MINUTES OF THE 1564th MEETING (ONLINE) OF THE DELHI URBAN ART COMMISSION (DUAC) HELD ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 06, 2020.

A.   Minutes of the 1563rd (online) Meeting of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 29.10.2020 were confirmed and approved.

SL. No.PROPOSALOBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONSDECISIONREMARKS

B.Action Taken Report on Minutes of 1562nd meeting (online) held on 22.10.2020.1.  The Action Taken Reports on minutes of the 1562nd meeting ( online ) of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 22.10.2020 was discussed.Noted by the Commission

C. PROJECT PROPOSALS:

1Building plans in respect of Commercial-cum-residential building at property no. 4404, situated at 5 no. Ansari Road, Delhi.
1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations were given:
a. It is mentioned in the project details ( proforma forward of the proposal to DUAC part A, sr. no: 16 ) that the site work has already commenced. Construction can commence only after approval.
b. The façade of the building looks very contemporary and is not contextual to the surroundings i.e. does not match the heritage character of Shahjahanabad. Thus, elevations shall be revised by incorporating the heritage character of Old Delhi. The use of materials be either sandstone or something similar to the character of the Old Delhi. 
c. The air-conditioners would be an eye-sore to the building façade thereby spoiling the aesthetics of the facade. Innovative design provision shall be made in the design itself at this stage to accommodate the outdoor AC units, and it shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed on the outer façade. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.
d. It is suggested to recess the windows and screen the same with grills to screen the outdoor units. The material and the detail of the grills shall be such that they reflect the character of surroundings i.e. Old Delhi. Elements for shading from weather conditions are also missing in the design and shall be duly incorporated. 
e. A detailed functional furniture layout for all the floor plans be provided to understand the functioning better.
f. The parking shown in the stilt and the basement is not workable i.e. the access, circulation and the movement is not understood. A clear parking plan shall be provided.
g. The column arrangement is missing in these drawings. It needs to be incorporated in all floors to understand the functioning of the building better. The column arrangement once in place shall allow unobstructed vehicular movement in the basement. Also, the turning radius provided appears to be inadequate for car to manoeuvre.  The parking plan needs to be revised and re-submitted.
h. The working and approach of the car lift is not understood. Needs to be clearly explained in the drawing.
i. Being commercial building, the signages shall be placed so as to have some uniformity and shall ensure that the aesthetics are not marred.
j. 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) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org. using the same architectural elements/materials used in the elevations.
k. 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.
3. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Not approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

2Layout and Building plans in respect of DSIIDC Multilevel Industrial Hub at Rani Khera, Delhi.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration of the Commission.

2.  The Commission did not approve the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 07, 2020, specific observations were given.

3.  The layout and the building plan proposal at formal stage received (online) was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a.  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.

b.  All service equipment at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

Approved, observations given.Shri Samir Mathur, Member, DUAC recused himself during the consideration of the proposal.
 
The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

3Building plans in respect of Addl./Alts. in residence of Hon’ble Chief Minister of Delhi at 6 Flag Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD, GNCTD ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2. The formal proposal received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a. It is mentioned in the project details ( proforma forward of the proposal to DUAC part A, sr. no: 16 ) that the site work has already commenced. Construction can commence only after approval.

b. As per the subject/project title, the proposal is for the ‘additions/alterations’, however, it is clearly evident from the submission that an entirely ‘new building’ is being proposed after completely demolishing the existing structure. This needs clarification. 

c. The submitted 3D view does not portray the correct site conditions. 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings, including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

d. A detailed survey plan to be submitted showing the existing site conditions, particularly the number of trees existing on the site. The same needs to be made and superimposed with a demolition plan along with the proposed layout for a clear and better understanding of the proposal.

e. Existing site photographs do not provide a clear understanding of the proposal, thus difficult to appreciate and visualize it in the current context. An appropriate nos. of site photographs shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all the sides.

f. It was suggested to align the main building parallel to the front boundary wall/flag staff road for better aesthetics, rather than the rear boundary as has been done.

g. The proposed architectural elements in the building shall follow a uniform architectural vocabulary and pattern. All sides appear to have columns with varying proportions. This needs to be made uniform. Built mass also needs to be balanced to ensure a cohesive built form. 

h. The parking provision made in the front set-back be suitably relocated somewhere else and the green area be extended further to make it a large consolidated green space with appropriate landscaping. A lot of hard areas have been provided in the site without indicating its application/use, the same needs to be minimised. There is an extensive peripheral road network around the site which needs to be rationalised with efficient site planning. 

