Some Porter Creek residents' efforts to eliminate one planned property on Elm Street just may be successful.

At Monday evening's city council meeting, members indicated they had no problem getting rid of the proposed 1,001-square-metre Residential Single Detached property suggested for the north end of Elm Street.

The proposal is part of a larger plan by the city to put residential lots into five areas of Porter Creek and Crestview. The plan comes despite stated opposition by many who live nearby. Most are concerned about losing neighbourhood greenspace and environmentally protected zone land.

Council heard two presentations stressing the importance of a small riparian site near the single-family lot suggested for Elm Street. Afterward, councillors indicated they were fine with losing that lot from the plans.

"I too am fairly pleased with this,” Coun. Betty Irwin said of the overall plans. She then said she would also like to see the single-family Elm Street lot taken out, a sentiment echoed by councillors Doug Graham, Dave Austin, Dave Stockdale and Florence Roberts.

Their comments came later in the meeting after Elm Street resident Cameron Eckert made a presentation favouring the site being left as is.

"It's a remarkable area,” he told council as he reiterated a number of points made by local resident Pam Sinclair a week earlier on the riparian area and the impact development could have on local wildlife there.

The impacts of the development could extend outside the bounds of the lot, Eckert said, noting vegetation may be removed to prepare the site for development affecting wildlife in the area.

Not only would it impact wildlife, it could also affect an important community asset for those living nearby now and in the future, he said.

Pointing to the city's plans to rezone a site across the street to Residential Multiple Housing, Eckert suggested residents there would likely enjoy living so close to the riparian area.

Informed by Austin that it doesn't appear council supports the 1,001-square-metre site being developed, Eckert said he was "glad to hear that,” as it is an important site.

Mayor Bev Buckway pointed out later in the meeting amendments to the infill plan can come forward as the city moves through the rezoning process for the lots.

Prior to passing first reading on the rezoning for the sites (amendments are generally brought forward at second reading), councillors also had some of their own ideas on the work.

Graham was the first to speak up, arguing the city should also be looking at opening up the area behind the Guild Hall for residential development.

Some possible issues with the terrain of the area have been identified, but Graham argued it would be worth looking at with a potential opportunity to turn it over to the private sector for development.

Council members appeared to agree with at least looking at the possibility, provided it didn't hold up the current infill plans.

City manager Dennis Shewfelt noted staff could begin looking at the possibility, keeping it separate from the current infill initiative.

Also noting his support for getting the private sector more involved was Coun. Ranj Pillai, who said he'd like to see at least one of the infill lots up for rezoning be developed by the private sector.

"We need as many hands (as we can get) on deck to deal with the housing crisis,” he said.

For now, though, the focus will be on rezoning, with a public hearing set for council's April 11 meeting.

A report on the input coming out of that hearing will be presented by staff the following week, with second and third readings then coming forward for a vote on April 26.

Along with voting to rezone the sites for residential use, council will also vote on whether to move ahead with the new tot-lot at a cost of $85,000, and whether to look further into restoration and stewardship work on Versluice Meadows.