RIDGEWOOD SOUTH PRECINCT PLAN STATUTORY PLAN APPENDIX B. Public Consultation Report

RIDGEWOOD SOUTH PRECINCT PLAN STATUTORY PLAN APPENDIX B Public Consultation Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 5 1.1 Consultation Methodology 1.2 Notification Approach 1.3 Overall Participation 2.0 Round 1 Project introduction and Issues Scoping..7 2.1 Landowner Meeting Summary 2.2 Stakeholder Meetings Summaries (Rounds 1-3) 2.3 First Public Open House Summary 2.4 Workshop Summary 2.5 Next Steps 3.0 Round 2 Draft Concepts 22 3.1 Second Public Open Houses Summary 3.2 Next Steps 4.0 Round 3 Preferred Concept 33 4.1 Landowner Meetings 4.2 Third Public Open Houses Summary 4.3 Next Steps 5.0 Key Issues Summary...46 5.1 Natural Areas, Greenspace and Trails 5.2 Infrastructure 5.3 Land Uses and Housing 5.4 Landowner Equity 5.5 Other

ATTACHMENTS (available on request) ATTACHMENT 1 - Landowner Meeting 1 Display Boards ATTACHMENT 2 - Open House 1 - Display Boards ATTACHMENT 3 - Open House 1 - Comment Sheet ATTACHMENT 4 - Workshop 1 - Workshop Booklet ATTACHMENT 5 - Open House 2 - Display Boards ATTACHMENT 6 - Open House 2 - Comment Sheet ATTACHMENT 7 - Open House 3 - Display Boards ATTACHMENT 8 - Open House 3 - Comment Sheet ATTACHMENT 9 - Project Website Sample ATTACHMENT 10 - Public Notification Samples

Table of Figures Figure 1.0 Public and Stakeholder Consultation Approach... 6 Figure 2.0 OH1 - Participant Information... 13 Figure 3.0 OH1 - Participant Residence Location (General Area)... 13 Figure 4.0 OH1 Participant Residence Location (Street)... 14 Figure 5.0 OH1 Meeting Notification Method... 15 Figure 6.0 OH1 Meeting Effectiveness... 15 Figure 7.0 OH1 Importance of Issues... 17 Figure 8.0 OH1 Comment Themes... 18 Figure 9.0 OH2 Participant Residence... 24 Figure 10.0 OH2 Previous Meeting Attendance... 24 Figure 11.0 OH2 Participant Land Ownership... 25 Figure 12.0 OH2 Meeting Effectiveness... 26 Figure 13.0 OH2 Participant Response to Concept Plan Elements... 27 Figure 14.0 OH3 Previous Attendance... 35 Figure 15.0 OH3 Participant Residence Location... 36 Figure 16.0 OH3 Vacant Land Ownership... 36 Figure 17.0 OH3 Participant Response to Proposed Land Uses... 38 Figure 18.0 OH3 Participant Response to Proposed Transportation Features... 40 Figure 19.0 OH3 Participant Response to Active Transportation Concept... 45 Figure 20.0 OH3 Participant Response to Proposed Park Features... 46

1.0 Introduction The public consultation program associated with the development of the Ridgewood Precinct Plan was designed around basic public consultation principles of early, regular, and integrated involvement of key stakeholders and the general public throughout the development of the Ridgewood Precinct Plan. The consultation program was carried out over a period of 16 months between May 2011 and September 2012. This report describes the consultation methodology and project inputs received as well as the response to inputs received. 1.1 Consultation Methodology Figure 1.0 illustrates the stakeholder and public consultation process. The process was carried out using a four-round methodology, whereby input was gathered at key milestones during the development of the precinct plan prior to draft plans as a means of scoping issues and understanding expectations from stakeholders and the general public (Round 1), during and following the development of draft plans in order to gain feedback on development options and development directions (Round 2), during and following the development of a preferred plan and related policies (Round 3) in order to gain feedback on the intended directions of the precinct plan, and upon establishment of the draft Statutory Plan for submission to the City of Winnipeg municipal approvals process (Round 4). This report summarizes input from Rounds 1-3. The results of Round 4 will be summarized at a later date. Members of the public will also be able to provide feedback at a public hearing held by the City of Winnipeg to consider adoption of the proposed precinct plan. Various consultation mechanisms were employed during each of the rounds including individual and stakeholder group meetings, targeted stakeholder discussions, a public workshop, public open house events, telephone conversations, public notification and use of a project website for providing materials, project updates, and accommodating public comment. 1.2 Notification A variety of means of notification were undertaken in order to ensure maximum opportunity for input into plan development. Notification methods included local and municipal newspaper advertisement, direct notification by postcard to Charleswood residents and businesses, letter notification to plan area land owners, website posting, and community posters in prominent neighbourhood locations. 5

Figure 1.0 Public and Stakeholder Consultation Approach ROUND 4 6

1.3 Overall Participation There was substantial participation by stakeholder groups and members of the general public. Approximately 1,500 people participated in one form or another. 2.0 Round 1 - Project introduction and Issues Scoping 2.1 Landowner Meeting Landowners within the precinct plan area were invited to attend a meeting held on June 6, 2011. Landowners were provided with a presentation outlining the purpose of a precinct plan, the precinct plan development process and anticipated land use and transportation access directions for the plan. Landowners offered a series of questions and comments that area summarized below. The comments were useful in framing issues and concerns to be addressed at the draft plan development stage. Where answers were provided at the meeting, they are indicated in parentheses. Will there be local improvement charges? (no) How many storm sewers will be needed? (to be determined during plan development) Will the Harte Trail be buffered, or will houses be built right beside it? (the Harte Trail will be retained at its 99 width further buffering will need to be considered during plan development stage) When will the William Clement Parkway be extended and will it have grade-separated crossings at Ridgewood Ave, the railway tracks and Wilkes? (to be determined during plan development) What is the Harstone Drain? (explanation was provided) This plan looks like it could result in the Assiniboine Forest being landlocked. I think there should be more emphasis placed on natural environments and habitats. Natural Areas should be considered a land use type I think it is very important to recognize how certain functions, such as traffic, could have significant impacts outside the Precinct Area Will the plan address surface drainage issues outside of the Precinct in existing areas? (this is a problem that must be addressed through citywide funding and decisionmaking) How does this process work? Will we receive notification of upcoming meetings and events? (participation and notification process was explained) 7

