© City of Medicine Hat 2017
Summary of Public Feedback
OPEN HOUSE 1 – Riverside Neighbourhood Plan – March 14, 2017
Note: this is a condensed summary of the written and verbalized comments which were
expressed by attendees of the first Riverside Neighbourhood Plan Open House, held
March 14, 2017. All written comments are viewable here.
VIEW THE
For further information, please contact:
E-mail: [email protected]
Planning & Development Services
2nd Floor, City Hall • 580 1st Street SE
Medicine Hat, AB T1A 8E6
Phone: 403.529.8374
COMMENTS
View open house boards
SCHOOL SITE:
• Attendees shared considerable discontent about the upcoming closure of Riverside
School, but generally everyone understood that the decision was made by Medicine
Hat School District #76 (SD76), and it is beyond the City’s control. (News article here.)
• As the next steps are considered by SD76 for the future of the site, attendees had
great support for the site being utilized as either non-profit/community use, or some
variation of public recreational space (park, informal activities, gardens).
• IF the site is eventually destined for private re-development, the most support among
attendees was for single family homes. Senior living facilities received some support.
Response to higher-density residential options (ie townhouses, apartments) was
mostly negative.
• Some comments expressed support for preservation of the existing school building.

HEALD PARK:
• There was strong disappointment/opposition regarding Heald Pool closure, despite
the fact that City Council has already made its decision in this matter (News article
here). Some attendees put forth that the reduced pool usage was a result of reduced
operating hours.
• Setting aside the possibility of the pool being re-opened, the most preferred choices
for recreation alternatives were:
• Spray Park
• Highboard Rink
• Pickle-ball / Tennis
• Basketball court received some support, while skateboard park response was mostly
negative. Response to an outdoor gym was split. Other options had low response.
There was support expressed for more park programming to increase usage.
• Traditional landscaping was favoured over low-water xeriscaping.
RECREATIONAL TRAILS / RIVER ACCESS:
• Overall, there was very strong support for improved trail connections through
Riverside. Some attendees suggested that better pedestrian/bike access to businesses
in the area would be positive.
• Informal trail along river, on private properties (aka Ghost Trail): The Parks Dept has
expressed no plans to explore development of this informal trail in the near future, so
it was not addressed at this open house. However, the topic was brought up by many
attendees. Comments included:
• Desire to keep trail as-is (informal dirt trail)
• Users should be courteous (not be noisy or leave trash) since the trail
is on private properties
• Landowners should also be courteous and not discourage/intimidate
trail users.
• Signs indicating “private property – be respectful” (for example) should
be placed at both ends of the informal trail
• The concept of a pedestrian bridge across the South Saskatchewan River (from
the Herald Neighbourhood Plan) received general support, but a few attendees
suggested that a more desirable location would be between Police Point Park and
Strathcona Island Park (envisioned in the River Flats Area Redevelopment Plan).

• There was general support of a viewing platform and small non-motorized boat
launch, although some homeowners felt that it would obstruct their view of the river.
This location is also identified as a potential non-motorized boat launch in the South
Saskatchewan River Recreation Leisure Opportunities Assessment.
• Some attendees expressed that dog-walkers should be diligent in picking up after
their dogs. Others, that clearer signage be placed indicating that trails are “on-leash.”
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT:
• Response for a new low-density residential development concept near 3rd Street
NW was mixed, but was slightly more positive overall. The positive comments
were primarily about how the development would contribute to Riverside, and the
favourable addition of desirable properties to the neighbourhood. The negative
comments were mostly regarding perceived issues with slope and proximity to the
railway, and potential impact on adjacent residential lots. Low-density development
was preferred by most; however some verbalized a preference for townhomes/row
housing.
• Some attendees acknowledged that to keep amenities in a community, it is important
to keep the population densities up. Others seemed to want the amenities, but no
new development.
• Although not addressed directly at this open house, there was some opposition
expressed to the potential future private ownership of the City-owned Avenue
“stubs” which extend toward the river. (News article here.)
• There were a few comments expressing the need for some sort of architectural
controls, to preserve the character of the neighbourhood when infill development
occurs.
TRAFFIC:
• Some concerns were expressed regarding traffic on 3rd Street, specifically overly high
speeds, some vehicles being overly large in size, and traffic volume.
• There were some comments opposing 3rd Street’s current designation as a truck
route.

OTHER FUTURE INITIATIVES:
• Some support was expressed for encouraging more small businesses to move into
Riverside; that existing shops and food establishments are good, but lack variety.
Suggestions brought forth: grocery store; mixed use.
• The re-location of the fire station from Maple Avenue to location near Parkview Drive
received strong support.
• There were questions about the sanitary line upgrade; mostly about location and
project timeline. It was generally accepted that this is a necessary infrastructure
upgrade.
• There was some support expressed for a stronger emphasis on heritage sites and
heritage trees in Riverside.
• The minor conceptual changes to Hargrave Park received limited response which was
mostly positive. There was one comment suggesting improved park lighting.
• Flood mitigation berms: Phase 1 is mostly complete (view Phase 1 plan here) and
there are no immediate plans to commence with phase 2, therefore this topic was
not addressed at this open house. However, some attendees asked about the project
and were told the above information.
