TAMRMS#: B06
7.1
REQUEST FOR DECISION
title
Bylaw 2/2026 - Land Use Bylaw Amendments (1st, 2nd, 3rd Readings)
Presented by:
Craig Walker, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Department
Barb Dupuis, Planner, Planning & Development Department
label
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
recommendation
1. That the Public Hearing on Bylaw 2/2026 be closed.
2. That Bylaw 2/2026, being amendment 12 to Land Use Bylaw 18/2024, be read a first time.
3. That Bylaw 2/2026 be read a second time.
4. That unanimous consent be given for consideration of third reading of Bylaw 2/2026.
5. That Bylaw 2/2026 be read a third time.
body
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide information, rationale, and recommendations on proposed amendments to the Land Use Bylaw. Some of these are entirely to reflect minor clarification amendments identified post 2024 adoption (aka housekeeping in nature), while others stem from parts of the City’s Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) agreement with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).
The proposed amending bylaw can be found in Attachment #1. A more reader-friendly “redline” version showing the proposed changes is in Attachment #2, while a rationale document explaining the proposed changes is in Attachment #3.
ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL DIRECTION OR MANDATORY STATUTORY PROVISION
● The Municipal Government Act, Planning Bylaws, Section 692(1) states:
Before giving second reading to:
(e) a proposed land use bylaw, or
a Council must hold a public hearing with respect to the proposed bylaw in accordance with section 216.4, after giving notice of it in accordance with section 606.
● Relevant policies from the Municipal Development Plan, Flourish, can be found in Attachment #5.
● On December 9, 2025, Standing Committee of the Whole received the following report as information: “Introduction & Updates re. Housing Accelerator Fund” (AR-25-455). A copy of that report and associated presentation can be found in Attachments #8 and #9, respectively.
● On May 6, 2025, Council passed the following motion:
AR-25-203
“That PLAN-013 Housing Accelerator Fund Initiatives be approved in the amount of $11,813,100, to be funded from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) Program.”
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Context
The Land Use Bylaw (LUB) is an existing document adopted by City Council in 2024 that enables development within St. Albert’s municipal limits. As required by the Government of Alberta’s Municipal Government Act, the LUB covers a wide range of development regulations, including:
• Establishing processes associated with development permits and redistricting properties;
• Classifying land use districts and determining development standards such as the height, form, and use of buildings;
• Determining appropriate permitted and discretionary uses for each land use district; and more.
For efficiencies, there are three groupings of Administration initiated LUB amendments being recommended concurrently, including:
1. Minor clarification (aka housekeeping) amendments;
2. “Established Neighbourhood Overlay” amendments; and
3. Minimum residential parking supply regulation amendments.
Further details regarding the proposed amendments are as follows:
1. Housekeeping Amendments
When the new LUB was approved in 2024, Administration had committed to monitoring and assessing challenges. As a result, various housekeeping amendments are now being proposed, which are predominantly clerical in nature and impact numbering, grammar, typographical errors, figures, maps, etc.
In addition, for consistency with other lower-density residential districts, there are proposed changes to ensure that garage and garden suites are development options in the “Future Urban Development” (FUD) district; and likewise, that a public utility building is a development option in the “Transitional” (TRN) district.
Furthermore, group homes have been added to Area C of the Midtown District, to be consistent with all other residential districts throughout St. Albert. There are also proposed changes to definitions, including hot tubs, cannabis, livestock, and townhousing - primarily to add clarity, as well as other related reasons explained in Attachment #3.
Lastly, there is one City-owned property west of Walmart associated with a stormwater management pond. This property is proposed to be redistricted to better-match its existing function on a public utility lot - further information is in Attachment #4.
As mentioned previously, a “redline” document outlining all the aforementioned changes can be found in Attachment #2, while the rationale is explained in Attachment #3.
2. Established Neighbourhood Overlay Amendments
The Government of Canada conditionally provided the City of St. Albert with up to $11.8 million in funding through the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) grant program - led by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). Like the other 240 funded communities across Canada, the City is required to use this funding to implement systemic process changes and regulatory updates in alignment with the program guidelines.