Is the precinct boundary fixed? (no, these are proposed boundaries) How can we mitigate traffic on surrounding streets? (to be determined during plan development) What will be the total population contained within the precinct? (approximately 8-12,000 would be a reasonable estimate) How big will lot sizes be? (this will largely be market-driven) Will there be multi-family housing? Will it be located next to my house? (there are policies in place to support nodal and corridor development and prevent incompatible land uses) You should ensure you account for an aging population by providing services such as transit Why can t you build infill housing in the city centre instead of building more new suburbs? (OurWinnipeg emphasizes choice and encourages infill development as well as greenfield development). 2.2 Stakeholder Meetings (Rounds 1-3) The study team had discussions with the following stakeholder groups throughout the consultation process: Government and School Division Pembina Trails School Division May 16, 2011 / October 27, 2011 Public Schools Finance Board May 17, 2011 Canadian National Railway May 2011 / November 12, 2011 Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation June 2, 2011 / March 2, 2012 RM of Headingley November 8, 2011 / April 13, 2012 RM of Macdonald May 24, 2011 City of Winnipeg Departments April 2011 September 2012 Community Groups Friends of Harte Trail April 2011 September 2012 Citizens for Charleswood Habitat Preservation October 2011 September 2012 Existing Charleswood residents (Open Houses) June 2011 April 2012 Varsity View Community Club April 13, 2011 and April 19, 2012 Roblin Community Club April 18, 2011 Charleswood Minor Baseball Association May 26, 2011 8

Charleswood Rotary Club August 8, 2011 Dog Interests (PAWS) June 29, 2011 / October 25, 2011 Other Manitoba Hydro October 25, 2011 Springers Gymnastics Club November 18, 2011 / April 19, 2012 Adrenalin Adventures November 16, 2011 A broad summary of meeting outcomes through Rounds 1-3 is provided below: Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT) A series of meetings were held with MIT, primarily to discuss potential access to PTH100 (the perimeter highway). MIT indicated it would not support new direct access to PTH100 given the proximity of an existing access at Wilkes Avenue. Traffic generation volumes would also not justify the expenditure of a new access facility. RM of Headingley The RM of Headingley was kept aware of the project and reviewed draft plans throughout the process. The RM did not raise any issues or concerns. RM of Macdonald The RM of MacDonald was kept aware of the project and did not raise any issues or concerns. Pembina Trails School Division and Public Schools Finance Board (PTSD and PSFB) The PTSD and PSFB reviewed population and enrolment projects for the division and concluded that no school sites would be required within the precinct plan area. Manitoba Hydro Manitoba Hydro was made aware of the potential for development within the precinct area in order to incorporate this information into their system planning process. Manitoba Hydro did not raise any issues or concerns. Canadian National Railway (CNR) The CNR were advised of the intent of the precinct plan and the timing for preparation of the plan. The CNR declined comment preferring to respond to any future specific proposed changes to CNR facilities within or adjacent to the precinct area. 9

Friends of the Harte Trail (FHT) The study team held numerous meetings with the FHT throughout the project. Initially, FTH raised concerns that development planning would include elimination of the Harte Trail either in whole or in part. Additional concerns included the fragmentation of the trail by new roadways, potential degradation of views from the Harte Trail, over-use of the trail, increased use of the trail by motorized vehicles and bicycles, excessive additional new trail connections, and excessive private access points to the trail. The primary impact facing the Harte Trail is the relocation of the trail in the vicinity of the William R. Clement Parkway and the planned Ridgewood Arterial, and the potential for new, more intensive development to approach the legal boundaries of the Harte Trail lands. The study team has managed to address a substantial majority of the issues through careful planning and policy development together with the FHT, including the use of future parkland dedication requirements for widening the Harte Trail wherever feasible, plans for a pedestrian overpass over William R. Clement Parkway, policies supporting vegetation easements, the addition of naturalized wetlands and a more comprehensive looped trail system. The FTH reviewed draft plans policies and found them satisfactory. Citizens for Charleswood Habitat Preservation (CCHP) The CCHP was formed partway into the planning process as a citizens group primarily advocating for the protection of natural areas within the precinct area. The study team has held numerous meetings throughout the project and continues to work with the CCHP to accommodate their interests as much as possible within the required content of the precinct plan. While the CCHP has been pleased with the efforts of the study team to date, they continue to work toward exceeding the typical 10% parkland dedication requirement for the precinct area. The study team has promoted the use of other tools in addition to the parkland dedication requirement vegetation easements, land swapping with the City of Winnipeg, donation of land and land purchasing, for example. Qualico Developments also engaged Native Plan Solutions (Ducks Unlimited) to conduct extensive wildlife and vegetation surveys on Qualico lands and public lands throughout the precinct to understand how best to retain and enhance natural areas within an urban setting. The precinct plan policies and plans are reflective of this research. The CCHP has also provided substantial commentary on the evolving drafts of the proposed transportation network within the precinct. This input was very helpful in making some, though not all, suggested modifications to the plan. The CCHP was pleased with a number of these 10

changes, though continues to advance arguments related to the William R. Clement parkway and the upgrading of Wilkes Avenue both issues that are not entirely resolvable by the Precinct Plan. Varsity View Community Club (VVCC) The study team had numerous discussions with the VVCC throughout the project. The VVCC was made aware of plans as they evolved and the potential impact that both the planned Ridgewood Arterial and the William R. Clement Parkway on VVCC land holdings. The VVCC did not raise substantial concerns on this matter and is eager to continue working with the City of Winnipeg and adjacent landowners to ensure that the site continues to be a viable community asset. Roblin Community Club (RCC) The study team met with representatives of the RCC early in the project. The RCC did not raise any concerns about the project. Springers Gymnastics Club (SGC) The study team met with SGC representatives twice during the project. The SGC wanted to ensure that they would have continued, ready access to the site and sufficient parking for its members. Charleswood Minor Baseball Association (CMBA) The study team met with representatives of the CBMA, who indicated a desire to include a new facility with the precinct area. The study team advised that this would be a private endeavor apart from the precinct planning process; however it was unlikely that the association could afford the land values within the precinct. The study team provided alternate suggestions for locating such a facility and the CMBA was appreciative of the input. Adrenalin Adventures The study team met with representatives of Adrenalin Adventures no concerns were raised. Charleswood Rotary Club The study team made a presentation to CRC members early in the project. The CRC expressed support for the development at a conceptual level. 11

