noise feasibility study proposed residential care facility ... · noise feasibility study, proposed...
TRANSCRIPT
Noise Feasibility Study
Proposed Residential Care Facility
Carmel Heights Re-Development
Mississauga, Ontario
Prepared for:
Micor Developments 2 Hostein Drive
Ancaster, ON L9G 2S5
Prepared by
Yvonne Lo, BASc, PEng
Reviewed by
Brian Howe, MEng, MBA, LLM, PEng
January 21, 2019
Project No: 01800864
Table of Contents 1 Introduction & Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
2 Site Description & Noise Sources................................................................................................... 2
3 Noise Level Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Road Traffic Noise .................................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Criteria Governing Stationary (Industrial) Noise Sources ...................................................... 4
4 Traffic Noise Predictions ................................................................................................................ 5
4.1 Road Traffic Data .................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Traffic Noise Prediction .......................................................................................................... 5
5 Traffic Noise Recommendations .................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Outdoor Living Areas .............................................................................................................. 6
5.2 Indoor Living Areas and Ventilation Requirements ................................................................ 6
5.3 Building Facade Constructions ................................................................................................ 7
6 Summary of Traffic Noise Control Recommendations .................................................................. 7
7 Preliminary Assessment of Stationary Noise Sources .................................................................... 9
7.1 Criteria for Stationary Sources of Sound ................................................................................. 9
7.2 Noise Assessment .................................................................................................................... 9
8 Recommendations for Implementation ......................................................................................... 11
Figure 1 – Aerial Photo of Site Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan Showing Prediction Locations Figure 3 – Assumed Noise Source and Receptor Locations Appendix A – Supporting Drawings Appendix B – Road Traffic Information Appendix C – Sample STAMSON 5.04 Output
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 1 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY
HGC Engineering was retained by Micor Developments Inc. to conduct a noise feasibility study for a
proposed redevelopment of the existing Carmel Heights Seniors Residence location, in Mississauga,
Ontario. The proposed development will include a 6-storey residential rental building, a 2-storey
convent and a 6-storey senior care building all within the same complex. The surrounding area is
characterized by existing residential uses. The study is required by the City as part of their planning
and approvals process.
The primary noise sources impacting the site were determined to be road traffic on Mississauga Road
and Dundas Street West. Relevant road traffic data was obtained from the City of Mississauga. The
data was used to predict future traffic sound levels at the various locations around the proposed site.
The predicted sound levels were compared to the guidelines of the Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks (MECP) and the Municipality to develop noise control recommendations.
The sound level predictions indicate that the future road traffic sound levels will exceed MECP
guidelines at all façades of the proposed building by a marginal amount. Forced air ventilation
systems with ductwork sized for the future installation of central air conditioning by the occupant
will be required for the proposed building. Any building construction meeting the minimum
requirements of the Ontario Building Code will provide sufficient acoustical insulation for the
proposed development. Warning clauses will need to be included in the purchase and rental
agreements to advise occupants of potentially audible transportation noise levels.
A preliminary investigation of the potential noise impact from the rooftop mechanical equipment of
the proposed building at the existing residences was also conducted based on assumptions made for
similar projects. The results indicate that the potential noise from the rooftop mechanical equipment
can be within the applicable noise guideline limits of the MECP at the neighbouring residences.
Mitigation is not anticipated to be required with respect to rooftop equipment. When detailed roof
plans and equipment specifications are available, an acoustical consultant shall confirm that the
sound level limits will be met at the adjacent residences and provide any additional recommendations
which may be required.
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 2 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
In summary, it is concluded that the proposed development is feasible from the perspective of noise
impact. Details of the assessment leading to this conclusion are provided herein.
2 SITE DESCRIPTION & NOISE SOURCES
Figure 1 is an aerial photo illustrating the location of the proposed site. The proposed residential care
facility is located south of Dundas Street West and west of Mississauga Road with access from
Sherwood Forest Circle in Mississauga, Ontario. A site plan of the development prepared by MSAi
dated September 10, 2018 is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 also indicates the sound level prediction
locations [A] to [C] for reference purposes. The proposed development will include a 6-storey
residential rental building, a 2-storey convent and a 6-storey senior care building all within the same
complex. Appendix A includes the preliminary floor plans and building elevations.
A site visit was made by HGC Engineering personnel in January 2019 to make observations of the
acoustical environment and to identify the significant noise sources in the vicinity. The surrounding
area is considered to be Class I (urban) in terms of its acoustical environment. Road traffic on
Mississauga Road and Dundas Street are the dominant noise sources in the area. The Carmel Heights
Seniors Residence is currently situated at the subject site and will be removed to make way for the
new development. There are existing residences to the east and west of the development site. There
are no significant sources of stationary noise noted within 500 m of the subject site.
3 NOISE LEVEL CRITERIA
3.1 Road Traffic Noise
Guidelines for acceptable levels of road traffic noise impacting residential developments such as a
retirement care facility are given in the MECP publication NPC-300, “Environmental Noise
Guideline Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning”, Part C release date
October 21, 2013, and are listed in Table 1 below. The values in Table 1 are energy equivalent
(average) sound levels [LEQ] in units of A-weighted decibels [dBA].
