Officials with the city's planning department unveiled a revised plan for a Porter Creek development at a public meeting Thursday night.

The plan, which was derived from four previous options and public input, was released to the public at the Holy Family School in Porter Creek and was the subject of public debate.

Presented by city planner Mike Ellis, the revised development plan calls for the creation of several hundred lots to be developed over the next four years and includes both single-detached and multi-residential units.

Ellis told the residents attending the meeting, numbering in the neighbourhood of about 100, that planners had revised the plan taking into account the best portion of the previous four 'concepts' created by the planning department, as well as input and concerns collected from residents from a similar meeting held at the end of September.

'In a way it's (the new plan) an amalgamation of the four concepts and brings in some new things,' Ellis said.

According to the proposal, which was issued in a presentation and available to residents in the form of public handouts, the proposed development calls for the creation of 281 lots, 50 townhouse units, a neighbourhood commercial development and two recreational areas.

Timelines for the development include:

• The creation of 22 lots in 2006

• The development of 133 lots in 2007

• The creation of 67 lots and 50 townhouse units in 2008

• The creation of 59 lots in 2009

• An expansion of the minimum buffer zone from McIntyre Creek from 100 metres to 175 metres.

• Trail relocation.

• A roundabout and traffic calming measures on the proposed extension of Pine Street.

City planners also posted notices informing residents of future public input opportunities and development initiatives.

Future opportunities for public input include:

• Draft zoning bylaw revisions in November.

• An environmental assessment in 2006.

• A detailed subdivision design in 2006.

• A subdivision and development approval in 2006.

Future development proposals include:

• An area development scheme of the lower Porter Creek bench in 2006.

• A planning study in Takhini North when Municipal Rural Infrastructure Funding is secured.

Taking their opportunity to address the revised plan following the presentation, the majority of Porter Creek residents attending the meeting voiced their disapproval of the proposed development.

Resident Reg Steers compared the development to the television series Yes Minister and said the development was going to destroy an important recreational area and sensitive habitat.

'What I see here is the destruction of the Trans Canada Trail.'

He said he was disappointed that he didn't see any city politicians present at the meeting.

Fellow resident Tim Shoniker said he wanted to know if the city was planning on developing 100 or 200 lots.

'I hope you present council with some other options,' he told planner Mike Gau, who responded by saying that the revised proposal represented the basis of the plan which would be presented to council.

Brian Thompson again expressed his disapproval with the project, saying he was opposed to the development but was willing to compromise.

'I'm a realist ... I see some improvement (from the four concepts) but it's got to be smaller.

'We're asking for maybe 200 lots, lets get it down,' he said.

Thompson said residents never agreed to the development of townhouses and called on planners to 'get rid of them.'

He said both he and his fellow residents would prefer a development in the lower bench area.

Another resident called on the municipal government to limit the number of people moving to Whitehorse, because new residents would ruin the lifestyle of people who have already chosen to call Whitehorse home.

'I like to be able to drive downtown and when I see this kind of housing project, it's going to crowd my lifestyle.

'Maybe that's a bit greedy, but (the lifestyle) is why I moved here,' she said.

Porter Creek Community Association president Carole Bookless, who said she was speaking on her own behalf, said she was not happy with the revised proposal either.

'We were given four options. It went from a minimal impact (on the environment) to the maximum.

'You've made the largest possible footprint into our greenbelt,' she said.

Counsellors Doug Graham and Dave Stockdale, as well as Porter Creek MLA Jim Kenyon, were also present at the meeting.