Good morning. My name is Julia Ray and I am the chair of the Toronto Preservation Board. The clerk has confirmed that we have quorum. So I will call meeting 44 of the Toronto Preservation Board to order. Welcome everyone. This is a hybrid meeting with some members, staff and public attending in person and others connecting by video conference over the WebEx platform or calling in. This meeting is also being livereamed online at youtube.com/torontocity council live. Because we are meeting in person and remotely, we ask for your patience with any delays and technical issues. If you are registered to speak at today's meeting, please listen for me to call your name. I will call speakers in the order they appear on the list. The list of speakers can be viewed online by visiting the Toronto Preservation Board at toronto.ca/countsel ca/counsel and clicking the speakers box for today's meeting. I would like to request that staff and invited participants as well as all observers joining remotely keep their video turned off unless they need to speak or answer questions. This will make it easier for me as chair to see the members and as we debate and vote on the agenda items. Members, for quorum purposes and participation in the meeting, it is important for you to keep your cameras on. I also ask that your microphones are muted unless you wish to question staff or speak to an item. To ensure we have an efficient meeting with board members having equal opportunity to ask questions or speak to an item, I will run the timer for 5 minutes. Members will have up to 5 minutes each to ask questions of staff and speak on an item. And as a reminder, motions need to be moved at the beginning of a member's speaking time. Um, and please submit and approve your motions by email. Staff are available at hertpb to help with motions. Oh, at toronto.ca to help with motions. If members wish to speak on an item, please raise your hand or unmute your mic and indicate your intention to speak. And I will create a speaker list. And when voting on an item or a motion, I will ask members to raise your hand to indicate your vote. If there is a recorded vote, you will be asked to state if you are in favor or opposed. Members, the city clerk has provided all agenda materials on toronto.ca ca/counsel. So although we may be meeting in different locations today, the Toronto Preservation Board would like to acknowledge that the land we are meeting on is the traditional territory of many nations including the Missosagas of the Credit, the Anesnab, the Chipoa, the Hodnoni, and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Matei peoples. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by Tree 13 with the Missagas of the Credit. At this point, are there any declarations of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act? If you do have an interest, please raise your hand or unmute your mic and indicate the item and the nature of your interest. So, I'm calling for declarations. Yes, Mitchell. >> Yep. Uh item PV 44.42 Dundas Street East. Um the firm I work for is employed as a heritage consultant for that file. >> Thank you. Other declarations, Peter. a PB 44.720 Gerard Street East. My employer is the land use planning consultant for this project. >> Thank you very much. And I'm declaring an interest on PB 44.6. We were formerly engaged as a heritage consultant and so just giving a wide birth. And then on PB 44.9, the firm I work for is the heritage consultant on the file. May I please have a motion to confirm the minutes from our meeting on April 27th, 2026? Jeff, thank you very much. All those in favor? >> Yes. >> Fantastic. That carries. Um, so right now I'd like to propose reordering the agenda. Um, so that items PB 44.12, PB 44.6, and PB 44.9 are considered as the second, third, and fourth items on today's agenda. All in favor of reordering the agenda? Marvelous. That carries. So now we'll proceed with the agenda review. Our first item is PB 44.1 8 Arnold Avenue inclusion on the Heritage Register. There is no presentation on this item. However, planning staff are available to answer questions from the board. Would anybody like to hold this item? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in the report? Paul, thank you very much. All those in favor? Marvelous. That carries. Moving on to PB 44.12 339 Queen Street East. Proposed amendment to a designating bylaw under part 4, section 30.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. There is a presentation from heritage planning staff available if the board would like to hear it. Does anybody want to hold this item? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in the report? Peter, thank you very much. All those in favor? Fantastic. That carries. Moving on to PB 44.6, 153, and 185 Eastern Avenue. alterations to a designated heritage property under sections 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act and authority to enter into a heritage agreement. We have a speaker registered on this item. Does the speaker have a presentation or is here to answer questions? >> Madam Chair, uh this is Adam Win. Um I do apologize for running late. I'm having some technical issues. I'm just going to be on camera shortly. >> Okay. Thank you. Um then I'll hold the item if you've got a presentation. It's all good. Well, so PB 44.6 is held. Thank you very much. Our next item is PB 44.9 40 Wabash Avenue, alterations to and demolition of heritage attributes of a designated heritage property under sections 33 and 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act. We have a speaker on this item. Does the speaker have a presentation or just here to answer questions? >> Thank you very much. So, we have a presentation from planning staff available if the board would like to hear it. Does anybody want to hold this item? Jeff, you want to hold it? Okay. Moving on then to PB 44.281 Chestnut Drive, application to erect a structure in the South Rosedale Heritage Conservation District. We have a speaker registered on this item. Does the speaker have a presentation or is are they here to answer questions? Madam chair, I'm just here to answer questions. >> Thank you very much. So, we have a presentation from Heritage Planning staff available if we'd like to hear it. Does anybody want to hold this item? Jeff, thank you very much. Moving on to PB 44.3 50 Park Road, alterations to a designated heritage property under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, a refusal. We have a presentation from heritage planning staff available. Would anybody like to hold this item? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations in front of me. Would anybody like to move the recommendations of that report? I will move the recommendations. All those in favor? Thank you very much. That carries. PB 44.4212 Dundas Street East. alterations to a designated heritage property under section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act. We have speakers registered on the item, so I will hold it. Moving on to section PB 44.5, 150 College Street, the Medical Sciences Building, One King's College Circle, alterations to a designated heritage property under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, an authority to enter into heritage uh easement agreement. We have a speaker registered on this item. Does the speaker have a presentation or just here for questions? Thank you very much. We have a presentation from heritage planning staff if anybody would like to hear it. Does anybody want to hold this item? Jeff. Thank you very much. Moving on to PB 44.720 Gerard Street East. Alterations to a heritage property designated heritage property under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act and authority to enter into a heritage easement agreement. We have a speaker registered on this item. Do you have a presentation? >> Thank you very much. We have a presentation from Heritage Planning Staff. Would anybody like to hear it? Would we like to hold the item? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody like Oh, wait a second. Go away, Peter. Thank you. We'll see you soon. I was getting ahead of myself. That's fair. Okay, we have a staff report with recommendations before us. I will move the recommendations in the report. If you are in favor, please raise your hand and I will call your name because it's a recorded vote and I want to make Tanya happy that I've done this right today. Mitchell, Jeff. Oh no. Mitchell, Paul, Julia, Jeff, Matthew, Karash, Wendy, Mitch, and Katherina. That carries. Thank you very much. And can we get Mr. Peter back? Does somebody mind? That's number two. moving on. EB 44.8 6 to8 and 10 to 12 Sumac Street, alterations to a designated heritage property under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act and authority to enter into a heritage easement agreement. We have speakers registered on this item, so I will hold it. Next we have PB 44.10 1337 Queen Street West demolition and new construction on a designated heritage property under part five section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act approval. We have speakers registered on this item. So I will hold it. And finally we have PD 44.11 170 Merin Street demolition of a heritage attribute under section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act and authority to amend a heritage easement agreement. We have a speaker. We have speakers registered on this item. So I will hold it. So moving on back to so much paper today. Uh PB 44.2 81 chestnut. Oh that's right. 