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 3 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
Table 1: Road Traffic Noise Criteria
Space Daytime LEQ(16 hour)
Road Nighttime LEQ(8 hour)
Road
Outdoor Living Areas 55 dBA -- Inside Living/Dining Rooms 45 dBA 45 dBA
Inside Bedrooms 45 dBA 40 dBA
Daytime refers to the period between 07:00 and 23:00, while nighttime refers to the period between
23:00 and 07:00. The term "Outdoor Living Area" (OLA) is used in reference to an outdoor patio, a
backyard, a terrace or other area where passive recreation is expected to occur. Balconies that are
less than 4 m in depth are not considered to be outdoor living areas under MECP guidelines.
The guidelines in the MECP publication allow the sound level in an Outdoor Living Area to be
exceeded by up to 5 dBA, without mitigation, if warning clauses are placed in the purchase and
rental agreements to the property. Where OLA sound levels exceed 60 dBA, physical mitigation is
required to reduce the OLA sound level below 60 dBA and as close to 55 dBA as technically,
economically and administratively feasible.
A central air conditioning system as an alternative means of ventilation to open windows is required
for dwellings where nighttime sound levels outside bedroom or living/dining room windows exceed
60 dBA or daytime sound levels outside bedroom or living/dining room windows exceed 65 dBA.
Forced-air ventilation with ducts sized to accommodate the future installation of air conditioning is
required when nighttime sound levels at bedroom or living/dining room windows are in the range of
51 to 60 dBA or when daytime sound levels at bedroom or living/dining room windows are in the
range of 56 to 65 dBA.
Building components such as walls, windows and doors must be designed to achieve indoor sound
level criteria when the nighttime sound level at the plane of window is greater than 60 dBA or the
daytime sound level is greater than 65 dBA due to road traffic noise.
Warning clauses to notify future residents of possible excesses are also required when nighttime
sound levels exceed 50 dBA at the plane of the bedroom or living/dining room window and daytime
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 4 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
sound levels exceed 55 dBA in the outdoor living area and at the plane of the bedroom or
living/dining room window due to road traffic.
3.2 Criteria Governing Stationary (Industrial) Noise Sources
An industrial or commercial facility is classified in MECP guidelines as a stationary source of sound
(as compared to sources such as traffic or construction, for example) for noise assessment purposes.
In terms of background sound, the development is located in an urban (Class 1) acoustical
environment which is characterized by an acoustical environment dominated by road traffic and
human activity.
The facade of a residence (i.e., in the plane of a window), or any associated usable outdoor area is
considered a sensitive point of reception. NPC-300 stipulates that the exclusionary minimum sound
level limit for a stationary noise source in an urban Class 1 area is 50 dBA during daytime (07:00 to
19:00) and evening (19:00 to 23:00) hours, and 45 dBA during nighttime hours (23:00 to 07:00). If
the background sound levels due to road traffic exceed the exclusionary minimum limits, then the
background sound level becomes the criterion. The background sound level is defined as the sound
level that is present when the source under consideration is not operating, and may include traffic
noise and natural sounds. To ensure a conservative analysis for evaluating heating, ventilation and air
conditioning equipment, the exclusionary minimum criteria will be adopted at all neighbouring
residential receptors.
The MECP guidelines stipulate that the sound level impact during a “predicable worst case hour” be
considered. This is defined to be an hour when a typically busy “planned and predictable mode of
operation” occurs at the subject facility, coincident with a period of minimal background sound.
Compliance with MECP criteria generally results in acceptable levels of sound at residential
receptors although there may still be residual audibility during periods of low background sound.
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 5 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
4 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTIONS
4.1 Road Traffic Data
Road traffic data for Mississauga Road and Dundas Street West was obtained from The City of
Mississauga. The data was in the form of Ultimate Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes and is
provided in Appendix A. A day/night split of 90%/10% was used for all roadways. A commercial
vehicle percentage of 7% (split into 3.85%/3.15% medium and heavy trucks) and a posted speed
limit of 60 km/h was used for Dundas Street West. A commercial vehicle percentage of 2% (split
into 1.1%/0.9% medium and heavy trucks) and a speed limit of 50 km/h was used for Mississauga
Road. Table 2 summarizes the traffic volume data used in this study.
Table 2: Ultimate Road Traffic Data
Road Name Cars Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
Total
Mississauga Road
Daytime 17 640 198 162 18 000 Nighttime 1 960 22 18 2 000 Total 19 600 220 180 20 000
Dundas Street West
Daytime 50 220 2 079 1 701 54 000 Nighttime 5 580 231 189 6 000 Total 55 800 2 310 1 890 60 000
4.2 Traffic Noise Prediction
To assess the levels of road traffic noise which will impact the site in the future, predictions were
made using STAMSON version 5.04, a computer algorithm developed by the MECP. Prediction
locations were chosen around the proposed development to obtain a representation of the future
sound levels at the proposed building with exposure to Mississauga Road and Dundas Street. The
worst-case prediction locations were chosen at the top floors of the building to investigate ventilation
requirements. The distance setback of the building indicated on the site plan was used in the analysis,
along with an aerial photo to determine the distance to the roadways. Prediction locations are
indicated on Figure 2. The results of these predictions are summarized in Table 3.
