensed Cocktail Room, Licensed Dining Room and Licensed Restaurant. All four are regulated differently even though they provide similar services and have similar land use impacts on neighbouring properties. Further, as new land uses emerge, these do not always fit neatly into the narrow categories of land uses listed in the current Zoning Bylaw. 

The proposed Zoning Bylaw consolidates the existing land uses by grouping similar uses together. This approach focuses on grouping land uses that involve similar actives and have the same land use impacts on the surrounding area, so that they are subject to consistent regulations.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw also focuses on regulating the use and not the user. For instance, whereas in the current Zoning Bylaw adult day care and child day care are separate uses, in the proposed bylaw these are both possible under the same land use category. This approach to defining land uses makes the proposed Zoning Bylaw more adaptable to changes in activity types that may occur over time. The proposed Zoning Bylaw reduces the number of land uses from the current 183 to 67. 

Distinction Between Buildings and Land Uses

Under the Act, the City is authorized to regulate developments using its Zoning Bylaw. The Act defines a development as the carrying out of any building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on or over land or the making of any material change in the use or intensity of the use of any building or land. Accordingly, development relates not only to the land use but also the building in which a land use occurs.

Some regulations in the current Zoning Bylaw specifically relate to the building and some are specifically about the land use. However, reading the current Zoning Bylaw, it is not always clear if a particular regulation is about the use or the building.

Connecting the use to the building creates an issue with allowing uses in the building to change over time. It also makes it difficult to encourage a mixing of uses within the building, as the building is technically only defined to have a single specified use. This restricts what an applicant is able to do and may stand in the way of positive redevelopment opportunities. This also makes it harder to achieve the OCP policies aimed at encouraging mixed-use developments.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw clearly separates buildings from land uses and establishes a clear definition of each. In the zone chapters, the regulations clearly indicate whether they apply to the building form or to the use. A section of each zone chapter specifies which building types are contemplated in the zone and in some cases, which uses can go in the building or the maximum number of units allowed in the building. Any use that is contemplated in a zone may occur within any building type allowed within that zone, subject to any specific regulations that apply to the use. This will make it easier for existing buildings within the city to be redeveloped and repurposed. It also facilitates a much easier mixing of uses in a single multi-unit building.

Simplified Building Types

The approach to defining building in the current Zoning Bylaw sometimes results in complications. It defines a number of building types that can only be used for dwellings but it identifies more dwelling land uses than building types. A use may be allowed but there may not be any building in which the use can be developed. Some of the definitions of buildings and land uses also seem to overlap each other which leads to confusion. For example, in some circumstances, a “Dwelling Unit, Triplex” land use and a “Dwelling Unit, Townhouse” land use are the same built form. However, both land uses are not always allowed in the same zones and have different development standards even in those circumstances where they are the same. This manner of defining building types also limits design creativity.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw simplifies these building forms and focuses instead on the number of units allowed in a building in a particular zone. Only three building types are defined and used in all zones in the proposed bylaw – “Building, Detached”, “Building, Row” and “Building, Stacked”. This allows for a consistent set of standards and regulations to be applied. As indicated earlier, the building types are not tied to a specific use and may be used for any use contemplated in the zone. This achieves OCP policy regarding flexibility in the design of housing and increasing innovation within the housing stock to accommodate the changing needs of households.

Chapter 3 – Residential Zones

The residential section of the current Zoning Bylaw is the area that is used most often, as the majority of the development that happens in the city is the construction and alteration of residential buildings. In 2018, the City processed 155 building permit applications of which, 78% were residential in nature.

The OCP includes an entire section that is dedicated to the housing objectives of the City. The OCP also includes a Land Use and Built Environment section that contains various policies that are strongly linked to development in residential zones, such as those related to complete neighbourhoods. The highest proportion of in-scope policies for the review of the Zoning Bylaw comes from these sections of the OCP. Additionally, the City’s Comprehensive Housing Strategy includes policies that guide some of the changes made to the residential zones.

Consolidate Zones

The current Zoning Bylaw includes a number of zones that are exclusively dedicated to residential developments. These include 10 residential zones, a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone and six DCDs. These were consolidated to create the residential zones in the proposed Zoning Bylaw (see Table 4).

Table 2: Residential Zone Consolidation

The analysis of the existing zones showed that many of the zones were not unique and were actually competing with each other. Many of the residential zones that fell into either the category of low, medium or high intensity, all allowed for the same type of development with only slight variations in the development standards. As such, they could be consolidated based on the intensity of the development that was contemplated.

Although there are 11 residential zones in the current Zoning Bylaw, they are not adequately meeting the needs of the developers in greenfield areas. As a result, there is an increasing reliance on the use of the DCD-11 – Suburban Neo-Traditional and DCD-12 – Suburban Narrow-Lot Residential to fill the gap. These DCDs allowed for detached development on a smaller lot (i.e. 250 square metres (2,691 square feet)). In the current Zoning Bylaw, there are six residential zones that contemplate small lot development, of which, only one can be used in newly developed areas since the intent of the zone specifies they can only be used in established areas. Even then, the zone is restricted to medium density areas. This reflects a disparity between OCP policy that encourages small lot development and zoning regulation.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw includes three zones geared towards one and two-unit development. The RN-Residential Neighbourhood zone supports development on larger lot sizes than allowed in the RU-Residential Urban zone.  The RU-Residential Urban zone allows for small lot development. The RMH – Residential Manufactured Home zone is unique in that it is the only zone that allows for the development of manufactured homes. New areas of the city will be permitted to be designated as RMH – Residential Manufactured Home zone, which would allow for the development of units within a manufactured home park rather than as individual lots. Manufactured home parks have additional landscaping requirements, which ensures that they contribute to an enhanced streetscape.

The RL – Residential Low-Rise zone allows for the development of a mixture of low-rise and multi-unit buildings. In this zone, there are restrictions on placing dwellings in one and two-unit buildings, so that development in this zone is distinct from that of the lower density zones. The RH – Residential High-Rise zone allows for high-rise buildings, especially along urban corridors and in the vicinity transit nodes. The RH – Residential High-Rise zone prohibits dwellings in one-unit buildings.

In the low-density zones, two-unit buildings are proposed to be permitted. In the current Zoning Bylaw, some low-density zones only allowed for a detached dwelling, but allowed a secondary suite to developed within it, allowing for potentially two dwelling units on a lot. Therefore, the effective density of the low-density zones in the proposed Zoning Bylaw is essentially the same. The proposed Zoning Bylaw simply allows for greater flexibility in housing options by making it possible for the two units to be placed in a variety of building forms. In these low-density zones, secondary suites are still restricted to one-unit buildings. This is intended to keep the density in these zones low, as no building would be permitted to have more than two dwelling units. In medium and high-density zones, secondary suites are also permitted in row buildings, which are allowed for under the provisions of the National Building Code.

Changes to Development Standards

The following are the main OCP policies that support the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding updating the development standards:

Section D6: Housing

Goal 3 – Diversity of Housing Forms

Increase the diversity and innovation of housing forms and types to support the creation of complete neighbourhoods across Regina.

8.11              Encourage developers to provide a greater mix of housing to accommodate households of different incomes, types, stages of life, and abilities in all neighbourhoods.

8.14              Consider alternatives for parking, height, or other development standards in support of specific needs housing and innovative housing within new development.

Section E: Realizing the Plan

Goal 11 – Small Lot Zoning

Support the small lot character of inner city neighbourhoods and encourage smaller lot size in new neighbourhoods.

14.54              Consider allowing small residential lots comparable to those found in typical inner city neighbourhoods to accommodate single detached, row house and town house dwellings in all residential zones where there is a back lane and where appropriate.

In the proposed Zoning Bylaw, the minimum lot area requirement and minimum lot frontage requirements in residential zones have been reduced. These modifications are meant to reflect changing market demand towards development on smaller lots. This will facilitate the efficient use of land, as it will be possible to accommodate an additional unit on a typical block face compared to what is possible within the existing standards. The proposed change also eliminates a rounding issue between metric and imperial units (still commonly used by developers) of measurement. For example, the minimum lot frontage is proposed to be reduced from 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 7.3 metres (24 feet).

An increase in the maximum lot coverage is proposed for stacked and row buildings from 50% to 60% in all residential zones except the RN – Residential Neighbourhood zone. Increasing maximum lot coverage would allow a building or structure to occupy a larger portion of a lot. As a result, a developer may choose to develop a larger ground floor or a single storey house that can offer a larger living area on one floor. This type of housing form may suit persons with limited mobility. Accordingly, this proposed change is consistent with OCP policy to encourage the development of diverse housing types to support residents from a wide range of economic backgrounds and stages of life, including those with specific needs.

The minimum front yard setback for the non-garage portion of a building is proposed to be reduced to three metres from the current six metres. Where there is a front attached garage, the minimum front yard setback continues to be six metres. This allows the portion of the building with the living area to come forward or for a front porch to be included. This will enhance the public realm and contribute to a better neighbourhood experience particularly for pedestrians. In addition, bringing the building forward sets aside a large space at the back for the amenity of the occupants.  

In the proposed Zoning Bylaw, a lot in a residential zone with a frontage of less than 8.5 metres (27.9 feet) is not allowed to have access from a fronting street, except where identified in a secondary or concept plan (discussed further in the section on Chapter 8). This is in order to align with OCP policy that says residential development on small lots should be allowed in residential zones where there is a rear lane.

Group Care Facilities

The following are the main OCP policies that support the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding group care facilities:

Section D6: Housing

Goal 1 – Housing Supply and Affordability

Increase the housing supply and improve housing affordability.