6 give me 3 seconds 44. >> Madam chair this is Adam W. >> Hi Adam. Um, I'm having I'm having computer and audio feedback on the connection today. >> Um, >> I am naming Leslie Barnes as my designate. I'm going to send the doc. >> I'm so sorry, Adam. Unfortunately, that requires written approval and you haven't submitted the necessary paraper work ahead of time. Um, I'm really sorry that you're having such a challenging sort of technical morning, but unfortunately that's where we're at. Okay, we're moving on back to Oh, PB is point6. Okay, I'm going to absent myself and let Paul take over. >> Goodbye. >> Goodbye. >> May the force be with you. stand with you. We won't eat there. >> Okay. So, we have PB 44.6, 6, 153, and 185 Eastern Avenue, alterations to designated heritage properties under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and authority to enter into a heritage uh easement agreement. Uh we have a um presentation from heritage planning staff available. Would the board like to hear the presentation? >> Yes. Okay. So, we'll we'll do the uh staff presentation first and then um the speaker presentation. We're just waiting for the presentation to appear. He's watching us. All right. Hi everyone. I'm Neil McKay, heritage planner, and I'm presenting on agenda item PB 44.6. Next slide. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Um, so staff recommends that city council approve the alterations proposed for the designated heritage properties at 153 Eastern Avenue and 185 Eastern Avenue under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the proposed development of the or in connection with the proposed development of the subject property. The subject site 153, 169, 171, and 185 Eastern Avenue is located on the south side of Eastern Avenue in the West Dawnlands neighborhood between Rolling Mills Road to the west, Old Foundry Road to the north, and Palace Street to the south. Uh, the site known as the Dominion Wheel and Foundaries Limited Complex comprises two Heritage Properties at 153 and 185 Eastern Avenue. On May 16th, 2023, city council stated its intention to designate the properties under part four of the OA and on July 20th, 2023 enacted designation bylaw number 732 2023. Next slide. Uh so here are views of uh 153 Eastern Avenue, a two-story rectangular industrial building known as the cleaning room building uh located in the northwest corner of the subject site. The building was constructed in 1953. As shown in the photos, plywood exterior covers currently close off openings where the masonry and windows have been removed due to previous demolition activity. Next slide, please. And here is uh 185 Eastern Avenue, uh a two-story rectangular industrial building known as the machine shop building located on the south portion of the subject site. The building was likely constructed in uh 1930 and additions were made to the building in 1940, 1946, and 1947. So, as shown in the photos, um under provincial ownership, the buildings located at 169 Eastern Avenue, and 171 Eastern Avenue, um on the north side of the building, shown on the in the right image, were removed. Next slide, please. Uh here's the proposed site plan. Uh the proposed development application proposes the institute retention of the original heritage structures uh and the construction of three new residential buildings. Uh tower B 31 stories is an affordable housing tower proposed above the machine shop building along the south portion of the site north of Palace Street. Tower A and tower C are market housing buildings located along the north portion of the site south of Eastern Avenue. Uh their introduction will not alter the existing heritage buildings on the site or their setback placement and orientation. Uh the new four-story base building will be clad in a compatible brick pallet and there's no underground parking proposed below the heritage buildings. Next slide. The cleaning room building um in the the north portion of the site in yellow is proposed to be retained as a whole building and repurposed for a commercial space. The scale form and massing of the building and roof will not be altered and the building will maintain its location, placement and orientation within the complex. The interior fitments and equipment of the building are proposed to be retained. The eastern edition of the machine shop building in the south uh is also proposed to be retained as a whole building for future community uh space use. The existing interior attributes are proposed to be retained. The full elevation of the machine shop building and two bays of the west elevation are proposed to be retained in situ. Um the north elevation and the remainder of the west elevation are proposed to be reconstructed. The proposed reconstruction will alter heritage attributes of the property. However, due to previous demolition activity, these portions of the building have been removed except for the bare steel frame. The new walls are proposed to be designed to be consistent and sympathetic with the existing historic walls. Um a new double height interior space in similar configuration to the existing uh is proposed with exposed brick walls and concrete floor slab um in the new construction. The railway tracks embedded in the concrete flooring are proposed to be reinstalled in the new concrete floor. So uh next slide. As noted, there was previous demolition activity on site. The conservation strategy proposed to retain uh existing window openings and reconstruct original window openings based on uh documentary evidence. Salvage brick will be used for repairs to the walls and new windows will uh match the existing windows. Next slide. Oh, is that it? I have one more slide. Um oh yeah, there it is. Okay. Uh, the introduction of tower B will alter the scale form and massing of the two-story building with shallow gable roofs to visually separate the tower from the roof of the um historic building, the the machine shop building. Um, tower B includes a glazed reveal of two stories above the building, uh, primarily constructed of contemporary black metal steel frame. And the reveal is uh set back approximately 6 m from the primary south elevation, 5.9 m above the retained west elevation, 22.5 m above the the retained east elevation, and 1.35 m above the reconstructed north elevation. And the tower beginning on level five is proposed to be stepped back um above the retained south elevation by approximately five meters. 4.32 m on the retained west elevation uh stepping back at level 13 as well. 29 m above the retained east elevation and.3 m above the reconstructed north elevation to the rear. And the proposed stepbacks of the tower will offer threedimensional legibility of the machine shop building and will not alter the placement and orientation of the building which terminates the view north on Tannery Row uh Tannery Road. And that concludes my presentation. Thanks. >> Terrific. Thank you. And now we have a presentation from Philip Goldmith I believe. And uh you will have 5 minutes. I'll start the timer and uh I'll warn you when we're getting close to your 5 minutes. this morning. Um, I'm here with uh Darius Ryback, representative of the ownership. Uh, we can answer any questions after this. As you heard from the heritage planner, uh this property is located um uh near the mouth of the Dawn River in an area that was uh primarily railway lands um up until fairly recent times. Uh as you can see in this slide, uh there were several buildings on site, cleaning building, a warehouse building, office building, and a machine building. all part of what was a larger industrial complex, a foundry that provided uh components for the railways which were largely south of here. This is what it looks like today. Uh the aerial view shows the two buildings remaining. The machining building to the south, the cleaning building to the west, and you see in the slide images of um what they look like today. So as as Neil mentioned um there was demolition that occurred um during a period in which the province owned the site. Famously this site uh has been under consideration for many years. Uh 1988 the province acquired it. U at one time it was Atari for those of us old enough to remember that in the 1980s 1990s. Um and uh over the years various development schemes uh came along. The site was sold in 2021. Um and it had a minister's zoning order placed on it which established heights, density, unit counts uh and so on. Not the actual scheme. We've worked on the actual scheme over the last few years and have developed a scheme that I think fits the site uh better than any of the previous iterations. As was mentioned earlier, there's three towers, one over the machine building shown in yellow and two to the north. The site is divided into three parts, A, B, and C. A is a market uh condo unit in the northwest. B is the um affordable housing tower above the machine building and C is a market building to the east. The positioning of the building over the machine building was carefully considered, pushing it to the north as much as we possibly could and centering it over uh the component of the machine building that allowed us to preserve an addition that was built in 1947 to the east as a whole building so-called. It actually is divided by an expansion joint and to preserve in pink the um large a large component of the machinery hall along the south side of the building and you'll see that in a minute. The cleaning building is preserved uh as a whole building and is being considered uh for a market. Here are some aerial views of the site. Um a view from the southeast. Uh you can see the uh community center building the 1947 edition to the uh right of the tower B in the foreground. And in the right image you're looking from the uh Adelaide overpass. Uh you can see the degree to which this area has been redeveloped. Going down to the street level, uh we're on what was Eastern Avenue and is now Old Foundry Road. Um this is the north side of the uh cleaning building and you can see the development to uh in the distance beyond the cleaning building. As mentioned the the base of the new tower has a brick masonry and that is to reflect the buildings that were demolished the warehouse and the office building. The