Agenda – Assiniboia Community Committee – March 3, 2020

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Item No. 1 Secondary Plan Amendment – 1485 Portage Avenue, 600 Empress
Street, 875 St. James Street and Lot 2 Plan 54622 42 St. James
(former stadium site)
(St. James Ward)
File SPA 1/2019 [c/r DAZ 210/2019]

WINNIPEG PUBLIC SERVICE RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council:

A. reject development application No. SPA 1/2019;

B. not give second or third reading to By-law No. 48/2019 (the “By-law”), being a
by-law to amend the Airport Vicinity Protection Area Secondary Plan By-law No.
6378/94 to re-designate from Area I to Area II the lands bounded by St. Matthews
Avenue, Empress Street, Portage Avenue and St. James Street; and

C. rescind first reading of By-law No. 48/2019.

2. That the proper offices of the City be authorized to do all things necessary to implement
the intent of the foregoing.

1
Agenda – Assiniboia Community Committee – March 3, 2020

File: SPA 1/2019

Applicant: Richard + Wintrup Planning

(Michelle Richard and John Wintrup)

Subject:

Premises Affected: 1485 Portage Avenue, 600 Empress Street, 875 St. James Street
and Lot 2 Plan 54622 42 St. James (former stadium site)

2
Agenda – Assiniboia Community Committee – March 3, 2020

Exhibits Filed: 1. Application dated April 15, 2019

2. Notification of Public Hearing dated December 19, 2019
3. Council Decision of November 21, 2019; contains report
from the Director of Planning, Property and Development
dated August 2, 2019
4. First Reading of By-law No. 48/2019 by Council on
November 21, 2019
5. Manitoba Status of Titles 1356668/1, 1356671/1,
2051514/1, 2118603/1, 2171647/1, 2677317/1 and
2782982/1
6. Letter of authorization dated March 25, 2019 from Finley
McEwen, Ontrea Inc. (CF Polo Park) to Michelle Richard
and John Wintrup
7. Letter of authorization dated April 2, 2019 from Sandy
Shindleman, 7113196 Manitoba Ltd. to Michelle Richard
and John Wintrup
8. Letter of authorization dated April 2, 2019 from Sandy
Shindleman, 8239959 Canada Inc. to Michelle Richard and
John Wintrup
9. Caveats 174123, 174124, 1095604, 1095706, 2726232/1
4365381/1, 82-82026, 82-38565.5/1, and 86-35461
10. Statutory Easement Agreement between Ontrea Inc. and
The City of Winnipeg
11. Cadillac Fairview Multi-Family Residential Development
Acoustic Zoning Review dated October 2019
12. Polo Park Airport Vicinity Protection Area Study / Airport
Noise and Adjacent Development Report dated January 31,
2020
13. Residential Development in Proximity to Airports – Polo
Park Site Area Amendment – Supplemental Report dated
January 31, 2020
14. Cadillac Fairview Polo Park Airport Vicinity Protection
Area (AVPA) Study
15. Maps 1-3, 5, and 7-9 (Appendix A, B, C, D, E, F and G)
16. Report from the Urban Planning Division dated February
24, 2020
17. Inspection Report

3
Agenda – Assiniboia Community Committee – March 3, 2020

The Winnipeg Public Service to advise that all statutory requirements with respect to this
application have been complied with.

REPRESENTATIONS:

In Support:

In Opposition:

For Information:

For the City:

4
Agenda – Assiniboia Community Committee – March 3, 2020

Moved by Councillor
That the report of the Winnipeg Public Service be taken as read.

Moved by Councillor
That the receipt of public representations be concluded.

Moved by Councillor
That the recommendation of the Winnipeg Public Service be / not be
concurred in and forwarded to the Standing Policy Committee on Property and Development,
Heritage and Downtown Development.

Moved by Councillor
That the following supporting reasons be provided, namely:

Moved by Councillor
That the public hearing with respect to this application be concluded.

5
Exhibit “16” referred to in File SPA 1/2019

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Title: SPA 1/2019 (By-law No. 48/2019) – Amendment to the Airport Vicinity Protection
Area Secondary Plan By-law No. 6378/94 for the Polo Park/Former Stadium Site

Critical Path: Assiniboia Community Committee – Standing Policy Committee on Property and
Development, Heritage and Downtown Development – Executive Policy
Committee – Council

AUTHORIZATION

Author Department Head CFO CAO

M. Pittet J. Kiernan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On April 16, 2019 the Urban Planning and Design Division received an application to amend the
Airport Vicinity Protection Area Secondary Plan By-law No. 6378/94 (the “AVPA”), proposing to
re-designate approximately 80 acres of land bordered by Portage Avenue, St. James Street, St.
Matthews Avenue, and Empress Street, (commonly referred to as “Polo Park” and the “former
Winnipeg Stadium site”), from policy Area I to Area II.

The purpose of the AVPA is to protect the 24-hour air operations of the Winnipeg James
Armstrong Richardson International Airport (Winnipeg Airport) by limiting residential noise
complaints. The AVPA severely limits new residential development, including prohibiting new
multi-family uses from establishing in policy Area I, but allows for new residential development
including multi-family uses in policy Area II. The proposal is to re-designate the subject lands
from policy Area I to Area II to allow for new residential uses, notably mixed use or multi-family
residential, to be considered in the future.

Because the AVPA is a secondary plan, a public hearing must be held in respect of the
proposed amendments after Council gives first reading to the amending by-law.

On November 21, 2019, Council gave first reading to the subject By-law No. 48/2019. First
reading was given after two, 30-day layovers were provided by the Executive Policy Committee
to allow for further consultation between the applicant and stakeholders. Meetings were held
between the applicant and Winnipeg Airports Authority (WAA) with City staff in attendance;
however, these meetings ultimately did not result in any resolution between the applicant and
stakeholder.

Since first reading, the applicant has submitted supplemental materials. The Public Service
circulated these materials to the WAA and Transport Canada.

6
The WAA has identified concerns with the proposed amendment but have indicated that they
would support a review of the AVPA in its entirety.
Although components of the development described in the proposal are consistent with the
policies of OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities, the requested change in designation from
Area I to Area II of the AVPA of an individual, substantially-sized parcel such as proposed,
potentially poses a threat to the 24-hour operations of the Winnipeg Airport. Accordingly, the
Public Service does not support the subject application.