8.7              Use incentives and alternative approaches to increase the supply of attainable housing, adequate specific needs housing, and innovative housing developments.

Goal 4 – Housing for Persons with Specific Needs

Facilitate choice and integration of housing for persons with specific needs.

8.16              Permit group care facilities in residential and mixed-use neighbourhoods.

Section D11: Social Development

Goal 5 – Social Inclusion

Ensure that Regina is socially inclusive and strives for social equality regardless of age, ethnicity, religion, income, sexual orientation, ability or family structure.

13.20              Support the city’s population of seniors and persons with specific needs by:

13.20.1              Promoting “aging in place” within the design of new and existing neighbourhoods.

A group care facility is “a supervised dwelling unit, licensed or approved under provincial statute, for the accommodation of persons, excluding staff, referred by hospitals, courts, government agencies or recognized social service agencies or health professionals.” It is a type of special/specific needs housing. It addresses the housing needs of various populations across the housing spectrum from those who may only require supervision to those who require medical and other supportive service; housing forms that all contribute to building complete neighbourhoods.

There are a number of OCP policies that speak to supporting the development of housing for persons with special/specific needs. The OCP goes so far as to indicate that incentives and alternatives for parking, height, or other development standards should be considered as a means of increasing the supply of this specific needs housing. Further, it indicates that group care facilities should be permitted in all residential and mixed-use zones. The Comprehensive Housing Strategy specifies that reference to separation distances related to special needs housing should be removed.

The regulations in the current Zoning Bylaw are largely outdated and require significant revisions to align with the new care models and the approach to licensing of these facilities that has been implemented at the provincial level. Since the last update of the group care facilities regulation in the current Zoning Bylaw in 2003, most of the provincial legislation governing care facilities have been updated several times.

There are three types of care facilities allowed in the current Zoning Bylaw and no single zone permits all three types. The three type are:

(a)   Supportive Living Homes (SLH) – a facility licensed or approved either under provincial or municipal regulations that provides long-term residential social and personal care, including accommodation, meals, supervision or assistance for no more than ten persons, including children, who have some limits on ability for self-care, and are unrelated to the operator or owner. Professional medical or rehabilitative services needed by the residents are normally provided away from the living facility.

(b)   Special Care Homes (SCH) – an institutionalized home providing care for persons requiring nursing care.

(c)   Individual and Family Social Service Homes (IFSSH) – an agency or government-operated home providing on-site accommodation and one or more of a variety of on-site individual and family social, counselling, welfare, or referral services, including halfway houses and refugee, disaster and temporary relief services. These facilities are intended to provide only short-term accommodation for a period of six months or less.

The current Zoning Bylaw regulations are particularly restrictive, as they regulate the number of group care facilities within a district, the number of facilities that can be developed per block face, and the number of care facility residents within a block face (see Appendix A-5). In some cases, the length of time a person requiring care may stay in a facility is prescribed. Although group care facilities are a form of dwelling unit, they are currently subject to regulations above and beyond those applicable to other forms of dwelling units. Zoning regulation based on users of a development rather than legitimate land use considerations has been successfully challenged in other jurisdictions as discriminatory.  Many of the existing regulations are also difficult to effectively monitor and enforce consistently.

In the proposed Zoning Bylaw, Group Care Facilities are treated in the same manner as other forms of dwellings. All care facilities are licenced under provincial statute, which typically includes stipulations regarding some or all of the following:

·         the minimum required size of a bedroom

·         the minimum required floor area per resident

·         maintaining a maximum number of residents below the rated bed capacity of the facility

·         the maximum number of residents allowed in the facility

The National Building Code and National Fire Code also includes specific requirements about care facilities which impact the number of persons that can be in a facility. The Government of Saskatchewan has also indicated that they are moving away from large institutional type facilities toward smaller home-oriented environments. The legislative provisions along with the development standards for the zone ensure that a care facility will be compatible with other land uses in the residential zones. 

Chapter 4 – Mixed-use Zones

The mixing of residential uses with commercial, institutional, or even industrial uses is a recurring theme in the OCP. This mixing of residential with non-residential uses may happen within the same building or in a different building on the same lot. The OCP indicates that mixed-use development should be supported in existing commercial areas, urban corridors (e.g. Victoria Avenue) and urban centres (e.g. a portion of Westerra subdivision). This allows compatible uses to be closer to each other, which facilitates a more integrated approach to land use planning. A mixing of uses within an area enables residents to have convenient access to goods, services and amenities.

The Transportation Master Plan includes policy directing that the Zoning Bylaw incorporate mixed-use developments in infill and new neighbourhoods to support expanded transportation choices. This will also enable developments to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and transportation services.

Consolidate Zones

The current Zoning Bylaw includes 11 commercial zones that were consolidated to create the mixed-use zones in the proposed Zoning Bylaw. In addition, there are four DCDs with a purpose of allowing commercial which have been incorporated into mixed use zones. These are shown in Table 5.

Table 3:  Mixed-use Zone Consolidation

The existing commercial zones can broadly be organized into three categories based on the nature of the development in the zones (small scale commercial, neighbourhood scale commercial and large format commercial). Much like the residential zones, the analysis of the existing commercial zones showed that many of the zones were not unique and could be consolidated to enhance development opportunities.

The following section discusses the other major changes between the mixed-use zones in the proposed Zoning Bylaw and the commercial zones in the current Zoning Bylaw.

Encourage Mixed-use Development

The following are the main OCP policies that support the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding encouraging mixed use development:

Section D5: Land Use and Built Environment

Goal 1 – Complete Neighbourhoods

Enable the development of complete neighbourhoods.

7.5              Encourage appropriate mixed-use development within neighbourhoods, as well as the retention of existing local and neighbourhood commercial spaces.

Goal 3 – Urban Centres and Corridors

Support urban centres and corridors as locations for pedestrian and transit-oriented mixed-use development and as hubs for community interaction and identity.

7.10              Support the development or redevelopment of lands within identified URBAN CENTRES and URBAN CORRIDORS to incorporate:

7.10.1              An appropriate mix of higher density residential and commercial development;

7.10.2              Mixed-use, transit-oriented development;

7.13              Support the redevelopment of existing retail areas to higher density, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development with densities appropriate to servicing capacity.

Other than the HC – Highway Commercial zone, all the commercial zones in the current Zoning Bylaw contemplate the development of mixed-use buildings. However, the mixing of residential with non-residential uses has not been a common form of development in Regina. With the OCP encouraging that more mixed-use development occur, the proposed Zoning Bylaw includes changes to foster this development vision.

In the proposed Zoning Bylaw, in mixed-use zones, standalone buildings used solely for dwellings are prohibited unless they are on a lot with other non-dwelling uses. Therefore, residential development within the proposed mixed-use zones must occur on a mixed-use lot. Even then, single unit detached buildings are not allowed to be used for a dwelling. In general, purpose built one-unit dwelling buildings are not consistent with the intent of the mixed-use zones. Further, this ensures that the mixed-use zones are distinct from residential zones, rather than being in direct competition.

The development standards for maximum coverage, floor area ratio and height are higher for mixed used developments compared to what applies in a purely commercial development. This provides an incentive to encourage more mixing of uses. To take advantage of these development standards, the proposed site must include a minimum of 20 dwelling units along with non-dwelling uses. If a developer does not want to develop the 20 dwelling units, their development would be restricted to compliance with the less permissive development standards for maximum coverage, floor area ratio and height.

Similarly, the minimum parking requirements are also relaxed where the lot contains both dwellings and non-dwelling uses. Where the lot contain only commercial uses, the parking requirement for the uses are higher than what would apply if they were on a mixed-use lot. These mixed-use lots may have a lower demand for parking, as many of their customers will live on the same lot and be more likely to walk to neighbouring establishments rather than drive.

A new requirement in the proposed Zoning Bylaw is that buildings with 20 or more dwelling units must provide a communal amenity space. This is a common space allocated for the recreational use of all residents within the development. In the current Zoning Bylaw, this requirement already exists for planned groups of dwellings in residential zones, but it is not a requirement in commercial zones. The method of calculating the communal amenity requirement is different in mixed-use zones than the approach to calculating a similar communal amenity in residential zones, to ensure that the requirement is not onerous. In the residential zones, the communal amenity requirement is a percentage of the lot area. However, mixed-use lots may be significantly larger than what exists for residential development and the dwelling units may only occupy a relatively small portion of the lot. As such, the communal amenity requirements in the mixed-use zone is a percentage of the lot area dedicated to dwelling uses. 

Buildings Designed to Enhance Streetscape

The following are the main OCP policies that support the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding enhanced streetscape through building design:

Section D5: Land Use and Built Environment

Goal 4 – Employment Areas

Provide appropriate locations and development opportunities for a full range of industrial, commercial and institutional activities.

7.17              Require new large-format retail to be located on URBAN CORRIDORS or within identified URBAN CENTRES and designed:

7.17.1              To reinforce the streetscape, a high-quality public realm, and access to transit through the orientation of buildings and site design;

Goal 6 – Built Form and Urban Design

Build a beautiful Regina through quality design of its neighbourhoods, public spaces and buildings.

7.35              Ensure quality design through preparation of guidelines or regulations for development that has a significant influence on the public realm (e.g. large-format retail, multi-unit residential, and major corridors).

