AL Mokattam Concept Validation Presentation

Corniche AL-Mokattam – Masterplan Development
Masterplan Validation
May-2023
WWW.SABBOUR.COM
CONTENTS
1 Urban Planning validation
2 Roads validation
3 Wet Infra validation
https://www.sabbour.com
1 URBAN PLANNING VALIDATION
REQUIRED Data “From the Designer”
Buildings Built-up
types NO. of NO. of units
area (BUA) Buildings
(specially buildings for for each Initial levels
for each heights
residential each type building
buildings) type
Approximately Ground floor

unit areas for areas (F.P) for
each type each type
Elements of The Masterplan Validation
Conflict
Residential with
Parcel Uses F.P Parking
Setback block existing
depth percentage counts
length infra
networks
Parcel
minimum dim. Road width
Overlooking Accessibility and
the roads hierarchy
“Achieved”
Urban Planning Validation
Regulations :
1- Setbacks : samples
Parcel limit According to planning regulations for setbacks as following:
 The setback for residential buildings is 4m from the front,
1 building No setback
side and back.
No setback  The setback for services/amenity buildings is 6m from the
front, side and back.
 Distance between buildings should not be less than 8m.
2
Planning notes :
 Building on the edge of the parcel limit without
considering the setback.
 Setback less than 4m.
 Multiple buildings within a one parcel limit (each parcel
has one building).
Parcel limit
 The division of lands and buildings should be reconsidered.
building  Setback should be preserved when placing buildings inside
parcels.
Regulations :
1- Setbacks : samples
According to planning regulations for setbacks as following:
 The setback for residential buildings is 4m from the front,
3 building side and back.
Multiple Parcel limit  The setback for services/amenity buildings is 6m from the
buildings in front, side and back.
Multiple
1 parcel  Distance between buildings should not be less than 8m.
buildings in
1 parcel  Distance between Towers should not be less than 25% of
No setback
the tower height.
No setback
Planning notes :
4  Building on the edge of the parcel limit without
considering the setback.
 Setback less than 4m.
 Multiple buildings within a one parcel limit (each parcel
Parcel limit has one building).
building
Multiple
buildings in
 The division of lands and buildings should be reconsidered.
Multiple
1 parcel buildings in  Setback should be preserved when placing buildings inside
1 parcel parcels.
1- setback : • These notes are general
and not limited to one
sector.
Building on the edge of • These notes should be
parcel limit without
consideration the observed on all
setback masterplan.
Multiple buildings within a

one parcel limit (each
parcel has one building)
Setback less than 4m
Regulations :
2- Parcel depths : samples
According to planning regulations for setbacks as following :
1 2  Depth of parcel should not exceed more than It’s
X>2
Y=1
double front.
X>2  Parcel ratio is 1:2.
Y=1
Front of parcel more
than it’s double depth

Planning notes :
than it’s double depth
 The depth of parcel should not be more than double
than it’s double depth its width.
3
X>2
Y=1
 Reviewing parcels dimensions to achieve ratio 1:2 between

parcel front & depth.
2- Parcel depths : • These notes are general
and not limited to one
sector.
The depth of the parcel • These notes should be
should not be more than
double its width. observed on all
masterplan.
The depth of parcel

double its width.
The depth of parcel
double its width.
3- Residential Blocks length : sample Regulations :
Block length
According to planning regulations for block length as following :
more tan 250m
 The length of the residential blocks does not exceed
1 250m.
Planning notes :
 Block length is more than 250 m.
 The length of the block should not exceed 250 meters,

otherwise we can use pedestrian walkway to separate the
long block.
3- Blocks length : • These notes are general
and limited to one
sector.
Block length is more than

250 m.
Regulations :
4- Accessibility : sample
According to planning regulations for Accessibility as
ROAD follows:
 Every parcel should be overlooking roads.
1  Every service parcel should overlook a main road and a
secondary road.
 Fire truck paths should be specified.
 Pedestrian paths should not be relied upon instead of
roads.
NO Accessibility Planning notes :

BUILDINGS
 All parcels not looking on the roads (should be reviewed).
 Uses like commercial, healthcare and entertainment
should be looking on main roads.
 Should be study the relation between uses and roads

ROAD connection.
Regulations :
4- Accessibility : sample According to planning regulations for Accessibility as
follows:
 Every parcel should be overlooking roads.
ROA  Every service parcel should overlook a main road and
2 D secondary road.
3  Fire trucks paths should be specified.
RO  Pedestrian paths should not be relied upon instead of
AD roads.
NO Accessibility
BUILDINGS
Planning notes :
 All parcels not looking on the roads (should be reviewed).
 Uses like commercial, healthcare and entertainment
should be looking on main roads.
RO
AD  the relation between uses and road connections should
be studied.
4- Accessibility : • These notes are general
and limited to one
Uses like commercial,
healthcare and
sector.
entertainment should be
looking on main roads.
All parcels not looking on

the roads (should be
reviewed).
5- Footprint Ratio : samples Regulations :
According to planning regulations for Footprint as following :
1  Clubhouse & Entertainment Land use Footprint Ratio on
the Ground Floor Should be 20.
Multiple  Other Land use Footprint Ratio on the Ground Floor Should
buildings in
1 parcel be 60 %.
 Every Parcel Shouldn’t Take More Than One Building
Multiple Planning notes :

buildings in
1 parcel
 Footprint Ratio of most of the project Parcels exceeds the
Footprint prescribed percentage
Ratio 70 %  Many Parcels have More Than one Building.
 Some Building & Parcel can be Replanned to Avoid this
Notes for Example Twins Villas
 Footprint Ratio should be reconsidered.

Footprint  Restudy The Parcels Planning & The Building Distribution
Ratio 76 %
5- Footprint Ratio : samples Multiple Regulations :
buildings in
1 parcel According to planning regulations for Footprint as following :
2  Clubhouse & Entertainment Land use Footprint Ratio on
 Other Land use Footprint Ratio on the Ground Floor Should
be 60 %.
 Every Parcel Shouldn’t take More Than One Building
Planning notes :
Multiple buildings in
1 parcel
prescribed percentage
 Many Parcels have More Than one Building.
Footprint Ratio56 %  Some Building & Parcel can be Replanned to Avoid this
(Entertainment Notes for Example Twins Villas
Building)

 Restudy The Parcels Planning & The Building Distribution
Footprint Ratio 65 %
Multiple buildings in 1 parcel
5- Footprint Ratio : samples Regulations :
According to planning regulations for Footprint as following :
3 Multiple buildings in
1 parcel  Clubhouse & Entertainment Land use Footprint Ratio on
 Other Land use Footprint Ratio on the Ground Floor Should
be 60 %.
 Every Parcel Shouldn’t Take More Than One Building
Planning notes :
Multiple buildings in prescribed percentage.
1 parcel  Many Parcels have More Than one Building.
 Some Building & Parcel can be Replanned to Avoid this
Notes for Example Twins Villas.

 Restudy The Parcels Planning & The Building Distribution
Multiple buildings in 1 parcel
5- Footprint Ratio : • These notes are general
and limited to one
Footprint Ratio of most of
the project Parcels
sector.
exceeds the prescribed
percentage.
Many Parcels have More

Than one Building. Some Building & Parcel
can be Replanned to
Avoid this Notes for
Example Twins Villas.
Water Regulations :
6- Conflict with existing infra network : pipe line
1  Study existing design determinants such as infra network.
Parcel limit
Planning notes :
 The design conflicts with the existing water pipe line.
 The building is in the path of the water pipe line.
Water pipe line
 The existing water pipe line should be observed.

 Studying that area and buildings so that they don’t conflict
with the water pipe line .
Electrical Regulations :
6- Conflict with existing infra network : as built
2 Electrical  Study existing design determinants such as infra network.
cables
Planning notes :
 The design conflicts with the existing electrical cables.
 The building is in the path of the electrical cables.
 A basement design was made on the path of the electricity
cables (conflict).
 The existing electricity cables should be observed.

 Studying that area , building and basement so that they
don’t conflict with the electricity cables .
Parking
Study
“Samples”
Parking
Study
“Samples”
Parking
Study
“Samples”
2 ROADS VALIDATION
Roads Validation
1.HORIZONTAL GEOMETRY ISSUES : The following shows a sample of found issues which requires
checking the whole master plan
Fig.01
6.0m  A. Road’s Width
165 . 0m
13.0m Variable width for the same road without clear reason
and with no accurate transition zones which will create
bottle nicks and lead to traffic jam. (Fig.01)
 B. Traffic Directions needs to be clarified specially

with small width roads (6.00m).
 C. No Road’s Hierarchy.
7.0m 12.5m 7.0m
6.0m
Roads Validation
1.HORIZONTAL GEOMETRY ISSUES :
Fig.02 Fig.04  D. Some Intersection Angels Not Suitable.
15⁰
Intersection angel should be between 60 - 75 degrees .
(Fig.02)
 E. Entrances & Exits At Main Gates Requires

Auxiliary Lanes (Fig.03, 04, 05)
Fig.05
Fig.03
Roads Validation
Fig.06 Fig.08  F. Horizontal Curves.
7.0m
-Some curves radiuses not fulfilling min. design speed
of 30km/hr for such local roads . (Fig.06, 07, 08, 09)
15.0m
-There is many tangents without horizontal curves.
(Fig.10)
-widening required for sharp bends . (Fig.08)
Fig.07 Fig.09 Fig.10
15.0m
15.0m Sharp edges (no

curves)
Roads Validation
Fig.11 Fig.13
 G. Some roads geometry needs to be
changed or modified to avoid
succussive/unnecessarily curves and sharp
bends. (Fig.11, 12, 13, 14)
Fig.14
Fig.12
Roads Validation
Fig.15 R16m  H. Horizontal sight distance needs to be checked
and enhanced at some locations.
(Fig.15)
R16m
Bridge/Tunnel
Roads Validation
Fig.16 Fig.18  I . Intersections
-a lot of intersections needs redesign and
replanning .(Fig.16, 17, 18)
-Some intersections turning radius requires to be
enlarged to adapt the min. turning radius for the
design vehicle (9.0-15.0m ).(Fig.19, 20, 21)
Sharp edge
Fig.17 Fig.19
R5m
R4m
R5m
Fig.20 Fig.21
Roads Validation
Fig.22  J. Accessibility to the most of the site facilities is
missing since there is no internal or connecting
roads .
 K. Weaving distance needs to be checked at this

area in fig.22 since it’s a conflict point also axillary
lanes required.
Roads Validation
1.VERTICAL GEOMETRY ISSUES :
ROAD 1
The highlighted roads routes need to be modified for
the following uses :
1- the passage generates steep long. Slopes exceeds

11.0%
2- the steep grades is not preferred in such mixed use
areas with high pedestrian movements and crossings
also to accommodate the buildings entrances
3- roads with such steep grades requires special
attention regarding the critical lengths of grades ,
stopping/passing sight distances and intersections
Roads Validation
1.VERTICAL GEOMETRY ISSUES :
ROAD 2
Roads Validation
1.VERTICAL ISSUES :
ROAD 1 PROFILE VIEW ROAD 2 PROFILE VIEW
3 WET INFRA VALIDATION
WET INFRA VALIDATION
Proposed locations as Per Master
1- Wet Utility Areas :
Plan REV 02 18th April
The proposed locations for water tanks are not shown in the
received documents.
Proposed Location
for Water Tank 1
SABBOUR notes :
There are some areas that have been proposed as the most
adequate locations to serve the entire system
Proposed Location
for Water Tank 2
The proposed locations for water tanks are not shown in the
received documents.
SABBOUR notes :
adequate locations to serve the entire system
Proposed Location
for IRR Tank 1 The proposed locations for irrigation tanks are proposed at the
landmark village which is the lowest point and is very close to
the entertainment units
SABBOUR notes :
It’s recommended to move the irrigation tank to the highest
point and it can be also located within the green areas at Park
A common centralized utility area can be provided at the

proposed location for both water and Irrigation
Proposed Location for
Lifting Station Tank 1
The proposed locations for Lifting Station & Stormwater tank
are proposed at a high point
SABBOUR notes :
It’s recommended to move the LS & Stormwater tank to the
lowest point to avoid additional lifting stations for the
surrounding areas.
1- Wet Utility Areas : Proposed Location for
Lifting Station Tank 1
The proposed locations for Lifting Station & Stormwater tank
are proposed at one location only for all areas served
SABBOUR notes :
It’s recommended to have one more Lifting Station &
Stormwater tank to avoid a deep sewage system.
The proposed locations for wet utility are not shown in the
Proposed Location for received documents.
Water & IRR Tank 1
Proposed Location
SABBOUR notes :
for Sewage Lifting
Station & Storm Tank There are some areas that have been proposed as the most
adequate locations to serve multifamily area
The proposed locations of Wet Utility are not shown in the
received documents.
Water & IRR Tank 2
SABBOUR notes :
adequate locations to serve Single Family area

Water & IRR Tank 2
THANKS,,,

AL Mokattam Concept Validation Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AL Mokattam Concept Validation Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corniche AL-Mokattam – Masterplan Development

1 Urban Planning validation

3 Wet Infra validation

Approximately Ground floor

Multiple buildings within a

Setback less than 4m

than it’s double depth

 Reviewing parcels dimensions to achieve ratio 1:2 between

The depth of parcel

 The length of the block should not exceed 250 meters,

Block length is more than

NO Accessibility Planning notes :

 Should be study the relation between uses and roads

All parcels not looking on

Multiple Planning notes :

 Footprint Ratio should be reconsidered.

 Footprint Ratio should be reconsidered.

 Footprint Ratio should be reconsidered.

Many Parcels have More

Water pipe line

 The existing water pipe line should be observed.

 The existing electricity cables should be observed.

 B. Traffic Directions needs to be clarified specially

 E. Entrances & Exits At Main Gates Requires

Fig.07 Fig.09 Fig.10

15.0m Sharp edges (no

 K. Weaving distance needs to be checked at this

1- the passage generates steep long. Slopes exceeds

A common centralized utility area can be provided at the

Proposed Location for

You might also like