Noise Feasibility Study Commercial Building, 65 Denzil Doyle Court Ottawa, Ontario

Transcription

1 Noise Feasibility Study Commercial Building, 65 Denzil Doyle Court Ottawa, Ontario Prepared for: Canada Inc. c/o LRL Associates Ltd Chamerland Street Rockland, Ontario K4K 1M6 Prepared by Mandy Chan, PEng Reviewed by Sheeba Paul, MEng, PEng June 27, 2013

2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION... 1 NOISE LEVEL CRITERIA Criteria Governing Stationary Noise Sources STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE ASSESSMENT Results... 4 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Key Plan Aerial Photo Site Plan Predicted Daytime/Evening Sound Level Contours at 4.5m Receptor Height Appendix A Sound Level Data

3 Noise Feasibility Study, Commercial Building Page 1 65 Denzil Doyle Ct, Ottawa, ON June 27, INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY HGC Engineering was retained by LRL Associates Ltd. on behalf of Canada Inc. to conduct a noise feasibility study for a proposed commercial development to be located at 65 Denzil Doyle in Ottawa, Ontario. The proposed development will consist of one commercial building. The noise study is required by the municipality as part of the planning and approvals process, specifically for site plan approval and is conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the City of Ottawa and the Ministry of Environment (MOE). An investigation of the potential noise impact from the proposed commercial building onto the existing residences and the adjacent daycare center was conducted. The analysis is based on preliminary information obtained from the architect. The results indicate that the sound emissions of the commercial building can be within the applicable noise guideline limits of the MOE. When mechanical equipment selections for the commercial building are available, an acoustical engineer should verify that the source sound level specifications and locations for the mechanical units conform to the assumptions made in this report and that acceptable sound levels will result at all offsite residential receptors. 2 SITE DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a key plan of the site. Figure 2 indicates an aerial photo of the site showing the surrounding land uses. Figure 3 is the site plan prepared by LRL Associates Ltd. dated June 19, The lands are zoned for light industrial use. The site is located east of Eagleson Road, north of Terence Matthews Crescent, specifically at 65 Denzil Doyle Court in Ottawa, Ontario. The development consists of one commercial building with twenty warehouse/office units. The acoustical environment surrounding the site is urban in nature. The surrounding area is mainly light industrial and commercial office uses. To the west of the site, approximately 100 m away, are residential uses. Immediately to the south of the site is a day care center with an outdoor play area on the east side of the building.

4 Noise Feasibility Study, Commercial Building Page 2 65 Denzil Doyle Ct, Ottawa, ON June 27, Noise Source Description The primary sources of sound associated with the commercial building are the rooftop mechanical equipment and trucking activities in the form of medium trucks on the site. 3 NOISE LEVEL CRITERIA 3.1 Criteria Governing Stationary Noise Sources In Ontario, the guidelines of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) form the basis of environmental noise assessment. MOE publication NPC-205, Sound Level Limits For Stationary Sources in Class 1 & 2 Areas (Urban) provides criteria for assessing the noise impact of this commercial facility. The term Stationary Source is used to designate all noise sources at the site including mechanical equipment, conveyances, such as trucks when they are moving within the site boundaries. The gas station uses are exempt from assessment. The MOE guidelines assess the noise impact of fluctuating sounds on an hourly energy equivalent (average) sound level basis, rather than on short-duration maximum sound levels. Hourly equivalent sound levels are denoted as the LEQ- 1hr. The criteria are based on the background LEQ-1hr 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-205 stipulates various minimum limits. In class 1 areas, these limits are 50 dba for daytime periods (07:00 to 19:00), and 45 dba at night (23:00 to 07:00). During the intervening evening hours (19:00 to 23:00) a minimum limit of 47 dba applies. The MOE 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. Whether the sound from trucks is to be included in an assessment under MOE noise guidelines depends of the volume of trucking, and the nature of the facility. Occasional deliveries to retail stores