Dog Interests (PAWS) The study team met with PAWS to discuss issues related to impact of the planned WRCP extension on the unofficial Dog Park located just south of Grant Avenue. While the existing dog park falls outside of the precinct plan boundary, the study team has worked to resolve concerns around this matter. The following sections summarize the written responses from members of the general public that attended public events for the project. 2.3 First Public Open House A public open house and workshop session were held on June 20, 2011 at the Charleswood United Church at 4820 Roblin Boulevard. Approximately 400-500 people attended. The following figures provide a summary of the data received from 284 open house participants. This data was used to help form draft plans and policies to guide development planning for the Ridgewood Precinct area. Figure 2.0 shows that a little more than half of participants owned a business or property within the precinct boundaries. Figure 3.0 shows that nearly two-thirds (65%) of participants resided in Charleswood, north of the precinct and another quarter resided within the precinct area (27%). The remainder resided either south of the precinct or elsewhere in Winnipeg or Manitoba. Figure 4.0 shows the location of residence by street of participants that filled out comment sheets. Figures 2.0 4.0 are useful in demonstrating that a good, representative cross section of participants was achieved in terms of location. Figure 5.0 highlights the various methods by which participants became aware of the public meeting. This information was helpful in modifying notification methods for subsequent rounds of the public and stakeholder consultation process. Figure 6.0 illustrates that a significant majority of participants (83%) found the meeting to be helpful. This is significant given that many participants also expressed substantial concerns about the project, which suggests that the meeting format and information content were effective. 12

Figure 2.0 OH1 - Participant Information Figure 3.0 OH1 - Participant Residence Location (General Area) 13

Figure 4.0 OH1 Participant Residence Location (Street) 14

Figure 5.0 OH1 Meeting Notification Method Figure 6.0 OH1 Meeting Effectiveness 15

Figure 7.0 summarizes participants response to the question What are the three most important issues to consider when preparing plans for the precinct?. It is clear from the figure that the Harte Trail emerges as a very significant valued community asset, followed closely by an appreciation of existing parks and open spaces 1. The next most common issues cited pertained to existing and future infrastructure including traffic, drainage, sewer and water services, and roadways. Other issues included the type of residential development anticipated by participants, the potential loss/reduction of the unofficial dog park north of the precinct, public transportation, recreation, commercial development, and schools. Participants were provided an opportunity to convey their thoughts and opinions in an open question format. Figure 8.0 was prepared as a summary of the comment themes and was helpful for the study team to ensure that appropriate attention was focused on issues of importance to the community. As with the results illustrated in Figure 7.0, it is clear from Figure 8.0 that the character of the existing built-up areas of Charleswood was important to participants, followed closely by the desire to preserve privately-owned natural areas within the precinct area. Many participants felt that the existing standard requirement to dedicate 10% of developable lands for provision of parks and open spaces should be significantly raised for the Ridgewood South precinct. Many participants were concerned about the potential impact that new development would have on already busy streets in Charleswood. With a proposal of this nature (significant development adjacent to mature neighbourhoods) the number of people that expressed support for development is noteworthy. 2.4 Public Workshop On the evening of June 20, 2011 following the first public open house, approximately 50 participants stayed to complete a community planning workbook. Participants worked together in groups of 6-10 people providing their comments and suggestions on a topic by topic basis. The notes in the following sections are summarized transcriptions of the input provided. This input was useful in beginning to shape policies for the precinct plan and for formulating communication materials for subsequent public and stakeholder consultation communications. 2.4.1 Transportation and Drainage Existing Infrastructure Current infrastructure (roads) not able to handle traffic (x6) 1 It was apparent from commentary provided on these topics that the general public perception is that lands within the Ridgewood South precinct are publically held rather than privately owned. 16

Figure 7.0 OH1 Importance of Issues 17

Figure 8.0 OH1 Comment Themes 18

Condition of roads is poor (x3) This development will exacerbate current problems Roads are too narrow; specification width does not work for new cars and speed Safety; children Fix roads - paving Speeding in residential areas Maintenance of existing infrastructure: potholes, curbs, boulevards, trees, drainage Lack of quality control on re-surfacing roads Lack of maintenance on roads Land drainage network needs to be maintained Overland flooding in-fill housing (need drainage plan) Some want ditches removed, others want to keep for cost Upgrade old Charleswood simultaneously with storm drainage system for entire neighbourhood Leave existing Charleswood community with their ditches where they exist Drainage flowing north impact of new development on existing; huge drainage issues in certain areas Excess Traffic, Through-Traffic and Traffic Calming Need traffic calming (x5) Dead-end through streets at Harte Trail (x5) Minimize through traffic; streets are failing (x2) No additional through-traffic across Harte Trail (x2) More development will cause more traffic (x2) Increased truck traffic on Parkway; increased through-traffic on side streets (x2) Need an east-west alternative for roads (x2) Non-residential traffic using residential roads to cut through IKEA traffic Lack of use of stop signs is a problem Need controlled corridors to route traffic Public Transportation and Active Transportation Commentary Need well-serviced bike trails/paths (x6) Need more buses (connections to Kenaston) (x4) Need active transportation corridor (x3) Seven-day bus service (x2) Need Park + Ride (x2) 19

Connect feeder bus services to rapid bus on Portage; Create more hubs for transit; more comprehensive trail (multi-use) system; Create rapid transit east-west, near the RR tracks, with a spot to park cars and safely park bikes Install light rail Remove hub + spoke model Harte Trail for running and walking, separate path for biking Don t pave the Harte Trail Need separate bike lanes Need Harte trail extensions More lighting (x2), more trails and integration of these items More sidewalks Wider streets Hard-top loose gravel shoulders Anything would be an improvement No hope! Wilkes Avenue Make 4 lanes on Wilkes (x2) East/west thoroughfare needed between Ridgewood and Wilkes (x2) How will Wilkes handle the increased traffic? It doesn t handle the current load Fix Wilkes; go around instead of through Limit number of crossings to Wilkes Limit access in and out to Wilkes and WRCP Close off existing residential streets to Wilkes; 4 lanes on Wilkes; underpass/overpass (not through Harte Trail) Dangerous to get onto/off Wilkes Upgrade Ridgewood and Wilkes - relocating if necessary William R. Clement Parkway (WRCP) If WRCP is extended, will Eldridge and Ridgewood go through? WRCP must be extended Parkway extension will devalue property and remove green space Greenspace needed on parkway extension Make Parkway as narrow as possible; limit heavy truck traffic WRCP must be completed prior to housing 20