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 6 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
Table 3: Predicted Road Traffic Sound Levels [dBA], Without Mitigation
Prediction Location
Description Daytime - at
Façade LEQ(16)
Nighttime - at Façade
LEQ(8)
[A] Senior Care Building 62 56 [B] Convent 56 <50 [C] Rental Building 59 53
5 TRAFFIC NOISE RECOMMENDATIONS
The sound level predictions indicate that traffic sound levels at the proposed building will exceed the
MECP guidelines listed in Table 1, albeit by only a minor amount. Recommendations to meet the
indoor MECP guidelines are discussed below.
5.1 Outdoor Living Areas
There are various patios located along the north side of the proposed building that are less than 4 m
in depth. These areas are not considered outdoor living areas and are therefore exempt from
assessment. Physical mitigation will not be required.
5.2 Indoor Living Areas and Ventilation Requirements
The predicted sound levels at the façades of the proposed building (prediction locations [A] to [C])
will be between 56 and 65 dBA and/or 51 and 60 dBA during the daytime and nighttime,
respectively. As such, the building will require the provision for the future installation of central air
conditioning systems. This requirement is typically satisfied through the installation of forced air
ventilation systems with ductwork sized for the future installation of central air conditioning by the
occupant. The location, installation and sound ratings of the outdoor air conditioning devices should
minimize noise impacts and comply with criteria of MECP publication NPC-300. The use of central
air conditioning will exceed this requirement.
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 7 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
5.3 Building Facade Constructions
Since the future road traffic sound levels outside the façades of the proposed development will be
less than 60 dBA at night and less than 65 dBA during the daytime, any exterior wall, insulated metal
exterior door and double glazed window construction meeting the minimum requirements of the
Ontario Building Code (OBC) will provide adequate sound insulation.
5.4 Warning Clauses
The MECP guidelines recommend that warning clauses be included in the property and tenancy
agreements for all dwelling units with anticipated traffic sound level excesses and are potentially
impacted by surrounding noise sources. The following noise warning clauses are required for the
proposed residential development.
Suggested wording for future dwellings with sound level excesses of the MECP criteria but do not
require physical mitigation measures is given below.
Type A:
Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservations and Parks.
Suggested wording for future dwellings requiring forced air ventilation systems is given below.
Type B:
This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant’s discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservations and Parks.
These sample clauses are provided by the MECP as examples and can be modified by the
Municipality as required.
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 8 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
6 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC NOISE CONTROL
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following list and Table 4 summarizes the recommendations made in this report, with respect to
road traffic noise for the proposed site. The reader is referred to the previous sections of the report
where these recommendations are discussed in more detail.
1. Forced air ventilation systems with ductwork sized for the future installation of central air
conditioning by the occupant will be required for the proposed building. The location, installation
and sound ratings of the air conditioning devices should comply with NPC-300. The use of
central air conditioning will exceed this requirement.
2. Warning clauses are required in the purchase and rental agreements for the proposed building.
3. Any building construction meeting the minimum requirements of the Ontario Building Code will
provide adequate acoustical insulation for all units within the development.
Table 4: Summary of Noise Control Requirements and Warning Clauses
Prediction Location
Description Ventilation
Requirements *
Type of Warning Clause
Building Façade
Constructions
A Senior Care Building
Forced Air A, B OBC B Convent
C Rental Building
Notes: -- no specific requirement * The location, installation and sound rating of the air conditioning condensers must be compliant with MECP Guideline NPC-300, as applicable. OBC – Ontario Building Code
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 9 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
7 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF STATIONARY NOISE
SOURCES
A preliminary noise impact assessment at existing nearby residences due to the operation of building
ventilation equipment for the proposed building has been conducted.
7.1 Criteria for Stationary Sources of Sound
Stationary sources of noise are defined as all sources that emit noise within a commercial or
industrial facility boundary. Although not subject to approval by MECP, the mechanical equipment
on the roof of the proposed building has been classified and assessed as stationary sources of sound.
As mentioned in Section 3.2, the criteria is based on the background sound level at sensitive points
of reception (which are typically residences) in the quietest hour that the source can be in operation.
Background sound includes sound from road traffic and natural sounds, but excludes the sources
under assessment. For relatively quiet areas where background sound may fall to low levels during
some hours, NPC-300 stipulates various minimum limits. In Class 1 areas, these limits are 50 dBA
for daytime periods (07:00 to 23:00) and 45 dBA at night (23:00 to 07:00).
7.2 Noise Assessment
Predictive noise modelling was used to assess the potential noise impact of rooftop equipment at the
closest residential receptors. The noise prediction model was based on sound emission levels for
rooftop equipment, assumed operational profiles (during the daytime and nighttime), and established
engineering methods for the prediction of outdoor sound propagation. These methods include the
effects of distance, air absorption, and acoustical screening by barrier obstacles.
There is expected to be no significant noise sources associated with the proposed development
beyond the rooftop mechanical equipment (i.e. deliveries, if any, would be sporadic, light and during
daytime hours only). The likely activities at the proposed residential care facility may include the
occasional movement of passenger vehicles on the property, the infrequent delivery of goods and
garbage collection. These are not considered to be significant noise sources in the MECP guidelines
and are exempt from assessment. It is not expected that there will be significant truck traffic
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 10 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
associated with the proposed building and these have not been included in the analysis. Noise from
safety equipment (e.g. back-up beepers) is also exempt from consideration.
