Mayor Ernie Bourassa spent most of a 2 1/2-hour council meeting Monday night listening to arguments against a proposed multi-housing development at 26 Normandy Rd.

Afterward, he said he's unsure whether he'll vote for or against the zoning amendment to permit the Takhini project to go ahead.

'I still haven't made up my mind,' he said in an interview following the meeting.

The zoning amendment would see the former federal government site rezoned from Public Service (PS) to Residential Multiple Housing (RM), which would permit a 40-unit apartment or townhouse complex.

Ian Robertson of Inukshuk Planning and Design is representing the developer, whose name hasn't been released.

Robertson told council last night the plan would actually see a 32-unit development. He presented the city with designs for three possible plans: an apartment building with one- and two-bedroom units, townhouses, and a combination of both.

'We are not proposing to put 40 units on that site,' he said.

The apartment would likely be two stories high rather than the four suggested by some residents.

'Building four-storey is not really economical,' Robertson said.

The apartment and townhouse option would see a 28-unit apartment building erected behind four townhouses, though the diagram shows eight townhouses.

That option for the apartment and townhouse came as a result of the public hearing held on Monday of last week, Robertson said.

'Somewhere, there has to be a compromise,' he said.

His presentation came after numerous Takhini West residents spoke out against the potential development, citing traffic, safety, scenery, air quality and other concerns.

Many said their children are able to play ball hockey and other games on their quiet neighbourhood streets, something that would change if a 'behemoth', as Stephanie Churchill described the project, housing structure was developed.

'This is a road where I taught my five-year-old how to ride a bike,' Debbie Wilson told council at the beginning of the meeting.

'Given 40 more vehicles, 60 more vehicles travelling up and down that road twice a day, things like that just couldn't happen.'

The mother was also concerned about the general safety of youngsters who cross the street to get to a nearby park. If the traffic increased as much as it may with the new development, she said, she couldn't let her kids cross the street to go to the park by themselves.

'Children do play in the streets and that's because we're a road to nowhere,' Churchill said later.

A group of three children told council their days of street hockey, soccer and other activities in the area would change if the development proceeded.

Almost every day, they play sports in the area, they said. They also walk their dogs and hang out there.

Their presentation was greeted with applause from adults looking on.

With more traffic come potential air quality problems as more vehicles travel through the neighbourhood, Sharon Wilson said.

The area already has three major roads the Alaska Highway, Range Road and Two Mile Hill.

The presentations came a week following the public hearing, where only three delegates, including Robertson, spoke on the development. Three petitions were also submitted as part of the public hearing.

In a report on the hearing which came to council last night from city administration, the zoning would allow for 40 units, 'which would add approximately 40 new vehicles in the neighbourhood.'

Many of the more than a dozen delegates speaking on the matter pointed out numerous households have two vehicles, which would mean even more vehicles than the 40 suggested by the city.

The report also states the roads, constructed in the early 1990s, have the capacity to handle the additional traffic.

Robertson also said he believes traffic concerns can be addressed. The developer shares the residents' concerns, he said.

In displaying the possibilities for the development, he showed various accesses in and out of the site. He suggested there is a fear of the unknown by those opposed to the development.

He noted residents have dealt with development previously, and questioned why they're having difficulty accepting this project.

Others spoke to the view and light they currently have on their properties. It was argued that could be taken away if a large building was put up.

When Ruth Headley bought her home, she said, she looked for a pleasing view. Right now there are trees and open space at 26 Normandy Rd., she noted. She would like to see that feeling of openness maintained.

She noted the impact those aspects can have on a person's well-being and asked council to take that into consideration.

'In character with your OCP (Official Community Plan) vision statement, please allow the area concerned to be zoned only for single residency RS and to ensure our continued quality of light,' she said.

Delegates argued zoning the site to allow for single-residential housing and duplexes would be more in keeping with the neighbourhood's character than a multi-housing development.

The administrative report notes the application is for the property to be rezoned to RM, not RS. The shape of the site doesn't easily allow efficient subdivision to create single-family lots, it states.

'It certainly is a radical change in our neighbourhood,' Churchill said, after telling council one of the reasons she chose to buy her property was because it's not on a busy street.

'We were under the assumption it was a fully-developed area,' she said. 'We certainly were not expecting an RM zoning delegation to be coming into our laps.'

She pointed to the more than 60 signatures signed by those against RM development. Her presentation was met with applause form the crowd filling council chambers.

Another resident, Angela Sale-Roche, suggested a compromise could be reached between the 32 units suggested by Robertson and the eight units advocated by some delegates.

That would be 24 new residents rather than the more-than 60 which could come with a 32-unit structure, she said.

With second and third readings coming forward next week for a vote, Bourassa said he'll be giving the matter some thought over the next seven days.

The property is listed in the territorial lands branch as being owned by 37889 Yukon Inc. It was purchased last January.

The president of the company could not be reached for comment by press time this afternoon.