All traffic north of portage has to come through, timeline for extension of Parkway - needed now Other Questions and Ideas Sound barriers are attractive Overpass from Grant to Wilkes Create perimeter access Additional lanes needed on Route 90 Need 4-way stop signs, lights, etc. Enhance streets at no extra costs to residents Use cloverleafs instead of stop signs to keep traffic flowing Put drainage going west with Perimeter along with sewage Need expansion of Shaftesbury to take traffic to IKEA Need for childcare, activities for people of all ages [Need] French Immersion High School Marj Edey Park New subdivision on Charleswood greenspace will drive down property values Construction traffic should travel Wilkes 2.4.2 Land Uses Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Keep greenspace, will change friendly atmosphere to remove it (x3) Preserve existing parks (x2) and nature plus 10% of new development Character of the neighbourhood is mature trees, green space and nature Harte Trail has to be preserved, maintained and enhanced Preserve green space alongside Harte Trail Continuous wide green space, green belts and marsh or park Dog park is important Flora preservation is important Residential Land Uses Suggested Types: Single Family (x11), Two Family (x3), Multi-family (x3), Seniors Condos (x2), Nursing Home (x2 some debate), All Types (x2); Suggested Locations: Multi-family near shopping area (x2); not in the centre area; close to Wilkes, near major bus routes; 21

Other: Commercial Land Uses Suggested Types: Housing for young people, university students; apartment development with high density housing; needs to be mixed usemore houses; green space and water should be accessible to all, not just wealthy single-family walkout lots; dispersed throughout the development area flow to the development; Small corner store type; very minimal; none; minimal; no big box; Suggested locations: South Wilkes between Charleswood and the perimeter; where possible along the main corridors; convenient for area residents; west of Charleswood Road; 100 off Wilkes; directly on Wilkes south of tracks; Other: village area seems sufficient; (x2); everything needed is close enough (x2); more would close local businesses; local re-fuelling for electric vehicles; will need another service station; Other Land Uses Suggested Types: Community centres, soccer fields, baseball diamonds, schools(x2); Expansion for French immersion school system; personal care home (x4); 50+ housing; daycare; side by sides; seniors housing - need a variety of options; light commercial; possible future grocery store; community medical clinic; office (x2); commercial; NO industrial; Suggested locations: Overlooking natural trees and wildlife; Other: Need to keep lots 60' wide (x2), concern about taking business from Roblin businesses; 2.5 Next Steps The study team used the public and stakeholder input from Round 1 meetings to understand basic issues and expectations in order to begin forming policies and a physical plan for Ridgewood South. 22

3.0 Round 2 Draft Precinct Plan Concepts 3.1 Second Public Open Houses Two public houses were held on November 21 st and 22 nd, 2011 at the Charleswood United Church at 4820 Roblin Avenue. Approximately 450 people attended the sessions held over those two days. Participants were invited to review a range of concept boards, and to speak with representatives from Landmark Planning and Design, Stantec, the City of Winnipeg, and Qualico. Of the approximately 450 attendees, 123 completed comment sheets, the results of which are compiled below. Participants were advised that the display materials were available at the project website and comment sheets could be returned via fax or email as an alternative to returning them at the meeting. An additional 4 comment sheets were returned via fax or email between November 21 and December 15, 2011. The following sections outline the response to the five questions provided on the comment sheet. 3.1.1 Previous Meeting Attendance Figure 9.0 illustrates that little more than half of the participants at this open house had not participated in the previous open house. A little fewer than half of participants had participated in the previous open house, a landowner or stakeholder meeting, or some combination of previous meetings. 3.1.2 Participant Residence Location Of the 122 participants that responded to this question over three-quarters indicated they live north of the Precinct Area, while only 6% indicate they live south of the Precinct Area, and 7% indicated they lived in other areas of Winnipeg (Figure 10.0). 11% of respondents live within the precinct itself. The results roughly represent the relative populations of the respective areas, though on a percentage basis, representation was highest for those living within the Precinct Area itself. 23

Figure 9.0 OH2 Previous Meeting Attendance Figure 10.0 OH2 Participant Residence 24

3.1.3 Participant Land Ownership Not unexpectedly, only a few respondents (12% or 14 respondents) indicated they owned vacant land within the Precinct Area (Figure 11.0). Figure 11.0 OH2 Participant Land Ownership 3.1.4 Meeting Effectiveness Of the 91 respondents to this question, 89% indicated that they felt the meeting was helpful (Figure 12.0). Those who found the meeting helpful and provided related commentary indicated that the information was thorough and helpful and appreciated the opportunity to speak with representatives. Of those respondents that did not find the meeting helpful (11% or 10 respondents) only three offered explanation, which focused on the amount of information being provided (too extensive/detailed). 25

Figure 12.0 OH2 Meeting Effectiveness 3.1.5 Participant Response to Concept Option Elements Participants were asked to fill out a chart that indicated whether they liked, disliked or were neutral regarding specific concept option elements (Figure 13.0). Specific observations regarding the feedback from respondents include: - Overall Concept 2 was favoured over Concepts 1 and 3; (Concept 2 included both outbound and inbound perimeter access towards the northwest corner of the precinct at the Perimeter) - A northerly-located perimeter connection was preferred (versus a more southerly inbound connection as in Concept 1 or no connections at all as in Concept 3) - A more northerly alignment for the new Ridgewood Parkway as shown in Concepts 1 and 2 was preferred over a more southerly alignment as shown in Concept 3 - Most respondents appreciated the lake concepts (some were concerned about attracting geese and mosquitoes, or preservation of the status quo) - Most respondents supported Active Transportation (AT) concepts though many were also neutral and some disliked AT concepts 26