Key policies of OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities include: supporting the role of the
James Armstrong Richardson International Airport as a major transportation hub for passengers
and cargo and supporting the 24-hour status of airport operations and airport related activities
by working with the Winnipeg Airports Authority and all stakeholders.

In accordance with section 270 of the City of Winnipeg Charter (the “Charter”), an objection to
the proposed amendment filed at the public hearing by a neighbouring municipality or another
level of government would result in the proposed amendment being referred to the Municipal
Board before second reading.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Council:
A. reject development application No. SPA 1/2019;
B. not give second or third reading to By-law No. 48/2019 (the “By-law”), being a by-
law to amend the Airport Vicinity Protection Area Secondary Plan By-law No.
6378/94 to re-designate from Area I to Area II the lands bounded by St. Matthews
Avenue, Empress Street, Portage Avenue and St. James Street; and
C. rescind first reading of By-law No. 48/2019.
2. That the proper offices of the City be authorized to do all things necessary to implement the
intent of the foregoing.

REASON FOR THE REPORT

On November 21, 2019 Council gave first reading to Secondary Plan By-law No. 48/2019 and
directed the Assiniboia Community Committee to conduct a public hearing and provide its
recommendations to Council.

Only Council can enact a by-law. A public hearing with respect to the secondary plan by-law is
required to be held between first and second reading.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS

If the recommendation is concurred in, the proposed secondary plan by-law amendment will not
proceed.

7
HISTORY/DISCUSSION

 The Winnipeg Airport Vicinity Development Plan No. 6378/94 was adopted by Council on
May 25, 1994.
 In December, 2002, the name of the Winnipeg Airport Vicinity Development Plan was
changed to the Airport Vicinity Protection Area Secondary Plan By-law (the “AVPA”) by the
Charter Implementation By-law No. 8162/2002.
 On April 16, 2019, the Urban Planning and Design Division received applications to amend
the Airport Vicinity Protection Area Secondary Plan – By-law (SPA 1/2019) and the Airport
Vicinity PDO-1 within the Zoning By-law (DAZ 210/19).
 The proposal is to re-designate the Polo Park Shopping Centre and former stadium site,
currently designated AVPA policy ‘Area I’, to ‘Area II’.
 Amendments to the AVPA are administered through the secondary plan by-law amendment
process as provided in the Charter.
 On November 21, 2019, Council gave first reading to By-law No. 48/2019. First reading was
given after two, 30-day layovers were provided by the Executive Policy Committee. The
layovers were granted to allow for further consultation between the applicant and
stakeholders. Meetings were held between the applicant and WAA with City staff in
attendance. However, these meetings ultimately did not result in any resolution between the
applicant and stakeholder.
 A detailed summary of the application and relevant by-laws and policies is provided in
Appendix ‘A’ – Planning Discussion.

8
FINANCIAL IMPACT

Financial Impact Statement Date: July 29, 2019

Project Name:
By-Law No. 48/2019 – Amendment to the Airport Vicinity Protection Area
Secondary Plan By-Law No. 6378/94 for Polo Park/Former Stadium Site

COMMENTS:

There are no financial implications associated with this report.

"Original Signed By"

Mike McGinn, CPA, CA
Manager of Finance

9
CONSULTATION

This Report has been prepared in consultation with:

Internal
 Legal Services (as to legal issues)
 Planning, Property and Development
 Office of Sustainability

OURWINNIPEG POLICY ALIGNMENT

OurWinnipeg & the Complete Communities Direction Strategy

Airport Vicinity Policies
 Airport Vicinity Protection Areas I and II are presented on the Urban Structure Map (figure
01a) of OurWinnipeg (see Figure 5 attached).
 Policies in OurWinnipeg regarding development in the Airport Vicinity Protection Area defer
to the AVPA and related Planned Development Overlay (PDO):
- Support the role of the James Armstrong Richardson International Airport as a major
transportation hub for passengers and cargo.
- Adhere to the Airport Vicinity Development Plan (AVDP) and periodically review the
plan in cooperation with relevant stakeholders.
- In order to maintain compatible land use relationships, regulate land use and building
regulations for all those neighbourhoods or portions thereof significantly affected by
airport related noise through:
o The Airport Vicinity Development Plan By-law 6378/94 (ie. the Airport Vicinity
Protection Area Secondary Plan).1
o Airport Vicinity Protection Area Planned Development Overlay
 The Complete Communities Direction Strategy does not map the Airport Vicinity Protection
Areas I or II. However, policies for the Airport Area designation also defer to the Airport
Vicinity Development Plan By-law 6378/94 (ie. the AVPA) and PDO using most of the same
wording as found (and noted above) in OurWinnipeg.
 The Complete Communities Direction Strategy also adds the following direction:
Direction 1
- Support the 24-hour status of airport operations and airport related activities by
working with the Winnipeg Airports Authority and all stakeholders.

1
The name of the Winnipeg Airport Vicinity Development Plan was changed to the Airport Vicinity
Protection Area Secondary Plan By-law by Charter Implementation By-law No. 8162/2002.