cleaning building you can see in the existing image that the windows are closed. They will all be reopened. And uh the image at the bottom shows you the south wall across a pop space and a public passage through the site uh west of the machine building. This is a view uh of the west side of the cleaning building and an area in the southwest corner which will become a a pops space. It'll be redeveloped as a a kind of parquet privately owned but publicly available. And both the face of the cleaning building and the west face of the machine building look towards the pop space. These are uh colored images that you've seen in the previous presentation. Um but I just wanted to note that in these and south elevation um there are two new storefronts that will serve the market uh components that we're proposing in there. >> Uh running on time. Please finish up. Yes. >> Oh dear. Sorry. Um, do you want me to continue or um do you want me to stop? >> I think uh time to stop that. >> Oh, you're missing so many pretty pictures. >> I'm sure. I'm sure. Hopefully we can look at them. Um, okay. Um, I'm going to stop there. Uh, do we have questions of our speaker Jeffrey? I would ask if >> Yeah. So my my question is um >> would you be willing >> would >> would you be willing >> would you be willing to explain more about the uh the site I since it's such an important uh site that has so much community involvement and concern over what the province was doing. >> Absolutely. That's why as brief as it was I wanted to mention the long history of this site. Um and it it took a long time to get here and to find a proposal that that works. So if you are interested I will very quickly go go through the rest of this and explain it. Um I just wanted to note that wherever possible where the damage occurred during the demolition phase um we are making good the building and taking advantage of that without causing any further damage to put in uh new storefronts on the south facade facing the uh public uh open space and otherwise already existing openings which will be uh simply modified for uh future use as a market. So, an overhead glass door and a public entrance that faces that walkth through lane. This is the south side of the machine building where we we have the largest uh step back. and we have preserved the entire elevation. But more than that, the retention plan, which I I didn't take time to go through, preserves not only the space of the large industrial hall, which you'll see in a few minutes, but the structure of the large industrial hall uh in order that the character of that space is preserved as well as the volume. Here we now move to the machine building. Um again it the west facade of the machine building faces the pop space. The west face was half demolished. The north half of it was demolished down to the frame. The south half is extent. So we're preserving the south half. We're reopening a large door where the railway tracks came in um and just putting in a glass panel where the door was so that the railway tracks can go from outside to inside and make sense of them as an artifact. The pop space is is going to incorporate artifacts uh like a sculpture uh that are based on the railway history of the site and the pathways are laid out to mimic uh railway passage and that kind of thing. So very exciting to um interpret the history of the site through um physical artifacts. The south wall is entirely preserved as I said in the building to the east. I'll skip that. And this is the west elevation. So the green part is the areas that are extent and preserved. The uncolored part we have to rebuild because it literally doesn't exist. So uh we're rebuilding in a manner that uh is sympathetic to the building. The two new storefronts uh to the left are in an area that was open space. So wherever possible, we have returned steel framed windows to their original openings and exact replicas of the original. Original openings were using larger glass panels to express the fact that they were not uh part of the original building. The north wall is being reconstructed. Um it other than the green area is completely gone. And so we have focused all of the services uh that are necessary to operate the building to the north side which is internal to the site. So it doesn't appear to have changed the building uh on the public sides. Finally, this is the uh machinery hall that I was talking about. Um it's a large uh twotory space along the entire south facade. The existing picture shows it is as it is today and the rendering shows it is as we are proposing. It will be smaller north south but it is still a very dramatic space and we are putting back the railway track which will exit the west end of the building as it does now. We think the railway history of this site is really critical and so we we do want to interpret that as part of the project. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Do we have uh questions of our speaker? I'm seeing none. Um just waiting till I can see my whole panel here. Okay. Oh, Wendy, you have a question. >> Yes. Just for the speaker, I'm very uh interested to know how the get the train get into the building. How's how's the mechanism going to work? Can you explain a bit more on that? And then would that be like a long-term impact of the building? >> Sorry. Am I to understand you're asking if trains will continue to enter the building? >> No. >> Uh oh. Okay. >> It's only uh symbolic. So, um the entire railway length are gone and they've been redeveloped and the the the railway track has no connections anymore. the railway system that it connected to doesn't exist. >> So, we're preserving them as artifacts to help explain the nature of the building and its history with the railways. >> Oh, okay. Well, very interesting. Thank you. >> Yeah. Any other questions, Peter? >> Yeah, I guess just just along that vein, are you proposing to use like like brass or what kind of a treatment um are you are you considering to commemorate the rail tracks? Well, the rail tracks will be put back into the floor. Um, they were built into the floor uh originally so that train cars could literally come into that industrial hall to load and unload. Um, you're dealing with very heavy railway uh components. So, there's a rolling crane in both buildings. The machine building long ago the crane was taken out. So, we can't preserve it. In the cleaning building, we are preserving the crane. Um, and it'll be left in place as again as an artifact to help explain, uh, the use of the building. Um, so, uh, I think I've lost track of your question. Sorry. The >> Okay, thanks. Any other questions? No. Okay. Thank you very much, Philip. Very interesting presentation. Uh, do we have questions of staff? No. Seeing none, any discussion amongst ourselves, Jeff? >> Well, just to say it would, um, compliment everybody involved in this. I think, um, it's been a long saga. Um, a lot of public, uh, concern. I'm actually surprised the St. Lawrence Neighborhood Association is not here today to to comment, but I I imagine that they would be happy. I you know haven't heard from them but um this is a um obviously large volume buildings and large volume buildings are coming but it seems to be very much in sync um and a good outcome. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other discussion? No. Okay. I have a staff report before me. Would anyone like to move the uh the staff report? Jeff. Okay. And this is a recorded vote. So, uh, all those in favor, please raise your hand and I'll, uh, read you off. So, we have, uh, Jeff, Mitchell, Peter, uh, Paul, Matt, Kash, Katarina, Wendy, and Mitch. Anyone in opposed? I don't see any. So, the motion carries. Okay. Okay. And that brings us to PB 44.9 40 Wash Avenue, alterations to and demolition of heritage attributes of a designated heritage property under sections 33 and 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh we have a speaker registered uh Sheldon Kennedy or do you have a presentation or um simply to answer questions? >> Okay. Does anyone have questions of um of Sheldon? We have a presentation from staff. >> I'm sorry. Uh we do have a presentation from staff. Um we'll do that first. Sorry about that. No worries. Uh good morning everybody. My name is uh Amir Nissan. Um and today I am presenting uh item PB 44.9 regarding 40 Wash Avenue alterations to and demolition of heritage attributes of a designated heritage property under section 33 and 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Next slide please. Thank you. Uh this slide displays the context map with the property's location highlighted in red. The existing heritage buildings at 40 Wash Avenue are located on the north side of Wobbash Avenue between Swarin Avenue and McDonald Avenue. The property is also notably located just west of the CNRCPR railway lines in the Ronville neighborhood. Uh this property was designated under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act uh earlier this year. Next slide, please. Thank you. This property contains a former industrial uh factory which is comprised of several buildings varying in construction dates ranging from the 1910s into the 1940s. The factory was purpose-built for the Canada Linseed Oil Mills company, a Montreal based company that was in operation until circa 1970. On the left you can see the chronology of built form uh with buildings A, B and C which are colored in gray and front onto Aash Avenue constructed in the early 1910s. Uh these were the first buildings to be constructed. Building D is um colored in pink and that was a later addition that was constructed sometime between 1924 to 1941. And making up the rear are buildings E and F which were constructed later and were not include included in the reasons for designation. In July of 2024, a city initiated site plan application was submitted for the proposed construction of a new