Detailed mechanical rooftop plans are currently not available as the proposed development is still in
the early stages of planning. Lennox LGA060 models (5 tons) were assumed for the rooftop air
conditioning units based on projects of similar nature. The analysis considers a total of eight rooftop
units on the proposed buildings.
Table 5 below summarizes the sound data used in the analysis for the rooftop HVAC units.
Table 5: Sound Power Levels for Rooftop HVAC Units [dB re 10-12 W]
HVAC Unit Octave Band Centre Frequency [Hz] 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k
Lennox LGA060 (5 Tons) -- 72 70 71 68 63 57 48
The following information and assumptions were used in the analysis.
The rental building and senior care building are assumed to be 18.0 m in height. The convent is assumed to be 6.0 m in height.
The most potentially impacted residences are existing two-storey residences and the windows are assumed to be approximately 4.5 m above grade.
Eight HVAC units are shown as green crosses on Figure 3. Sound data was obtained from HGC Engineering project files which were originally obtained from the manufacturer.
In accordance with establishing the predictable worst-case conditions, the rooftop HVAC equipment
were assumed to operate at 100% capacity during daytime and 50% during nighttime hours.
The sound levels were used as input to a predictive computer model. The software used for this
purpose (Cadna-A version 2018 MR 1 build: 163.4824) is a computer implementation of ISO
Standard 9613-2.2 “Acoustics - Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors.” The ISO
method accounts for reduction in sound level with distance due to geometrical spreading, air
absorption, ground attenuation and acoustical shielding by intervening structures such as barriers.
The calculations consider the acoustical effects of distance and shielding by the building.
Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Care Facility Page 11 Carmel Heights Re-Development, Mississauga, Ontario January 21, 2019
The results of this assessment indicate a maximum impact of 32 dBA during the daytime and
29 dBA during nighttime at the closest sensitive receptors without any mitigation. These predicted
sound levels are less than the MECP minimum exclusionary limit of 50 dBA during the daytime
hours and 45 dBA during the nighttime hours, based on a typical worst-case operating scenario.
It is concluded that the sounds from the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment are anticipated to
comply with the MECP guidelines at the closest residential receptors and physical mitigation is not
required.
8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1) When detailed rooftop equipment models and locations are known, a review should be
conducted by a Professional Engineer qualified to perform acoustical engineering services in
the Province of Ontario to confirm that sound emitted by the building mechanical systems
will not exceed the MECP limits at neighbouring residences and provide any additional
recommendations which may be required in that regard.
2) Prior to the issuance of building permits for this development, the Municipality’s building
inspector or a Professional Engineer qualified to perform acoustical engineering services in
the Province of Ontario should certify that the noise control measures have been properly
incorporated.
3) Prior to assumption, the Municipality’s building inspector or a Professional Engineer
qualified to perform acoustical engineering services in the Province of Ontario should certify
that the noise control measures have been properly installed and constructed.
Unit Mix: IL
Studio 18 20%
1Bed 54 63%
2Bed 15 17%
Total 87 100%
Unit Mix: AL + MC
AL Studio 34 50%
MC Studio 35 50%
Total 69 100%
Building B - Rental
Storeys 6
Area 13,870 sm [149,295 sf]
Units 167
Parking 180 Spaces Below Grade
Building A - Seniors
Storeys 6
Area 12535 sm [134,925 sf]
Units 156 [34 AL + 35 MC + 87 IL]
Parking 75 Surface Spaces
Gardens Gardens
Gardens
Gardens
Gardens
75 Surface
Parking
16 10 10 10
6
10 5
Unit Mix
1Bed 36 22%
1Bed+D 89 53%
2Bed 42 25%
Total 167 100%
Gardens
4
Convent
Storeys 2
Area 2490 sm [26,800 sf]
Units 26 [22 Sisters + 4 Visitor/ Guest]
Parking 4 UG Parking Spaces
L
o
a
d
i
n
g
L
o
a
d
i
n
g
W
h
e
e
l
C
h
a
i
r
s
G
u
e
s
t
S
u
i
t
e
s
W
i
n
g
Oratory
(30)
127 sm
C
o
n
f
.
5
s
m
S
t
o
r
.