10
Regional Mixed Use Centre Policies
 Under OurWinnipeg and the Complete Communities Direction Strategy, the subject site is
located within a Regional Mixed Use Centre (Regional Mixed Use Centre F – Polo Park
Area).
 Under OurWinnipeg and the Complete Communities Direction Strategy, the key direction
guiding development in Regional Mixed Use Centres is:
KEY DIRECTION
Focus a significant share of growth to Centres and Corridors in a manner that:
- provides compact, mixed-use, high-quality urban development.
- concentrates people and jobs in areas well-served by the primary transit service,
located close to transit stops.
- concentrates urban development in a built form that helps to optimize existing
investment, municipal infrastructure, and facilities.
- encourages a built form that supports a pedestrian-friendly environment while
incorporating climate-sensitive site and building design.
 Supporting policies of the key direction for Regional Mixed Use Centres are:
- Promote and guide the transformation of existing Regional Mixed Use Centres
through a proactive and collaborative process.
- Support high-frequency transit service by encouraging higher density residential and
higher intensity commercial and mixed uses within the centre of the development.
These will be focused on major transit stops.
- Create strong, multi-modal and transportation linkages from each Regional Mixed
Use Centre to Downtown, other Centres, Corridors, Parks and major attractions.
- Promote development within the Polo Park Regional Centre consistent with the
Airport Vicinity Protection Area Planned Development Overlay.
- Establish local goals and objectives for each Regional Mixed Use Centre while taking
into account its relationship to: OurWinnipeg, Sustainable Transportation Direction
Strategy, Downtown, Redevelopment Areas, Corridors and other Centres. This could
include minimum and maximum density and employment targets.
 The residential mixed-use style development described in the proposal (“Letter of Intent”) is
consistent with the policies of OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities.
 OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities policies guiding development of Regional Mixed
Use Centres promote intensification with a mix of uses and higher density residential
development.
 It should be noted that a key direction of Complete Communities is to promote development
at the Polo Park Regional Centre consistent with the Airport Vicinity Protection Area Planned
Development Overlay (as provided in the Zoning By-law). The Airport Vicinity Protection
Area Planned Development Overlay (PDO-1 Airport Vicinity) is not to be confused with the
AVPA, which is the secondary plan by-law providing land use policy direction of the area.
The PDO-1 Airport Vicinity is a regulatory device contained in the Winnipeg Zoning By-law
which reflects and implements the policies of the AVPA.

11
 In this way, the OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities policies defer to the AVPA and
related PDO to provide details on the type and intensity of development appropriate within
the AVPA area, which includes the subject land.

Conclusion
 Some components of the proposal are consistent with several Key Directions and Enabling
Strategies of OurWinnipeg/Complete Communities, in that the proposal has the potential to
accommodate the following in a Regional Mixed Use Centre:
o compact, mixed-use, high-quality urban development
o a concentration of people and jobs in areas well-served by the primary transit
service, located close to transit stops
o a concentration of urban development in a built form that helps optimize existing
investment, municipal infrastructure, and facilities.
 However, given the information available at this time, the Public Service views the potential
risk of threatening the 24-hour air operations of the Winnipeg Airport and planned expansion
of the airport as outweighing the potential benefits described above.
 Supporting the role of the James Armstrong Richardson International Airport as a major
transportation hub for passengers and cargo and supporting the 24-hour status of airport
operations and airport related activities by working with the Winnipeg Airports Authority and
all stakeholders are key policies of OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities.

WINNIPEG CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ALIGNMENT

4.1 Increase Strategic Infill Development That Provides Access to and Capitalizes on
Existing and Planned Corridors With Frequent Transit Service.
 While components of the application align with the above Winnipeg Climate Action
Plan policy (potential infill development along a frequent transit corridor), the
proposal may not be considered strategic in that it may threaten the 24-hour
operations of the Winnipeg Airport.

SUBMITTED BY

Department: Planning, Property and Development

Division: Urban Planning
Prepared by: Robert Kostiuk, MCIP, RPP
Date: February 24, 2020
File No: SPA 1/2019

12
Attachments:
Appendix ‘A’ – Planning Discussion
Appendix ‘B’ – By-law No. 48/2019
Appendix ‘C’ – Proposal (“Letter of Intent”)
Appendix ‘D’ – Supplemental Materials:
Polo Park Airport Vicinity Protection Area Study - Airport Noise and Adjacent
Development Report (ARUP Canada Inc., January 31, 2020)
Residential Development in Proximity to Airports - Polo Park Site Area
Amendment - Supplemental Report (Richard + Wintrup Planning and
Development, January 31, 2020)
Cadillac Fairview Multi-Family Residential Development Acoustic Zoning Review
(Pico Architecture Inc., October 2019).

13
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion

DATE: February 24, 2020

FILE: SPA 1/2019 (By-law 48/2019)

RELATED FILES: DAZ 210/2019

COMMUNITY: Assiniboia Community

NEIGHBOURHOOD #: 2.125 Polo Park

SUBJECT: Proposed amendment to the Airport Vicinity Protection Area

Secondary Plan (Secondary Plan By-law No. 6378/94) for Polo
Park and Former Winnipeg Stadium Site.

LOCATION: See map below

Re-designate from
Policy Area I to Area
II

APPLICANT: Richard + Wintrup Planning

301-139 Roslyn Road
Winnipeg, MB
R3L 0G7

OWNERS: 7113196 Manitoba Ltd.

8239959 Canada Ltd.
Ontrea, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Rejection

14
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

 The Airport Vicinity Protection Area Secondary Plan (AVPA) prohibits new multi-family
residential uses from establishing in policy Area I, and allows for them in policy Area II. The
proposal is to re-designate the subject lands from policy Area I to Area II to allow for new
multi-family residential uses to be considered in the future.

SUBJECT LAND
 The proposed amendment applies to ~80 acres of land located North of Portage Ave, South
of St Matthews, East of St James St and West of Empress as indicated in Figure 1 – Site
Map.

Figure 1 – Site Map

 The subject lands contain the Polo Park Shopping Centre, Scotia Bank Theater, CJOB and
the former site of the Target store and the Winnipeg Stadium.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
 The proponent is applying for an amendment to re-designate the subject lands from policy
Area I to Area II of the AVPA.

