item. To ensure we have an efficient meeting with the board members having equal opportunity to ask questions or speak on an item, I will run the timer for five minutes. Members will have up to five 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 speaking time. Please submit and approve your motions by email. Staff are available at htpb to help with motion. 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 speakers list. When voting on an item or a motion, I ask members to raise your hand to indicate your vote. And 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/counsel. CAL/counsel. So although we may be Hold on a second. So although we muted This is one of those technical difficulties we mentioned just a page ago in the script. So bear with me. There we go. Although we may be meeting in different locations today, the 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 Anishnab, the Chipoa, the Hadnosoni, 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 Treaty 13 with the Missosagas of the Credit. 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 number and the nature of your interest. Are there any declarations? >> Yep. I have a conflict for PB 45.5 College Park. My employer is the planning consultant for the applicant for this project. >> Thank you very much. May I please have a motion to confirm the minutes from our meeting on May 13, 2026. Jeff, thank you so much. All those in favor, please. That's carried. Let's now proceed with the agenda review. First, we have PB 45.1 34 Jason Road, notice of intention to designate a uh a property under part 4, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. There is no presentation on this item. However, heritage planning staff are available to answer questions. Would anybody like to hold this item? >> Do you want to hold it or do you have questions? >> I'd like to hold it, please. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Next up, we have PB 45.24150 Young Street. Notice of intention to designate a property under part 4, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. There is no presentation. However, staff are available to answer questions. Would anybody like to hold this item? Mitch, thank you very much. We'll hold that. The next is PB 45.3 328 Bellamy Road North. Notice of intention to designate a property under part 4, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Again, there is no presentation. However, staff are available. Would anybody like to hold this item? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before me. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in that report? Matthew, thank you very much. All those in favor? And that carries. Thank you very much. Next on to PB 45.4 3044 Dundas Street West inclusion on the Heritage Register. There is no presentation, but staff are available to answer questions. Would anybody like to hold this item? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before me. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in this report? Peter, thank you very much. All those in favor, please. That carries. Wonderful. Moving on now to PB 45.5420 to 444 Young Street and 1 to 23 College Street, College Park. alterations to a designated heritage property under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act and authority to amend an existing heritage easement agreement. We have speakers on this item and it's my understanding there's a presentation from our speakers. So, I will hold this item. Moving on to PB 45.64 66 64 Wsley Street East, alterations to a designated heritage property under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, an authority to amend a heritage uh easement agreement. I have speaker on this item. Is there a presentation or are you just here for questions for uh 64 Wsley Street? I think they're online for questions. Emily Collins from the RA. >> Thank you very much. And then both you and I um Tom K is that part of the team or separate? >> It's not part of >> Okay. >> So then I will hold this item. We'll come back to it. Next item is PB 45.7 79 Whiteall Road, application to demolish a structure and erect a new structure in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District. We have a heritage uh presentation from staff if we would like to hear it, but would anybody care to hold this item, Jeff? Okay. And then finally, we have PB 45.8 162 Douglas Drive, application to demolish a structure and erect a new structure in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District. We have a speaker on this item. Is the speaker here with a presentation or just for questions? Mr. McGaffy online. >> Hi, good morning, uh, Madam Chair. Uh, my name is Sean McGaffy, senior associate, WND Associates. I don't have a presentation for you today, just here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. So, we don't we have a presentation from staff available. Um, if we'd like to hear, would anybody like to hold this item, Jeff? Okay, so we're going back up to the top with PB 45.1 34 Jason Road and who from staff is Oh, right. We have Okay, so we have no um um presentation on this item. So, we'll open up the floor to questions. Leslie, you did you hold this one? Is a 66 Wsley? >> No, we're at 34 Jason Road and I have nothing. >> Okay. Does anybody have questions for staff on this one? >> Oh, Mitch. Yes, please. >> Can we see an image of the site from various angles or perspectives? I don't know that we can, but hold on one second. I'll direct you to page 10 of the staff report, Mitch. But we're trying to get up an image as well. >> I can see it. Yeah. Coming. >> Do you have a question, Mitch? I just want to get a pers a perspective of it. No, thanks. I've got that and I found it in the report. >> Are there other questions for staff? >> Seeing none, I have a staff. Is there a discussion amongst ourselves? Paul, >> uh, I'd just like to say thank you to all concerned for bringing this one forward. Um there's a lot of interest in this in the community and it's we've been hoping for this for a long time and it's a bit of a win-win in terms of the interest of the property owner and the uh the Grub family who remain very much active and and uh uh uh involved in in the thing. So just a good news all around. >> Fantastic. Is there other discussion points? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody like to move the recommendations? Paul. All those in favor, please. All those opposed. Leslie. Sorry, we're voting on the first item approved. Okay. Thank you. Just making sure I've got everybody accounted for. And the motion carries. Moving on now to PB 45.2 4150 Young Street. notice of intention to designate a property under part 4 section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. So, we'll move into questions of staff on this one. Are there questions for staff? >> Mitch, you held this item. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I mean that strip this strip of Young is more like a a freeway than um than a thoroughfare. It's fantastic that it's uh being nominated. I'm just wondering uh what staff would consider to be uh the most significant heritage features and are most of the original 1860 features intact. >> Uh hi there. Thanks Mitch for your question. My name is Adrian Gamble. I'm a heritage planner for the city of Toronto and I helped prepare this report. I can speak >> I can speak to your question regarding uh which heritage values may be the most important. Um perhaps the best way to start with that is to refer ourselves to the report itself to page seven of 22 the heritage attributes under design and physical value. And I can uh share those with us now if you like. >> Thanks. So the attributes that contribute to 4150 Young Street being a representative example of the vernacular Ontario cottage style would be the scale form and massing of the subject buildings containing two formally detached singlestory house form buildings located west of Young Street on the south side of a private road. The low pitched side gable roofs with cedar- shaped shingles each with a brick chimney protruding from the western side of the roof peaks. The symmetrical arrangement of the front facades compro comprised of two over two of two two over two uh woodframe windows on either side of a simple single front door. The wood front doors at center both set within simple wood door frames and below rectangular transom windows. The rough cast stucco cladding on the both on both structures and on all visible facades. The exposed stone foundations. The deep side gable overhangs on the north and south facades. The L extension extending from the rear of the former 26 John Street with covered porch and a shared and a shed roof extending from a cross gable roof punctured by two brick chimneys. The east facade of the former 26 John Street facing towards Young Street with a single offcenter 6 over6 hung wood window within a wooden window frame. The west facade of the former 22nd John Street with returned eaves and rough cast cladding. The L extension extending from the rear of the former 22 John Street with cross gable roof punct punctured by a brick chimney at the roof peak. Those pertain to all of the design attributes for the structure. >> Thank you very much. Are there other questions? Yes, Mitch. >> Uh Adrian, thanks very much for the detailed report. Um, just wondering, there were three Robert Gray uh 1860 structures. Of course, one's gone. Um, and these two were joined uh I guess so that the restaurant uh would have a flow, but um is there any talk about detaching them to to uh create the 1860 look or is are they will they still be joined with that breezeway or that structure? >> That's not something that we're familiar with. I mean the the properties are currently existing as a restaurant as they have for the last about 40 years. Um it's a private enterprise. The decision to join them was not something that we were you know part of that we weren't part of that conversation and I if I would I would only be speculating but I don't I wouldn't believe at this point there's any plan to separate the buildings but it would be speculation on my part. Yes, Mitch. >> Last question, Adrian. Um, internally, are there the old 1860 pine floors, I'm imagining, or whatever the original flooring or beams or anything on, uh, new posts or, uh, stairways up to an attic spot that's intact or has it been gutted pretty much back in the 18 or 1980s? >> Uh, through the chair. Um, thanks for your question. Uh, we did not look at interior attributes. We only considered exterior attributes at this time. So the condition of the inside is not is not known to us. >> Thanks. >> Are there other questions for staff? >> Seeing none, 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? Mitch, thank you so much. All those in favor, please. And that carries. Thank you. Moving on now to PB 45.5. And we will bid so long farewell to Peter for a few moments. We'll have our staff presentation up and we'll welcome Dan and then we'll have our speakers. Give me just a second. Uh, this uh item came up so quickly. All right, I'm ready. Good morning, members of the board. My name is Dan Deardo of Heritage Planning Staff. The item before you is a proposal to recommend that city council approve an application under section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act to alter a designated heritage property at 420 through 444 Young Street and 1-23 College Street, known as College Park. The report is in connection with the submitted official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications for three mixeduse towers of 65, 75, and 96 stories proposed above the existing designated college park building which will form the base of the towers. The owner also requests that council grant authority to men amend the existing heritage easement agreement. Next slide, please. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Young and College Streets as indicated by the arrow. Next slide, please. The subject property contains a sevenstory building at the southwest corner of College Street and Young Street with a threetory wing extending south along Young Street. The property was designed by Ross and Macdonald Sprout and Ralph Associates and constructed in 1928 to 1930. It is designated as being an as being of architectural value as a notable example of classical revival style with art modern detailing. At the left, you're looking southwest towards a sevenstory building at the corner of College and Young. The right slide, you're looking towards the three-story extension along Young Street and the south return facade. Next slide, please. Within the interior, the first floor elevator, pedestrian arcade, and seventh floor eaten auditorium, round room, and foyer are all included in the reasons for identification as ex as identified in the executed 2011 heritage easement agreement. The top photo photos show ex elements of the first floor arcade while the bottom f photos show from left to right the seventh floor lobby, the round room and auditorium. Next slide. Here we see a conceptual scheme for college park as proposed in the 1920s. Note the south portion of the young street wall is proposed to be constructed based upon the above scheme. Next slide. The proposed conservation strategy includes full retention of the sevenstory college park building with support structures for the tower, threading the floor plates where it does not impact protected internal attributes. Also, there will be full insitue retention of street facing elevations east and north and partial insitu retention of the south and west rear elevations. The project would restore interior ground level arcade, the seventh floor foyer, round room and auditorium. Extending along the Young Street frontage, there will be a new podium infill above the existing threestory podium. The proposed addition would align with the DATMSS of the existing building and interpret the original designs by Ross and Macdonald. Here we see a diagram showing the podium infill above the existing threestory podium extending along Young Street. The very right side of the photo shows the sevenstory building component that will be conserved in full and in situ. Next slide, please. Here we see a diagram with the Young Street East facade on the left and the College Street North facade on the right. The stepbacks from Young Street for the North, Central, and South Towers are 35, 13.1, and 7.6 m, respectively. Next slide. This slide shows the footprint of the towers at top the heritage property. Note that the north tower height has been revised from 75 to 65 stories as this slide shows 75 stories. So that has been revised. Next slide. This slide shows the south return facade with a new podium infill above the existing three-story component. Next slide. Here we see in plan the continuous arcade at the ground level. Restoration of the interior arcade would remove existing non-original partitions thereby reinstating end to end pedestrian connections. Heritage elements including limestone, granite, metal and glass will be conserved and restored. Existing vrines will be repaired and new vrines will be fabricated to match originals. Next slide. This slide shows the seventh floor in which is proposed the restoration of the seventh floor foyer, round room and auditorium based on archival documentation. The horizontal arrow points to the round room. The vertical arrow points the foyer and the angled arrow points to the auditorium. Next slide. Here we see an artistic depiction of College Park just after opening in 1930 with its bright yellow awnings. The proposal will reinstate awnings at the facades based on archival information and will be further reviewed at conservation stage. This completes my general overview of the project. Further details regarding the alterations, construction staging and view quarter issues are contained within your staff report. Further, the applicant is here to answer specific questions regarding the project. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. So, we'll now welcome our speakers on the item. >> Thanks everyone. Uh do I plug in here? Okay. Thank you. And just confirming from our erra consultants, all three of you are. Okay, perfect. >> That's right. Uh Scott Weir, Sam Irvine, and >> Perfect. Welcome everybody. I'll let take your time, get yourself set up. You'll have five minutes once you've started and I will Well, you'll see the timer, but I'll also wave. >> Great. Well, thanks thanks very much for seeing us. Is it on now? Okay, great. Thanks very much for uh seeing us. My name is Scott Weir. Uh I'm here with Sam Irvine and and Zach Fish. We're uh Sam and I are principles at ERRA. Um and it's our great pleasure to present uh GWL's uh proposal for College Park. Um this is the coming up on the 100th anniversary of College Park. Uh so it's timely that we uh keep just make it full screen. >> Uh what did I do there? >> So uh >> sorry >> backing up. Um what you did it's just not uh here we go. Uh anyway, so this is a um this is an important project to me personally. Um I was the uh project architect back in 2000. Uh and just leave it. Oh, sorry. Uh back in 2000 when we did the conservation work on the on the Caru uh round room eaten auditorium and the renovations to the ground floor. Um, and during that process, we really learned a lot about the building. I was 12 at the time. Uh, but uh, we we learned about the the kit of parts that really is the the building. There's artwork that needs to be retained in situ. There's very sculptural plaster work that needed to be protected in place. Uh, there's uh, stonework uh, that could be um, either repaired in place or taken away and and repaired. Um, elements like glass and metal that need to be sent off site for