5 Noise Feasibility Study, Commercial Building Page 3 65 Denzil Doyle Ct, Ottawa, ON June 27, 2013 and convenience stores are exempt, for example, but heavy trucking at a warehouse or busy shipping/receiving docks at an industry must generally be assessed. The daycare centre to the south (R1) and residences to the west of the site (R2) are considered the sensitive receptors in this assessment. Receptor locations are shown on Figure 4. They are located away from any major roadways and as such the exclusionary minimum limits of 50 dba during the day, 47 dba during the evening and 45 dba at night apply. 4 STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE ASSESSMENT Tenant information and its operations are currently not available. The commercial building is intended for trade types companies. Assumed operational information provided by LRL Associates Ltd. (outlined below) and surrounding building locations obtained from aerial photo were used as input to a predictive computer model (Cadna/A version ), in order to estimate the sound levels from the proposed commercial building at the existing residences and day care center. Cadna/A is a computer implementation of ISO Standard , Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors Part 2: General Method of Calculation, which takes into account attenuation due to distance (geometrical spreading), shielding by intervening structures (such as buildings and bush), air attenuation and ground absorption. The following information and assumptions were used in the analysis. Proposed Commercial Building The height of the building is 8.3 m; Twenty 5-tonne HVAC units are located on the roof, each 1.0 m high; Five medium size trucks enter and depart the site during daytime and evening hours; Daytime Operations Only (generally 9am to 5pm). Receptors Children s Universe Daycare, daytime hours only (R1), 1.5m receptor height; Second storey windows of the existing residences to the west, at approximately 4.5 m above grade (R2).

6 Noise Feasibility Study, Commercial Building Page 4 65 Denzil Doyle Ct, Ottawa, ON June 27, 2013 Sound emission data for the rooftop equipment was obtained from the manufacturer and is attached in Appendix A. Sound emission data for the trucking activities was obtained from our files which were measured from past similar projects. Table I below summarizes the sound data used in the analysis. Table I: Sound Power Levels Used in the Analysis [db re W] Source Octave Band Centre Frequency [Hz] k 2k 4k 8k A 5 tonne HVAC Unit Medium size truck In accordance with establishing the predictable worst-case conditions, all rooftop equipment was assumed to operate at 100% capacity during daytime and evening hours and at 50% capacity during nighttime hours. The rooftop units were assumed to be located as shown in Figure 3 as crosses. Five medium trucks driving on the site were also included for a worst case analysis. Commercial activities such as the occasional movement of customer vehicles on the property, the infrequent delivery of goods to convenience stores, commercial buildings etc. and garbage collection are not of themselves considered to be significant noise sources in the MOE guidelines. 4.1 Results The calculations consider the acoustical effects of distance and shielding by the buildings. The unmitigated sound levels due to the commercial building rooftop mechanical equipment and trucking activities at the receptors during assumed worst-case operations are summarized in Table II. The predicted daytime and evening sound level contours are shown on Figure 4. Table II: Predicted Sound Levels at Residential Receptors [dba] (Without Mitigation) Receptor Criteria Predicted Day/Eve/Night Sound Level (dba) R1 50 / 47 /45 41 / -- / -- R2 50 / 47 /45 39 / <35 / <35

7 Noise Feasibility Study, Commercial Building Page 5 65 Denzil Doyle Ct, Ottawa, ON June 27, 2013 The predicted sound levels indicate that the noise impact of the commercial building can comply with MOE criteria at the nearest façades of the existing residential units and at the adjacent daycare centre. The mechanical equipment should be selected using this data and when the locations are finalized, the rooftop mechanical plan should be provided for review to ensure MOE compliance at the offsite residential receptors. 4.2 Noise Control Recommendations and Summary In summary, HGC Engineering has reviewed the site plan, typical sound rating data for HVAC units, and performed calculations to determine the potential noise impact at the neighbouring residential units and the daycare centre with respect to MOE guidelines. The results indicate that the commercial building can comply with the MOE sound level limits during worst case (busiest) operations. We have the following recommendations. 1) When further details of roof plans and the mechanical equipment selections are available, an acoustical engineer should verify that the source sound level specifications and locations for the HVAC units conform to the assumptions made in this report and that acceptable sound levels will result at all offsite residential receptors. 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Assuming typical worst-case equipment and operating scenarios as described above, the analysis indicates that the noise impact of the commercial development can comply with MOE criteria at the nearest façades of the existing residential buildings and daycare centre without any mitigation measures. The reader is referred to previous sections of this report where the recommendations are discussed in detail.