At Standing Committee of the Whole on December 9, 2025, Administration provided information on the seven inter-related HAF initiatives underway, which were endorsed by Council via project charter approval in May 2025, and are deemed to be a corporate priority between 2025 and 2029. Two of these initiatives now require a Council decision by the end of January 2026 to satisfy deadlines outlined in the City’s funding agreement with the CMHC.
The goal of this HAF initiative (known as “Initiative #2” within the CMHC agreement) is to identify and implement ‘quick win’ solutions to known regulatory challenges in the Land Use Bylaw - specifically, within the “Established Neighbourhood Overlay” (ENO).
An “overlay” is a supplemental layer of Land Use Bylaw regulations which apply to a specific geographic area. In this instance, although the vast majority of single-detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and duplexes across the City are regulated through the “Low Density Residential” (LDR) district in newer and older neighbourhoods alike, the ENO (originally introduced in 2006) adds more regulations to such LDR properties within the established neighbourhoods of Lacombe Park, Mission, the Gardens, Woodlands, Braeside, Forest Lawn, Sturgeon Heights, and Akinsdale.
Based upon Administration’s experience using the ENO and with input from targeted representatives within the infill development/building industry, the existing ENO regulations were reviewed to determine what changes would provide greater clarity, and to determine what specific ENO and/or LDR regulations should take precedence (e.g. building setbacks/heights, lot coverage) at the development permit stage.
Through this work, Administration sought to balance the character of established neighbourhoods and streetscapes (as the ENO originally intended), while also encouraging redevelopment already enabled within the LDR district city-wide.
As detailed further in the rationale document in Attachment #3, the existing ENO regulations are limiting unrealized housing opportunities within St. Albert’s older communities, which will face increasing redevelopment pressures. To demonstrate, the ENO imposes restrictive limits on the LDR’s regulations on lot coverage, building heights, and setbacks - which do not reflect today’s residential development trends in relation to enabling covered decks and sunrooms, adding a full second story with desired ceiling heights, flexible gathering spaces, or adding additional bedrooms/bathrooms. More specifically, the ENO involves complex “context-based” regulations which rely on neighbouring properties for calculation which necessitate that the first proponent to redevelop on any given block will face more restrictions in comparison to subsequent proponents choosing to redevelop later on.
In addition, the proposed changes to the ENO will also:
1) Enable applicants to easily self-determine the potential building pocket and development criteria for a parcel, thereby requiring less assistance from Administration;
2) Support modern renovations by matching the LDR’s allowed height and lot coverage to make it easier to update older homes;
3) Provide greater flexibility for garage placement on corner lots;
4) Streamline decision-making processes; and
5) Reduce duplication of rules (between the ENO and LDR).
To clarify, none of the permitted nor discretionary uses (such as single and semi-detached dwellings, secondary suites, or accessory development) within the LDR district are proposed to change. Furthermore, the LDR’s maximum development regulations (e.g. height, gross floor area, etc.) are not proposed to change either. The ENO supplements the regulations of the underlaying LDR district. The LDR district itself is not affected by this proposed amending bylaw.
Of note, the City of Edmonton had experienced similar issues with its equivalent “Mature Neighbourhood Overlay”, which was retired entirely when Edmonton’s new LUB (aka ‘Zoning Bylaw’) came into effect in 2024 - thereby making development regulations consistent in both greenfield and infill contexts. While some representatives of the infill building/development industry suggested that St. Albert should do likewise and simply retire the existing ENO, Administration is recommending a more balanced approach, unique to and reflective of St. Albert. For more rationale on each proposed change, please see Attachment #3.
In summary, the objective of these proposed ENO amendments is to enable the LDR district’s existing opportunities to be more easily achieved by updating ENO regulations in a thoughtful and balanced manner. This will help to create more viable redevelopment conditions in established communities.
3. Minimum Residential Parking Supply Regulation Amendments
The goal of this HAF initiative (known as “Initiative #6” within the CMHC agreement) is to better “right-size” minimum residential parking supply regulations in a manner consistent with best practices, research, and St. Albert-specific on-site data collection.
As with Initiative #2 (regarding the ENO), a Council decision is also required on this matter by the end of January 2026 to satisfy deadlines outlined in the CMHC’s funding agreement.