7.40              Consider the built form and urban design policies in all aspects of development and approvals.

The OCP includes policies aimed at improving the public realm by encouraging enhanced streetscapes through building design. In this regard, it requires that new large-format retail be restricted to urban centres and urban corridors and be designed to reinforce the streetscape through the orientation of buildings and site design. The OCP guidelines for complete neighbourhoods suggest that strategic intersections, neighbourhood hubs and significant public spaces should be framed with larger buildings, such as multi-unit residential and mixed-use development. Further, it recommends the creation of active streetscapes through ground floor uses and by limiting at-grade parking and blank facades. All of these policies work together to create a more inviting and engaging pedestrian experience.

The mixed-use zones in the proposed Zoning Bylaw authorizes a relaxation of certain development standards and specifically allows for buildings to be placed closer to the front property line adjacent to a street, if the building is designed to activate the streetscape. For this to happen, there are a number of criteria that the building must be designed to meet. Some of the criteria are that the building wall must include an entrance accessible from the public sidewalk, the majority of the wall must be glazed (i.e. include glass), and that the land uses that operate in the space be visible through the wall and be active uses, such as restaurant or retail. It should be noted that this type of building design is optional and not a requirement in the zone. An applicant can choose not to make use of the relaxed development standards and design their building according to the otherwise applicable development standards.

In the proposed MLM – Mixed Large Market zone, the amount of parking spaces that can be placed between a building and an arterial street, expressway or freeway is restricted. This will encourage the placement of parking spaces in the interior of the lot, with buildings framing the street, rather than having parking being the dominant feature of the streetscape.

In the proposed Zoning Bylaw, a retail use greater than 10,000 square metres (107,639 square feet) can only be located inside an urban corridor or urban centre as required by OCP policy. The OCP does not define the size at which a retail land use becomes large-format retail. Therefore, the 10,000 square metres was chosen based on an analysis of the retail buildings that currently exist in areas outside of urban centres and urban corridors, as these buildings are typically smaller than 10,000 square metres.

Chapter 5 – Industrial Zones

Industrial lands provide for employment and production opportunities. Industrial activity plays and important role in the economic development of cities, as it is typically a source of sustained employment. Accordingly, increased industrial activity has the potential to influence persons to migrate to the city with the industry, which support population growth, unlike commercial activity, which typically gravitates to areas where sufficient population densities already exist to support businesses. Regina’s industrial area is predominately located in the northeast quadrant of the city. 

Recognizing the benefits of industrial activity to the future growth of the city, the OCP includes policies around protecting industrial lands by avoiding re-designations of industrial areas as these areas are an important part of Regina’s economy. Furthermore, the OCP indicates that industrial lands should allow mixed-use development and clustering of complementary uses, while ensuring compatibility with adjacent residential land uses through the minimization of off-site impacts. A mixing of complementary uses within the industrial lands enables industrial employees or customers to have convenient access to goods, services and amenities.

A review of the existing industrial zones revealed that many of the industrial zones are similar to one another and are over-reliant on discretionary uses. Furthermore, current zoning regulations for Light Industrial zones do not appear to allow for mixed-use development along the urban corridors as proposed in the OCP. The following section discusses the major changes between the industrial zones in the current and proposed Zoning Bylaws.

Consolidated Zones

The current Zoning Bylaw includes eight Industrial zones that were consolidated into three Industrial zones in the proposed Zoning Bylaw, as shown in Table 6. In addition, there is one DCD with a purpose of allowing industrial development, which has been incorporated into the proposed Industrial zones.

Table 4: Industrial Zone Consolidation

The existing Industrial zones can broadly be organized into three categories based on the nature of the development contemplated in those zones: Light Industrial, Medium Industrial and Heavy Industrial. However, the proposed Zoning Bylaw only includes two categories – Light and Heavy Industrial. The analysis of the existing Industrial zones showed that medium industrial zones were not unique and could be consolidated without compromising development opportunities. Therefore, based on the size and location of the development, many of the Medium Industrial sites were either rezoned Light or Heavy Industrial. 

Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Removed

The current Zoning Bylaw sets a maximum permissible floor area ratio (FAR) requirement for all zones. Combined with other measures such as maximum height, maximum coverage and minimum yard setbacks, the FAR intends to limit the massing of a building. FAR is calculated by dividing the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot by the lot area. Table 7 lists the current FAR standards for all existing Industrial zones:

Table 5: Floor Area Ratio Requirement for Existing Industrial Zones

A review of the existing Industrial developments indicated that the FAR requirement is not an impactful regulatory measure. Other proposed Zoning Bylaw requirements such as parking and landscaping requirements, combined with maximum height and site coverage are enough to restrict the maximum size of the buildings relative to the size of the lot. As a result, industrial development seldom exceeds the maximum permitted FAR. Since there is no legislative or policy requirement to use FAR in the Zoning Bylaw, FAR requirements in industrial zones are unnecessary.

Protection of Industrial Lands

The following are the main OCP policies that support the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding protecting industrial lands:

Section D5: Land Use and Built Environment

Goal 4 – Employment Areas

Provide appropriate locations and development opportunities for a full range of industrial, commercial and institutional activities.

7.21              Ensure an adequate supply of serviced industrial land to maintain a diverse range of development opportunities.

7.23              Protect industrial lands by avoiding re-designations of industrial areas, except where the City determines that a different land use is more beneficial.

Due to the location of industrial lands on the periphery of the city, their cost to rent or acquire tends to be lower than that of commercial lands. This creates an incentive for certain commercial activities to gravitate towards locating in industrial areas, especially if they do not need to be close to their market. This could result in prime industrial being used for non-industrial activities. This is inconsistent with OCP policy which encourages the protection of industrial lands and ensure an adequate supply of serviced industrial land is maintained.

The current Zoning Bylaw allows a variety of non-industrial land uses in the current industrial zones such as retail, wholesale, restaurants, etc. Some of these uses are support services that cater to industrial employees and customers and as such are appropriate in the industrial zones. However, in the proposed Zoning Bylaw, some land uses that are more commercial in nature were restricted in order to protect the industrial areas. This includes uses such as hotels, motels, retail and wholesale. 

Chapter 6 – Direct Control Districts

The following is the main OCP policy that supports the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding consolidating some existing DCD and creating some new DCDs:

Section E: Realizing the Plan

Goal 9 – Direct Control Districts

Support the development of a unique or special area or district through the application of specific standards and regulations.

14.46              Apply the Direct Control District (DCD) designation at Council’s discretion to development proposals that require, or would benefit from, regulations and standards specific to that development proposal in the following contexts:

14.46.1              Areas that are significantly constrained by topographical conditions, natural constraints or hazards, and incompatible or potentially hazardous land uses;

14.46.2              Areas that are considered important because they include, or are surrounded by, significant heritage resources, environmentally sensitive or unique or important natural landscapes; and

14.46.3              Unique or mixed-use development proposals.

The proposed new Zoning Bylaw includes many changes to the existing DCDs that may be regarded as high impact changes. The following sections provides details of those changes.

Consolidated DCDs

A review of the existing DCDs revealed that many of them were no longer subject to a special planning study or were not unique in nature. For example, six Residential DCDs (DCD-4, DCD-6, DCD-7, DCD-8, DCD-11 and DCD-12) are similar to some of the existing residential zones. Some of these DCDs have been applied repeatedly in new subdivisions. By allowing for the same land uses that are permitted or discretionary in other residential zones, these DCDs generate a built environment which is very similar to what would be achievable using conventional zoning. Similarly, three existing commercial DCDs (DCD-1, DCD-5 and DCD-10) and one Industrial DCD contemplate development standards and land uses similar to those of the existing commercial and industrial zones. As such, these DCDs are not facilitating unique development or development in areas with special circumstances and as such are not consistent with the intent of DCDs. Table 8 lists the proposed equivalent zones for some of the existing DCDs.

Table 6: Consolidated DCDs

New DCDs

Analysis of the existing DCDs identified opportunities for some existing conventional zones, to be changed to DCDs. Converting a conventional zone to a DCD provides City Council and Administration with a higher level of direct control over the development occurring in that area and helps support the implementation of neighbourhood plan policies applicable to that area. The proposed new Zoning Bylaw includes the following three new DCDs:

DCD-D – Downtown Direct Control District

This DCD is based on the conventional D – Downtown zone and applies to the area governed by the Regina Downtown Neighbourhood Plan.

The OCP outlines many policies for downtown Regina including having 80% of the city’s office space located within the downtown, clustering of complementary commercial and cultural uses, and encouraging higher density development to ensure that it remains as the economic and cultural hub of the city. The existing D - Downtown zone includes a complex set of development standards and urban design guidelines to achieve the intent of these policies. One of the action items in Regina Downtown Neighbourhood Plan is to rezone Downtown as a Direct Control District.

The proposed new DCD-D – Downtown Direct Control District allows the City to retain a higher level of discretion over the placement of buildings and design of development than is possible with a conventional zone. It simplifies the existing D – Downtown zone regulations, standards, and incentives to encourage and facilitate developments that cluster retail, personal services, eating and drinking establishments, and entertainment uses and encourages the orientation ground floor development to pedestrians. It further simplifies the existing urban design guidelines to ensure that they are easy to understand and apply in order to create a comfortable, safe, and attractive urban atmosphere.

Additionally, the proposed DCD-D – Downtown Direct Control District removes parking requirements for all land uses in downtown Regina. Where provided, parking above a certain number has to be in a structure. These changes are consistent with the Regina Downtown Neighbourhood Plan Policy 4.4.8 which strives to cultivate an image where parking, while present, goes relatively unnoticed in the streetscape. Considering that downtown is served by many modes of transportation, the market is suitably robust to allow land owners to determine the necessary parking requirement for their land uses.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw also requires all land uses in the DCD-D – Downtown Direct Control District to provide bicycle parking. This may be provided in the form of long-term or short-term bicycle parking. With respect to dwelling units, long-term bicycle parking is required for developments of 20 units or more. Whereas, buildings with non-dwelling uses are required to provide either short-term or long-term bicycle parking, or a combination thereof. Additionally, some land uses are required to provide bicycle facilities including showers and lockers. These changes support the Regina Downtown Neighbourhood Plan policy 3.3.6.3 that encourages the provision of bicycle parking, shower and change facilities for new development in the downtown.   

