In a series of comments that ranged from sympathetic to angry, residents of Porter Creek gave their views on the city's proposed development plans for their neighbourhood Thursday night.

In a public meeting which began at 7 p.m. in the packed Holy Family Elementary School gym, residents heard a review of the development options.

They then gave their opinions in the meeting's question and answer period.

The meeting was chaired by an independent host, Rob Roycroft, a former director of the city's community development division. He described his role as one in which he was to facilitate the discussion and not take sides.

The meeting centred around a recently-released feasibility study for Porter Creek development which was presented to council and included four options:

ï Option one calls for 208 single-family lots and two multi-family sites, generating up to 200 units, spread over two development phases.

The development option is estimated to cost $18 million. It allows for the option of a McIntyre Creek road crossing to link up with Prospector Road. The highest individual lot cost is estimated at $89,000.

ï Option two proposes to generate 236 single-family lots in two development phases. The development cost is estimated at $19 million with a per-lot cost of $81,000.

ï Option three calls for the generation of 387 single-family lots over a seven- to-eight year period at a cost of approximately $26 million.

ï Option four is similar to option three but has a reduction in the number of single-family lots to 340 and an addition of five potential multi-family lots and an estimated development cost of $26 million. The option would provide lots for the city for eight-plus years but would involve some trail relocation.

In presenting the options, city planners said the city needs new lots to ward against future lot shortages, ensure economic development, avoid urban sprawl and ensure people coming to the city have a place to live.

Following the presentation, given by planners Mike Gau and Mike Ellis, residents told the city officials what they thought.

'I'm really opposed to this development ... you guys got us between a rock and a hard place,' said Porter Creek resident Brian Thompson.

He explained he felt the city is ignoring other development possibilities at the expense of his neighbourhood.

'They've given up on Riverdale and they've given up on Takhini North; you guys have your mind made up,' he said.

He told city officials if they are going to build, give Porter Creek residents one courtesy 'minimize your impact.'

Fellow resident Trina Irvine shared Thompson's view on Riverdale, saying she felt her area's natural environment would suffer at the hands of developers.

'I don't want to see any of this,' she said.

The Riverdale area was also subject to a feasibility study and was, until recently, the centre of controversy.

Earlier this week, city officials scrapped their immediate plans for infill development, saying they will look at the plan again in several years but will focus on areas with larger development potential such as 'Porter Creek and Takhini North.'

Porter Creek couple Reg and Gerry Steers also voiced their disapproval.

'What you're looking for is to improve on a rotten plan. But we can't have a say in not having the plan implemented,' Reg said.

'To build new houses will take away from the quality of life of current residents,' Gerry added.

Resident Heather Dundas said she didn't feel enough was being done to protect the wildlife.

'I don't think the wildlife issue has been addressed. The corridor exists because we've already built in areas to the north and to the south of the river,' she said.

Mixed in with overwhelming discontent with the proposed development were a spattering of positive comments.

Audience member Jutta Hopkins said she is in favour of development in Porter Creek to attract new residents but wanted to see some concerns heeded.

'To have an elitist point-of-view and not welcoming more people to our city? If we can't provide housing for them, they won't stay here. Everyone deserves a chance to build their own house,' she said.

She said she doesn't want to see roundabouts, also included in some of the plans, and is opposed to a river crossing.

Saying that city planners would consider residents' concerns in their development plans, Gau explained that the proposed development has been in the works for the past several years, Porter Creek has been zoned future development since 1997 and that the city's Official Community Plan called for this kind of development and is driving the proposal.

'Part of the advantage of infill is you're taking advantage of an already-existing service. That's where the real cost savings are, using existing infrastructure,' Gau said.

He said the proposed developments would likely be serviced from Mountainview Drive and reminded residents that the city is still looking at developing in other areas such as Takhini North.

'It's really time for this area to be developed,' he said.

Ellis added that environmental studies on the area has been done and pointed out that the environmental protection of McIntyre Creek would actually be expanded under the plan.

'The closest the developments could come to the creek is 100 metres,' he said.

Planners told residents, as they wrote down suggestions, that they would try to incorporate their views in a final development plan and would hold another public meeting.