This might help:
Do You Need an All-Wheel-Drive or Four-Wheel-Drive Car? on Edmunds.com
"What would perform better in the snow? A front-wheel-drive car with winter tires or an AWD car with all-season tires? Michelin tested this scenario in a study a few years ago. The FWD car with winter tires outperformed the AWD car in nearly every test. "
"Don't Buy a 10 Percent Car
People sometimes buy an AWD or 4WD vehicle for the occasional off-road outing or ski trip, while 90 percent of the time they'll be sitting in traffic or using the vehicle on paved roads. These drivers would be better served by renting a car for their ski trips. This would save them money both on the price of the car plus the lower fuel costs."
The Myth of All-Powerful All-Wheel Drive
All-Wheel Drive: Do You Really Need It?
All Wheel Drive Does Not Make You Safer
Personally, if I still lived up in the DC area or north, or had to deal with mountain roads in the winter, I'd opt for AWD. I'd heavily consider it for the Pacific NW. I live in Georgia, so I would rarely be able to take advantage. AWD and 4WD vehicles here get better resale value, but not for a car like this. If I had a truck or full-sized SUV, I'd get better resale value around here, but not for a CX-3 or HR-V. Drivers of these don't take their cars on muddy paths; they have other vehicles for that.
For the past 20 years I've driven RWD cars, even in torrential downpours and on snow and sometimes ice. FWD will handle even better in those conditions than the RWD that I am used to. I've gotten by just fine w/ RWD, but I DO know how to drive in those conditions (so many people do not, however). So for me personally, AWD doesn't really offer a big enough bonus to justify the initial cost, the higher maintenance and repair costs, and high gas costs/lower mpg.
At least in the part of the country where I live, AWD on a car like the CX-3 or HR-V provides VERY little benefit, and is nothing but a cash cow feature for the car makers. YMMV