5
s
m
Security
Door
Security
Door
Security
Door
Security
Door
A
d
m
i
n
W
i
n
g
3
6
s
m
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
/
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
/
C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
0
7
s
m
M
a
i
n
D
i
n
i
n
g
7
1
s
m
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
6
s
m
S
t
e
a
m
T
a
b
l
e
s
1
9
s
m
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
6
s
m
P
a
t
i
o
B
B
Q
P
i
t
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
&
F
o
o
d
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
7
1
s
m
S
i
s
t
e
r
E
n
t
r
y
R
e
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
1
9
s
m
C
o
a
t
r
o
o
m
1
7
s
m
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
7
s
m
F
i
t
n
e
s
s3
6
s
m
P
a
r
l
o
u
r
3
7
s
m
D
i
n
e
2
0
s
m
R
e
c
R
o
o
m
7
1
s
m
T
V
N
o
T
V
S
e
w
i
n
g
&
C
r
a
f
t
s3
6
s
m
O
f
f
i
c
e
2
2
s
m
A
r
c
h
i
v
e
1
4
s
m
P
a
t
i
o
N
o
r
t
hL
o
u
n
g
e3
6
s
m
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
E
n
t
r
y
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
,
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
,
S
e
r
v
e
r
y
1
1
5
s
m
M
a
i
n
D
i
n
i
n
g
1
9
0
s
m
M
a
i
l
1
0
s
m
S
a
l
e
s
2
2
s
m
C
l
o
s
i
n
g
1
6
s
m
A
d
m
i
n
1
2
s
m
G
M
1
2
s
m
R
e
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
L
o
b
b
y
L
o
b
b
y
L
o
u
n
g
e
6
4
s
m
P
i
a
n
o
L
o
u
n
g
e
7
7
s
m
E
M
R
S
e
r
v
e
r
y
A
M
1
2
s
m
L
i
f
e
S
t
y
l
e
1
2
s
m
C
o
p
y
/
S
t
o
r
1
6
s
m
C
o
a
t
C
o
a
t
W
a
l
k
e
r
s
B
i
s
t
r
o
M
u
l
t
i
-
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
R
o
o
m
7
7
s
m
M
o
r
n
i
n
g
S
u
n
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
A
m
e
n
i
t
y
7
0
s
m
W
/
C
W
/
C
W
/
C
W
/
C
M
a
i
n
t
.
S
h
o
p
&
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
0
s
m
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
L
a
u
n
d
r
y
7
0
s
m
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
/
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
3
7
s
m
M
o
v
i
n
g
2
4
s
m
S
t
a
f
f
6
0
s
m
E
l
e
v
a
t
o
r
L
o
b
b
y
J
a
n
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
D
i
n
i
n
g
P
a
t
i
o
P
a
t
i
o
B
a
r
D
a
n
c
e
F
lo
o
r
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
D
i
n
i
n
g
S
ta
g
e
A
m
e
n
i
t
y
5
0
s
m
G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
&
Q
u
i
t
e
L
o
u
n
g
e
1
2
0
s
m
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
L
o
u
n
g
e
7
7
s
m
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
/
M
e
d
i
a
1
0
1
s
m
S
c
o
o
t
e
r
s
Entry
Lobby
Entry
Gallery
Lobby
Amenity
72 sm
Reception
43 sm
Store
Display
39 sm
Washroom
13 sm
Conference
Room
72 sm
Coatroom
16 sm
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
M
o
v
i
n
g
/
L
o
a
d
i
n
g
E
x
t
e
n
t
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
L
o
b
b
y
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
2
B
E
D
P
a
r
t
y
R
o
o
m
2
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
8
L
o
c
k
e
r
s
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
R
o
o
m
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
2
L
o
c
k
e
r
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
4.5
0
4.5m landscape buffer
22
.0
0
4.8
0
18
.7
0
30
.0
0
Stable Top of Bank (Terraprobe)
Natural Feature Stake Out (CVC)
10.0m Setback from Natural Feature
1
0
.0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
25
.0
0
25
.0
0
MSAiMICHAEL SPAZIANI ARCHITECT INC.
6 Helene Street North, Suite 100Port Credit, Mississauga, ON, L5G 3B2
T 905 891 0691 F 905 891 0514 Mississauga, Ontario
Proposed Site Plan
Carmel Heights Seniors
Development Plan
September 10, 2018
10m Natural Features Setback
R2
R3
R1
608440
608440
608460
608460
608480
608480
608500
608500
608520
608520
608540
608540
608560
608560
608580
608580
608600
608600
608620
608620
608640
60864048
2160
0
4821
600
4821
620
4821
620
4821
640
4821
640
4821
660
4821
660
4821
680
4821
680
4821
700
4821
700
4821
720
4821
720
4821
740
4821
740
4821
760
4821
760
4821
780
4821
780
4821
800
4821
800
4821
820
4821
820
4821
840
4821
840
FRAME COORDINATES ARE UTM IN METRES
Figure 3: Assumed Noise Source and Receptor Locations
Unit Mix: IL
Studio 18 20%
1Bed 54 63%
2Bed 15 17%
Total 87 100%
Unit Mix: AL + MC
AL Studio 34 50%
MC Studio 35 50%
Total 69 100%
Building B - Rental
Storeys 6
Area 13,870 sm [149,295 sf]
Units 167
Parking 180 Spaces Below Grade
Building A - Seniors
Storeys 6
Area 12535 sm [134,925 sf]
Units 156 [34 AL + 35 MC + 87 IL]
Parking 75 Surface Spaces
Gardens Gardens
Gardens
Gardens
Gardens
75 Surface
Parking
16 10 10 10
6
10 5
Unit Mix
1Bed 36 22%
1Bed+D 89 53%
2Bed 42 25%
Total 167 100%
Gardens
4
Convent
Storeys 2
Area 2490 sm [26,800 sf]
Units 26 [22 Sisters + 4 Visitor/ Guest]
Parking 4 UG Parking Spaces
L
o
a
d
i
n
g
L
o
a
d
i
n
g
W
h
e
e
l
C
h
a
i
r
s
G
u
e
s
t
S
u
i
t
e
s
W
i
n
g
Oratory
(30)
127 sm
C
o
n
f
.