i. The Commission observed that the building belonging to the chief State representative should have a very strong architectural character. The form and function should respect the setting and also ensure that all the requisite functions in the building ( including ceremonial areas, common areas, office spaces for staff plus parking, security staff, frisking areas from security point of view, spaces for domestic staff etc. ) are catered to in the design itself. The above mentioned functions are not incorporated in the proposal and it is purely seen as a residential complex. Thus, the space needs to be appropriately redesigned. 

j. While designing the internal layout, segregation of spaces ( public and private ) to ensure privacy and security shall be ensured by appropriate interior layout design. 

k. The setting of the porch is not appropriate. It does not lead to a grand entry to the building ( befitting a Chief Minister ), rather open into a narrow side entry. Also, other public spaces including ‘baithak’ and the entry space do not have appropriate movement and connections within. Also, they borrow light from other areas and are not ventilated directly, thus need to be relooked into. Spaces going into the corridors seem to be wasted and need careful planning. Private spaces including bedrooms do not get view towards any green spaces. 

l. It is suggested to locate the public areas on the lower/ground floor and the private/family spaces on the first floor by appropriate layout design.

3. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and redesign the complex in a comprehensive manner and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Not approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

4Building plans in respect of Dispensary-Cum-Diagnostic Centre for Employees State Insurance Corporation at Mayur Vihar Phase-1, Delhi.
1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 01, 2020, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal at formal stage received ( online ) was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings, wherein the architect explained the overall intent & constraints of the design scheme, and provided clarifications to the queries of the Members of the Commission related to the site planning, building form relation to the corner plot, light & ventilation, consolidated green areas, pedestrian/vehicular circulation, IPT drop-off/parking, public art work, elevation features etc. However, based on the detailed discussion the following observation was given:

a. The Commission reiterated its earlier observations and observed that in terms of its earlier observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. 62(33)/2020-DUAC, OL-28092062033 dated 12.10.2020 indicated at sr. no. 2 ( a, b, c, d, e, f, j ) inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b. It is mentioned in the project details ( proforma forward of the proposal to DUAC part A, sr. no: 16 ) that the site work has already commenced. Construction can commence only after approval.

4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Not approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

5Layout and Building plans proposal in respect of RRTS Stabling Yard & Supporting residential facilities at Jungpura, New Delhi.
(Conceptual stage)
1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.
2. The Layout and Building plans proposal at conceptual stage received (online) was scrutinised and following observations were given:

A. Site planning/Zoning:

a. The site is connected/surrounded by many important roads and it would draw impact of the surrounding landuses.  A detailed survey plan to be submitted showing the existing site conditions, particularly the trees. The same needs to be made and superimposed on the existing site along with the proposed layout for a clear and better understanding of the proposal.

b. The current layout planning seems to portray wastage of spaces and does not consolidate use zones for efficient circulation. All the residential towers shall be such designed that they are not scattered and located close to each other. This would ensure cohesiveness in the design. Also, the cost of services/utilities in the site would decrease due to the close placement of the building footprints. A clear zoning plan is to be shown.

c. Amenities like Clubhouse, which would be shared facilities, can be located centrally in the design to ensure its equitable use by all users. The same to be linked by appropriate pedestrian pathways.

d. An appropriate number of sections through end to end of the proposal scheme be submitted for better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms etc.  

B. Tower A:

a. Parking in stilts to be removed and relocated elsewhere ( basement or consolidated MLCP for all use zones ).  The stilts can then be used as community spaces for residents, and for facilities including toilets for guards and servants.

C. Tower B :

a. Parking in stilts to be removed and relocated elsewhere (basement or consolidated MLCP for all use zones).  The stilts can then be used as community spaces for residents, and for facilities including toilets for guards and servants.

b. The uses on 22nd floor are not understood as there is no clear layout plan for furniture. The same needs to be detailed to explain functionality of these spaces.

c. The kitchen on the 23rd to 28th floor is designed away from the servant’s quarters. They both are suggested to be located closely to ensure servicing and functionality.

D. EWS Block: 

a. The location of the EWS tower is suggested to be relocated to the future development area (plot area 3381sqm.). 

b. No direct ventilation to the rooms, it is borrowed from balcony. This is not appreciable and the dwelling unit to be revised appropriately.  

E. Stabling Yard: 

a. It was observed that a ramp is provided to access the parking on +227.1  Level. It is suggested that the parking be accommodated in basement or  MLCP provisions (wherein all the current and future requirements of the project can be accommodated) shall be explored  thereby minimising the need of the ramp. This would ensure economics and effective maintenance of the parking.