Figure 13.0 OH2 Participant Response to Concept Plan Elements 27

- Most participants were unsure about bus route concepts, which is likely due to both the early stage of bus route planning and potentially lower ridership/awareness among respondents - While most respondents liked Harte Trail concepts, land use concepts, WRCP concepts and Public reserve concepts, many were also neutral, and some were also negative 3.1.6 Other Written Comments The comment sheet included an area where respondents could provide a written response to outline their specific comments related to the subject areas provided or other subject areas they wished to comment on. The results below are a summary of the comments provided 2. Concept 1 Concern over lack of access to Perimeter (x3) Ridgewood, east of the WRCP extension, will not be able to handle the increased traffic (x3) Traffic is a concern, as people often walk on the road (x2) Roads were not built to handle the increased volume (x2) Municipal Road should be the collector (rather than Community Row) as there are no homes on it There should be better access to Wilkes A buffer between existing and new homes is necessary Concept 2 Concern about increased traffic on north-south routes (x5) Concern over grade access to Wilkes Perimeter intersection is too complicated (especially for Harte Trail) If Charleswood Rd is closed, Community Row will see more traffic Too many east-west routes 2 Note: Comments, questions, concerns and suggestions are the opinions of their authors, and do not constitute consensus, and the results are not considered scientific. Comments were grouped according to the 13 categories as outlined on the comment sheets Comments were paraphrased and spell corrected as necessary When multiple participants provided a similar comment, it is noted in parentheses following the comment (e.g. (x2) means that the comment was provided on two comment sheets); comments are listed in order of frequency, when applicable Comments, questions, concerns and suggestions are the opinions of their authors, and do not constitute consensus 28

Concept Option 3 Perimeter access is unnecessary (x5) Concern that this concept drives traffic onto existing streets to access the Perimeter (x3) Harte Trail overpass (at Perimeter) is great Concept will increase traffic too much Perimeter access is too complicated AT Route should go through to Wilkes not stop at Ridgewood New Active Transportation Trail Concepts Active transportation not viable as ditches are not safe for commuters Increase active transportation routes in existing Charleswood Make Eldridge cycle friendly (roundabouts, paved shoulders) Active Transportation is a good idea Harte Trail should not become an active transportation route Where do active transportation routes cross Wilkes? Proposed Bus Routes High density housing is needed to support bus route Long waits make bus service unusable Need high speed dedicated corridor from Charleswood to downtown Bus will increase traffic and noise on Dale Bus route is OK Collector roads should only allow small buses, so the roads aren t damaged Should have rapid transit in the area Harte Trail Harte Trail must be kept as is (e.g. do not turn it into an AT route) (x9) Don t like the Harte Trail junction at the WRCP and Ridgewood E-W corridor (x7) Concern that increased traffic will negatively impact safety of walkers/joggers (x4) A crossing at the Perimeter would be great (x5); should be an underpass (x1) Make it wider (x5) No new crossings of trail (x4) How does it connect across the WRCP? (x2) Trail will lose its natural setting/biodiversity (x2) Must remain as an animal corridor (x2) Ridgewood corridor crossing will increase deer collisions 29

Trail users should have right-of-way rather than cars New houses should not back on to the Harte Trail Too much attention paid to Harte Trail Collector road should not cross Charleswood road at the Harte Trail Potential Public Reserve Areas Preserve natural areas (x8); preserve forests north of Harte Trail (x1) Public Reserve (PR) should be higher than 10% (x9) Protect wider area along Harte Trail (x3) PR requirement of 10% is too high Ensure public access on both sides of Lakes Using existing recreation facilities won t address new community s needs Not enough parks Green space should have access to the Harte Trail Preserve grasslands for birds Use PR for bike trails and walking paths Lake Concepts Lakes will serve as mosquito breeding grounds (x4) Concerns about geese (x3) Are lakes just for aesthetics? They are not ecologically productive (x2) Concern that Harstone ditches will flood with new water (x2) Natural flow is south, so how will water drain to the river? Should we really add more water to the Assiniboine? Must incorporate wildlife corridors Looks great if Sage Creek wetland concept is followed Too many retention ponds (would rather have forest habitat) Lakes are too modern doesn t fit in Would like to see more lakes Land Use Areas Commercial zone not needed (x5) Area 7 needs single family housing (x5) Area 7 multifamily housing will create too much traffic (x3) Land-locked issue must be resolved in Area 7 (x3) Single family homes only (x3) Multi-family housing will bring crime and vandalism to Harte Trail 30

Multi-family dwellings mean low income; moved out of another area for that reason Concern that no school will be built No big parking lots or big box stores Recreation space needs to be throughout, not just clustered at Marj Edey Park Would like to see a higher mix of land-uses Commercial should be along Wilkes William R. Clement Parkway Extension Needs to connect to Wilkes (x18) Must be built before any development occurs (x16) Extend it quickly (x4), but don t hold up development for it (x1) Is there enough room for WRCP in the narrow corridor between Haney and McDowell? (x2) There shouldn t be access to Ridgewood east of the extension (x2) Concern that there is not timeline for the WRCP extension Should be extended to Bishop Grandin Concern about increased traffic Would like information concerning noise reduction, privacy treatment and vehicle emissions related to WRCP (Holland has good examples of these) Concern about effect on wildlife and loss of park-like setting How will Harte Trail cross it? Keep the dog park; document its current use Need wildlife bridges A fast route to Kenaston is necessary Concern over traffic noise Perimeter Road Access Concepts No new access to Perimeter is necessary (x7) Concept 3 will drive Perimeter-bound traffic over tracks to Wilkes, or north on existing roads to Roblin (x2) Where is the provision for those who want to travel south on the Perimeter? Plans must include Perimeter access Fairmont Road should not be a major route to Ridgewood Ridgewood Corridor Concept East West Roadway Concern about the intersection of E-W corridor and WRCP (specifically its effect on the Varsity View Sportsplex entrance and the Harte Trail) (x5) 31

