1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 23, 2021, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not consider the proposal at the request of the architect vide his email dated 25.06.2021 at its meeting held on June 25, 2021.
4. The revised building plans proposal for phase-I received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the phasing of the proposal, surface parking arrangements made on the site, feasibility of the provisions made for double basement with double stack parking, screening of the outdoor air conditioning units & rainwater/plumbing pipes etc. in the balcony of the individual residential units, provisions for drying of clothes/dish antenna in the balconies etc. The Commission observed that in terms of the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18032155012 dated 26.03.2021 indicated at serial no. 3 (a, c) inadequate compliances for these have been provided. However, based on the detailed discussion held and submitted revised scheme the following observations are to be complied with:
a) It is again reiterated that considering the scale of the project architect is advised to submit the proposal in two phases:
i) The Master Plan of the entire scheme highlighting the zoning, road network, parking and landscaping.
ii) Approvals of the individual blocks detailing the floor plans, elevations, sections etc. along with other sustainability features.
b) The Commission observed that the project is submitted at the Formal stage, but the details are not comprehensible. The turning radius provided for the cul-de-sac shall be relooked at to increase green spaces in between.
c) The 3D views have been submitted without annotations thus making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade, which could have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (at least 6 in numbers), at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.
d) The scattered parking provisions made on the surface throughout the site wastes a lot of surface space. It was not appreciated by the Commission. Also, the double basement provisions are not implemented in phase-I, it was, accordingly, suggested to explore the alternative option for creating basements under men’s barracks or individual residential blocks and the freed-up space to be put to judicious uses.
e) Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.
f) A detailed furniture layout for the typical units shall be provided to understand its functioning better.
g) The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade thereby spoiling the aesthetics of the facade. Innovative design provisions shall be made in the design itself at this stage to accommodate the outdoor AC units. Appropriate arrangements/spaces shall be created to house air-conditioners, etc. so as not to mar the aesthetics, and it shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade.
h) The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.
i) Provisions made for the work of art on the façade is not appreciated by the Commission. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from the outside, to be installed.
j) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.
k) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.