15
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

 The subject land is not adjacent to land designated as policy Area II in the AVPA.
Redesignation of the subject land as proposed would result in a relatively small separated
portion of land designated AVPA Area II surrounded by land designated AVPA Area I. For
this reason the proposal can be characterized as a ‘spot amendment’.
 The applicant has submitted a related zoning by-law amendment proposal (DAZ 210/2019)
which seeks to change the PDO district applied to the subject lands from Area I to Area II.
The PDO is further discussed in the Airport Vicinity Protection Area Planned Development
Overlay 1 (PDO-1 Airport Vicinity) section.
 The proponent states that both amendment applications are required to “allow for mixed-use
residential development on the Polo Park site,” which is currently not permitted within Area I
of the AVPA (and PDO-1 Airport Vicinity).
 The proponent further explains that this amendment is required to enable a future land use
approval process (subdivision and rezoning – DASZ), that if successful, will introduce
‘mixed-use residential uses’ to the site. The proponent recognizes that through a future
approval process, servicing and transportation requirements and improvements will be
considered.
 The existing zoning on the site does not permit multi-family uses. A separate application to
rezone any portion of the subject lands to a zoning district that allows multi-family
development has not been submitted at this time.
 The proponent acknowledges that the proposed AVPA amendment does not approve any
future residential development on the site and that a “post amendment planning exercise will
determine exact development thresholds including residential densities, location of
residential uses and their configuration.”
 Key supporting reasons for the proposed amendment as expressed in the proponent’s letter
of intent, include:
o Allowing residential development on the subject lands is in keeping with the vision of
OurWinnipeg’s ‘Live Work Play’ philosophy.
o The lands are currently underutilized with several areas of opportunity for
densification, including the former CanadInns Stadium site.
o Retail is close to saturation in the Polo Park corridor, and the inclusion of other uses,
particularly residential, will help balance the mix of uses, and ultimately result in more
employment and further growth potential.
o There is market demand for multi-family development in the general area.
o Further consideration for the amendment and allowing residential land-uses in the
Polo Park area include:
 The NEF Contours that form the basis of the policies and regulations are 20
years old.
 Jet engines are increasingly quieter with advancements made in the last 20
years in aerodynamics computers and engineering.
 Construction standards and building materials have improved over the last 20
years and can mitigate acoustic noises on habitants.

16
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

 The Transport Canada TP 1247E Aviation - Land Use in the Vicinity of

Aerodromes (Ninth Edition) establishes that noise exposure forecasts (NEF)
below 30 decibels should not preclude residential development.
 The proponent’s letter of intent is included in Appendix ‘C’.

LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS

City of Winnipeg Charter Act (‘the Charter’)

Regulations re protection of airport vicinity

269(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) requiring the establishment by council in Plan Winnipeg of an area of the city
adjacent to Winnipeg International Airport as an airport vicinity protection area;
(b) establishing policies for use of real property, and for development, in the airport
vicinity protection area to ensure that the use of real property and development in the
area are compatible with the operation of Winnipeg International Airport, and
requiring any Plan Winnipeg by-law to be consistent with those policies
(c) requiring a zoning by-law to be passed by council to control or prohibit any use of
real property or development in the airport vicinity protection area, or in a part of it, to
ensure that the use of real property and development are compatible with the
policies established under clause (b).

Compliance with regulations under subsection (1)

269(3) Every Plan Winnipeg by-law must, in conformity with regulations, if any, made under
subsection (1),
(a) establish an area in the city adjacent to Winnipeg International Airport as an airport
vicinity protection area; and
(b) contain plans and policies for the use of real property and for development in the
airport vicinity protection area to ensure that the use of real property and
development in the area are compatible with the operations of the airport.

Referral to Municipal Board

270(1) Where
(a) a proposed secondary plan by-law deals with the airport vicinity protection area; and
(b) a municipality, or the board of a planning district established under The Planning Act,
that is adjacent to the area, or the Government of Canada or the Government of
Manitoba objects to the proposed by-law by filing a notice of objection with the city
clerk before the day of the meeting at which council is to consider the report of a
committee of council or planning commission respecting the proposed by-law;
(c) the city must, before council gives second reading to the proposed by-law, refer the
proposed by-law to The Municipal Board.

Restriction on adoption of by-law

270(3) Council must not pass a proposed secondary plan by-law that has been referred to
The Municipal Board unless the proposed by-law conforms to the recommendations that
the board has made in its report to council in respect of the by-law.

Zoning by-laws in airport vicinity protection area

271 The city must ensure that all zoning by-laws that apply to real property in the airport
vicinity protection area conform with regulations, if any, made under subsection 269(1).

17
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

Airport Vicinity Protection Area Secondary Plan (AVPA)

 The Charter requires that the City establish policies for use of real property, and for
development, in the airport vicinity protection area to ensure that the use of real property
and development in the area are compatible with the operation of Winnipeg International
Airport (section 269). The AVPA fulfills this requirement.
 The Winnipeg Airport Vicinity Development Plan No. 6378/94 was adopted by Council on
May 25, 1994.
 In December, 2002, the name of the Winnipeg Airport Vicinity Development Plan was
changed to the Airport Vicinity Protection Area Secondary Plan By-law by Charter
Implementation By-law No. 8162/2002.
 The purpose of the AVPA is to protect the 24-hour air operations of the Winnipeg Airport by
limiting residential noise complaints, which are understood to be a limiting factor at some
major Airports which are currently forced to operate under regulatory curfews (p 17). Such
curfews can potentially eliminate night time operations and reduce total economic benefits
by capping opportunities (p 17).
 According to the AVPA, the principal concern for residents living in proximity to the Airport is
the noise generated by the arrival and departure of aircraft. Tolerance for aircraft noise is
measured using the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) which is a complex and internationally-
accepted noise metric adopted by Transport Canada in 1987.

 NEF contour maps are made available to local governments for use in conjunction with
Transport Canada’s recommended land uses as presented in Figure 2 – Community
Response Prediction to NEF Levels.

Figure 2 – Community Response Prediction to NEF Levels

 The AVPA facilitates the adoption of NEF contours into a functional map with defined
restrictions that can be easily administered by the City, utilized by developers and
understood by residents.

 The boundaries of policy Areas I and II provided in the AVPA are directly related to the NEF
contours. The 25 NEF contour approximates the outer limit of the AVPA plan area (see
Figure 3 – AVPA NEF Contours and Policy Areas).

18
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

 The AVPA indicates that the NEF contours reflect the ultimate traffic volume at Winnipeg
International Airport, and includes the potential for an additional runway to the northeast of
the existing runway. The general alignment of the future runway has been added to Figure
3.
 The AVPA also provides that the Airport vicinity boundary will be reviewed and revised as
necessary to reflect changes to the NEF contours. Re-calculation of the NEF contours
would result in consideration for altering the policy Area I and Area II boundaries.