Concern over kids having to cross corridor to get to Marj Edey Park (x2) Should connect to the WRCP south of the Varsity View Sportsplex (x2) Needs major exit onto Wilkes to cut down traffic on Roblin and Grant (x2) Build it north of tracks, away from existing houses (x2) Concern about increasing traffic in existing neighbourhood Concept 3 will funnel traffic north and across the tracks Concept 2 is most central and accessible Construct E-W corridor with future developments in mind Will it extend to Kenaston, or end at Wilkes? Concern over 4 lane roadway bisecting the community Other Comments Don t like the development, period (x10) Don t want to lose rural culture and character of Charleswood (x9) Concern over loss of habitat and wildlife (x6) How will existing roads handle the extra traffic? (x4) Animal corridors are required in and out of the neighbourhood (x4) Was not informed about the open house (x4) Concern about roundabout just before a stop sign on Fairmont (x3) Postal strike responsible for missed meeting in June (x3) What are the plans for deer and other wildlife? (x3) Infrastructure improvements must precede development (x3) Information was unclear (x3) Thanks for opportunity for input (x3) Open house was poorly advertised (x3) Don t want taxes to go up (x2) Elmhurst should be closed at Wilkes (x2) Ensure more consultation before City approval process starts (x2) No more suburban expansion until city can pay for infrastructure it already has (x2) Concern about increased crime, pollution and environmental damage (x2) Move forward as soon as possible (x2) Sufficient sewage and drainage required (x2) Wilkes should be twinned and have lights at all intersections; Wilkes should be upgraded (x2) Boards are beautiful, but too complicated to understand Display was informative Thank you for the Open House 32

No deadline given for providing feedback Concern about increased traffic on Dieppe (and school children s safety) Elmhurst needs improvements (e.g. turning lanes) to handle additional traffic flow No mansions on small lots Don t destroy old growth trees and animal habitat these can coexist with development Existing undisturbed grassland/bison wallow/historic paths that need to be protected Wilkes already busy; how will it host another 8000 vehicles daily? How will kids bike to friends places with no sidewalks Schools are closer to capacity than numbers state Development should happen south of Wilkes instead Development should only occur on historically cultivated lands City should acquire and maintain these lands as vestigial natural habitat; maintain natural connections to Assiniboine Forest Residents were not engaged early enough in the process Agree 100% with planning but majority effort has to be left to professionals; public input is necessary but limited Natural areas assessment was well done and should be utilized Would like more trees planted Speed bumps are needed on existing residential streets Community Row already has too much traffic; should not be used as a N-S collector road Will there be height limits for the buildings? Would like to see timeline, potential costs 3.2 Next Steps The study team used the individual and stakeholder input and commentary provided during Round 2, to refine draft concepts and policies into a Preferred Concept and policies to be discussed during Round 3. 33

4.0 Round 3 Preferred Concept 4.1 Landowner Meetings The study team invited all area landowners with land holdings exceeding 1.0 acre to attend one of a series of small group meetings with the team in order to further describe the preferred concept and review topics that might be of particular interest to landowners such as development phasing, timing and costs. Approximately 20 landowners accepted the invitation to meet over a period of two weeks during the month of April 2012 3. At the meetings, the study team provided an overview of the concepts to date and provided preliminary information concerning development phasing, cost sharing and timing. Landowners were generally appreciative of the opportunity to ask question and receive information. No formal feedback mechanisms were provided, however landowners were invited to attend the public open house sessions and provide feedback at those meetings, visit the project website, or to contact the study team members directly at any time. 4.2 Third Round Public Open Houses Two public open houses on the Ridgewood Precinct planning process were held on April 23rd and 24 th, 2012 at the Charleswood United Church at 4820 Roblin Blvd. These open houses represented the culmination of the third round of public consultation associated with the process, which began in May 2011. Approximately 630 people attended the sessions held over those two days. Participants were invited to review a range of preferred concept boards, and ask questions to representatives from Landmark Planning and Design, Stantec, the City of Winnipeg, and Qualico. Of the approximately 630 attendees, 261 chose to fill out the optional comment sheets. The data and feedback was incorporated into preparation of the Ridgewood Precinct plans and policies. Feedback resulting from the full consultation process has helped guide and inform the planning process. The charts in the following sections summarize the feedback received. In each relevant section, specific participant written comments are also provided. These comments have been 3 Some of the discussions with landowners were held by telephone. 34

paraphrased in some cases for clarity. When multiple participants provided a similar comment, it is noted in parentheses following the comment 4. 4.2.1 Previous Attendance Over half of respondents had participated in one or more public or invited consultation event related to the project. This demonstrates good project continuity and exposure. In a multiple round consultation program (conducted over a extended period of time) it is normal to see about 40-50% attendees not having attended a preceding event. Figure 14.0 OH3 Previous Attendance 4.2.2 Respondent Home Location Just over three quarters of respondents live north of the precinct, while about 10% live within the precinct boundary and a small portion live elsewhere. These are expected ratios (not skewed) given the relative population distribution in and around the Precinct area. 4 Comments, questions, concerns and suggestions are the opinions of their authors, and do not constitute consensus, and the results are not considered scientific. 35

Figure 15.0 OH3 Participant Residence Location 4.2.3 OH3 Vacant Land Ownership About 10% (24) of respondents were owners of vacant land within the precinct. Of these landowners, only 5 indicated they did not like the Precinct Plan layout; these five also indicated they did not like nearly any other aspect of the precinct plan (i.e. generally against development). Figure 16.0 OH3 Vacant Land Ownership 36

4.2.4 OH3 Participant Response to Proposed Land Uses The proposed precinct plan indicated specific land use possibilities for each sub-area within the Precinct. The majority of respondents were either supportive (i.e. liked ) the proposed land uses, or were neutral concerning the proposal. About a quarter of respondents did not like the land uses proposed for each of the sub-areas. There is a minor trend towards a preference for sub-areas that propose single family land uses only, rather than a mix of single-family and multi-family or mixed use. There is a strong correlation in the data indicating that where a respondent did not like the proposed land uses in one sub-area, they did not like the land uses in any sub-area. This suggests that the respondent was generally opposed to the development of the area in general, rather than opposing specific aspects of the precinct plan proposal. This concept is underscored by looking at the portion of respondents that did not like the land uses for Area 6 (about 20%), which is the existing Varsity View Community Centre and Marj Eadey Park, the implication being that the respondent did not distinguish among their responses to the individual aspects of the proposal, rather defaulting to the negative option in every case. Specific Comments Included: Multi-family/Single Family Land Uses Dislike for multi-family in Area 5 (x3) Area 3 impacts me would rather have single family homes, to keep property values up Single family homes only in Area 1 (x2) Areas 8-11 should not have lower densities than those to the south. Generally don t want multi-family (x8) No multi housing uses please, this is zoned agricultural Too much multi-family for the character of the neighbourhood (x5) Single family keeps with current neighbourhood (x2) Would like to see multi-family homes more integrated Build multi-family from the start no need to fight about it again later Keep multi-family as far south as possible (x3); and in higher traffic areas No plan for middle income retirees looking for reasonable condo prices Would like to see nice senior complexes (x2) (i.e. townhomes with garages) Need more consideration for condos and seniors housing Like multi-family south of Harte Trail keep it near artery to reduce traffic Multi-family should be limited to 3 storeys (x3); where would they go? Multi-family dwellings should be limited to 2 levels like existing neighbourhood (x2) 37