8 Figure 1 - Key Plan

9 SITE Commercial Building Figure 2 - Aerial Photo Commercial Building Daycare Centre Playground Tim Hortons

10 m m [19.68'] SITE LOCATION SITE ANALYSIS USE AND INTERPRETATION OF DRAWINGS LOT BUILDING SETBACK LANDSCAPE PARKING USE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE IP4 [1555] OTHER BUILDING ANALYSIS AREA O.B.C. REQUIREMENTS CLARENCE MAHERAL PARK GLAMORGAN DRIVE KEY PLAN (N.T.S.) BALLANTREE WAY OLD COLONY ROAD PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY ROTHESAY DRIVE TERENCE MATTHEWS CRESCENT MICHAEL COWPLAND DRIVE DOYLE COURT DENZIL EASGLESON ROAD GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION ARE PART OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND DESCRIBE USE AND INTENT OF THE DRAWING. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE DRAWINGS, BUT ALSO THE OWNER-CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT, CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT, THE SPECIFICATIONS, ADDENDA, AND MODIFICATIONS ISSUED AFTER EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT. THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ARE COMPLEMENTARY, AND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY ANY ONE SHALL BE AS BINDING AS IF REQUIRED BY ALL. WORK NOT COMPLETELY DELINEATED HEREON SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THE SAME MATERIALS AND DETAILED SIMILARLY AS WORK SHOWN MORE COMPLETELY ELSEWHERE IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. BY USE OF THE DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, THE OWNER REPRESENTS THAT HE HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR REPRESENTS THAT HE HAS VISITED THE SITE, FAMILIARIZED HIMSELF WITH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS, VERIFIED FIELD DIMENSIONS AND CORRELATED HIS OBSERVATIONS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, CADD DISKS OR OTHER ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND COPIED THERE OF FURNISHED BY THE ENGINEER ARE HIS PROPERTY. THEY ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR THIS PROJECT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. CHANGES TO THE DRAWINGS MAY ONLY BE MADE BY THE ENGINEER. UNLESS THE REVISION TITLE IS "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION", THIS DRAWINGS SHALL BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND SHALL NOT BE USED AS A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES THE WORK TO BE DONE. THE ENGINEER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES, AND PROCEDURES USED TO DO THE WORK, OR THE SAFETY ASPECTS OF CONSTRUCTION, AND NOTHING ON THIS DRAWINGS EXPRESSED OF IMPLIED CHANGES THIS CONDITION. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE ALL CONDITIONS AT THE SITE AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING HOW THEY AFFECT THE WORK. SUBMITTAL OF A BID TO PERFORM THIS WORK IS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED IN PLANNING OF THE WORK, AND THE BID PRICE. NO CLAIMS FOR EXTRA CHARGES DUE TO THESE CONDITIONS WILL BE FORTHCOMING. DIMENSIONS UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES: IN THE EVENT THE CLIENT, THE CLIENT'S CONTRACTORS OR SUBCONTRACTORS, OR ANYONE FOR WHOM THE CLIENT IS LEGALLY LIABLE MAKES OR PERMITS TO BE MADE ANY CHANGES TO ANY REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY LEVAC ROBICHAUD LECLERC ASSOCIATES LTD (LRL) WITHOUT OBTAINING LRL'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT, THE CLIENT SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE RESULTS OF SUCH CHANGES. THEREFORE THE CLIENT AGREES TO WAIVE ANY CLAIM AGAINST LRL AND TO RELEASE LRL FROM ANY LIABILITY ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM SUCH CHANGES. IN ADDITION, THE CLIENT AGREES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS LRL FROM ANY DAMAGES, LIABILITIES OR