19
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

Fut
ure
Ru
nw
ay

Figure 3 - AVPA NEF Contours and Policy Areas (*future runway added)

20
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

 The AVPA states that that the City shall regulate the use of land and buildings within the
AVPA as follows:
i. within Area I no new residential development shall be permitted (subject to statutory
nonconforming rights and any related variance); but, existing dwellings may be
replaced if destroyed or demolished. Subject to any required rezoning or other
change in land use controls. Exceptions for minor residential infilling in existing and
established residential areas may be approved;
ii. subject to any required zoning or other change in land use controls, within Area II
new single family dwellings may be approved and new multiple residential dwellings
may be approved up to 85 units per hectare (35 units per acre) and approved above
that density by conditional use approval.
 The subject land is located in policy Area I of the AVPA (See Figure 4 – Subject Land and
NEFs).

Su
bje
ct
La
nd

Figure 4 – Subject Land and NEFs

 Residential mixed-use development, as described in the Development Vision portion of the

proponent’s Letter of Intent, is currently not permitted in the AVPA Area I policy area. Re-
designating the subject land from AVPA policy Area I to Area II would allow for such
development to be considered in future development applications.
 Re-designation of the subject land to AVPA policy Area II does not represent an approval for
residential development on the subject lands. However, discussions related to the
residential development of the subject lands cannot occur unless the subject land is first re-
designated to policy Area II.

21
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

OurWinnipeg & the Complete Communities Direction Strategy

Airport Vicinity Policies
 The Minister of Local Government required the following during the OurWinnipeg adoption
process in 2011:
1. That OurWinnipeg be altered to incorporate policy and mapping to identify the Airport
Vicinity Protection Area. Although the Complete Communities document makes
reference to adhering to Winnipeg’s existing Airport Vicinity Protection Area, language to
this effect is needed in OurWinnipeg itself as Section 269(3) of the Charter requires that
this information be included in Plan Winnipeg (i.e. OurWinnipeg).”
 Airport Vicinity Protection Areas I and II are presented on the Urban Structure Map (figure
01a) of OurWinnipeg (presented as ‘Area 1’ and ‘Area 2’).
 Policies in OurWinnipeg regarding development in the Airport Vicinity Protection Area defer
to the AVPA and related PDO:
- Support the role of the James Armstrong Richardson International Airport as a major
transportation hub for passengers and cargo.
- Adhere to the Airport Vicinity Development Plan (AVDP) and periodically review the
plan in cooperation with relevant stakeholders.
- In order to maintain compatible land use relationships, regulate land use and building
regulations for all those neighbourhoods or portions thereof significantly affected by
airport related noise through:
o The Airport Vicinity Development Plan By-law 6378/94 (ie. the Airport Vicinity
Protection Area Secondary Plan).2
o Airport Vicinity Protection Area Planned Development Overlay
 The Complete Communities Direction Strategy does not map the Airport Vicinity Protection
Areas I or II. However, policies for the Airport Area designation also defer to the Airport
Vicinity Development Plan By-law 6378/94 (ie. the AVPA) and PDO using most of the same
wording as found (and noted above) in OurWinnipeg.
 The Complete Communities Direction Strategy also adds the following direction:
Direction 1
- Support the 24-hour status of airport operations and airport related activities by
working with the Winnipeg Airports Authority and all stakeholders.

2
The name of the Winnipeg Airport Vicinity Development Plan was changed to the Airport Vicinity
Protection Area Secondary Plan By-law by Charter Implementation By-law No. 8162/2002.

22
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

Regional Mixed Use Centre Policies

 Under OurWinnipeg and the Complete Communities Direction Strategy, the subject site is
identified as a Regional Mixed Use Centre (See Figure 5 – OurWinnipeg Area Structure
Map).

Subject
Land

Figure 5 – OurWinnipeg Area Structure Map

 As described in the Complete Communities Direction Strategy, characteristics of Regional
Mixed Use Centres include:
- Capable of major transformative change
- Located strategically throughout the city to balance employment and population
density
- Able to efficiently support rapid transit and high-frequency transit service through a
mix of high density development (residential, commercial and office)
- Well connected by Regional or Community Corridors and located at major
intersections
- Have adequate land-base and infrastructure to support expansion, a mix of uses,
and change through collaboratively planned intensification
- City-wide or regional destinations
- Large site areas typically 100 acres or more.
 Under OurWinnipeg and the Complete Communities Direction Strategy, the key direction
guiding development in Regional Mixed Use Centres is:
KEY DIRECTION
Focus a significant share of growth to Centres and Corridors in a manner that:
- provides compact, mixed-use, high-quality urban development.

23
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

- concentrates people and jobs in areas well-served by the primary transit service,
located close to transit stops.
- concentrates urban development in a built form that helps to optimize existing
investment, municipal infrastructure, and facilities.
- encourages a built form that supports a pedestrian-friendly environment while
incorporating climate-sensitive site and building design.
 Supporting policies of the key direction for Regional Mixed Use Centres are:
- Promote and guide the transformation of existing Regional Mixed Use Centres
through a proactive and collaborative process.
- Support high-frequency transit service by encouraging higher density residential and
higher intensity commercial and mixed uses within the centre of the development.
These will be focused on major transit stops.
- Create strong, multi-modal and transportation linkages from each Regional Mixed
Use Centre to Downtown, other Centres, Corridors, Parks and major attractions.
- Promote development within the Polo Park Regional Centre consistent with the
Airport Vicinity Protection Area Planned Development Overlay.
- Establish local goals and objectives for each Regional Mixed Use Centre while taking
into account its relationship to: OurWinnipeg, Sustainable Transportation Direction
Strategy, Downtown, Redevelopment Areas, Corridors and other Centres. This could
include minimum and maximum density and employment targets.
 The residential mixed-use style development described in the proposal (“Letter of Intent”) is
consistent with the policies of OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities.
 OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities policies guiding development of Regional Mixed
Use Centres promote intensification with a mix of uses and higher density residential
development.
 It should be noted that a key direction of Complete Communities is to promote development
at the Polo Park Regional Centre consistent with the Airport Vicinity Protection Area Planned
Development Overlay (as provided in the Zoning By-law). The Airport Vicinity Protection
Area Planned Development Overlay (PDO-1 Airport Vicinity) is not to be confused with the
AVPA, which is the secondary plan by-law providing land use policy direction of the area.
The PDO-1 Airport Vicinity is a regulatory device contained in the Winnipeg Zoning By-law
which reflects and implements the policies of the AVPA.
 In this way, the OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities policies defer to the AVPA and
related PDO to provide details on the type and intensity of development appropriate within
the AVPA area, which includes the subject land.
Conclusion
 Some components of the proposal are consistent with several Key Directions and Enabling
Strategies of OurWinnipeg/Complete Communities, in that the proposal has the potential to
accommodate the following in a Regional Mixed Use Centre:
o compact, mixed-use, high-quality urban development
o a concentration of people and jobs in areas well-served by the primary transit
service, located close to transit stops
o a concentration of urban development in a built form that helps optimize existing
investment, municipal infrastructure, and facilities.