DCD-CS – Centre Square Direct Control District

This DCD applies to properties located within the Centre Square Neighbourhood bound by Albert Street, Broad Street, 13th Avenue and College Avenue. These properties are subject to the policies of the Transitional Area Neighbourhood Plan and are currently zoned TAR – Transitional Area Residential, MX – Mixed Residential Business, MAC – Major Arterial Commercial and C – Contract. 

The Centre Square Neighbourhood is home to several house-form commercial buildings. House-form commercial refers to a building that was originally constructed as a one-unit detached dwelling but is now being used for low intensity commercial activities, such as professional offices, personal service establishments (e.g. hair salons or esthetic spas), and art galleries.  The Transitional Area Neighbourhood Plan calls for retaining as many of the existing house-form buildings as possible to ensure that the special character and heritage of the Centre Square Neighbourhood remains intact.

To better achieve the goals and policies of the Transitional Area Neighbourhood Plan, the proposed DCD-CS – Centre Square Direct Control District separates the neighbourhood into different policy areas based on the type and intensity of the uses permitted and building heights. It promotes the gradual intensification and mixing of uses in the neighbourhood by allowing a wide range of dwelling, office, service and retail land uses that complement the predominantly residential nature of the neighbourhood and can operate within existing house-form buildings. Furthermore, the proposed DCD-CS – Centre Square Direct Control District incorporates development standards that are sensitive to the existing development within the neighbourhood. This is in order to complement and enhance the unique character of the neighbourhood with regard to its streetscapes, heritage, and open spaces.  

DCD-WH – Dewdney Avenue Warehouse Direct Control District

The DCD-WH is based on the existing WH –Dewdney Avenue Warehouse zone and applies to all properties currently zoned WH. These properties are unique in containing many multi-storey warehouses built prior to the 1930's, which contribute to a distinctive streetscape. Converting the existing WH – Dewdney Avenue Warehouse zone to a DCD allows the City to better implement the Warehouse District Neighbourhood Plan policies concerning the protection of the historic nature of the area and support the surrounding commercial areas.

The proposed DCD-WH – Dewdney Avenue Warehouse District encourages the adaptive reuse of the existing buildings and expansion of new and established businesses by permitting a wide range of dwelling, office, service, retail, wholesale and low intensity industrial land uses that complement each other and can operate safely in existing or remodelled buildings. It prohibits outdoor storage, which is consistent with existing uses in the area. New buildings are discretionary, to allow the City to evaluate whether proposed development will be sensitive to the characteristics that define the existing streetscape of the area.

Considering that the existing Warehouse District properties have limited off-street parking, the proposed DCD-WH – Dewdney Avenue Warehouse District allows existing development to change land uses without requiring additional parking. This approach encourages adaptive reuse of existing buildings, which is consistent with the intent of the applicable neighbourhood plan.

Existing DCDs

Apart from consolidating and creating new DCDs, the proposed Zoning Bylaw carries over the four existing DCDs that either apply to unique areas or continue to be the subject of a planning study. These are outlined in Table 9.   

Table 7: Retained DCDs

These DCDs have been reorganized to match the format of the proposed new Zoning Bylaw. Furthermore, the parking and screening requirements have been updated in order to be consistent with the other DCDs.

Chapter 7 – Special Zones

Special zones are those which have unique attributes that makes it difficult or impractical to group them with other zones. The intent of the special zone regulations is to preserve the unique areas of the city, and to ensure that developments in those areas are sensitive to their unique characteristics. A large proportion of the city is currently zoned special, which covers municipally and provincially owned park lands, undeveloped lands on the periphery of the city, airport lands, and a growing number of DCDs.

Removal of Autonomous Areas

The current Zoning Bylaw includes two zones for autonomous areas that are outside of the City’s land use jurisdiction. These are the WC – Wascana Centre zone and the AIR – Airport zone. Although these zones are identified in the current Zoning Bylaw, there are no regulations adopted in relation to development on these lands as planning authority is generally outside the scope of City Council’s purview as an approving authority pursuant to the Act.

The current Zoning Bylaw does not take a consistent approach to the treatment of autonomous areas within the city as other autonomous areas are not mentioned at all in the current Zoning Bylaw. For example, urban reserves within the city are not identified in any way.  These reserve lands are unique in that they are also autonomous but, only through contractual arrangements, have agreed to follow the zoning of the city. As part of the Municipal Services Agreements with the City, the urban reserves agree to ensure that the occupation, use, development and improvement of the land is essentially the same as what would have been allowed as either permitted or discretionary uses if the land were not reserve land.

There is no legislative requirement to reference autonomous areas in the City’s Zoning Bylaw. For this reason and the fact that there are no regulations that the City could enforce in these areas through bylaw enactment alone, the proposed Zoning Bylaw takes the consistent approach of not stipulating a zone for any autonomous area within the city.

Discharge Contract Zones

The following is the main OCP policy that supports the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding the use of contract zones:

Section E: Realizing the Plan

Goal 8 – Contract Zones

Support beneficial development proposals that meet the intent of this Plan but require special regulatory treatment to address unique characteristics.

14.42              Apply a Contract Zone designation, at Council’s discretion, to development proposals that do not conform with existing zoning requirements (e.g. use of land, site, development or servicing standards, etc.), or that require special regulatory control to ensure compatibility with adjacent development, with the provision that the proposed development:

14.46.1              Conforms with the general intent of this Plan or any applicable concept plan;

14.46.2              Represents a unique and/or positive development opportunity; and

14.46.3              Is compatible with existing adjacent development and, where applicable, contributes beneficially to the adjacent public realm.

Section 69 of the Act authorizes City Council to enact Contract Zones. A Contract Zone is a special zone used to realize unique development opportunities on sites that might otherwise be constrained from meeting the applicable development standards and uses. The criteria for how Contract Zones should be applied within the City is outlined in the OCP. Contract Zoning allows City Council to enter into an agreement with a development proponent in order to outline specific conditions and development standards that apply to the particular development. Permissible land uses and development forms are also specified in the terms of the agreement. Other conditions may be specified in the agreement, as a means of limiting the effects of the incompatibility of the proposed development on the surrounding neighbourhood.

The OCP policies pertaining to contract zones state that a contract zone may be designated where development proposals that do not conform with existing zoning requirements or require special regulatory control to ensure compatibility with adjacent development, with the provisions that the proposed development:

(a)   conforms with the general intent of the OCP or any applicable concept plan;

(b)   represents a unique and/or positive development opportunity; and

(c)   is compatible with existing adjacent development and, where applicable, contributes beneficially to the adjacent public realm.

The current Zoning Bylaw includes criteria for the application of contract zones based on the previous Regina Development Plan, which contained the City’s policies for growth and development prior to the OCP. It indicates that contract zones be designated only on:

(a)   small or irregularly shaped lots;

(b)   lots restricted by physical barriers such as water courses, slopes, roadways, railways;

(c)   infill sites in higher density residential or mixed-use areas; or

(d)   sites accommodating unique development opportunities.

There are currently 107 active contract zones in the City. Some of these contracts do not meet the criteria laid out in the OCP or the current Zoning Bylaw. The high number of contract zones suggests that the current Zoning Bylaw does not have the provisions and/or flexibility necessary to address changing market demands within the development community. A high number of contract zones creates administrative challenges for the City because they require ongoing monitoring overtime to ensure that the development on the site remains in compliance with the agreement.

It is proposed in the new Zoning Bylaw that 99 of the existing 107 contracts zones be discharged and consolidated into one of the conventional zones developed in the proposed Bylaw. This is an indication of the level of flexibility built into the proposed Zoning Bylaw and verification that it provides greater allowance for positive development.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw also includes updated criteria for the designation of any new contract zones to be applied in the future. These will allow the high-level policies in the OCP regarding contract zones to be applied on a more consistent basis.

Chapter 8 – Overlay Zones

An overlay zone is a zone used to modify the development standards of the underlying zone in a particular area. The regulations, standards and criteria of the overlay zones are applied in addition to the regulations, standards and criteria applicable to the underlying zone. If there is a conflict between the requirements of an overlay zone and those of the underlying zone, the overlay requirements apply, unless otherwise stated in the Zoning Bylaw. An overlay zone is used to realize specific development objectives (e.g. limiting building height) without creating a dedicated area-specific zone. The overlay zone is often used to implement conditions outlined in a neighbourhood plan.

The current Zoning Bylaw includes 14 overlay zones. The proposed Zoning Bylaw carries forward the majority of the existing overlay zones with some minor updates to the regulations to improve their clarity and/or changes to the name of the zones. Five of the existing overlay zones are proposed to be removed and four new overlays created. The list of existing and proposed overlays is shown in Table 10.