COST, INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COST OF DEFENSE, ARISING FROM SUCH CHANGES. PARKING AND AISLE (DIMENSIONS) IN ADDITION, THE CLIENT AGREES TO INCLUDE IN ANY CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE THAT PROHIBITS THE CONTRACTOR OR ANY SUBCONTRACTORS OF ANY TIER FROM MAKING ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS TO LRL'S CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF LRL AND THAT FURTHER REQUIRES THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEMNIFY BOTH LRL AND THE CLIENT FROM ANY LIABILITY OR COST ARISING FROM SUCH CHANGES MADE WITHOUT SUCH PROPER AUTHORIZATION. GENERAL NOTES: EXISTING SERVICES AND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE TAKEN FROM THE BEST AVAILABLE RECORDS, BUT ARE NOT COMPLETE. CONTRACTOR IS ADVISED TO CHECK IN FIELD FOR LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF PIPES AND CHECK WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES BEFORE DIGGING. CONTRACTOR IS ADVISED TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. FR THE ENGINEER WAIVES ANY AND ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR PROBLEMS WHICH ARISE FROM FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND THE DESIGN INTENT THEY CONVEY, OR FOR PROBLEMS WHICH ARISE FROM OTHERS' FAILURE TO OBTAIN AND/OR FOLLOW THE ENGINEER'S GUIDANCE WITH RESPECT TO ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, INCONSISTENCIES AMBIGUITIES OR CONFLICTS WHICH ARE ALLEGED. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE WORK COMMENCES. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. 5m m SCALE: 1:250 AREA TO BE USED FOR SNOW STORAGE WHEN NECESSARY R=6.0m m [3.15'] R=20.06m FR FR FR FIRE ROUTE (90m MAX) [21.98'] 6.00m [19.69'] R=12.0m 13.45m [44.11'] R=3.0m R=6.0m R=1.0m 70 EXISTING TOWER LOCATION m [9.17'] 12.00m [39.37'] R=3.0m 3.00m [9.83'] DNE 3.00m [9.85'] 3.00m [9.84'] 5.20m [17.06'] ONLY 5.00m [16.39'] 46 SMALL CAR R=6.0m OW 2.60m [8.53'] DNE m [9.84'] PROPOSED PARKING AREA OW R=6.0m 31.65m 6.70m [21.98'] [103.83'] R=3.0m 6.06m [19.87'] [94.13'] 28.69m 13.97m [45.83'] WAREHOUSE / OFFICE UNIT sq.m (+/- 1,280 sq.ft) WAREHOUSE / OFFICE UNIT sq.m (+/- 1,280 sq.ft) WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE UNIT 9 UNIT 8 UNIT 7 UNIT 6 UNIT 5 PROPOSED BUILDING 2,564 sq.m (+/-27,600 sq.ft) FFE = UNIT 4 UNIT sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 7.90m [25.93'] 8.53m [27.99'] UNIT 2 UNIT sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE WAREHOUSE / OFFICE UNIT 12 UNIT 11 UNIT 19 UNIT 18 UNIT 16 UNIT sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 3.05m [10.00'] 14.71m [48.26'] UNIT sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) m [279.87'] [21.98'] FIRE ROUTE (90m MAX) FR FR UNIT sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) UNIT sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 122 sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) sq.m (+/- 1,315 sq.ft) 12.59m [41.29'] UTILITIES ROOM GARBAGE / RECYCLING AREA 56 sq.m (+/- 605 sq.ft) 63 sq.m (+/- 680 sq.ft) 4.30m [14.10'] FR R=3.0m 3.85m [33.21'] [12.65'] 10.12m 14.72m [48.30'] 12.00m [39.38'] LANDSCAPING AREA 6.00m R=6.0m R=6.0m DENZIL DOYLE COURT 01 ISSUED FOR SPA G.S. MAY XX, 2013 No. REVISIONS BY DATE NOT AUTHENTIC UNLESS SIGNED AND DATED L Chamberland Street Rockland, Ontario K4K 1M6 Tel: (613) (877) LA SSOCIATES ASSOCIÉS Website: ENGINEERS INGÉNIEURS Fax: (613) CLIENT CANADA INC. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: G.S. G.S. J.C.L. PROJECT 65 DENZIL DOYLE CT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT KANATA, ONTARIO DRAWING TITLE SITE PLAN Figure 3 - Site Plan PROJECT NO DATE MAY 1, 2013 SP100

11 R R FRAME COORDINATES ARE UTM IN METRES Figure 4: Predicted Daytime/Evening Sound Level Contours at 4.5m Receptor Height [dba]

12 APPENDIX A Sound Level Data

13