community center and to facilitate the adapted reuse of the industrial factory complex. The application includes proposed alterations to and demolition of heritage attributes under the Ontario Heritage Act, which are the subject of this report. Next slide, please. This slide displays the proposed alterations and demolition of Heritage attributes to the existing Heritage buildings. The alterations are highlighted in blue, which include the changes proposed to the openings and the repairs to the prominent chimney stack and the west wall of building B. The items highlighted in red show the proposed dismantling and reconstruction of heritage attributes and that includes the one-story boiler house and the corbold parapets on buildings A and B. The pictures on the bottom right show the existing steel grain hopper and the steel canopy frame which are connected to buildings A and B. These attributes are also proposed to be demolished but will not be reconstructed due to their poor condition and to uh facilitate the new programming on the site. Next slide please. This slide further displays uh the alterations to and demolition of heritage attributes to the east and north elevations. And as noted before, alterations under section 33 are highlighted in blue. And the dismantling and reconstruction, otherwise known as demolition of heritage attributes are highlighted in red. Next slide, please. These next few slides show the proposed final elevations accompanied with some uh renderings. The new construction proposes to occupy the existing footprint of building A, B, C, and D within the retained and reconstructed facades. The addition is proposed to be situated above and extend rearward to the rear of the property. Next slide, please. This slide displays the proposed west elevation. And we can see here that the new addition has been sensitively positioned and designed to rein reinforce the heritage attributes and character of the former factory buildings as seen from Aash Avenue. Next slide please. And uh this should be the final slide and it shows the south elevation as seen from Obash Avenue. There we go. And uh through the incorporation of desirable stepbacks and the retention of the heritage building's massing and prominent chimney stack, the former industrial factory complex will remain legible alongside the new community recreation center and continue to contribute to the industrial character of this area. Staff are supportive of the proposed construction of the new community recreation center in conjunction with the proposed alterations and demolition of heritage attributes for the property at 40 Avenue in the context of the conservation and mitigation strategies that are proposed for the site. And so for the reasons outlined in this presentation and in the staff report, staff are recommending that the application be approved. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, I'll I'll go back now that I've got my ducks in the right row. Um, I'll go back and just ask again. Are there any questions for our speaker? First of all, Peter. Um, sorry, I might have I might have missed this. Um, in which case I apologize, but is there ghost signage on the building? And if there is, is that being conserved as part of the redevelopment? >> Yes, there there is ghost signage um on the building. Um unfortunately it is sorry um there is go signage on building B which is the the threetory portion of the building. Um it is in very poor condition as most of the bricks behind it have spalled. Um as on once we get the scaffolding in place uh and do the cleaning of the facade um we're going to reassess and see um what portions of it can be saved and portions of it may be repainted. But that that's one of the decisions we're going to have to make during the construction process. >> Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to ask because I know that was previously a concern that had been expressed by preservation board when we considered this property uh in past meetings. Thanks. >> Perfect. Okay. Other questions? I have one question which is um with regards to the canopy that's being removed along Wabash. I'm just uh wondering um is is that strictly a matter that it's not um in good enough condition to uh retain or is there a particular conflict with the design that makes it desirable to remove it? >> Um the answer is both. Um it is in in quite poor condition. Um, and also its location uh interferes with the uh uh facade retention structure that we're going to have to put in place uh to facil to facilitate the construction. Um, and it also uh impedes the pedestrian circulation around the front of the building. Um, as you know, obviously it's a community center, so there will be a lot more pedestrian traffic in that area than there currently is. Um, so that we've we uh we're we're not intending to to reinstate that at this point. >> And just a a second question on that point is is there photographic evidence somewhere of the historical nature of that canopy? Like um do we have a a view of how it was once upon a time? >> There there is extremely limited documentation of this building. Um we've been able to find a few photos that are are from down the street. Um but I mean it was as you know due to the the building's industrial nature it just was not a prominent prominently photographed building in any stretch of the imagination. Uh there there is the original rendering u from the company which um I can't remember which date uh uh it that that's dated from um but that was included in our heritage impact assessment uh and it it does not show the canopy. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh thank you very much. Uh do we have questions of staff? Seeing none, uh discussion amongst ourselves. No. Okay. Um in that case, I have a staff report before me. Would anyone like to move to the staff report? Peter. Okay. Again, uh this is a recorded vote, so I'll ask all in favor to raise their hands and I'll call off uh call off names. Okay, so I'm seeing Jeff, Mitchell, Peter, Paul, Matthew, Kash, uh Katarina, Wendy, and M. So that's unanimous. The motion carries. >> And we can find Julia and bring her back in. Turn over to her. Hello everybody again. We're moving back to PB 44.281 281 Chestnut Park application to erect a structure in the South Rosedale Conser Heritage Conservation District. We have a heritage planning staff presentation. So I am going to welcome Will Uh, good morning everyone. My name is Will Thomas. I am an assistant planner with Heritage Planning. Uh, this report concerns an application to erect a structure in South Rosale Heritage Conservation District at 81 Chestnut Park. Staff are recommending that city council approve the application under section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Next slide, please. Uh the property sits mid block on the west side of Chestnut Park. The property was previously part of a larger lot at 77 Chestnut Park. Um that lot at 77 Chestnut Park contains a large three-story home at the northwestern end of the lot. Next slide, please. Uh this photo shows the existing condition of the subject site. Currently there is no structure that occupies 81 Chestnut Park. The previously mentioned 77 Chestnut Park can be seen in the background of the photo. Next slide. This slide shows the proposed site plan of the new structure. uh being proposed is a 1.5story accessory structure designed to read as a historically linked to the home at 77 Chestnut Park as a coach house. The proposed structure set back approximately 6.3 m from Chestnut Park. Uh next slide. This is the primary elevation of the proposed structure. Um, design elements including the curved dormers, portico and roof design have been borrowed from the house at 77 Chestnut Park to further enhance its uh to be read as an ancillary coach house to the larger house. Next slide, please. And while integrated garages are generally discouraged in the within the heritage conservation district plan, staff worked with the applicant to provide a setback of6 m of the garage from the main wall of the structure. Um this allows for the roof line to extend forward to create a separate roof line and contribute to it feeling less integrated into the main structure. Uh next slide. And finally, this slide shows a rendering of the proposed coach house to show its relationship to the existing context. Um, the South Rosedale HCD plan permits new infill construction so long as it meets the guidelines for new buildings. Uh these guidelines state that new buildings should contribute to the character of the neighborhood, be compatible with the heritage buildings of the district in terms of scale, massing height, setback, and entry level, and that the roof profile and location of the eaves line should be compatible with that of its neighbors. Heritage planning staff are of the opinion that the proposal to erect a new structure in the South Rosedale Heritage Conservation District is consistent with the guidelines of the South Rosale Heritage Conservation District plan and other applicable policies and guidelines. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We have uh David Winterton here to answer questions. So, do we have any questions for our speaker? Um, and so, um, is Mr. Winterton online? >> Hello, I'm I'm here online, Madam Chair. >> Perfect, perfect, perfect. Okay, Jeff, please. >> I'm wondering about the context of this application. Um, it's being called a an application for a new structure. Um, is it not a home? And as such, it would be subject to the zoning bylaws um as well as the as the heritage considerations. So, I'm just What's the legal nature of this application? Um why isn't it just a you know regular application for a new home? >> Jeeoff, do you want that of the speaker or for staff the question? >> I I don't know. I Whoever's available to whoever is is qualified to answer that. >> We are happy to answer at the appropriate moment. Is it the appropriate name? >> Not yet. Let's ask. So, we'll just we're going to ask questions of the architect who's on the line right now. Um, so I'll give him a >> thought. It's more appropriate to answer. >> I think probably staff for that one. Yeah. Do we have any question? >> Do we have other questions for the speaker? >> Yes, Peter. >> Uh, yes. It from some of the photographs in the staff presentation, it looked like there may be an existing um quite substantial mature tree on this parcel. Is there is there a tree there? And if if there is, is it being retained or removed? >> Thank you, Peter. Indeed, there is a very uh large and glorious mature silver maple in the front yard, which is the reason that we've staggered the footprint of the coach house. Um, so we've we've stepped back uh from the the maple in the front and we're doing some structural gymnastics by using helical piles which avoid the large roots. We did air spading with a certified arborist. Um, and then we're canal levering the structure onto the helical piles to avoid any damage to the to the roots. Now, that's at the front of the house. In the middle of the lot is a magnificent genko tree specimen tree. So, that's also constraining us in the westerly direction. So, the house is basically the footprint is is placed in the sweet spot between these two tree root balls. That's really great to hear. Thanks. >> Other questions for our speaker. >> Seeing none, thank you so much for joining us. And now we'll move into questions of staff and um do we need Jeff to refresh or Okay. Uh Jeff, so my understanding of your question is you're sort of wondering um how it's being processed given that it's an individual um residence. So structure is the word that's used in the Heritage Act. So we would always say structure even if it's a house on any lot. So it's a structure. Uh and so we are looking at it strictly under the Heritage Act and should they need any additional planning permissions they will seek them and that would be unrelated to the work that we're doing but they will have their heritage permit which then should they need uh variances they would take but those are separate issues. So that's is that what you're looking for? Yeah. >> Are there other questions for staff? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody Oh, discussion amongst ourselves. Is there discussion amongst ourselves? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in the report? I'll do so. Oh, thank you, Matthew. All those in favor, please. And that carries. Thank you very much. Moving on now to PB 44.4 and we will bid so long to Mitchell and we're going to welcome Neil to the floor. Hi everyone. I'm Neil McKay, heritage planner, and I'm presenting on item uh PB 44.4. Staff recommends that city council approve the alterations proposed for the designated heritage properties at 212 Dundas Street East and 275 George Street under section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act in connection with the proposed development of the subject property. A previously approved application related to an approved zoning bylaw amendment that has been revised. Next slide. The subject site uh 212 Dundas Street East, 218 Dundas Street East, 275 George Street, and 279 and a half George Street is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Dundas Street East and George Street within the Dundas Street East character sub area in the Garden District Heritage Conservation District. Originally residential street, uh Dundas Street East currently contains many houses that have been adaptively reused for commercial uses along with some purpose-built commercial buildings. The broader surrounding area is primarily a residential neighborhood with houses from the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the property is about halfway between Moss Park and Allen Gardens. Next slide. The subject site contains 212 Dundas Street East, the former Wilton Court Hotel, uh, currently the Fillmore Hotel, a three-story brick building constructed in 1913, and 275 George Street, the Henry Tasker House, a 2 and a half story house form building constructed between 1872 and 1876 with a two-story rear wing. Uh the two buildings are connected to form one heritage property designated under part five of the OA and identified as contributing in the district plan. In 2021, city council approved the alterations to the heritage property to allow for the construction of a 41tory mixeduse tower with ground flooror commercial uses and residential uses above. An application for site plan control is currently under review. Next slide. Uh here's the proposed site plan for the current proposal which contemplates the construction of a 44story residential tower excluding the mechanical penthouse floor. Consistent with previous approvals, the heritage buildings will be incorporated into the base of the new construction. The house form building on the development site at 279 and a half George Street will be retained in its entirety and will not be altered. Next slide. Uh it has been determined through site plan application process that the previously proposed conservation strategy would not be feasible for this project due to significant logistical constraints. The current heritage permit application retains some aspects of the previously approved conservation strategy but has been revised to alter the heritage property through a combination of insitue retention and panelization/demolition. Um the conservation strategy has been revised to retain the full height of the southwest corner of 212 Dundas Street East along with approximately 1.8 meters of the west and south elevations in situ. The ground floor of the west or the primary elevation of 275 George Street. The return the south return wall and approximately 2.8 m of the north return wall is proposed to be retained in situ. The remaining heritage elevations, including the east return wall, will be cut into panels, removed from the site, stored during construction, and then reassembled into their original location. U panelization will mean that significant portions of the heritage property will be demolished, removed. However, it is considered uh necessary in this instance to allow for complex construction activities along Dundas Street to occur, including conflicts with the TTC street car line and associated infrastructure and a series of high voltage transformers and underground gas line on the east side of George Street. Next slide. The proposed tower is located above the retained portions of the Heritage property and the new base building. The new residential tower is proposed to be set back approximately 4.5 m above the west elevation along George Street, approximately 5.9 m above the south elevation along Dundas Street East, and will include a setback approximately 13.7 m from the southwest corner. Although greater stepbacks are preferred, staff are satisfied that the proposed massing is compatible with the scale form and massing of the on-site Heritage buildings as well as those of the adjacent heritage properties and the surrounding district. The proposed alterations to the heritage properties are consistent with the district plans policies and guidelines on alteration which require developments to be compatible with the cultural heritage value of the district to include compatible materials to conserve the district's heritage attributes and to not diminish or detract from the integrity of the district. The design of the tower is intended to complement the form of the southwest corner of 212 Dundas Street East which is rounded to address the curve of Dundas Street East. Uh the overall design of the contemporary base building including the material uh the materials and the storefront design will be further refined through the site plan approval process to ensure that they are they continue to be compatible with the on-site and adjacent heritage buildings and to remain consistent with the district plan. And as the buildings were altered in the 1980s to accommodate the Filills Hotel, the heritage property is proposed to be restored to their original appearance based on historic documentation. Uh the window openings are proposed to be um all window openings are proposed to be reinstated and the dormer profiles of um the house form building which have been modified will be reinstated based on archival evidence. The details of the restorations will be set out in a conservation plan. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Neil, we have two speakers registered. Um, and if it's okay with you, Mr. Gimo, I'm going to have Leslie Barnes speak first because you're just here to answer questions and so I think maybe it makes some sense. So Leslie, you've got five minutes. Hi. Okay. I'm Leslie Barnes. I'm on the Toronto East York Community Preservation Panel. And when we were looking at this project on Monday night, we all agreed that the proposed tower in regard to that the encroachment and scale are inappropriate in relation to the existing George Street Heritage Building. That's the note they wanted me to pass on. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Do we have questions for Leslie? Seeing none, thank you very much. Do we have questions for our architect on the file for Mr. Gimo Peter? So, um, come to the come to the hot seat. >> Yeah. So, I was just wondering does is the um the the Filillmore's neon sign is it considered to be a heritage attribute or otherwise an element that uh supports the charact the historical character of the property? >> Uh I think so and we're looking uh at a way to uh have it form part of the commemoration plan. Uh so we have some ideas. uh some of those ideas were uh put forward years ago in the in the former version of this project. So we'd like to take those ideas and and continue to develop them. Um they'll form part of the conservation plan. >> That's uh that's great to hear. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Do we have other questions for our speaker Jeff? >> I think we should just give um um Mr. John, an opportunity to respond to the Toronto and East Shore Community Preservation Panel's concerns. >> Well, I don't think I have a response with respect to the tower design or its placement. I mean, my role here is as heritage consultant and ensuring that um we're restoring faithfully the heritage building um back to its original design intent or some form of it. uh and to commemorate it. Uh so I don't have any response for the tower, but also um this is this is an updated version of a project that was approved several years ago and as far as I understand the massing has not changed that much, if at all. I know the design has, but I'm not sure about the massing. Probably more probably more height. >> Thank you very much. Are there other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for being here with us. And we move into questions of staff. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, any discussion amongst ourselves? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody care to move the recommendations in the report? I will do so. If you are in favor, please raise your hand and I will call out your name as I'm remembering it's a recorded vote. Peter, Matthew, Karash, Wendy, Katarina, Jeff, Paul, and myself. And that carries. Thank you very much. And we can welcome Mitchell back. Moving on to PB 44.51 150 College Street and we welcome Purya for our staff presentation. Good morning everyone. I'm Pia Nazimi, senior heritage planner with Heritage Planning and I'll be presenting item PB 44.5 which seeks approval under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act to alter the part four designated property at one King's College Circle in connection with uh the rehabilitation of the University of Toronto's medical sciences building. Next, please. The medical sciences building uh complex is located at the southeast portion of the King's College Circle between uh King's College Road and Queens Park Crescent West on the U uft St. George campus and the property designated under part four of the heritage act and is adjacent to eight heritage properties. The historic course of Tadel Creek uh also traverses the site presenting opportunities for landscape interpretation and engagement with broader cultural and ecological narratives. Next, please. The complex is characterized by its asymmetrical massing comprising seven interconnected wings ranging from three to seven stories. Uh the proposal includes the demolition of wing B and its replacement with a ninestory multi-purpose building. The replacement building will accommodate new laboratory spaces, modernized teaching facilities, collaborative work spaces and administrative offices. Due to recent changes to the planning act through uh bill 185 which provides exemptions for certain planning approval requirements for postsecary institutions. The proposal is exempt from planning approvals. However, the university has submitted a voluntary site control application for staff review and the proposal remains subject to other applicable legislation including the Ontario Heritage Act and the Ontario Building Code. Next, please. The medical sciences building was constructed between 1966 and 1970, is clad in sculptural pre-cast concrete panels designed by Canadian artists Robert Downing and Ted Biller and fabricated by beer pre-cast concrete. Next, please. Wing B, as shown on this slide, is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new ninestory building with a two-story mechanical penthouse above. The replacement wing is designed to be compatible with yet distinguishable from the modernist character of the existing heritage complex. Next, please. The proposal's uh articulated massing reinforces the original design intent of the complex as a composition of geometric volumes while improving the public realm through the enhanced visual and physical permeability while on uh one wing of the uh complex will be removed. The defining pre-cast concrete panels will remain on the retained wings ensuring that the heritage value and heritage attributes associated with these panels continue to be conserved and expressed. Next, please. The new wing will be separated from wing C as shown on this slide by a 3.5 m transparent reveal which provides a visual transition and uh reinforces the legibility of the addition. Wing A will be altered through the removal of the pre-cast concrete panels and the introduction of a double width glaze eress door improving access and providing daylight to uh the interior stairwell. Next, please. Wing C will be uh altered to accommodate the new connection including the removal of a stair stairwell and a limited number of sculptural uh pre-cast concrete panels. These panels uh present a small portion of the overall panel system and will be reused or were visible to reclat exposed portion of the building. Next, please. Consistent with standard four of the standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places, the proposed new wing is contemporary and distinguishable while maintaining a compatible relationship with the existing heritage complex. The use of natural stone and glazing provides a sympathetic contrast to the solidity of the existing heritage building. Next, please. The proposal also advances indigenous placekeeping principles and support truths and reconciliation through an integrated design approach informed by an indigenous engagement led by two row architect. Uh this includes highlighting the importance of the four sacred medicines through an indigenous teaching garden as shown on this slide which will include a sacred fire at the southwest corner of the site. Next, please. Along with interpretation of the historical course of Tadel Creek and broader ecological relationships to water and a ground floor uh great hall uh which is conceptually inspired by a Henani long house. Heritage planning staff support the proposed conservation strategy and alterations and are satisfied that the proposed the development conserves the cultural heritage value and attribute of the medical sciences building. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We have Brentton Nater here from ERRA Architects as our speaker. Um do we have any questions for them? Paul, please. And we'll ask Mr. Nater to come and sit. >> Thank you. >> You um I'm wondering if you can you can um enlighten us on the the rationale for the deletion of the north face of of the wing B. Um to my eye um that that face does add very much to the lines of the building and especially when when viewed from King's College Circle. It's it's horizontal um fairly low um low uh height, but it does very much extend the the building to the west and and gives it that that uh fairly low um low line. When I look at what replaces it, it's it's something that is much more uh vertically oriented, the window openings and so forth. Um it kind of destroys that that uh um horizontal uh low-rise uh uh flavor of of the building. And I'm just wondering, was was that really necessary to make that change? could the uh um was there some reason why the the things that you wanted to do um the the great hall is a is a a wonderful thing? I'm just wondering if it if it had to be done at the expense of of uh that that feature of the current building. >> Yeah, that's a a great question. Um and I think um it is a complex site. Um and the answer to that is um that yes um the uh redevelopment um of this wing I think was considered as a whole um as a component of the building itself. Um it is trying to accomplish the new design is trying to accomplish um a number of things. Uh one of which is the reconciliation between the um the tower massing of the three other towers of the medical science building and the adjacent campus landscape. And moving beyond um the engineering or structural considerations of retaining uh one facade of uh wing B which um I would not be able to speak to um now but I could provide more information uh on that to you if you'd like. Um the composition of the uh proposed redevelopment I think um would um would better suit that attempt to reconcile those two heights. continue the datam line from uh convocation hall over across the uh King's College Road and then mitigate between the differences in height between the the um retain towers um and the new uh rehabilitated structure on that site. >> Thank you. >> Other questions for our speaker? >> Seeing none, moving into questions of staff. Thank you so much for being with us today. Seeing no questions of staff discussion amongst ourselves. Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody care to move the recommendations in the report? Thank you, Mitchell. All those in favor, please. Perfect. Thank you very much. That carries. Moving on now to PB 44.8 and Neil is coming back. Hi everyone. Uh I will be presenting on agenda item PB 44.8. Uh staff recommends that city council approve the alterations proposed for the designated heritage properties at uh 68 Sumac Street and 10 to 12 Sumac Street under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act in connection with the proposed development of the subject property. Next slide. So, the development site 1 Sumac Street, 2A to 16 Sumac Street, and 90 Eastern Avenue is located on Sumac Street, north of Eastern Avenue, uh, near the northeast side of the, um, corner of Eastern Avenue and Cherry Street in the Corktown neighborhood. The Heritage properties at 6 to8 and 10 to 12 Sumac Street are outlined in blue. On December 16th and 17th, 2025, city council stated its intention to designate the properties at 6 to8 Sumac Street and 10 to 12 Zumac Street under part 4 of the OA. And on February 4th, 2026, uh, enacted designation bylaw 9026. Next slide. The subject property contains two designated Victorian era terrace house form buildings built as two identical pairs between 1886 and 1888. The four properties are valued as fine surviving examples of late Victorian era workers housing that proliferated in the King Parliament area during the second half of the 19th century. Next slide. As shown in the proposed site plan, um the development application proposes two new towers on the subject site. A 55story residential tower on the eastern portion of the development site and a 59story mixeduse tower on the western portion of the development site. The heritage buildings are proposed to be relocated on the development site and integrated into the base building of the west tower. Next slide, please. The conservation strategy for the development includes the relocation of the heritage buildings at 68 Sumac Street and 10 to 12 sumac street approximately 14 m south of their original location to accommodate the new construction. the full east uh primary elevations of um or the full east elevations, south elevations, north elevations and portions of the west which the rear elevation are all proposed to be retained. The building relocation strategy will be coordinated with future construction and phasing plans. A heritage building uh may be relocated within its property or development site uh where certain criteria described in official plan policy 31629 is met. Heritage Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed conservation strategy complies with the intent of the official plan policy and introduces additional mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the new construction on the heritage buildings which will maintain their three-dimensional integrity, scale, form and massing and perception as two Ontario House form buildings or Ontario House buildings. And additionally, the applicant is proposing to include interior demising walls on both the east and west sides to a depth of approximately 1.2 and 1.6 m and introducing loadbearing beams behind the retained heritage elevations at the approximate height of the second floor. The historic continuation of the roof line will be included within the interior. Next slide, please. Uh so while positioned uh in a new location on Sumac Street, all heritage attributes located on the street facing elevations of the buildings, including the mirrored composition of the two east elevations and the window and door openings will be retained and conserved. The east orientation of the heritage buildings will be maintained through the development application process. Um the design of the new construction has been revised to remove certain massing and projections that were originally proposed above the heritage buildings. In this final revision, the new construction is primarily positioned behind and adjacent to the retained heritage buildings conserving the heritage buildings and their proposed and their pitched roof structures with new massing set behind the rear roof slope. The proposed base building of the west tower is set back approximately 4.6 6 m from the relocated um principal elevations behind the reconstructed ridge line of the heritage houses by approximately.5 m. The massing is set back to reveal the north and south walls of the heritage buildings at a corresponding street wall height as shown in in this rendering. Uh a vertical mullion above the new canopy abudding the north elevation has been removed from the proposed building and the bulk of the canopy at the main entrance has been reduced increasing the visual permeability of the vestibule and the legibility of the north elevation from the street. Um next slide please. The subject site also contains one Sumac street, a residential building constructed in 1996, composed of three adjoining three cube three-story cube structures situated at top a steel column. The structure was identified as having potential cultural heritage value by Heritage Plank staff through the King Parliament secondary plan review in 2019 and was subsequently listed on the city's heritage register. Um, in the early stages of the project, staff reviewed material prepared by the project's heritage consultant and explored possible retention and relocation for possibilities for one sumac street. Um, no reasonable solution could be identified by either the owner of the city at the time and heritage staff concurred with the heritage consultant that the cube house um is not suitable for successful integration. However, uh given the visibility and community interests and the agreement between the city and the owner that the property has value uh to warrant commemoration, the existing building will be fully documented prior to demolition and a commemorated through a robust commemoration strategy. The um applicant has retained an artist who will develop a commemorative installation. The artist intends to use reclaimed materials from the cube house and is currently gathering feedback from the community on elements that should be celebrated to shape the installation. The applicant is also engaged with groups and third parties regarding interest in acquiring the building for potential off-site relocation. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Neil. We have one speaker on this item, Leslie Hi, it's me again, Lesie from the Toronto East York Community Preservation Panel. The first thing that the panel wanted to mention about this project is we feel that the triangular number one sumac should remain a park, not be developed. And Cork Town is a quirky and unique area and this huge tower is not something that we approve. That's it. Thanks so much. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for our speaker? Bless you. Seeing none, I've also got on the phone Emma from ERRA Architects to answer questions. Do we have any questions for her? Seeing none, thank you for joining us today and we'll move into questions of staff. Any question? Paul, >> yes. I I'd just like to ask about the the offsite relocation of of uh the cube building. Um we heard that it was it was considered and and discussed. I'm just wondering um I mean obviously that's something somebody would have to want it. somebody would have to have the money to um uh acquire it and and relocate it. Is that at this point something that has passed or um if if there were interest, is that still something that is is viable at least for the moment >> through the chair? Uh yeah, it's my understanding that it is still um an ongoing process. Um there was talk of uh I think um yeah off-site um in a different location or or in a park or or in a um uh museum, but that hasn't been no no viable solution was found at the time, but it's still an ongoing discussion. Yes. >> Thank you. Um, I'd like to refer Leslie's question back to sort of staff and and recognizing that there's only so much under the Heritage Act that is it within the purview of heritage planning. So then the question goes to um we have public concerns about you know park space. Where is the best avenue to direct sort of that those questions in the process? Is that part of heritage purview? Um how can we where can we put those energies? >> Uh sure through the chair. The um the best avenue for that would be to direct those comments to uh community planner on the file as this is a part of a a a planning act application as well. So um those questions about parkland would be best suited for for that as the purview of this application or that this report is solely for uh Ontario heritage act matters. >> Thank you very much. Are there other questions? Jeff, please. >> Um I maybe I should have asked this earlier, but the um the two Victorian homes um that will be moved and integrated into the new structure, are they um will they function as homes or are they entrances, you know, to a to a condominium tower? was I wasn't I wasn't clear on the functionality of those buildings going forward. Yeah, through the chair. Um the the function of those homes will be as primarily entrance for the residential tower above. Um heritage plank staff is working with the the heritage consultant and the applicant to um have um functioning doors uh for those um houses uh so that you know possible uses can be explored. Um but at the moment it is for um entrance space for the um for the residential tower above. >> And a second question do do those two homes relate to other homes in the area or are they an outlier? Um visually it's Draper Street right the um the the architecture. Um but on Da Street you have a whole street um in the west end but the um and here is it is it um link are they linked to other homes in the area or or are they an outlier? >> Um through the chair um I'm not sure. Um, I'd have the the um the report for when the properties were designated may include that information as the 906 criteria would would explain if the properties were um you know a unique for the area or or part of a group. So, um I would have to look in in that report to get that answer for you, but um yeah, I'm not sure about the uniqueness of them on on the site, but they are certainly unique on the street considering that it is cut off from the um the homes to the north uh with the with the um Adelaide and you know the highway. Yeah. Going through there. >> Other questions of staff? Seeing none, thank you very much. Neil, are there discussion points amongst ourselves? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody care to move the recommendations in the report? Paul, thank you very much. All those in favor, please. And that carries. Thank you very much. Moving on now to PB 44.10 1337 Queen Street West and we welcome Colin Hello. Okay. Hi, my name is uh Colin Pang. I'm a heritage planner with the city and I'm presenting agenda item PB 44.10, 10 1337 Queen Street West demolition and new construction for a designated heritage property under part 5 section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act. This report recommends that city council uh approve the demolition of an existing building on a non-contributing property located within the Parkdale Main Street Heritage Conservation District and to also approve the erection of a replacement building in accordance with in connection with the city-led Parkdale Hub project. Next slide. The subject property is an interior lot located between Dun Avenue and Cohen Avenue on the south side of Queen Street West. The city is undertaking an re revitalization and expansion of the Parkto hub, which is a strategic city building initiative that aims to revitalize and expand upon the existing cluster of city-owned facilities and community services located on the street. Uh it consists of several different properties between Cohen Avenue and Dun Avenue on the south side to provide new affordable rental housing, improved community facilities and modernized public spaces. The overall project consists of three blocks, center, west, and east. Next slide. The property of uh discussion today is identified as the west block of the park delhub project which will accommodate housing purpose-built affordable housing and non-residential uses on the ground. The property currently contains an existing one-story building which is located within the boundaries of the HCD plan. Next slide. The city is seeking heritage approval for demolition of the existing building and the construction of a proposed 16story mixeduse building with a fourstory uh podium building. The new building again will contain residential and non-residential space at the ground floor. Uh the site plan for you is shown on the slide uh slide. The elevation drawings are uh shown on the next few slides. Uh you'll see that the new tower above the podium building will have a 8 meter stepback from the property line facing Queen Street West which will further increase to 11 meters starting above the seventh story. Next slide. The total stepback above the 11th floor to the front uh property line facing Queen Street West will be 19 m. The sideyard stepbacks for the new tower will be 7.5 m on both sideyards. Next signed. The proposed stepbacks meet the minimum stepback requirements of the HD plan and help to maintain and reinforce the legibility and prominence of the low scale street wall as well as minimizing the new building's visual impact on the street. Next slide. The step back and podium height of the proposed new building matches that of the adjacent contributing properties and the design reflects the horizontal and vertical rhythm articulated in facades of the adjacent buildings. In addition to the adjacent datim lines, cornises and roof lines have been also reflected in the proposed design. Next slide. Uh this slide shows a rendering of the proposed new building which is proposed to be clad in limestone colored brick, natural brass and bronze spandrel panels, bolstrates and window and door frames. This will be distinguishable from and compatible with the red brick cladding used on buildings located at 1313 and 1347 Queen Street West. The design of the proposed storefronts includes uh details like bulkheads and again this will make it more physically and vis uh visibly compatible with the contributing properties found within the district. As such, uh, the proposal is consistent with the guidelines of the HCD plan. And therefore, it's recommended that city council approve the application under section 42 of the OA. >> And that concludes my presentation. >> Thank you very much. Um, Leslie, you are registered to speak. Hi, it's me Lesie again. So, we uh and the panel really like this proposal. The only thing we want to ensure is that the materiality continues above the podium that it's brick all the way up. That's my only note. Thanks. Thank you very much. We also have Emily from ERRA to answer questions. Um, are there any questions for Emily? Maybe we can refer to her um Leslie's concern about the materiality above the podium. Do could you speak to that please? >> Sure. Um, I believe the intention right now is to kind of continue the the look and the materiality of the base up through the building. Um, the actual determination of whether it will be masonally above the the podium has not been determined, but that's definitely something we can continue to look at to make sure it provides a cohesive look. >> Thank you very much. Are there other questions for Emily? Seeing none, do we have any questions for staff? Seeing none, discussion amongst ourselves. I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody care to move the recommendations of that report? Jeff, thank you very much. All those in favor, please. And that carries. Moving on now to PB44.1170 Merin Street. Welcome Kristen. Good morning. I have a brief presentation for the last item. I'm Kristen Flood, senior heritage planner with Heritage Planning. This report recommends that city council approve the demolition of a heritage attribute of the property at 170 Murden Street under part 4 section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act in connection with the proposed redevelopment of the site and that council grant authority to amend a heritage easement agreement. Next slide. The property at 170 MDN Street is located on the north side of Merdan Street between Young Street and Paleon Crescent in the Davisville neighborhood. Next slide. The property contains the former visiting homemakers association building constructed in 1969. It is a representative example of a distinct late modern style office building designed as the headquarters for the VHA. The VHA is an important social welfare agency founded in Toronto in 1925. The related development application proposes a 45story mixeduse residential building which includes the retention of a portion of the VHA building as shown on this slide. The overall conservation strategy was previously approved uh by city council through item TE2713. Please. >> This report is seeking further approval for the demolition, reconstruction, and extension of the original terrace, which is a heritage attribute of the property originally proposed to be conserved in situ. The demolition and reconstruction of the terrace is required to address engineering considerations that were raised since the original approval was granted. staff is of the opinion that the revised proposal continues to conserve the heritage property and remains consistent with the policy framework. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Um just confirming we have Emma from ERRA Architects on the line. You're just here for questions. >> Yep. Just here for questions. >> Marvelous. So I'm just going to move to the other speakers in case it makes more sense that way. So we have Spencer Owen >> online. Yeah. >> Spencer, you have five minutes. >> Yes. Sorry, I don't have a presentation prepared. I'm just here to answer any questions that the board might have. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And now Leslie. Hi again. So, the only thing that the panel was concerned with when we looked at the photo of the current retaining wall, there are trees there and in the new plan, the trees are gone. We would like to make sure that the trees remain. That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Are there questions for Leslie? >> Seeing none, we'll move into questions either of Spencer or Emma. And I think we can direct Leslie's concern about the trees to them to speak to, please. >> I may let Spencer speak to the intent behind the trees. >> Sure, no problem. Sorry, I'm having a bit of internet connectivity issues right now. Um, so originally right now what we've proposed is that we remove the trees during um obviously when we remove the retaining wall. We're looking to install some outdoor amenity space in this area to activate it. It's going to be off the main entrance of the residential building. So, we'll be looking to add some more activated space. And with that, we're proposing that we do have landscaping on the exterior, including some shrubs um to liven up that space more than what's um in the previous version of the plans. >> Jeff, you had a question. >> I think my my question was um um for Spencer to clarify for whom he is speaking. >> Yes, that's a good one. Spencer on behalf Of whom are you speaking? Yeah. >> Apologies. I thought I might have cut out when I spoke earlier, but from the owner >> the owner who is >> Ray Woodton LP. >> Thank you very much. Are there other questions for our speakers? Peter. >> Yeah. So, um I think Merin Street is a really interesting and unique street. I think it's known for uh the concentration of social service agencies that were built along it in the 1960s and '7s. And if you if you look back at um pictures of this building before 2014, it was actually a brown brick building. Um I see in the renderings uh it was it was painted white by Crestford for a condo sales center around 2014 and the renderings um seem to show it uh still being white. Are you looking as part of the conservation scope of work for the property at um paint removal to reinstate the original brick or is that uh something that's not going to be possible? >> Correct. Yeah, we'll be reinstating the original brick. We've also done some strip testing to make sure that it's possible and it is. So, we'll be returning it to the original uh condition. >> Thanks. Other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for joining us today. Do we have questions for staff? Seeing none, is there discussion amongst ourselves? I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody care to move the recommendations in the report? Peter, thank you very much. All those in favor and that carries and that concludes our business for today. Thank you very much everybody. I will see you in June. Have a lovely rest of your day. The meeting is adjourned.