5
s
m
S
t
o
r
.
5
s
m
Security
Door
Security
Door
Security
Door
Security
Door
A
d
m
i
n
W
i
n
g
3
6
s
m
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
/
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
/
C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
0
7
s
m
M
a
i
n
D
i
n
i
n
g
7
1
s
m
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
6
s
m
S
t
e
a
m
T
a
b
l
e
s
1
9
s
m
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
6
s
m
P
a
t
i
o
B
B
Q
P
i
t
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
&
F
o
o
d
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
7
1
s
m
S
i
s
t
e
r
E
n
t
r
y
R
e
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
1
9
s
m
C
o
a
t
r
o
o
m
1
7
s
m
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
7
s
m
F
i
t
n
e
s
s3
6
s
m
P
a
r
l
o
u
r
3
7
s
m
D
i
n
e
2
0
s
m
R
e
c
R
o
o
m
7
1
s
m
T
V
N
o
T
V
S
e
w
i
n
g
&
C
r
a
f
t
s3
6
s
m
O
f
f
i
c
e
2
2
s
m
A
r
c
h
i
v
e
1
4
s
m
P
a
t
i
o
N
o
r
t
hL
o
u
n
g
e3
6
s
m
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
E
n
t
r
y
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
,
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
,
S
e
r
v
e
r
y
1
1
5
s
m
M
a
i
n
D
i
n
i
n
g
1
9
0
s
m
M
a
i
l
1
0
s
m
S
a
l
e
s
2
2
s
m
C
l
o
s
i
n
g
1
6
s
m
A
d
m
i
n
1
2
s
m
G
M
1
2
s
m
R
e
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
L
o
b
b
y
L
o
b
b
y
L
o
u
n
g
e
6
4
s
m
P
i
a
n
o
L
o
u
n
g
e
7
7
s
m
E
M
R
S
e
r
v
e
r
y
A
M
1
2
s
m
L
i
f
e
S
t
y
l
e
1
2
s
m
C
o
p
y
/
S
t
o
r
1
6
s
m
C
o
a
t
C
o
a
t
W
a
l
k
e
r
s
B
i
s
t
r
o
M
u
l
t
i
-
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
R
o
o
m
7
7
s
m
M
o
r
n
i
n
g
S
u
n
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
A
m
e
n
i
t
y
7
0
s
m
W
/
C
W
/
C
W
/
C
W
/
C
M
a
i
n
t
.
S
h
o
p
&
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
0
s
m
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
L
a
u
n
d
r
y
7
0
s
m
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
/
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
3
7
s
m
M
o
v
i
n
g
2
4
s
m
S
t
a
f
f
6
0
s
m
E
l
e
v
a
t
o
r
L
o
b
b
y
J
a
n
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
D
i
n
i
n
g
P
a
t
i
o
P
a
t
i
o
B
a
r
D
a
n
c
e
F
lo
o
r
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
D
i
n
i
n
g
S
ta
g
e
A
m
e
n
i
t
y
5
0
s
m
G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
&
Q
u
i
t
e
L
o
u
n
g
e
1
2
0
s
m
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
L
o
u
n
g
e
7
7
s
m
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
/
M
e
d
i
a
1
0
1
s
m
S
c
o
o
t
e
r
s
Entry
Lobby
Entry
Gallery
Lobby
Amenity
72 sm
Reception
43 sm
Store
Display
39 sm
Washroom
13 sm
Conference
Room
72 sm
Coatroom
16 sm
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
M
o
v
i
n
g
/
L
o
a
d
i
n
g
E
x
t
e
n
t
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
L
o
b
b
y
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
2
B
E
D
P
a
r
t
y
R
o
o
m
2
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
8
L
o
c
k
e
r
s
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
R
o
o
m
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
2
L
o
c
k
e
r
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
4.5
0
4.5m landscape buffer
22
.0
0
4.8
0
18
.7
0
30
.0
0
Stable Top of Bank (Terraprobe)
Natural Feature Stake Out (CVC)
10.0m Setback from Natural Feature
1
0
.0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
25
.0
0
25
.0
0
MSAiMICHAEL SPAZIANI ARCHITECT INC.
6 Helene Street North, Suite 100Port Credit, Mississauga, ON, L5G 3B2
T 905 891 0691 F 905 891 0514 Mississauga, Ontario
Proposed Site Plan
Carmel Heights Seniors
Development Plan
September 10, 2018
10m Natural Features Setback
MSAiMICHAEL SPAZIANI ARCHITECT INC.
6 Helene Street North, Suite 100Port Credit, Mississauga, ON, L5G 3B2
T 905 891 0691 F 905 891 0514 Mississauga, Ontario
Elevation Concept
Carmel Heights Seniors
Development Plan
September 10, 2018
MSAiMICHAEL SPAZIANI ARCHITECT INC.
6 Helene Street North, Suite 100Port Credit, Mississauga, ON, L5G 3B2
T 905 891 0691 F 905 891 0514 Mississauga, Ontario
Elevation Concept
Carmel Heights Seniors
Development Plan
September 10, 2018
MSAiMICHAEL SPAZIANI ARCHITECT INC.