24
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

 However, given the information available at this time, the Public Service views the potential
risk of threatening the 24-hour air operations of the Winnipeg Airport and planned expansion
of the airport as outweighing the potential benefits described above.
 Supporting the role of the James Armstrong Richardson International Airport as a major
transportation hub for passengers and cargo and supporting the 24-hour status of airport
operations and airport related activities by working with the Winnipeg Airports Authority and
all stakeholders are key policies of OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities.

CITY OF WINNIPEG ZONING BY-LAW 200/2006

 The subject lands are currently zoned “C3” Commercial Corridor and “C4” Commercial
Regional (see Figure 6 – Zoning).

C3

C
3
Subject
Land

C4

Figure 6 - Zoning
 The C3 and C4 zoning districts do not allow residential uses with the exception of ‘Assisted
Living Facilities’, which are permitted within the C3 zoning district.
 Development of residential uses on the subject lands would require an amendment to the
zoning by-law. Future development applications to rezone these lands to allow for
residential uses may require the completion of engineering studies and could be subject to
development or servicing agreements.
 A separate application to rezone any portion of the subject lands from C3 or C4 to a zoning
district that allows multi-family development has not been submitted at this time.

25
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

 Currently, any development applications to rezone the subject land for residential uses
would have to be refused (section 275(2) of the Charter) because such a proposal would not
conform to the policies of the AVPA, the secondary plan by-law for the area.
 In addition, development of the subject lands are further regulated in the Zoning By-law by a
Planned Development Overlay district, (PDO-1 Airport Vicinity)

Airport Vicinity Protection Area Planned Development Overlay 1 (PDO-1 Airport

Vicinity)
 A Planned Development Overlay (or “PDO”), identifies an area of land to which special rules
or development standards are to be applied to the underlying zoning district(s). PDOs are
commonly used in the City of Winnipeg Zoning By-law to achieve local planning objectives in
specially designated areas, such as the Airport Vicinity Protection Area.
 The PDO-1 Airport Vicinity of the Zoning By-law establishes two areas, ‘Area I’ and ‘Area II’,
which align spatially with the respective policy areas of the AVPA. Policies of the AVPA are
reflected in the PDO-1 Airport Vicinity by applying the following rules to the underlying
zoning districts (which in this case are C3 and C4 as shown in Figure 5):
Area I
- New residential development is not permitted; however replacement of existing
residential dwellings, or minor infill of one additional residential lot in the R1 (single-
family) zone may be considered as a conditional use. Multi-family development is not
permitted, except that existing multi-family dwellings may be replaced if demolished or
destroyed.
Area II
- Restricts new multi-family dwellings to a maximum density of 35 units/acre. Densities
beyond 35 units/acre may be approved on lots that front onto Portage Avenue, or if not
fronting onto Portage Avenue, through a conditional use application.
 The subject land is within Area I of PDO-1 Airport Vicinity.
 The applicant has submitted a related zoning by-law amendment proposal (DAZ 210/2019)
which seeks to change the PDO Overlay district applied to the subject lands from Area I to
Area II.
 As previously mentioned, future residential development of the subject lands will require
rezoning the subject lands to a zoning district that allows for residential uses. However, any
such applications will not be considered under the current PDO-I Airport Vicinity and AVPA
designations.

26
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

ANALYSIS
Relevance of NEF Contours
 It has been suggested that the NEF contours provided in the AVPA may no longer be valid
as jet engines have become increasingly quieter in the 20 years since the NEF contours
were generated.
 NEF contours are the result of a complex set of calculations which consider a number of
variables including runway geometry, flight paths, aircraft fleet mix, airplane engine type and
time of day. The process by which the NEF contours of the AVPA were made included a
technical review by Transport Canada to validate that the inputs and software were used
appropriately.
 The WAA has indicated that the NEF contours provided in the AVPA represent a forecast of
noise exposure 20 years into the future. Calculation of the NEF contours included
consideration of a future runway, which has yet to be established.
 Discussion with WAA suggest that the NEF contours provided in the AVPA still appear to
accurately model existing and future noise resulting from aircraft associated with the
Winnipeg Airport.
 The WAA also suggested that while airplane technology has improved over the past 20
years, new airplanes which incorporate such technology do not fly predominantly out of
Winnipeg.

Winnipeg Airports Authority (WAA)

 In 1997, control of the Winnipeg Airport was transferred from the federal government to the
WAA.
 The WAA is a community-based, non-share capital corporation that operates, manages,
maintains and invests in the Winnipeg Airport. The WAA Board includes Directors
nominated by the City of Winnipeg, Province of Manitoba, and the Government of Canada.
 Revenue generated by the Winnipeg Airport is re-invested into the airport.
 The WAA estimates that the Winnipeg Airport generates 17,000 jobs and has a local
economic impact of $3.4 billion.
 A majority of the growth opportunity for the Winnipeg Airport is related to cargo. According
to the WAA, the Winnipeg Airport is the number 1 dedicated freighter airport in Canada by
number of flights and received Canada’s third-highest daily air cargo tonnage. Part of the
reason for this success is that Winnipeg Airport does not have the same restrictions placed
upon it as other airports.
 A significant amount of cargo arrivals to and cargo departures from Winnipeg Airport occur
between 11:00pm and 7:00am and are over 45,000kg.
 Being free of such restrictions, and being able to accommodate large cargo flights
throughout the night, has allowed the Winnipeg Airport to operate as an air cargo hub.
Building on this success, the WAA has plans to invest into a new multi-tenant air cargo
logistics facility.
 With respect to passenger service, Winnipeg Airport provides early morning flights (5:00 am)
to hub airports, such as Toronto.