Table 8: Existing and Proposed Overlay Zones

Removed Overlay Zones

There are no regulations in the current Zoning Bylaw associated with the DC – Demolition Control overlay zone. The current Zoning Bylaw merely states that the space is reserved pending legislative authority under the Act. However, Section 72 of the Act already allows for City Council to exercise control over the demolition of a residential building. For this to happen, demolition control guidelines must be included the OCP and the City needs to have a building bylaw and maintenance bylaw in place. The City has adopted the Building Bylaw and has a maintenance bylaw, being The Regina Community Standards Bylaw (Community Standards Bylaw), but the OCP does not include policy about demolition control, so the regulations for this overlay zone cannot be included in the proposed Zoning Bylaw. If the demolition control guidelines are included in the OCP in the future, the Zoning Bylaw can be amended to include this overlay zone.

Similarly, there is no regulation in the current Zoning Bylaw associated with the HCO – Heritage Conservation overlay zone. The section states that it is reserved pending legislative authority under the Act. The Act makes no mention of heritage. Heritage conservation is detailed under The Heritage Property Act, which authorizes City Council to designate properties of heritage significance that are located within its boundaries as municipal heritage property. The authority to protect properties through designation and the specific protections imposed by the respective designation bylaws apply to properties notwithstanding other development requirements imposed by the Zoning Bylaw or the Act. An overlay zone is not required. In the event that additional authority is provided in the Act in the future, the Zoning Bylaw can be amended to include any necessary regulations.

The Floodway Fringe overlay zone regulations in the current Zoning Bylaw only requires that development in the zone comply with the regulations in the Building Bylaw. As indicated in the proposed Zoning Bylaw, the issuance of a development permit does not relieve the permittee from the requirements of any other legislation, bylaws or encumbrances that may apply to the land or development. The Building Bylaw includes regulations for the construction of buildings in the flood plain. The regulations in the Building Bylaw still apply without this being stated in the Zoning Bylaw. Since the Flood Fringe Zone acts ultimately as a duplication of the Building Bylaw, it has not been carried forward into the proposed Zoning Bylaw. Administration is evaluating the possibility of whether land use regulations are required for developments in the flood fringe area. However, this is outside of the scope of this review process, and will be brought forward to City Council at a later date, if it is established that land use regulations are required.

The intent of the IIT - Innismore Industrial Transitional overlay zone in the current bylaw is to implement the planned change to industrial uses for the Innismore area in a manner that is sensitive to the remaining existing homes. To accomplish this, the overlay zone includes its own set of development standards, which differ from what applies for the underlying zone. However, the proposed Zoning Bylaw includes measures to account for the sensitive development of industrial uses when they are adjacent to lots zoned residential. The development standards for the IL – Industrial Light zone, which is proposed to be applied in the Industrial Tuxedo Park area, account for the development standards that are currently part of the IIT - Innismore Industrial Transitional overlay zone, therefore this overlay zone has not been carried forward into the proposed Zoning Bylaw. 

The OLS – Obstacle Limitation Surface overlay zone is based on Transport Canada’s Land Uses in the Vicinity of Aerodromes document. This document includes guidelines and not regulations. Based on discussion with the Regina Airport Authority, it was indicated that there is Federal legislation and associated regulation that apply to the height of buildings and structures in the vicinity of the airport. These regulations are binding on the City and so were included as part of the HT - Height Overlay zone regulations surrounding the airport. In this regard, the OLS – Obstacle Limitation Surface overlay zone has not been carried forward into the proposed Zoning Bylaw. 

Floodway Zone to an Overlay Zone

The floodway is part of the flood plain, which is a low-lying area adjacent to streams and rivers that is inundated during major floods. Specifically, the floodway is the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas where the majority of floodwaters of a 1:500 year flood event will flow. In this area, the flow velocities and depths are prohibitive to structural development.

The OCP includes policy prescribing that the areas within the city that are within the floodway should be preserved and that the development of new buildings as well as additions to buildings should be prohibited in the floodway. This policy fulfills the requirements under the Statements of Provincial Interest Regulations to prohibit the development of new buildings and additions to buildings in the floodway of the 1:500 year flood elevation of any watercourse or water body.

The boundaries of the floodway are not static and may change over time. This creates an issue where certain parcels of land that were not originally in the floodway may now fall into that area. When this occurs, those lands end up having a dual zoning of FW – Floodway zone and another conventional zone. Dual zoning is problematic because each zone has its one set of regulations and standards, which may be conflicting between the two zones.

To address this issue, the proposed Zoning Bylaw has changed the FW zone from a conventional zone to an overlay zone. This allows the floodway regulations to be applied on top of the regulations of the underlying zone. If there is any conflict, the overlay zone regulations always supersede unless otherwise specified. With this change, all sites that were zoned FW – Floodway under the current Zoning Bylaw are now zoned FW – Floodway Overlay zone in the proposed Zoning Bylaw.

This change does not result in an actual change in the floodway boundary. The regulations from the conventional floodway zone are retained as part of the floodway overlay. As an overlay zone cannot exist on its own without an underlying conventional zone, any land that had a single zoning of FW- Floodway was changed to have a conventional zoning of UH – Urban Holding. The UH – Urban Holding zone was chosen because of its similarities to the existing FW- Floodway zone with respect to permitted uses and discretionary uses.

LA – Lane Access Overlay Zone

The OCP Guidelines for Complete Neighbourhoods encourages rear-lane access to homes to provide a more enjoyable and safer streetscape. Accordingly, the residential zones in the proposed Zoning Bylaw require that for new development, where there is a rear lane, the lane should be used to access the lot. This regulation has the additional benefit of preventing wasted infrastructure, which occurs when there is a rear lane, an on-street parking lane on the fronting street, and front access to the lot. In this scenario, a portion of the on-street parking lane is unavailable due to the curb cuts for driveway access. The rear lane is also not maximised because some or all of lots have front access. All properties abutting or flanking a lane are required to pay as part of their property taxes an alley maintenance levy. If the lane is not being used, then the property owners are paying for infrastructure that they do not need.

However, it is recognized that the regulation is strict and may prevent some unique development opportunities. The LA – Lane Access Overlay is a new overlay zone created to allow for the development flexibility of having both front and lane access to residential lots on a block face. The overlay zone can only be applied on an entire block face identified within a concept plan or secondary plan as being appropriate for having both front and lane access. This requirement ensures that the street design in proximity of the blocks where this overlay is applied, has appropriately accounted for any impacts having dual access will have on traffic movement and on-street parking availability.

LGS – Laneway and Garden Suite Overlay Zone

The following is the main OCP policy that supports the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding allowing laneway and garden suites:

Section D6: Housing

Goal 1 – Housing Supply and Affordability

Increase the housing supply and improve housing affordability.

8.4              Establish accessory suite regulations within appropriate residential areas.

The OCP includes policy direction to establish accessory suite regulations within appropriate residential areas. Laneway and garden suites are types of accessory suites. Laneways suites and garden suites are a subordinate, self-contained dwelling unit in a detached building accessed from an adjacent lane at the rear or adjacent public street at the front of the property, respectively.

The residential zones in the current Zoning Bylaw include provisions to permit the construction of laneway and garden suites on select sites in established areas of the city. This is part of a pilot project approved by City Council to determine the appropriateness of these types of suites in addressing housing affordability and raising the diversity of housing types available within the city. The current Zoning Bylaw also includes DCD-14 Laneway Housing Pilot, which contains provisions for the development of laneway suites in the Greens on Gardiner and Harbour Landing subdivisions. This DCD facilitates the piloting of laneway suites in greenfield areas of the city.

The regulations for laneway and garden suites in established areas in the current Zoning Bylaw have been turned into the LGS – Laneway and Garden Suite Overlay zone in the proposed Zoning Bylaw. Whereas, the regulations for laneway suites in greenfield areas are retained as DCD-LHP Laneway Housing Pilot in the proposed Zoning Bylaw. The regulations in the proposed Zoning Bylaw are carried forward from those found in the current Zoning Bylaw. For the pilot in the established areas of the city, an overlay zone was preferred in the proposed Zoning Bylaw over embedding lot specific standards within the applicable residential zones. This is in order to maintain the formatting standard associated with the proposed Zoning Bylaw and reduce the potential for the lot specific regulations to be overlooked. Administration will be doing an evaluation of the pilot project, at which time it will make recommendations to City Council about the future development of laneway and garden suites in the city.

RID – Residential Infill Development Overlay Zone

The following are the main OCP policies that support the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding instituting infill regulations:

Section C: Growth Plan

Goal 1 – Long-Term Growth

Ensure that sufficient developable land is protected for future city growth.

2.3              Direct at least 30% of new population to existing urban areas as the City’s intensification target.

2.8              Require intensification in Built or Approved Neighbourhoods to be compatible with the existing built form and servicing capacity.

Section D6: Housing

Goal 1 – Housing Supply and Affordability

Increase the housing supply and improve housing affordability.

8.8              Support residential intensification in existing and New Neighbourhoods to create complete neighbourhoods.

The OCP is a 25-year plan to manage the city’s growth to 300,000 people. It provides direction on where new development should happen. Although it recognizes that the bulk of the growth will happen it new neighbourhoods, some of the growth is encouraged to occur in the existing built up area. Accordingly, the OCP establishes an intensification target for existing areas.

Intensification is the construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings on serviced land within existing built areas, where the number of units previously on the lot is increased by the new development. Infill refers to the development of new buildings or additions to existing buildings in already established neighbourhoods, where the number of units previously on the lot are not increased by new development.

Infill Housing Guidelines were finalized in 2017 to provide recommendations on how to support the development of infill housing as required by the OCP, in a manner that is sensitive to the context of existing development. The first step in this process was determining the boundary for infill areas. Administration determined that the appropriate starting point would be areas of the existing city with houses primarily built before and up to the 1960s. These areas account for where the majority of infill development has already taken place.