Parking is a component of development affordability, with underground parking being particularly costly to construct (e.g. $45,000+ per space). The exact cost is dependent upon a multitude of factors (e.g. number of underground parking levels, soil conditions, parking lot size and configuration, etc.); however, one study (Todd Litman) suggests that parking reforms such as the kind being described through this project “can typically reduce the costs of basic, lower-priced housing by 10-20%”. Informed opportunities to reduce minimum parking supply requirements of residential developments have the potential to improve affordability - and in a manner that is more cost effective than other cost saving measures.
To explore further, Administration retained a consultant to conduct a comparative jurisdictional scan of the various minimum residential parking supply requirements of regional and/or similar municipalities. In addition, recognizing that higher density residential developments have the highest parking stall counts and the greatest likelihood of requiring underground parking, the consultant conducted parking observations at ten apartment buildings in the St. Albert to assess their utilization.
To summarize the study’s findings:
- The jurisdictional scan indicates that St. Albert’s minimum residential parking supply requirements are generally in-line with comparable municipalities; however, there are several opportunities to align parking supply regulations with demand, discussed below.
- The parking supply requirements for affordable non-market housing (outside of downtown), group homes, and supportive living accommodation are higher than the range of requirements for peer municipalities and can be reduced.
- The minimum parking supply requirements for “townhouse - plex” (i.e. triplex or fourplex on a corner lot with lane access only) can be reduced to enable housing redevelopment projects.
- For the ten apartment sites where data was collected, the observed parking utilization rate ranged from 0.66 to 1.02 stalls per dwelling unit, with an average of 0.85 and median of 0.87 utilized stalls per dwelling unit. This is evidence to support reducing the current residential parking rate for non-downtown apartments, which currently requires a minimum of 1 stall per dwelling unit.
The complete parking regulation study is provided for reference in Attachment #6.
As a result of that study, Administration is recommending the following changes to right-size select kinds of residential parking. For simplification, any associated parking supply requirements that are not proposed to change are not illustrated in the below table - e.g. visitors, employees, etc. However, as requested during the December 9, 2025 Standing Committee of the Whole, more comprehensive examples have been provided where helpful within the rationale document in Attachment #3, and furthermore will be incorporated into the PowerPoint presentation on January 27, 2026.
|
Type of Development |
Existing Regulation |
Proposed Regulation |
|
● "Dwelling (Apartment)”, ● "Dwelling Unit Above a Non-Residential Use” ● “Dwelling (Loft Unit)" |
● 1 parking space per dwelling unit |
● 0.9 parking spaces per dwelling unit [Note: excludes Downtown] |
|
● "Dwelling (Townhouse - Plex)" |
● 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit |
● 1 parking space per dwelling unit |
|
● "Supportive Living Accommodation" |
● 1 parking space per dwelling unit |
● 1 parking space per 3 dwelling units |
|
● "Affordable Non-Market Housing" |
● 1 visitor parking space per 7 dwelling units |
● 1 visitor parking space per 10 dwelling units |
Reduced minimum parking supply requirements does not necessarily mean that less parking supply will be provided by developers in all instances. As they are minimums, developers can go above and beyond to help ensure their customer parking needs are met. However, reduced requirements could help to lessen costs for developers, which could theoretically be passed along to end-users (e.g. homeowners/tenants), making for more efficient land development, and enabling smaller developers and non-profit organizations to proceed with their developments in a manner that might not otherwise be possible. This is particularly critical for ‘missing middle’ housing forms - a product that is lacking in St. Albert. To provide the context between “missing middle product” and parking, the current “Townhouse-Plex” regulations require higher parking provisions compared to other housing forms with the same number of units. Specifically, a “Townhouse-Plex” mandates two stalls per unit; therefore, a four-unit townhouse on a corner lot must provide eight stalls. In contrast, a semi-detached dwelling with two secondary suites requires four stalls. Based on this regulation, Administration has identified the parking requirement as a key factor contributing to the absence of “Townhouse-Plex” applications in the mature neighbourhoods within St. Albert, while neighboring municipalities are experiencing growth in this housing type.
STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS OR ENGAGEMENT
Feedback was sought from the public, internal, and external interested parties, including:
• A “What We Learned” Report that details engagement with the public and interest holders, and the summary of responses is shown as Attachment #7.
• A questionnaire was circulated to targeted representatives of the infill building and development industry.
• A staff event on all HAF initiatives was held on October 1, 2025. This included information on the ENO updates and right-sizing minimum parking supply regulations.
• A public open house was held on November 24, 2025, at Servus Place in relation to Initiatives #2, #6, and the broader Land Use Bylaw Housekeeping amendments.
• The proposed Land Use Bylaw redistricting (for the existing stormwater management pond) was circulated to the public on November 5, 2025.
• In addition, a presentation by Administration was made at the December 9, 2025 Standing Committee of the Whole meeting, in relation to the HAF project in general, and the associated Land Use Bylaw amendments. The previously distributed agenda report and presentation are attached.
The public hearing is scheduled for January 27, 2026. A public hearing notice has been posted on the City website, and St. Albert Gazette advertisements appeared on both January 8, and 15, 2026. A news release was also issued for this public hearing.
IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION(S)
Financial:
As detailed within the Housing Accelerator Fund Contribution Agreement between the City and the CMHC, Council consideration of Initiatives #2 (re. the ENO) and #6 (re. parking supply regulations) is required by the end of January 2026 to help ensure additional funds are advanced from the CMHC.
Compliance & Legal:
First reading for Bylaw 2/2026 is not a debatable motion, and is required in order to table a bylaw for Council’s consideration. Providing first reading of a bylaw does not indicate agreement with the bylaw, but rather is the process by which bylaws may be put forward in accordance with procedural fairness principles.
The public hearing and first, second, and third readings of Bylaw 2/2026 are scheduled for the same day. The Municipal Government Act provides that a proposed bylaw must not have more than two readings at a council meeting unless the council members present unanimously agree to consider third reading at the same meeting.
If unanimous consent for third reading of Bylaw 2/2026 is not granted on January 27, 2026, after first and second reading, third reading of Bylaw 2/2026 will be considered at the next regular Council meeting on February 3, 2026. During that time between January 27, 2026, and February 3, 2026, Council members will be unable to accept further written or verbal submissions germane to this matter, and will not be able to ask for new, substantive information on the subject matter prior to third reading (MGA, s. 187; Procedure Bylaw, Schedule E, s. 19).
Program or Service:
None at this time.
Organizational:
None at this time.
Risks
None at this time.
ALIGNMENT TO PRIORITIES IN COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC PLAN
Strategic Priority One: Economic Prosperity: “Support plans and agreements that foster development in St. Albert, including mature neighbourhoods, and build affordability in all new development. This strategy includes completion of the Infill Strategy.”
Strategic Priority Three: Community Well Being: “Support development of mixed housing choices including market, attainable, and transitional housing types.”
ALIGNMENT TO LEVELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
This aligns with Service Level Inventory Items:
• D.1.2 Issuance of Land Use and Development Permits and Licenses; and
• D.4.1 Current Planning Application Processing, which includes processing and coordination of the approval of statutory plans and amendments, subdivision and condominium applications.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
If Council does not wish to support the recommendation, the following alternative could be considered:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
Defeat second or third reading of Bylaw 2/2026.
Financial:
As per the Housing Accelerator Fund Contribution Agreement between the City and the CMHC, Council consideration of Initiatives #2 (re. the ENO) and #6 (re. parking supply regulations) is required by the end of January 2026 to advance additional funds from the CMHC. By not giving second and third readings, there is a risk that the City will not receive future funding installments from the CMHC.
Furthermore, it should be noted that other federal funding programs - such as the Canada Public Transit Fund and the Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund grants - have included funding requirements and conditions that align with the desired outcomes that have instigated these amendments: increasing the supply of housing, and making housing more affordable. For example, grant requirements have included stipulations such as reducing or eliminating parking requirements in certain districts. Although these grant requirements are currently subject to change (related to the Federal Government’s recent Q4 2025 Budget Approval and its changes to grant programs), not giving second and third readings of this bylaw could potentially create a more challenging eligibility environment with regards to the City being able to access federal funding programs.
Compliance & Legal:
None at this time.
Program or Service:
None at this time.
Organizational:
None at this time.
Risks:
See ‘Financial’ above.
body
Report Date: January 27, 2026
Authors: Craig Walker & Barb Dupuis
Department: Planning Branch
Department Director: Kristina Peter
Managing Director: Adryan Slaght
Chief Administrative Officer: William Fletcher