Figure 17.0 OH3 Participant Response to Proposed Land Uses * SF Single Family; Mixed Mixed Use; VVCC Varsity View Community Centre 38

ATTACHMENT 10 Public Notification Sample Other Land Uses/Comments Reasonable Don t want commercial (x2); commercial not needed Keep mixed use and commercial near major roads Limited commercial is a good idea for existing residents and businesses I d enjoy being able to walk to a Café on Elmhurst Need local services such as convenience stores, drug stores, Tim Horton s No malls or churches shown (x2) Should be for the wildlife (x2) birds, animals and deer use this area already Great (x2); Looks good (x2); Good mix (x2); Good for today s ideas Green space should be forest, wetland, and grass land The land should remain as is; could make better use of the land Not enough green space Charleswood: The suburb beautiful let s keep it that way Area 7 not suitable for mixed use Mixed-use needs to be better defined; Unsure about mixed use areas Behind Harstone Road was supposed to be kept in a natural way with no development please not in my backyard. Sage Creek style development is unacceptable (x2) Doesn t the developer have the power to change the land uses? There s a need for good recreation facilities, including courts that can be used for tennis and pick up ball Lot Sizes/House Sizes New lots should be similar size to old lots (x15) Want/need large lots (x5); Going with 40 lot sizes is uncharacteristic of the area (x3) Minimum lot sizes should be 60 by 180 (x2); or 75 by 200 minimum (x2); 75 by 130 Lots are too small Why were lot sizes not indicated? Whole precinct should be developed to 2012 standards big lots are too expensive for many people now Ditches and large lots, that is Charleswood Don t want huge houses on postage stamp lots/small lots (x3) No cookie cutter houses Bungalow condos needed (x2); would be very popular if there was decent sized lots Houses should be approximately the size of existing homes (x2) Too many houses planned for area 11 should only be one street, it s too crowded 39

ATTACHMENT 10 Public Notification Sample Too many houses need to protect our Charleswood wildlife 4.2.5 OH3 Participant Response to Proposed Transportation Features Respondents were generally favourable towards the proposed extension of the William R. Clement Parkway (WRCP) and potential improvements to Wilkes Avenue. The substantial majority of respondents were either in favour of (i.e. liked ) or were neutral towards each of the proposed roadway features including the concept of eliminating a direct north-south route from Wilkes Avenue to existing Charleswood. There was greater uncertainty regarding the proposed collector loop system and the new collector proposed east of the WRCP. About 20-30% of respondents disliked each of the road concepts. Similar to responses to the question concerning proposed land uses, respondents that did not like road concepts, generally did not like the overall concepts associated with development of the lands. Figure 18.0 OH3 Participant Response to Proposed Transportation Features Specific Comments Included: WRCP Extension WRCP should extend to Wilkes (x47); but only if Wilkes is upgraded extensively (x2) Extend WRCP before development (x7) 40

ATTACHMENT 10 Public Notification Sample Do not extend the WRCP (x2) as it will bring too much traffic through Charleswood WRCP to Ridgewood is good (don t extend to Wilkes) Extend WRCP to Bishop Grandin (x3) WRCP extension should be a major street not a divided highway WRCP should not extend south of Ridgewood. Instead, extend it to Ridgewood then extend it east to Kenaston avoids destroying the marsh in Marj Edey Park. If the WRCP can t be extended to Wilkes yet, just put in the E-W roadways to connect to Fairmont & Eldridge. Why put Haney through the misery of the extension till it can be fully functional? Build the WRCP extension soon There have been no guarantees about WRCP extension; not enough details on WRCP extension (x2) (about sound attenuation, saving existing trees, and green space) WRCP extension seems to be wider than necessary (x4); how is WRCP extension going to fit between Haney and McDowell; will be too close to existing homes Need noise and pollution barriers for WRCP extension (x2); Need to protect housing near WRCP; WRCP needs a buffer on both sides Bill Clement had told me that the WRCP extension was not in Winnipeg s 2020 plan now it. may be as soon as 2014 Have walkways cross the WRCP; Overpass for parkway is mandatory Wilkes Avenue Wilkes must be upgraded (x35); Wilkes needs to be twinned (x19) Wilkes is unsafe (x9); Wilkes condition is concerning (x6) ; considering commercial development at Kenaston (x3) and in the Precinct Plan; even now Wilkes is a major route, but built like dirt road Wilkes should be grade separated (x3); build Wilkes underpass (x2) No Wilkes intersection improvements were shown (x2); intersection improvements on Wilkes are necessary Make all traffic go onto Wilkes (x2) Where is access to Wilkes? Why is Wilkes being cut off from the north? Improve access from Wilkes to the Perimeter Reduce speed at wildlife crossings on Wilkes Wilkes and Elmhurst is a death trap North South Streets Cut-Off Cutting off/ dead-ending feeder streets will work if there is an alternative (x3) Keep it all south do not permit traffic to flow north (x2) 41

ATTACHMENT 10 Public Notification Sample Elmhurst needs to be closed, and take trucks and buses off of it (x2) Community Row will be the main road to access the new area (x2), because Charleswood Road has speed bumps; there s already too much traffic on Community between Rannock and Wilkes, and they mostly speed Harstone should be cut off from Ridgewood Funnel traffic off of existing residential streets (x2) Would like Charleswood Road (and other roads) closed at the Harte Trail (x2) Access down Charleswood Road will be cut off not good N/S access along existing routes is a concern Concerned about the south end of Haney St and its connection to Ridgewood Steer traffic away from the existing N-S streets Don t like the fact that Oakdale will be closed off and the forest on Alenbrook will be destroyed; No access onto Ridgewood from Oakdale What about using Municipal Road as a N-S feeder? Cut off Fairmont at Ridgewood Don t want Dieppe extended into new area Cut off Elmhurst to stop cut through traffic Much better to block off existing streets at Wilkes and at Harte Trail Perimeter Connection Perimeter access is needed (x12) Without Perimeter connection, all traffic will use the proposed WRCP extension I approve of the no Perimeter access plan Do not put a light on the Perimeter for easy access Proposed Collector System There should be a collector road East of the WRCP as well A north-south collector from Roblin to Wilkes is necessary (x2) preferably equidistant from the Perimeter and WRCP Connect to existing access at Wilkes and the Perimeter Collector loop is not effective I want a way out fast, not a slow loop which I ll be forced to use to get to Sterling Lyon Like the feeder on the south side of Harte Trail [east of WRCP] Collector street seems ok, but there may be issues with increased traffic around school areas 42

ATTACHMENT 10 Public Notification Sample The extension of the collector loop to WRCP doesn t make sense. Terminate the collector at Fairmont and take the traffic to Wilkes. Run the road along the north side of the tracks to Fairmont instead of along Ridgewood and through the back of the ball diamonds at Marj Edey where all people go and play it will cost money but otherwise would be insane to cross; this will probably save lives. Concerned about the collector road going through the stand of trees in area 5 Other Concerned about increased traffic volumes in existing Charleswood (x44): o On N/S streets in existing Charleswood o On Charleswood Road (x2) dangerous for walking and biking o From access road onto Charleswood Road (south of Harte Trail) (x2) o On Dieppe (x6) when Area 11 is created may need an advanced left turn onto Dieppe; worried about traffic past Dieppe School (x5); don t turn Dieppe into a collector o On Dale (x4); increased traffic on Dale is unacceptable (x2) (especially w/o an E- W network) o Concerned about increasing traffic on Elmhurst and Corydon o On Harstone (x5); On Buckingham o On Grant o Haney and Fairmont will take a beating; On Elmhurst if the multi-family happens o Limit the use of Charleswood, Eldridge, etc. for extra traffic o Why isn t Cullen used as it is wider and have sidewalks? o Could be a safety concern (x2) o Better roads needed to handle the traffic (x3) o Because of WRCP ending at Ridgewood corridor o Infrastructure is inadequate to handle new traffic o Due to Ikea development (x3) o Westdale extension will make traffic increase on Charleswood Rd between Rannock and Roblin o Increased traffic requires easy egress/ingress with minimum stop signs/more yields (x2) o Traffic increase as portrayed is impossible o In school zones Looks good (x3) Preferred concept is good/ great improvement (x3); better than others Prefer previous concept 2 because it directs traffic E-W (x3); because it has a Perimeter connection (x2) 43

ATTACHMENT 10 Public Notification Sample Upgrade existing roads first (donkey trails); Road network must be finished before houses begin(x2) otherwise it will never happen or require a tragedy before anything happens Leave Oakdale as a T-intersection where it meets Ridgewood (x3); disagree with curving Oakdale to Ridgewood a piece of bush would be destroyed (x5) I don t want a freeway out front (x2) when the load limit on my street is 65 Do not understand the options; do not understand impact on Charleswood traffic Ill-conceived; risks will be high during rush hour, due to school traffic Major intersections should be grade separated, which would benefit the environment Only 1 E-W street, rather than 2; E-W corridor is OK Good to move away from rail line Rail crossings are dangerous trains, not enough storage lanes, no turning lanes Needs more work Charleswood and Harstone gravel roads are terrible; all roads need to be paved Roads cut through so-called natural areas How will semis and trucks be enforced to ensure they are not using residential roads during construction? Expectation that Eldridge can accommodate the additional traffic is unrealistic How will Haney and Eldridge traffic be affected? Like how Ridgewood will not be the main drag Don t like idea of a second major E-W road, when Wilkes should be improved Keep Fairmont & Ridgewood intersection as is don t move it west as shown Watch entrance beside Harte Trail that enters section 2 (Dieppe Area) it is a tight squeeze, can you really go in there? Need sidewalks on existing streets Another exit would be good for the extreme west end We should not be adding any new streets to our existing inventory Get roads far from Harte Trail Without clear plans for upgrading the existing road network, it s difficult to support the development Good if it is done as shown Like it Sucks Not in favour of dumping traffic into Charleswood from Area 9 being developed before the WRCP extension and before the E-W collector route is built Roblin needs to be revamped, it s already at capacity The road network will delay the arrival of emergency vehicles 44

ATTACHMENT 10 Public Notification Sample No development until the infrastructure (roads) are in place The proposed plan pushed people to go down Ridgewood the traffic will go down beside the ball diamond at Marj Edey Park and south of the Harte Trail. Not that good of an idea. 4.2.6 Active Transportation Many respondents liked the active transportation (AT) concepts illustrated and described in the display materials. The substantial majority of respondents (88%) either liked or were neutral towards the AT concepts. A minority of respondents did not like the AT concepts (12%). There is a strong correlation between respondents who did not like AT concepts and those that did not like any aspect of the Precinct Plan. Since most of these respondents also did not provide a written explanation of the reason for disliking the AT concepts, it is reasonable to conclude that these respondents were generally against development in the area as a whole. Figure 19.0 OH3 Participant Response to Active Transportation Concept 4.2.7 Participant Response to Proposed Park Features The substantial majority of respondents were in favour of (i.e. liked ) the proposed park components. Respondents most favoured the first three components each of which would form the integrated trail network within the precinct. 45

ATTACHMENT 10 Public Notification Sample Only about 12-18% of respondents disliked any one of the proposed park components. Those who disliked one proposed park component were very likely to indicate they disliked all of the proposed park components. Explanations for this dislike, generally pointed to a desire to have no development or to expand the amount of proposed greenspaces. Figure 20.0 OH3 Participant Response to Proposed Park Features 4.3 Next Steps Following Round 3 of the public and stakeholder consultation program, the study team worked to integrate input received and prepared a final draft of the Ridgewood Precinct Plan for submission to the City of Winnipeg. 46