Based on some of the recommendations from the Infill Housing Guidelines, the RID – Residential Infill Development Overlay zone was created to establish some of the guidelines as regulations. The overlay zone is intended to establish specific requirements for new buildings and structures located within Regina’s infill boundary that acknowledges the development context established by existing buildings. It also allows for a gentle transition of the neighbourhood over time. The overlay zone includes regulations for:

(a)   Front Yard Setback – a minimum of the average of the front yard setbacks of the buildings on the next-door lots and a maximum of the farthest front yard setback of a next-door lot. This ensures that the front yard setback of the building on the infill lot will more appropriately align with the front yard setbacks of the neighbouring existing properties.

(b)   Side Yard Setback – a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres on one side is required, in order to maintain consistency with the side yard setback of houses in the infill boundary.

(c)   Maximum Building Height – a maximum building height which is the greater of 8.5 metres or the height of the principal buildings on the next-door lots. This caps the maximum building height to lower than what is allowed in the underlying zone in recognition of the fact that most houses in existing areas were not built to the maximum height permitted by the zone. However, it provides flexibility to match the context of a neighbouring housing if it is higher than 8.5 metres.

(d)   Maximum First Floor Height – limits the height of the first floor to 1.37 metres from grade level. This provides enough clearance for the inclusion of egress windows in the basement, which is important for fire safety without being too high so as to not match the context of other houses in the area.

Height Overlay in the Vicinity of Wascana Center

The following is the main OCP policy that supports the changes in the proposed Zoning Bylaw regarding complementing the Wascana Centre:

Section D2: Environment

Goal 1 – Natural System

Maintain, restore and enhance Regina’s natural system and biodiversity.

4.5              Work with the Wascana Centre Authority to protect and enhance the Wascana Centre and its public open space features, Waterbodies and Habitat Areas.

The Wascana Centre, as one of the largest urban parks in North America, is an import focal point of the city. It provides amenity to the residents of Regina as well as to the many visitors to the city that it attracts.

The OCP prescribes that the City should work with the Wascana Centre Authority (now the Provincial Capital Commission) to protect and enhance the Wascana Centre. The Wascana Centre Authority Master Plan suggest that in order to preserve the important view vista of Wascana Centre, the heights of buildings near the edges of Wascana Centre should be limited.

The proposed Zoning Bylaw includes as part of the HT – Height Overlay zone, a height overlay that applies to the areas of the city near the edge of the Wascana Centre. This height overlay does not prohibit tall buildings, it makes any development in the applicable area above 13 metres a discretionary use. This allows for consultation with the public and the Provincial Capital Commission.

Chapter 9 & 10

Chapter 9 contains the zoning maps that identify the zoning applied to each property in the city.

Chapter 10 is an appendix detailing the architectural standards for buildings within the city’s architectural control district and is carried forward from the current Zoning Bylaw.

OCP Policy 7.40 requires the City to “consider the built form and urban design policies in all aspects of approval and development.”

Transitioning Regulations

The current Zoning Bylaw is generally regarded as a bylaw with which people are likely to comply. As such, over the years, it became the bylaw used for regulating some matters which are only loosely tied to land use but where a high degree of compliance is desired by the City. As part of the development of the proposed Zoning Bylaw, Administration has taken the opportunity to streamline the Zoning Bylaw by transferring the regulation of these matters to more appropriate bylaws, where possible.

It is important to note that although a zoning bylaw stipulates which uses can be developed and where, it cannot regulate who is allowed to own or rent property, the operating hours or clientele that use the property, or the business practices and licensing of a use on a property. Further, the Act does not authorize a zoning bylaw to regulate living conditions and property maintenance.   

The majority of the issues not being carried forward to the proposed Zoning Bylaw will transition into another City bylaw. For these matters, the intention is not to substantively change the requirements of the current regulations but simply to move them into the appropriate bylaw.  Ultimately, City Council will still review the proposed amendments to these other bylaws and can propose other changes at that time, if desired.

In a few cases, the matters transitioning from the current Zoning Bylaw are proposed to no longer be regulated by the City. The discussion below is organized based on where the regulation of the matter will be handled in the future.

Transitioning to the Community Standards Bylaw

Residential Fences - The current Zoning Bylaw regulates the height of fences primarily in residential zones. The regulations prescribe a maximum height depending on the orientation of the surrounding yards on a lot. The portion of the fence in the side and rear yard is allowed to be higher than the portion in the front yard. Although the fence regulations are outlined in the current Zoning Bylaw, a development permit is not required in order to construct a fence. The limit on fence height is primarily related to aesthetics, with the exception of the height limit for fences on corner lots which addresses traffic safety concerns and ensures visibility triangles are not obstructed.

The barbed wire fence provisions currently contained in A Bylaw of the City of Regina to Prohibit and Regulate and Control the Use of Barbed Wire within the City of Regina, No. 5883 (The Barbed Wire Bylaw) will also be moved into The Community Standards Bylaw, No. 2016-4 and The Barbed Wire Bylaw will be repealed.

Recreational Vehicle Parking - The current Zoning Bylaw regulates when a recreational vehicle can be parked in the front yard of a residential property. Recreational Vehicles are not permitted in the front yard from November 1 to April 1 inclusive. Further, the regulations limit the maximum number of recreational vehicles that can be parking on site to two for a detached dwelling unit. The regulations are intended to protect the aesthetic quality of the streetscape. To allow for convenience during peak periods of recreational vehicle use, the regulations allow for recreational vehicles to be parked in the front yard, when they are most in use and less likely to be parked for on-site for extended periods. During winter months, these vehicles are less frequently used and are therefore required to be stored elsewhere.

Vehicles with a combined weight exceeding 4,500 kilograms are prohibited by the current Zoning Bylaw from being be parked on-site in a residential zone. This excludes recreational vehicles, as they are regulated separately. This regulation prevents heavy construction equipment and semi-trailers from parking on-site in residential areas. These are prohibited due to their potential to negative impact the aesthetic quality of the streetscape.

Transitioning these regulations to the Community Standards Bylaw will improve the efficiency of the enforcement process, allowing one business area to own the process from end to end.

Transition to the Noise Abatement Bylaw

The current Zoning Bylaw has regulations regarding the maximum allowable sound pressure levels. These regulations vary by zone. The City also has a Noise Abatement Bylaw that regulates noise nuisance.

It is proposed that noise be regulated in a single bylaw by means of the Noise Abatement Bylaw. This is more intuitive and user friendly for residents, as all the noise regulations will be housed within one bylaw.

Transition to the Design Standards

There are some matters in the current Zoning Bylaw that may require a greater level of flexibility in their application to proposed development. These matters relate to technical design and engineering elements such as location of driveway crossings, approach ramp locations and parking stall dimension. In such cases, the intent of the regulations can be achieved in a number of ways or the proposed site requires special considerations that the regulations cannot easily allow for. Keeping these matters in the land use bylaw does not afford the flexibility necessary to accommodate innovation and can at times limit optimal functionality of a site.

The City has maintained standards which are contained within an administrative document entitled the Development Standards Manual. The Development Standards Manual is currently being reformatted and updated to become the City of Regina Design Standards. The purpose of this document is to provide engineers, architects, contractors and developers the standards for development and projects within the city of Regina.

To accommodate a greater level of flexibility than what can be achieved in a land use bylaw, technical design and engineering requirements currently found within the Zoning Bylaw will transition to the Design Standards. In terms of flexibility, exceptions to the Design Standards may be considered by Administration where accompanied with detailed explanation and rationale.

Matters not Carried Forward

The current Zoning Bylaw includes regulations for certain environmental issues such as odour, smoke, heat, glare, dust, air pollution, electromagnetic interference, vibration, and external lighting. Air pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act. Lighting is regulated in the Community Standards Bylaw, so this change removes duplication and confusion around the regulations. The other matters are impractical to regulate, as they have no measurable standard as a nuisance and can change rapidly. Such matters may be best addressed through civil proceedings.

Sign Bylaw

A sign is any writing, pictorial representation, emblem, flag, or any other figure of similar character which:

(a)   is a structure or any part thereof, or is attached to, painted on, or in any manner represented on a building;

(b)   is used to announce, direct attention to, or advertise; and

(c)   is visible from outside the building.

There are many aspects to the regulation of signs, such as their construction, their placement, what types of advertisements are permitted and how far apart from each other they must be. A dedicated Sign Bylaw is proposed to consolidate all of the City’s sign regulations in one bylaw. This proposed change will improve the customer experience for applicants and make it less likely that important regulations will get overlooked. The proposed Sign Bylaw incorporates all of the City’s sign regulations in one bylaw, an approach which is not possible in the proposed Zoning Bylaw due to the provisions of the Act which do not allow construction regulations in a zoning bylaw.

The proposed Sign Bylaw primarily consolidates the existing sign regulations. Where changes were made, it was with the intent to either address gaps in the existing regulations, make the regulations easier to follow and enforce, or to support OCP policy. The main changes to the existing sign regulations are discussed in the following sections.

Portable Signs

Under the current Zoning Bylaw, there are separate regulations for portable signs advertising for a business on the same lot and those that advertise for businesses not located on the same lot (the City defines these as billboards). Portable signs are any sign that is mounted on a trailer, stand or other support structure that can be easily relocated to another location. For portable signs used to advertise for businesses located elsewhere, the Zoning Bylaw regulates their size and requires them to be separated from other portable signs by 45 metres, and from permanent billboards by 30 metres. They are also only permitted in Downtown, Industrial and Major Commercial areas. Portable signs advertising for a business on the same lot are not restricted in size. In these cases, when there is more than one portable sign on a lot, they must be separated by a distance equal to the average height of the two signs (this generally works out to approximately 3.2 metres/10 feet). These are permitted in all zones except residential.

