After years of dealing with vehicles coming and going from 810 Wheeler St., Heather Kennedy doesn't want to deal with the traffic using the back alley to the new housing development proposed for the property.

On Monday evening, Kennedy spoke at the city's public input session on the conditional use application being sought for the triplex to go ahead.

"I have spoken with the majority of the people who live on the end of that block and the consensus that I have felt that has come across to me is that we do not want multiple drivers on that lane," Kennedy said.

She later noted she has already collected some signatures of other residents who share the opinion.

Habitat for Humanity Yukon, Yukon College and the Yukon Housing Corp. are partnering on the initiative, named the Phoenix Rising, on the site of the former drug house that was demolished last summer.

The housing corporation purchased the property from its former owner, Natalie Stinson of Edmonton (who inherited it after her mother died) for $163,000.

The corporation then donated the property to Habitat for Humanity, which builds homes for people who can't afford a traditional mortgage. Yukon College's role will be in training future trades workers to build to SuperGreen standards.

As a triplex, the conditional use permit is required.

For years, Kennedy told council, the lane proposed for use has been filled with drug dealers, "many, many scenarios where there's been thefts, robberies, a lack of respect for personal property."

While she agrees with Habitat for Humanity president Todd Hardy, who spoke earlier during the meeting, that the area should be open to young families, Kennedy said she doesn't agree with the three parking spots proposed.

A new development nearby has parking in the back next to the lane, but Kennedy pointed out it is on a corner and not facing a park, as this one does.

The development, she suggested, could obstruct residents' view of the park and creates safety concerns over children playing in the area.

"We've got little kids playing in a park, going to fetch balls," she said.

She pointed to a scenario where a child goes running into the alley after a ball while a driver, who doesn't see the child, is backing up into the alley.

"I don't want the park fenced off and I know none of the neighbourhood does," Kennedy told council.

"That park has been awesome and a benefit for our little area and especially since we have dealt with the drug dealers and the drug traffic for the last 20 years."

Barbara Adam voiced her support for the project. She also suggested, however, that council examine the impact traffic could have, given the potential for more dust in the neighbourhood after vehicles travel on the unpaved lane.

Adam also asked for an explanation from the city on why parking is proposed to be accessed from the lane. Mayor Bev Buckway stated a report will come to council from staff dealing with each of the issues heard during the input session.

Overall though, Adam said, the new housing development will be an asset for the downtown neighbourhood.

Outside council chambers following the public input session, Hardy defended the plans. He argued the amount of traffic will be cut significantly over what residents experienced when the property was home to a drug house.

"There's assumptions being made that everyone has a vehicle, that everyone's driving in the alley, it's going to be mass traffic," said Hardy, who also lives downtown.

"I suspect it's going to be about one 1/100th of the traffic that the drug place had."

He went on to suggest neighbourhood kids aren't likely to leave the park to go play in the alley. Anyone has access to the alley in the back and can build a driveway from the alley to their home, he said.

"The way it's situated now is to allow parking for people who have vehicles in the back," he said, adding the plan came largely out of meetings that were held with city staff.

The project will be an improvement, he said.

"I understand the concerns, but I think they're unjustified," Hardy said. "They're not giving this a fair opportunity."

With the exception of one issue brought directly to him earlier , Hardy hadn't heard objections to the project after hosting meetings and being public about the triplex.

"We have not been secret about this project. If anything, we've been over the top," he said, pointing to the letters handed out, meetings hosted and so on to inform people of the plan.

He did acknowledge the plans weren't as detailed at the last public meeting; however, he also pointed out site plans were published in the newspaper showing the proposed parking plans.

Both Hardy and Mary McAvoy voiced their support for the conditional use permit in separate presentations to council. They cited the benefits of having new families in the neighbourhood with a mix of people calling Old Town home.

It will fit the needs of the community, McAvoy said.

"We have an opportunity to give three families a home they probably would never afford otherwise," Hardy pointed out.

Had the project proposed one less unit, it would have also avoided going through the conditional use application, permitted as a primary use on the property, city manager Dennis Shewfelt confirmed when questioned by Coun. Jeanine Myhre.

Two parking spaces, rather than three, would then be required and could be allotted at the back.

In an interview following the meeting, Buckway said the city will have to take a look at the traffic concerns before council votes on the matter.

The suggestion for parking at the back may come out of a desire to have the triplex located closer to the front property line, she said.

"In the planning process, you're always looking for ways of efficiency, and so if you have things closer to the front of the lot that allows you to get that parking off the front .... move the house close to the street, and then it just is in a better area and then you put the parking at the back," Buckway said. "It makes better use of the lot."

While she's been in the area, she said, she will likely go take another look at it before council votes on the matter.

"That's why we have these public input opportunities, so people can come. So we'll check it out and see what comes of it," he said.

The report to council will come forward at its May 4 meeting, followed by a vote at its May 11 meeting.