6 Helene Street North, Suite 100Port Credit, Mississauga, ON, L5G 3B2
T 905 891 0691 F 905 891 0514 Mississauga, Ontario
Elevation Concept
Carmel Heights Seniors
Development Plan
September 10, 2018
Unit Mix: IL
Studio 18 20%
1Bed 54 63%
2Bed 15 17%
Total 87 100%
Unit Mix: AL + MC
AL Studio 34 50%
MC Studio 35 50%
Total 69 100%
Building B - Rental
Storeys 6
Area 13,870 sm [149,295 sf]
Units 167
Parking 180 Spaces Below Grade
Building A - Seniors
Storeys 6
Area 12535 sm [134,925 sf]
Units 156 [34 AL + 35 MC + 87 IL]
Parking 75 Surface Spaces
Gardens Gardens
Gardens
Gardens
Gardens
75 Surface
Parking
16 10 10 10
6
10 5
Unit Mix
1Bed 36 22%
1Bed+D 89 53%
2Bed 42 25%
Total 167 100%
Gardens
4
Convent
Storeys 2
Area 2490 sm [26,800 sf]
Units 26 [22 Sisters + 4 Visitor/ Guest]
Parking 4 UG Parking Spaces
L
o
a
d
i
n
g
L
o
a
d
i
n
g
W
h
e
e
l
C
h
a
i
r
s
G
u
e
s
t
S
u
i
t
e
s
W
i
n
g
Oratory
(30)
127 sm
C
o
n
f
.
5
s
m
S
t
o
r
.
5
s
m
Security
Door
Security
Door
Security
Door
Security
Door
A
d
m
i
n
W
i
n
g
3
6
s
m
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
/
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
/
C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
0
7
s
m
M
a
i
n
D
i
n
i
n
g
7
1
s
m
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
6
s
m
S
t
e
a
m
T
a
b
l
e
s
1
9
s
m
B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
6
s
m
P
a
t
i
o
B
B
Q
P
i
t
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
&
F
o
o
d
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
7
1
s
m
S
i
s
t
e
r
E
n
t
r
y
R
e
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
1
9
s
m
C
o
a
t
r
o
o
m
1
7
s
m
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
7
s
m
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
3
6
s
m
P
a
r
l
o
u
r
3
7
s
m
D
i
n
e
2
0
s
m
R
e
c
R
o
o
m
7
1
s
m
T
V
N
o
T
V
S
e
w
i
n
g
&
C
r
a
f
t
s3
6
s
m
O
f
f
i
c
e
2
2
s
m
A
r
c
h
i
v
e
1
4
s
m
P
a
t
i
o
N
o
r
t
hL
o
u
n
g
e3
6
s
m
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
E
n
t
r
y
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
,
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
,
S
e
r
v
e
r
y
1
1
5
s
m
M
a
i
n
D
i
n
i
n
g
1
9
0
s
m
M
a
i
l
1
0
s
m
S
a
l
e
s
2
2
s
m
C
l
o
s
i
n
g
1
6
s
m
A
d
m
i
n
1
2
s
m
G
M
1
2
s
m
R
e
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
L
o
b
b
y
L
o
b
b
y
L
o
u
n
g
e
6
4
s
m
P
i
a
n
o
L
o
u
n
g
e
7
7
s
m
E
M
R
S
e
r
v
e
r
y
A
M
1
2
s
m
L
i
f
e
S
t
y
l
e
1
2
s
m
C
o
p
y
/
S
t
o
r
1
6
s
m
C
o
a
t
C
o
a
t
W
a
l
k
e
r
s
B
i
s
t
r
o
M
u
l
t
i
-
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
R
o
o
m
7
7
s
m
M
o
r
n
i
n
g
S
u
n
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
K
i
t
c
h
e
n
A
m
e
n
i
t
y
7
0
s
m
W
/
C
W
/
C
W
/
C
W
/
C
M
a
i
n
t
.
S
h
o
p
&
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
0
s
m
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
L
a
u
n
d
r
y
7
0
s
m
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
/
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
3
7
s
m
M
o
v
i
n
g
2
4
s
m
S
t
a
f
f
6
0
s
m
E
l
e
v
a
t
o
r
L
o
b
b
y
J
a
n
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
D
i
n
i
n
g
P
a
t
i
o
P
a
t
i
o
B
a
r
D
a
n
c
e
F
lo
o
r
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
D
i
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
g
e
A
m
e
n
i
t
y
5
0
s
m
G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
&
Q
u
i
t
e
L
o
u
n
g
e
1
2
0
s
m
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
L
o
u
n
g
e
7
7
s
m
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
/
M
e
d
i
a
1
0
1
s
m
S
c
o
o
t
e
r
s
Entry
Lobby
Entry
Gallery
Lobby
Amenity
72 sm
Reception
43 sm
Store
Display
39 sm
Washroom
13 sm
Conference
Room
72 sm
Coatroom
16 sm
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
M
o
v
i
n
g
/
L
o
a
d
i
n
g
E
x
t
e
n
t
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
L
o
b
b
y
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
1
B
E
D
+
D
2
B
E
D
P
a
r
t
y
R
o
o
m
2
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
8
L
o
c
k
e
r
s
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
R
o
o
m
1
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
2
B
E
D
1
B
E
D
1
2
L
o
c
k
e
r
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
4.5
0
4.5m landscape buffer
22
.0
0
4.8
0
18
.7
0
30
.0
0
Stable Top of Bank (Terraprobe)
Natural Feature Stake Out (CVC)
10.0m Setback from Natural Feature
1
0
.0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
25
.0
0
25
.0
0
MSAiMICHAEL SPAZIANI ARCHITECT INC.