It is not necessary to have separate standards for the two types of portable signs. They are typically the same size and have the same impact on the amenity of the city regardless of whether they are used for advertising on-site or in a separate location from the business or service being advertised. There are gaps in the existing portable sign regulations with regard to the maximum height and size of portable signs being used for on-site advertising. As well, the separation distance between multiple portable signs on the same lot engaged in on-site advertising may not be sufficient enough to minimize visual clutter.

The proposed Sign Bylaw addresses these issues by no longer distinguishing between portable signs advertising services on the same lot and those advertising for businesses located elsewhere. It proposes a greater separation distance between portable signs located on the same lot (20 metres/65 feet), a change which is intended to reduce visual clutter caused by signs. The required separation distances between portable signs should mitigate any increase in signs that may occur as a result of permitting portable billboards in more zones. Unlike the current Zoning Bylaw, which only allows on-site portable signs in all non-residential zones, the proposed Sign Bylaw will permit portable signs in all non-residential zones regardless of whether they are advertising for businesses on the same lot or a separate lot. 

Freestanding Signs

Freestanding signs are any signs that are permanently affixed to the ground, usually supported by one or more posts anchored into the ground. The maximum height that they are allowed to be, and how big the face of the sign can be, varies by zone. Under the current Zoning Bylaw, freestanding signs are permitted in all zones. Freestanding signs are not required to be separated from residential uses.

While the permitted sizes of signs are proposed to remain unchanged, as a result of consolidating zones in the proposed Zoning Bylaw, the largest size is proposed to be permitted in more areas. Signs with faces up to 24 square metres in size are proposed to be permitted in the MLM – Mixed Large Market zone, which could be applied more widely across the City. The MLM – Mixed Large Market permits a mix of commercial and residential uses. To mitigate the potential impact of large freestanding signs on the amenity of residential uses, new freestanding signs exceeding 3.2 metres in height or 6.0 square metres in area are proposed to be separated from residential uses by 15 metres (approximately 48 feet). Freestanding signs up to 24 square metres in sign face are also proposed to be permitted in all Industrial zones. Residential development is not permitted at all in the IP – Industrial Prestige and IH – Industrial Heavy zones and is limited in the IL – Industrial Light zone, so the impacts of this change in industrial zones are expected to be minimal.

Billboard Signs

Billboard signs are any sign that advertises for a business or service located in a separate location from the lot on which the sign is located. Accordingly, there can be freestanding billboard signs, wall billboards and roof billboards (the most common examples). Between 2000 and 2016, there were 168 billboard signs approved in Regina (this includes digital billboards). The current regulations permit billboards Downtown, and in all Industrial zones and Major Commercial zones. The permitted sizes for billboards are based on the sign type (i.e. wall, roof, freestanding, etc.). As with freestanding signs, the largest size of billboard is proposed to be permitted in the MLM – Mixed Large Market zone and in all industrial zones as the maximum permitted sizes for billboards are aligned with the sign type (i.e. a freestanding billboard is subject to the regulations for freestanding signs and billboards). The impacts of this change are expected to be minimal. 

Digital Signs

Between 2000 and 2016, there were 72 digital signs erected in the City. While digital signs are often referred to as “video signs,” most digital signs do not contain streaming video. Notwithstanding their brightness, digital signs generally look similar to non-digital signs. The main difference, and what makes them an attractive option for businesses, is the ability to change the image on the sign remotely, therefore enabling more advertisements to be displayed. Similar to billboards, any type of sign can be a digital sign (i.e. wall signs, freestanding signs, roof signs, etc.).

The current Zoning Bylaw includes regulations for illuminated signs but they do not reflect current sign technology. Illuminated signs differ from digital signs in that the sign copy cannot be changed remotely; instead, they are lit internally or externally with lights located somewhere along the frame or mounted to the ground and shining up towards the sign. Illuminated signs are currently permitted in all zones except residential zones and the MX – Mixed Residential Business zone. They are to be positioned so that any illumination is directed away from any adjacent residential uses, and there is to be no illumination that would impede vehicular traffic or interfere with traffic signals. Digital signs are not required to be separated from residential uses.

Some of the issues resulting from the City not having standards that account for digital sign technology include the development of signs that are too bright and that cannot be adjusted because they are not equipped with an automatic dimmer function. Additionally, there are no regulations regarding the amount of time the picture on a digital sign must remain static, or the use of streaming video on signs, which is generally more distracting than a digital sign with a static image. The current regulations do not align with industry best practice as they do not regulate the use of digital signs in high-speed areas, where the risk and potential consequences of driver distraction are greater.

The proposed Sign Bylaw incorporates standards for digital signs as recommended by the Transportation Association of Canada in Digital and Projected Advertising Display: Regulatory and Road Safety Assessment Guidelines (TAC Guidelines). There are standards proposed for the maximum permitted brightness of digital signs, and to require an automatic dimming function that ensures they do not exceed the permitted brightness level. The intent of these changes is to limit the potential for driver distraction as well as the impact of such signs on adjacent residential premises. Additionally, digital signs are proposed to only permit the display of static images and no streaming video, with standards regarding the amount of time a digital image must remain static before changing to another image. The intent of these changes is to limit the potential for driver distraction that could arise as a result of seeing a flash when the image on a sign changes or becoming distracted by a sign displaying streaming video. The proposed regulations also incorporate provisions that prohibit digital signs within a driver’s cone of vision (see Appendix A-6), or within a given radius around intersections. These changes are also intended to reduce the potential for driver distraction. All of these changes are aligned with the recommendations outlined in the TAC Guidelines.

Another proposed change is to prohibit digital signs, other than those used for gas stations, within 100 metres of any road with a speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour or greater. At high speeds, the impact of a crash caused by driver distraction is much greater than on roads with reduced speed limits. Accordingly, it is in the interest of public health and safety to limit the potential for such distractions by not permitting digital signs in those areas. Digital signs are also proposed to not be permitted within 15 metres (approximately 48 feet) of a residential use regardless of whether they are directed away from the residential use, as doing so helps protect the amenity of residential properties.

Construction Standards

Other significant changes proposed in the Sign Bylaw include changes to the construction specifications for signs, which are currently found in the Building Bylaw. The current construction standards for signs in the Building Bylaw were identified as being confusing to follow and difficult to administer, as noted by various stakeholders throughout the consultation process. The Sign Bylaw includes simplified requirements, including a requirement that freestanding signs, projecting signs and roof signs with a sign face exceeding 3.0 square metres, or any sign over 115 kilograms in weight, be designed by an engineer. These proposed changes should improve compliance, administration and enforcement of the standards by making them easier to follow.

Changes Based on Public Feedback

The draft Zoning Bylaw and Sign Bylaw were released publicly in January for public review and consultation. The feedback received during that process identified additional improvements or refinements that have been incorporated into the proposed Zoning Bylaw and Sign Bylaw.  The following section outlines the major changes between the January public draft of the proposed Zoning Bylaw and Sign Bylaw and the current versions of the documents.

Limitation on Size of Front Garage

The OCP guidelines for complete neighbourhoods suggest measures should be taken to ensure that garages that front the street do not dominate the streetscape.

The version of the proposed Zoning Bylaw released in January proposed that where the minimum lot frontage is between 8.5 metres and 10.36 metres, a front attached garage could not be more than 61% of the building width. This would permit the development of a one car garage on these lots. Where the minimum lot frontage is 10.36 metres or more, it was proposed that the garage be allowed to be as much as 77% of the building width. This would permit the development of at least a two-car garage, depending on the actual lot frontage.

The zones that were consolidated to make the RN – Residential Neighbourhood zone, are the zones that have a minimum lot frontage requirement of 10.36 metres or greater. Together, these zones account for 70% of all land zoned residential. The housing product in these zones are typically developed with an attached two car garage and would still be allowable even if the proposed Zoning Bylaw were approved.

The feedback from the development industry was that this proposed change was too restrictive and would likely have unintended consequences on the housing market. This highlighted a need for further work with the development industry on how to best realize this OCP policy, which will be completed as future work. Accordingly, the proposed regulations on limitation on size of front garage were removed from the proposed Zoning Bylaw. 

Residential Zero-Lot Development

A zero-lot development is one that has a side yard setback of zero on one side. That is, it allows a building to be placed right onto one of the side property lines. This type of development was previously allowed in the city but was prohibited in the 1980’s due to provincial legislative changes.

In the current Zoning Bylaw, residential zero-lot development is allowed in the PUD – Planned Unit Development zone. The Act no longer allows for PUD zoning and, accordingly, new PUD – Planned Unit Development zones can not be designated. The land uses permitted in a residential PUD – Planned Unit Development zone are no different from those allowed in other residential zones, except that PUD – Planned Unit Development zone is subject to maintenance easement between two residential zero-lot developments, so that the property owner of the building built on the side lot line has access to the side of their building. This is usually used to perform any required maintenance work.

Development proponents indicated that there is demand for residential zero-lot developments. This type of development provides an option to build wider buildings than would be possible with the typical development standards. At the same time, it ensures that there is a wide separation between buildings on the lot which contributes positively to the public realm.

The version of the proposed Zoning Bylaw released in January, included provisions to allow new residential zero-lot developments to be constructed outside the PUD – Planned Unit Development zone. Allowing this housing type would support OCP policy regarding encouraging developers to provide a diversity of housing options. The proposed Zoning Bylaw included provisions that a maintenance easement must be registered on the title of both properties and must be maintained for the life of the zero-lot development. The title registration ensures that all future property owners know that the maintenance easement requirement exists before they purchase the property. Due to this requirement, a proposed residential zero lot development in an existing area would require the permission and cooperation of the neighbouring property owner. Without this permission, no new residential zero-lot development could be pursued on a property. 