27
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

 The Winnipeg Airport’s ability to generate economic benefits to the community at large
depends on its ability to remain competitive with other airports and operate as 24-hours.

Supplemental Materials
 Supplemental materials consisting of the following were provided by the Proponent in digital
format on January 31, 2020:
o Polo Park Airport Vicinity Protection Area Study - Airport Noise and Adjacent
Development Report (ARUP Canada Inc., January 31, 2020)
o Residential Development in Proximity to Airports - Polo Park Site Area Amendment -
Supplemental Report (Richard + Wintrup Planning and Development, January 31,
2020)
o Cadillac Fairview Multi-Family Residential Development Acoustic Zoning Review
(Pico Architecture Inc., October 2019).
 These materials are included in Appendix ‘D’ and were circulated to the WAA and Transport
Canada. A brief review of the key points from these materials is summarized below.

AVPA and NEFs Require a Review

 Multiple references are made to the fact that neither the AVPA, nor the NEFs have been
updated for a number of years.

Transport Canada – Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes

 The supplemental materials include multiple references to Transport Canada TP 1247E
Aviation - Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes (Ninth Edition – hereinafter referred to as
the “Transport Canada Guidelines”).
 The Transport Canada Guidelines indicate that residential land uses may be acceptable
where NEF values are less than 30 and when subject to specified limitations. The specified
limitations are:
Annoyance caused by aircraft noise may begin as low as NEF 25. It is recommended
that developers be made aware of this fact and that they undertake to so inform all
prospective tenants or purchasers of residential units. In addition, it is suggested that
development should not proceed until the responsible authority is satisfied that acoustic
insulation features, if required, have been considered in the building design.3
 The supplemental materials reference note (b) of the Transport Canada Guidelines:
(b) This Note applies to NEF 30 to 35 only. New residential construction or
development should not be undertaken. If the responsible authority chooses to
proceed contrary to Transport Canada's recommendation, residential
construction or development between NEF 30 and 35 should not be permitted to
proceed until the responsible authority is satisfied that:

3
Transport Canada (2013/2014) Aviation - Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes (TP 1247E, Ninth Edition).
Page 28. Retrieved from [Link]

28
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

(1) appropriate acoustic insulation features have been considered in the

building and
(2) a noise impact assessment study has been completed and shows that
this construction or development is not incompatible with aircraft noise.
Notwithstanding point 2, the developer should still be required to inform all
prospective tenants or purchasers of residential units that speech interference
and annoyance caused by aircraft noise are, on average, established and
growing at NEF 30 and are very significant by NEF 35.4
 For context, the preamble to the notes in italics above includes:
The location of the lines between noise zones cannot be fixed exactly. It will therefore be
necessary for the responsible public authority to make an appropriate interpretation of what
regulations are to apply at a specific location.
 Also noteworthy is that the Transport Canada Guidelines recommend that when planning
new aerodromes, no new noise sensitive land uses be permitted above 25 NEF.5

Differing Noise Exposure Forecasts

 The supplemental materials (namely the Arup report), reference three different sets of NEF
contours: 1995, 2000, and 2005.
 The AVPA includes NEF contours that have not been updated since the AVPA was adopted
by Council on May 25, 1994. These NEF contours are consistent with those referenced as
being from 1995.
 The 1995 NEF contours show that most of the portion of the Polo Park site south of
Maroons Road lies at or below the 30 NEF contour.
 The 2000 NEF contours are stated to be sourced from the City of Winnipeg. Although the
City of Winnipeg is in possession of these NEF contours and produced a map with the
contours over the existing AVPA Area I and II boundaries, this does not represent a change
to Figure 1 of the AVPA. Furthermore, this set of contours does not appear to contemplate a
third runway as does Figure 1 of the AVPA.
 The Arup report references 2005 NEF contours that appear in the WAA’s Winnipeg Airport
Development Plan Summary (December 2000). However, the Arup report notes that the
2005 NEF contours were not considered in its analysis due to the inability to obtain a higher
resolution map. The 2005 contours also do not appear to contemplate a third runway.
 Both the Winnipeg Richardson International Airport Master Plan 2033 and the AVPA
consider planning for a third runway.

4
Transport Canada (2013/2014) Aviation - Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes (TP 1247E, Ninth Edition).
Page 28. Retrieved from [Link]
5
Transport Canada (2013/2014) Aviation - Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes (TP 1247E, Ninth Edition).
Page 22. Retrieved from [Link]

29
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

Noise Mitigation & Acoustic Review

 All new residential one-family, two-family and multi-family dwellings to be constructed in the
AVPA are subject to the acoustic insulation requirements of the Airport Vicinity Acoustic
Insulation By-law No. 6419/94.
 In addition to following the Airport Vicinity Acoustic Insulation By-law, the Arup report
recommends informing prospective tenants or purchasers of residential units of potential
annoyance caused by aircraft noise (per the recommendations of the Transport Canada
Guidelines), and including appropriate cautionary language in the registration of land titles
for new residential units (see page 25 of Arup Report). The City of Winnipeg has confirmed
with Teranet Manitoba that notification caveats such as those recommended in the Arup
report (and the Transport Canada Guidelines) can not be registered in Manitoba.
 The Acoustic Zoning (Pico Architecture) suggests approaches to achieving the requirements
of the Airport Vicinity Acoustic Insulation By-law.

