Study Writer Urges Caution on Industrial Plans
The author of a 2009 study on the location of a light industrial park in the northwest annexed lands said he was still concerned about the viability of the idea.
In an April 6 letter to city council, David Klippenstein and his business partner Greg Hofmann said that although they supported the ideas and principles of smart growth, they were unsure about the city’s need for the 283-gross hectare light industrial area and expressed concern about its location near Carrot Creek.
“We’re not saying don’t do it, just make sure we’ve done due diligence,” said Klippenstein, who worked for international planning and development group AECOM when he did the study. “It raises the question that wasn’t in the report: is this too much land?”
The report was commissioned by city council in 2009 to determine which one of three spots in the annexed lands would be best for a light industrial site. One spot was east of St. Albert Trail, while another was located on the northeast edge of Big Lake.
The Carrot Creek location was deemed the best of the three proposed sites, saying regulations regarding the capped landfill on the site meant land use is limited. The report also said access to major roads such as Ray Gibbon Drive also make it more attractive for industrial development.
“We’re not saying it’s the ideal but of the three sites, it’s the best,” said Klippenstein. “The task was to compare and evaluate them to find the most suitable of the three.”
According to Larry Horncastle, director of economic development and tourism, each of the three sites had elements that made none perfect.
“Residential taxes don’t cover all the services we use,” he said, referring to the residential/non-residential tax split the city has said it needs to increase its tax base. “We need that future study area to help us achieve that 80/20 [tax balance].”
Environmental factors
As part of the analysis of the land near Carrot Creek, the report pointed to its role as part of the Big Lake wetland area and as a habitat for several microspecies in the area. City manager Bill Holtby said it has addressed those concerns by building a road that separates the industrial land from the creek and will ensure there are no vehicles backing into that area.
“The industrial park would have less impact on the environment than residential,” said Holtby. “By it not being residential, it would reduce the traffic.”
However, Avenir’s environmental engineer Dave Bromley said the concerns brought forward by the report prove their model, which would see residential housing near the creek and non-residential closer to the city, would work better.
“Residential people would care about this asset,” he said. “The landfill, that’s the area you should have the industrial-commercial land.”
He added that with the ecological setup in the area, a potential spill near the creek would spread quickly.
“The city should recognize the warning signs from the study.”
Additional comments
Klippenstein said his letter was more about making additional comments about the area that were not appropriate to include in the study, to ensure the city truly weighed the impacts of a light industrial park between the environmental concerns and possible marketability of the site.
“Density demands design … land design alone isn’t going to do it,” he said, adding that he would like to see a market study done before the industrial park is built.