The feedback obtained during the review and comment period identified that many members of the public were opposed to including residential zero-lot development in the proposed Zoning Bylaw. The primary concern raised was the potential conflict it could raise between neighbours in obtaining neighbour consent to pursue a residential zero-lot development or potential conflict with neighbours regarding maintenance issues. The provisions allotted to Planned Groups of Dwellings currently provide options for development proponents to place buildings in a number of different configurations. As a result, the proposed regulations to allow new residential zero-lot developments within the city were removed from the proposed Zoning Bylaw. 

Consolidate I and PS zones

The version of the proposed Zoning Bylaw released in January, included the consolidation of the existing PS – Public Service zone into the existing I – Institutional zone. Both zones contemplate similar land uses and development standards. Further, there is overlap in the intents of both zones, particularly with regard to providing opportunities to improve the quality of life for residents through recreational purposes. This change, by itself, would not have allowed existing open space to be developed for other purposes. Open spaces are typically City owned or part of a school. As is currently the case, any change in the use of these spaces would require the approval of the City or the School Board. Further, in some areas, the open space is a dedicated municipal reserve, which is subject to the provisions of the Act about how such land can be used. Pursuant to the Act, a municipal reserve is most commonly created from lands provided to the City as part of the subdivision of a new area or land vested in the Crown but transferred to the City for public use. Section 192 of the Act indicates that a municipal reserve is only to be use for:

(a)   a public park or buffer strip;

(b)   a public recreation area;

(c)   school purposes;

(d)   a natural area;

(e)   a public building or facility;

(f)    a building or facility used and owned by a charitable corporation as defined in The Non-profit Corporations Act, 1995;

(g)   agricultural or horticultural uses; or

(h)   any other specific or general use that the minister may prescribe by regulation.

However, Section 22 of the Act indicates that City Council may permit uses on a municipal reserve other than those uses mentioned in subsection 192(1) if:

(a)   specific policies respecting those other uses are contained in the municipality’s approved official community plan; and

(b)   those uses are consistent with the principle of maintaining municipal reserves, and buildings located on municipal reserves, for public purposes.

The feedback obtained during the review and comment period identified that many members of the public were opposed to the proposed consolidation of the I – Institutional zone and the PS – Public Service zones. The primary concern identified was that this would allow for undesirable commercial development within open spaces or the repurposing of parks to other uses without appropriate public consultation. As a result, the proposed consolidation of the zones is not included in the current version of the proposed Zoning Bylaw.

Stacked and Buildings, Row Above 11 Metres Discretionary

In the draft Zoning Bylaw released in January, some zones allowed for stacked and buildings, row higher than 11 metres as a permitted use. This was largely a carry forward of the regulations from the current Zoning Bylaw.

However, public feedback received following the release of the draft Zoning Bylaw and the consideration of recent developments and applying the current Zoning Bylaw over time identified some impacts that taller multi-unit residential developments were having on neighbouring residential properties.  To address this issue where stacked and row buildings exceeding a height of 11 metres are proposed adjacent to residential or on a site that already contains residential use,, they will be discretionary uses.

This applies in all zones that accommodate these land uses to allow the City to consider the impacts of each proposed development on a case-by-case basis and to ensure the public is engaged and has the opportunity to provide input in the process.  The discretionary use process will also provide the Development Officer with the opportunity to address site specific conditions and context and apply standards that improve land use compatibility including arrangement and proximity of buildings.

Signs

The January version of the proposed Sign Bylaw included a 10-year validity period for sign permits issued for any permanent sign. Under the current Zoning Bylaw, sign permits are issued in perpetuity. While the regulation was proposed to apply to all permanent signs, the intent of the proposed regulation was primarily to allow for the review of digital signs every 10 years, giving the City the ability to react to any unintended negative impacts caused by digital signs. Stakeholder feedback indicated that this would make investment in signs more challenging for businesses due to the risk that they may need to be removed after 10 years.

The proposed standards for digital signs will sufficiently address many of the potential negative impacts on traffic safety and the amenity of the City, therefore the Administration removed the validity period regulations from the proposed Sign Bylaw.

Effective Date

If the proposed Zoning Bylaw and Sign Bylaw are approved, it is suggested that they come into force 30 days after the receipt of ministerial approval. This will give the Administration time to implement a communication strategy to prepare the public for the change. 

Development permit applications that are submitted prior to the effective date of the proposed Zoning Bylaw will continue to be processed and approved under the provisions of the current Zoning Bylaw. See Appendix A-10 for a description of the process.

RECOMMENDATION IMPLICATIONS

Financial Implications

The approval of the proposed payment-in-lieu as part of the process to obtain a parking relaxation could result in funding being available to the City to off-set the cost of acquisition, construction, operation or maintenance of parking facilities or the capital costs of the transit system.

The approval of the proposed Zoning Bylaw also supports OCP policies regarding developing complete neighbourhoods, which will help the City in meeting OCP goals related to long term financial sustainability. Encouraging a compact urban form and mixed-use development will enable residents to have many of their needs met without having to travel long distances. This would mean that the City may not need to invest as much in roadway infrastructure in the future. The proposed Zoning Bylaw also supports development along transit nodes and corridors, which could increase the financial viability of transit.

Environmental Implications

The proposed Zoning Bylaw includes regulations that encourage active transportation such as the requirement for bicycle parking and shower facilities. It also includes provisions that would enable a reduction in the minimum motor vehicle parking requirements. Mixed use developments and building design that create an improved pedestrian experience are also encouraged through development standard relaxations. These measures may contribute to a reduction in the number of daily motor vehicle trips in the city, which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Aquifer, floodway and industrial use protections are achieved within the proposed Zoning Bylaw.

Policy/Strategic Implications

The proposed Zoning Bylaw helps to achieve a number of policies across various sections of the OCP. It also includes regulations intended to achieve policies in a number of other significant City policy documents such as the Comprehensive Housing Strategy, the Transportation Master Plan, and the Downtown Transportation Study. See Appendix A-3 for the complete list of in scope policies.

Other Implications

Consequential Amendments

The approval of the proposed Zoning Bylaw will necessitate consequential amendments to a number of other City bylaws. Some of these were discussed earlier in the section on “Transitioning Regulations”. The remaining bylaws that are proposed to be amended are discussed below.

Passage of the proposed Sign Bylaw will require the repeal of the existing sign regulations for signs on public property, including public notice boards and sandwich board signs, from Regina Clean Property Bylaw No. 9881. It will also require the repeal of the construction regulations for signs that are currently in the Building Bylaw. The other regulations that currently apply to signs that are included in these bylaws are proposed to be carried over in generally the same form into the proposed Sign Bylaw.

The Committee Bylaw No. 2009-40 (Committee Bylaw) prescribes the terms of reference of the Regina Planning Commission (RPC) to say that the RPC is authorized to review all discretionary use requests. If the proposed Zoning Bylaw is approved, the Committee Bylaw will need to be amended to reflect that the RPC will only review discretionary use applications where the Development Officer has declined to exercise delegated authority and a report is required to be sent to City Council for an initial decision. This is because of the proposed delegation of authority to the Development Officer for discretionary uses. This is distinct from where an application is being submitted directly to City Council for review a decision already made by the Development Officer.  

Accessibility Implications

The proposed Zoning Bylaw removes a number of current restrictions on the development of group care facilities as detailed earlier in the report. Further, it requires that accessible parking stall include above ground signage and be placed closest to an accessible entrance, where it exists, or another entrant otherwise. These changes will help to protect some of the most vulnerable members of the society. This helps to achieve one of City Council’s vision for Regina for to be Canada’s most inclusive city, expressed in the OCP.

COMMUNICATIONS

The proposed Zoning Bylaw was released publicly on regina.ca for review and comment on January 25, 2019, along with extensive supplemental information about the Bylaw’s purpose and function. Public consultation was conducted through a series of Zoning 101 sessions held in each ward from January 29 through March 7, 2019. Letters were mailed to each Regina postal address to notify of these sessions. The proposed Sign Bylaw was concurrently released for public review on regina.ca on January 25, 2019.

During the initial public consultation period (January 25 – March 15), there were 399 public comments received on the proposed Zoning Bylaw. A more detailed accounting of the comments and the Administration’s response is provided in Appendix A-7.

There were an additional 52 public comments received on the proposed Sign Bylaw. A more detailed accounting of the comments and the Administration’s response is provided in Appendix A-8.

Upon first reading of the proposed Zoning Bylaw, public notice of City Council’s intent to consider the Bylaw will be carried out pursuant to the statutory requirements outlined in the Act. This will include addressed letters sent to all property owners within the city and a notice placed in the Leader-Post for four consecutive weeks.

In advance of the requisite public hearing of City Council, zoning clinics will be held from May 21 to June 14, 2019 at City Hall and at designated shopping centres throughout the city where staff will be present to answer questions from property owners regarding the proposed property zone changes.

Communication with the public is summarized below:

Interested parties received a copy of the report and will receive written notification of the public hearing. They will also receive a written notification of City Council’s decision.

DELEGATED AUTHORITY

City Council’s approval is required, pursuant to Part V of The Planning and Development Act, 2007.  Before coming into force, the proposed Zoning Bylaw and Sign Bylaw must be approved by the Minister of Government Relations.

Report prepared by: