[Dartmouth] Twin Lakes (Prince Albert & Bartlin) | 2X39m | 2X12 fl | Approved

[Dmajackson]

Name: Twin Lakes Condominiums
Height: 38m
Floors: 12 floors
Status: Approved
Location: ~335 Prince Albert Road (at Bartlin Road)
Approval Date: July 6th, 2006
Developer(s): Twin Lakes Developments
Architect(s): Kassner/Goodspeed Architects
Uses: Residential
Notes: Development Agreement

---

I'm reading the development agreement right now so I'll post more when I finish it but the basics are;

http://www.halifax.ca/commcoun/hecc/...ase784Jul6.pdf

This is an approved 12-storey building on Prince Albert Road near Bartlin Road approximately across from the Superstore. It was approved in 2006 by Harbour East Community Council.

Interesting point to note; This proposal was recommended by municipal staff to be REJECTED but apparently because of local support and a lot of public consultation Councilor McCluskey moved the motion to APPROVE the project and it was passed unanimously.

[Keith P.]

How is it possible that this has been knocking around in the system since 2006? And how is it that this is acceptable in scale, but one block away a slightly taller proposal was shouted down without even a public hearing?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And how is it that this is acceptable in scale, but one block away a slightly taller proposal was shouted down without even a public hearing?

It would be interesting to see how McCluskey voted on this one.

Any micromanaging like this on the part of councillors is inevitably going to become political because they have tiny districts and with low voter turnout a couple hundred votes can change an election result. Principles don't matter because the soft supporters don't even vote; piss off a couple of streets and you lose your seat.

It is seriously messed up. I think the new districts will help a bit and an HbD-style approval process for Dartmouth would help a lot. They might end up with low height limits but right now half of the developments are arbitrarily shot down after developers have already invested substantial time and money in their design.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

It would be interesting to see how McCluskey voted on this one.

Well I think DJ answered that already:

Interesting point to note; This proposal was recommended by municipal staff to be REJECTED but apparently because of local support and a lot of public consultation Councilor McCluskey moved the motion to APPROVE the project and it was passed unanimously.

I'm hoping that the Regional Centre Plan will end some of these glaring issues, which Keith is right to point out. If only it had been pointed out that this was approved; it might have helped.

That said - the question I would ask is whether or not the DA is still in effect? Isn't there usually a requirement that construction begin within a certain time period? That's the same issue with Twisted Sisters...

[Jringe01]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Well I think DJ answered that already:


I'm hoping that the Regional Centre Plan will end some of these glaring issues, which Keith is right to point out. If only it had been pointed out that this was approved; it might have helped.

That said - the question I would ask is whether or not the DA is still in effect? Isn't there usually a requirement that construction begin within a certain time period? That's the same issue with Twisted Sisters...

Yeah...if it's been 6 years now what are the odds they'll ever break ground having let this much time pass?

[Dmajackson]

Apparently this project is not dead ...

The property owners are seeking an extension to the development agreement to allow for two more years for construction to begin. They also own the NAPA property in front of this proposal and are planning for a low-rise mixed-use building there after the Centre Plan is approved.

Case 21546 Details - Halifax Planning

[Jonovision]

I didn't realise this ever got approved?!

It also amazes me that residents kicked up such a big fuss with the proposal two blocks away from this and yet no one seems to even be aware of this one having ever existed?!

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Apparently this project is not dead ...

The property owners are seeking an extension to the development agreement to allow for two more years for construction to begin. They also own the NAPA property in front of this proposal and are planning for a low-rise mixed-use building there after the Centre Plan is approved.

Case 21546 Details - Halifax Planning

The DA was signed March 27 2013 and was for 5 years; section 5.6 allows HRM to grant an extension.
I have known of the project for many years.

[Dmajackson]

This project is still not dead

The non-substantive time extension was approved last year.

Now Twin Lakes is seeking substantive amendments to relocate and slim down the approved building and expand the lot to 3.25 acres to allow for a second residential building with the same mass in behind the approved building. Together the site would have ~175 units, ~230 parking spaces, and ground floor retail along Prince Albert. A second phase of development will align with Centre Plan and be built as a 6-storey as-of-right residential building.

HRM Planning Case #22285 Details

[IanWatson]

This is a nice improvement over the approved building.

[Jonovision]

Much improved!

[Dmajackson]

This is going before HEMDCC next week. The applicant is asking for the two twelve storey version to be approved but if community council rejects that they are seeking an extension for the existing development agreement.

Case 22285 Staff Report

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

This is going before HEMDCC next week. The applicant is asking for the two twelve storey version to be approved but if community council rejects that they are seeking an extension for the existing development agreement.

Case 22285 Staff Report

Well, naturally planning staff recommends rejecting the proposal, because god forbid anything new gets built in this area. Oddly enough though, the comments at the public information session are almost all positive and in favor of this. One hilarious comment was that "Halifax seems to get approval pretty quick for these types of developments. If anyone try’s to development anything in this area of Dartmouth they seem to run into roadblocks". The person must have witnessed the debacle surrounding the Austin Hotel site proposal. Refreshingly, there was virtually none of the typical "It's TOO TALL!!!" nonsense we see so often.

As a side note, the wind study included in the report has sections that are virtually unreadable and never should have seen the light of day. I would be embarrassed if I was the engineer whose name is on that document.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, naturally planning staff recommends rejecting the proposal, because god forbid anything new gets built in this area. Oddly enough though, the comments at the public information session are almost all positive and in favor of this. One hilarious comment was that "Halifax seems to get approval pretty quick for these types of developments. If anyone try’s to development anything in this area of Dartmouth they seem to run into roadblocks". The person must have witnessed the debacle surrounding the Austin Hotel site proposal. Refreshingly, there was virtually none of the typical "It's TOO TALL!!!" nonsense we see so often.

As a side note, the wind study included in the report has sections that are virtually unreadable and never should have seen the light of day. I would be embarrassed if I was the engineer whose name is on that document.

It can definitely be very confusing. I could be wrong, but it seems like the recommendation was based more on aesthetics than utility. The buildings would be at the confluence of a grocery store, highway, bike lane, transit stop, school; arguably a much better location for density than horizon court. I agree with the concern of cutting pedestrian access, but I think it would be easy to integrate existing accessibility as part of a requirement for approval. Yes, from a scale point of view it dwarfs neighbouring houses, but so will the new hotel nearby. I personally feel that being in such a strategic location outweighs the concern of scale. I also wonder if the rejection is more of a suggestion of things to improve, and maybe placating nearby residents while letting council approve. I would have to ask those last two questions to city staff who prepared the recommendations, or at least someone having been involved in similar recommendations elsewhere.

The wind study is unfortunate. I think what happens is that the PDF document can’t accept all the letters from trendy fonts, which cut the I’s and L’s. Must have been on a tight deadline if they couldn’t review and catch this.

[spaustin]

Council approved the redesigned version of Twin Lakes yesterday

https://samaustin.ca/council-update-twin-lakes/

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by spaustin

Council approved the redesigned version of Twin Lakes yesterday

https://samaustin.ca/council-update-twin-lakes/

Huge improvement of the previous design. Looks really nice!

I don't totally oppose the hotel either though. I'm thinking something similar to the Best Western on Chocolate Lake - surrounded by low density residential for the most part. It definitely does not stick out like a sore thumb, rather provide some additional amenities to the area in my opinion.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by spaustin

Council approved the redesigned version of Twin Lakes yesterday

https://samaustin.ca/council-update-twin-lakes/

Thank you Councilor Austin. I read the report last week but never got around to posting it on the forum.

I think the new design is an improvement.

[terrynorthend]

What ever became of this development up behind the "8 floor apartment come 16 floor hotel come apartment again" on Prince Albert?

[Dmajackson]

This project is still alive according to the Housing Accelerator Fund reports;

Request was to allow 16-storey buildings.

• The site is subject to a DA that allows for 12 storey towers.
• The policy for max height of HR-1 zone is 9 storeys
• Staff are not recommending changes to the underlying zoning at this time, development can proceed under the approved DA. A substantial amendment to the DA is a possibility.

Regional Centre Development Requests

[Dmajackson]

This development site is now for sale;

CBRE For Sale Listing