6 Helene Street North, Suite 100Port Credit, Mississauga, ON, L5G 3B2
T 905 891 0691 F 905 891 0514 Mississauga, Ontario
Proposed Site Plan
Carmel Heights Seniors
Development Plan
September 10, 2018
10m Natural Features Setback
Look Up ID#: 392
Date: 01-Nov-18
Name: Yvonne Lo
Company HGC Engineering
Name: Loudel Uy
Tel#: (905) 615-3200
Location: - Mississauga Road south of Dundas- Dundas Street, West of Mississauga
AADT: 20,000 60,000
# of Lanes: 2 lanes 7 lanes
% Trucks: 2% 7%
Medium/Heavy Trucks Ratio: 55/45 55/45
Day/Night Traffic Split: 90/10 90/10
Posted Speed Limit: 50 km/h 60km/h
Gradient of Road: <2% <2%
Ultimate R O W: 26m 35m
REQUESTED BY:
PREPARED BY:
ON SITE TRAFFIC DATASpecific Street Names
Mississauga Road Dundas Street WSpecific
Comments: Ultimate Traffic Data only.
NOISE REPORT FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
STAMSON 5.0 NORMAL REPORT Date: 21-01-2019 09:36:09 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY / NOISE ASSESSMENT Filename: a.te Time Period: Day/Night 16/8 hours Description: Future daytime and nighttime sound levels at the north façade of the Senior’s Residence Building(Prediction Location [A]) Road data, segment # 1: Mississauga (day/night) ----------------------------------------------- Car traffic volume : 17640/1960 veh/TimePeriod * Medium truck volume : 198/22 veh/TimePeriod * Heavy truck volume : 162/18 veh/TimePeriod * Posted speed limit : 50 km/h Road gradient : 2 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete) * Refers to calculated road volumes based on the following input: 24 hr Traffic Volume (AADT or SADT): 20000 Percentage of Annual Growth : 0.00 Number of Years of Growth : 0.00 Medium Truck % of Total Volume : 1.10 Heavy Truck % of Total Volume : 0.90 Day (16 hrs) % of Total Volume : 90.00 Data for Segment # 1: Mississauga (day/night) --------------------------------------------- Angle1 Angle2 : -90.00 deg 90.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0 Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface) Receiver source distance : 60.00 / 60.00 m Receiver height : 1.50 / 1.50 m Topography : 3 (Elevated; no barrier) Elevation : 15.00 m Reference angle : 0.00 Road data, segment # 2: Dundas (day/night) ------------------------------------------ Car traffic volume : 50220/5580 veh/TimePeriod * Medium truck volume : 2079/231 veh/TimePeriod * Heavy truck volume : 1701/189 veh/TimePeriod * Posted speed limit : 60 km/h Road gradient : 2 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete) * Refers to calculated road volumes based on the following input: 24 hr Traffic Volume (AADT or SADT): 60000 Percentage of Annual Growth : 0.00 Number of Years of Growth : 0.00 Medium Truck % of Total Volume : 3.85 Heavy Truck % of Total Volume : 3.15 Day (16 hrs) % of Total Volume : 90.00
Data for Segment # 2: Dundas (day/night) ---------------------------------------- Angle1 Angle2 : -90.00 deg 90.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0 Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface) Receiver source distance : 195.00 / 195.00 m Receiver height : 1.50 / 1.50 m Topography : 3 (Elevated; no barrier) Elevation : 15.00 m Reference angle : 0.00 Results segment # 1: Mississauga (day) -------------------------------------- Source height = 0.97 m ROAD (0.00 + 57.30 + 0.00) = 57.30 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -90 90 0.23 65.27 0.00 -7.38 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Segment Leq : 57.30 dBA Results segment # 2: Dundas (day) --------------------------------- Source height = 1.33 m ROAD (0.00 + 60.79 + 0.00) = 60.79 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -90 90 0.22 74.90 0.00 -13.53 -0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.79 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Segment Leq : 60.79 dBA Total Leq All Segments: 62.40 dBA Results segment # 1: Mississauga (night) ---------------------------------------- Source height = 0.97 m ROAD (0.00 + 50.76 + 0.00) = 50.76 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -90 90 0.23 58.74 0.00 -7.38 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.76 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Segment Leq : 50.76 dBA Results segment # 2: Dundas (night) -----------------------------------
Source height = 1.33 m ROAD (0.00 + 54.26 + 0.00) = 54.26 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -90 90 0.22 68.37 0.00 -13.53 -0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.26 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Segment Leq : 54.26 dBA Total Leq All Segments: 55.86 dBA TOTAL Leq FROM ALL SOURCES (DAY): 62.40 (NIGHT): 55.86