Land Use Planning in Other Jurisdictions

 The supplemental material shows that there are other jurisdictions that allow residential
development in areas with a NEF greater than or equal to 30.
 However, an important consideration when reviewing land use planning regulations in other
jurisdictions is the airport operating restrictions and the objectives of the individual airports.
As previously discussed, Winnipeg Airport retains a competitive advantage as a 24-hour
unrestricted airport. The 24-hour status allows the Winnipeg Airport to grow its cargo
operations as a significant amount of the cargo arrivals and cargo departures occur between
11:00pm and 7:00am and consist of planes over 45,000kg.
 Furthermore, retaining the 24-hour unrestricted status at the Winnipeg Airport is both
regionally and Provincially-significant. Continued success of the airport, notably in terms of
its cargo capabilities, may not only attract investment in Winnipeg, but also in Centreport
Canada, which is a key Provincial initiative with international significance.
 The supplemental materials indicate that from 2004 to 2014, WAA received an average of
181 complaints per year equating to an average of 1.4 complaints per 1,000 aircraft
movements, which was significantly lower than other North American airports.6 This may be
viewed as a success of the AVPA to date, as some other airports in Canada have been
subject to intense opposition. For example, late flights at Montreal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau
International Airport were recently challenged in court as a citizens’ group sought stricter
operating regulations.7

6
Richard + Wintrup Planning and Development. (Jan 31, 2020). Residential Development in Proximity to Airports –
Polo Park Site Area Amendment – Supplemental Report (page 14).
7
Feith, J. (2019, August 14). Late-night flights and Trudeau airport expansion challenged in court. The Montreal
Gazette, retrieved from [Link]
challenged-in-court

30
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

CONCLUSIONS
 The original Letter of Intent submitted by the applicant indicated an intention to establish
residential mixed-use development on the subject lands in the Polo Park neighbourhood.
The letter indicates that:
o Multi-family residential uses are not currently permitted in the Area I designation of
the AVPA.
o An amendment to the AVPA is required to re-designate the subject lands from policy
Area I to Area II.
o Re-designation of the subject land to policy Area II does not represent an approval
for residential development on the subject lands. However, discussions related to
the residential development of the subject lands cannot occur unless the subject land
is re-designated to policy Area II.
o Future multi-family residential development on the subject lands will require approval
of a development application which includes rezoning the subject lands to a zoning
district that allows for residential uses. Such approvals would determine the
appropriate level of residential/mixed use development appropriate for the site, as
well as any servicing requirements.
 Supplemental material submitted by the Proponent to the Public Service provides additional
supporting rationale for the proposed amendment. Key general points raised in the
supplemental material include:
o The AVPA and NEFs included in the AVPA require a review
o The AVPA may not be consistent with the most current Transport Canada Guidelines
o Land use planning regulations in other jurisdictions allow for residential development
in areas with higher value NEFs (ex. higher than 30 NEF)
o There are noise mitigation approaches that may help improve living standards for
future residents of dwellings in the vicinity of the Winnipeg Airport.
 Some components of the proposal are consistent with several Key Directions and Enabling
Strategies of OurWinnipeg/Complete Communities, in that the proposal has the potential to
accommodate the following in a Regional Mixed Use Centre:
o compact, mixed-use, high-quality urban development
o a concentration of people and jobs in areas well-served by the primary transit
service, located close to transit stops
o a concentration of urban development in a built form that helps optimize existing
investment, municipal infrastructure, and facilities.
 However, given the information available at this time, the Public Service views the potential
risk of threatening the 24-hour air operations of the Winnipeg Airport and planned expansion
of the airport as outweighing the potential benefits described above.
 While all of the points above warrant consideration at a public hearing, these points may be
best considered through a comprehensive review of the AVPA through a planning process
that is supported by current information, a consistent methodology, and collaboration with
stakeholders.

31
APPENDIX ‘A’ – Planning Discussion Con’t

 The future viability of the Winnipeg Airport is of Provincial importance. Accordingly, the
creation of the AVPA involved multiple interested stakeholders that included the WAA,
Transport Canada, the Province of Manitoba, and the RM of Rosser. Today, the same
stakeholders should be considered as well as CentrePort Canada Inc., which relies on the
continued 24-hour unrestricted air operations at Winnipeg Airport.
 The WAA has expressed concerns with the proposed amendment. However, the WAA has
indicated that they would support a review of the AVPA.
 A comprehensive review of the AVPA generally aligns with the January 17, 2017
recommendations of the Standing Policy Committee on Property and Development, Heritage
and Downtown Development, where a review of the AVPA was requested as part of the
OurWinnipeg process.
 Supporting the role of the James Armstrong Richardson International Airport as a major
transportation hub for passengers and cargo and supporting the 24-hour status of airport
operations and airport related activities by working with the Winnipeg Airports Authority and
all stakeholders are key policies of OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities.
 Furthermore, Complete Communities provides the following policy direction regarding the
periodic review of the AVPA:
o Adhere to the Airport Vicinity Development Plan (AVDP) and periodically review the
plan in cooperation with relevant stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the proposed amendment be not supported for the following
reasons:
 Approval from Area I to Area II of the AVPA of an individual, substantially-sized parcel
such as proposed potentially poses a threat to the 24-hour air operations of the
Winnipeg Airport.
 Supporting the role of the James Armstrong Richardson International Airport as a major
transportation hub for passengers and cargo and supporting the 24-hour status of airport
operations and airport related activities by working with the Winnipeg Airports Authority
and all stakeholders are key policies of OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities.
 The future viability of the Winnipeg Airport is of Provincial importance. As discussed
through the application process, many view the AVPA as dated and in need of a review.
Through such a review, changes to the AVPA may be considered with relevant
stakeholders. This approach is consistent with OurWinnipeg and Complete
Communities:
o Adhere to the Airport Vicinity Development Plan (AVDP) and periodically review
the plan in cooperation with relevant stakeholders.

32
Appendix ‘B’ – By-law No. 48/2019

Appendix ‘C’ – Proposal (“Letter of Intent”)

Appendix ‘D’ – Supplemental Materials: Polo Park Airport Vicinity Protection Area
Study – Airport Noise and Adjacent Development Report (ARUP Canada Inc.,
January 31, 2020)

Appendix ‘D’ – Supplemental Materials: Residential Development in Proximity to

Airports – Polo Park Site Area Amendment – Supplemental Report (Richard +
Wintrup Planning and Development, January 31, 2020)

Appendix ‘D’ – Supplemental Materials: Cadillac Fairview Multi-Family Residential

Development Acoustic Zoning Review (Pico Architecture Inc., October 2019).

33