F. General Comments:

a. The architectural vocabulary of all the residential towers to be same to maintain harmony and the aesthetics of the complex. Currently, the towers have different vocabulary.

b. The presence of plumbing pipes etc. on the façade would impact the overall aesthetic, environmental, and visual quality of the complex. Location of plumbing shafts, openings, accessibility, screening mechanism for the pipes etc. shall be treated appropriately, along with appropriate means of screening in the design at this stage itself. It needs to be marked on the plans/elevations/3D views etc.as appropriate. A coherent scheme shall be prepared and submitted.

c. The provision of air-conditioning units on the façade is not given in the proposal ( drawings/3d views ). The air-conditioners would be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics.

d. 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.

e. Skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f. It has been observed that a large chunk of space is available on the rooftops, the same can be utilised appropriately for the installation of solar panels above. Utilities to be reflected in the 3D views as well as the drawings wherever provided.

g. The building complex having tall towers should have interesting elements to mark the top and ensure aesthetics and appropriate built form.

h. The parking for Tower A, B, C and D to be consolidated together ( by exploring MLCP etc. ) to ensure space optimisation.

i. Surface and road network to be minimised to reduce heat island effect. Also site to be appropriately landscaped and seamless pedestrian connections to be ensured.

j. North in the drawings seems to be inappropriate at places. It shall be ensured that it is marked correctly for proper orientation.

k. The sustainability features shall be highlighted in the design. Sustainability features in terms of point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org shall also be incorporated appropriately in the design proposal and shown in the relevant drawings.

l. 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 ) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org. using the same architectural elements/materials used in the elevations.

3. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Not accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

6Building plans in respect of Additional construction of Shanti Mukand Hospital, Karkardooma, Delhi. (Conceptual stage).

1.   The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2.   The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 18, 2020, specific observations were given.

3.   The revised building plan proposal at conceptual stage received ( online ) was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a.  The Commission reiterated its earlier observations and observed that in terms of its earlier observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-03092027069 dated 24.09.2020 indicated at sr. no. 2 ( b, c, d, e, f, g ) inadequate compliances for this have been given.

4.   The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Not accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

7Building plans in respect of Residential building at 93, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. (Conceptual stage).

1.  The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2.  The proposal was deferred.

DeferredThe Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

8Proposal for Development of Sports Hostel for School Boys & Girls, Pitampura. (Conceptual stage).

1.   The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) for consideration of the Commission.

2.   The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 14, 2020, specific observations were given.

3.   The revised conceptual proposal received (online) was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a.   Efforts were made to discuss the proposal with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings but the connection could not be established. The Commission reiterated its earlier observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-10082027061 dated 19.08.2020 and observed that inadequate compliances for this have been given especially materials, finishes, architectural elements etc. proposed for the Gymnasium.

b.   As seen in the site plan, the buildings are not integrated, i.e. seems like separate complexes. The architectural elements in the various buildings do not portray a composite picture. Similar architectural elements shall be used throughout the design scheme to make them coherent and the buildings are to be integrated in terms of the use zones, materials, finishes, architectural elements etc. overall aesthetics to be improved.

c.   Girl’s hostel suggested to be relocated near the boy’s hostel separated by a common plaza with separate entrances/exits with emphasis on safety, security and privacy for the girls students, and the connections shall be established with the gymnasium through landscaped pathways/elements as appropriate.  It would help achieving an independent vehicular movement for the hostel blocks, gymnasium and the fire tender movement paths.

4.  The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Not accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

9Building plans proposal for addition/alterations in respect of Office-cum-Commercial at plot no. 14, NHCC at Jasola, New Delhi. (Conceptual stage).

1.  The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2.  The Commission did not approve of the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on September 18, 2020, specific observations were given.

3.  The revised conceptual proposal for additions/alterations received (online) was scrutinised and flowing observations were given:

a.  Some of the parking provisions made on the ground floor shall be suitably relocated so as to have an unobstructed access/ingress to the building.

b.  The top elevation of the building seems to be abruptly ending and seems to be incomplete. It is suggested to provide a continuous and interesting architectural element to mark the top of the building. The element shall be contextual to other elements in the building.

c.  All service equipment at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA ( Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval ) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

4.  The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations in the formal submission to be submitted subsequently with a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

The following were present at the Meeting ( online ) of the Commission held on Friday, November 06, 2020, from 02.30 PM onwards:

1.  Prof. Dr P.S.N. Rao, Chairman, DUAC 

2.  Shri Samir Mathur, Member, DUAC

3.  Shri Abhimanyu Dalal, Member, DUAC