conservation. So we during that process we really learned a lot about the building and what needed what to expect in our conservation process um how it needed to be repaired and how to really uh understand the design intent behind it um what the opportunities were and how to turn that into something interesting. Uh so it's it's looking at the at what's covered by the heritage easements. There's the arcade, the exterior of the building uh and the seventh floor spaces. Um these this project uh is a complex project. So I hope I get through this in in the five minutes. If not, we're happy to answer questions. Um but it leads with heritage. It's it's really taking the heritage opportunity of the site and using that as the impetus for how to define what development is going to be. Um it retains uh and uh rehabilitates the existing building. Um, in particular, it restores the uh the spaces that are are uh um I I guess a little bit lost right now like the arcade uh and brings them back into public use. Uh and uh it expands the 7th floor eaten sorry eaten auditorium spaces uh to provide some um uh some conference spaces, some some access to hotel rooms and so on. So this uh and I guess the the most interesting thing from the exterior is that it it completes and responds to the original design vision for the uh for the sevenstory podium that was intended to extend along Young Street and that was partially built to a three-story level. Um the 1920s vision of of College Park was was really quite uh optimistic and and uh robust. Um, as an architect, this was one of those sort of lost opportunities in Toronto that that we mourn. You know, it's mentioned in Lost Toronto. Uh, and uh, uh, so this is really an opportunity to complete part of that vision for the podium. Um, so as a result of the Great Depression, it wasn't entirely built. They built the three-story podium on on Young Street. Um, in the 1970s, the consortium built this uh uh apartment building on the the south section of the building. Um but uh um major alterations uh were made to the remainder of the interior other than the arcade on the ground floor, some of the ground floor spaces and the seventh floor. Um but just thinking about why now uh why this is coming forward now. Um since Eaton's closed and this this kind of singleuse occupancy left the site, the site's never really worked terribly well. In in 2000, we were trying to make changes on the ground floor to allow for uh uh retail to open on Young Street to try to enliven the street. This had been what you'd call an anchor tenant, you know, for that part of Young Street. Um and it it just kind of disappeared. And so since then, that that area has been struggling a little bit. The building has has struggled to have renters because uh the the the units are are quite odd. Um, so this is an opportunity to really overhaul the building based on a a new vision for the entire site. Uh, and it's now that we're reaching the 100th anniversary, it's sort of a a an opportune timing. So here we've torn down all the buildings on the east side of of Young so that you can see the podium as it uh as it would be viewed. Um, so the section on the right hand side of the screen is is what's existing that has the car in it at the top. All the areas to the left above the level of the arched entrance way um are are the new proposed uh uh reconstruction or construction of the original vision and just looking at tower placement um which was was tricky and and a very important component of of laying this out. Um we're working with setbacks but we're also looking at what are the easement areas. What are the areas that are is it time? >> Okay. uh easement area on the ground floor, easement area on the seventh, positioning the uh the towers around it to try to be as as least damaging as possible. Um organization of how we've come up with the the new facade, working with uh amazing staff who uh had great input into the process. The version on the right is is uh the result of collaboration and full accessibility in the uh in the arcade. Happy to answer questions. >> Thank you very much. It goes quickly, doesn't it? Um, do we have questions for our speaker, Jeff? >> Yeah, this does look very exciting. Um, you you talked about whole building retention and it actually seems close. Um, there are going to be some some what what do you call those through the building to >> uh the tower core is needling through. Yes. >> Yeah. But um I guess what the public um is still aware of the the major event space the Caru that's not affected and I'm not hearing anything about the Caru at all. >> The Carly is going to so the intent is that the Carly is going to be expanded. Uh that that seventh floor space will have additional uh conference spaces, additional breakout rooms. Uh there's an exterior space that's being added to uh that floor. Um in in the original design for for the Caru and we were working with the footprint that we had um there was a certain amount of limitation based on you know the boundaries of the building as it fills the full floor. Um what we were hearing from from our our team of clients was you know it'd be great to have access to a hotel. It would be great to have conference uh uh conference rooms, breakout spaces, smaller spaces that aren't as as you know, weighty and interesting um to support the uh the the other spaces are are are a certain size, you know, have a certain accommodation um and provide more exiting. So, this is this is really going to bolster those those uh uh what's already on the floor. Um the area where the tower core comes through at the north end is currently kitchens and bathrooms. uh and that can be accommodated elsewhere. Um we've got some structure that already exists in the building that is uh uh is able to take more structure. So it's it's going to be uh needled through. >> Thank you. >> But the interior of the easement areas will uh appear remain the same uh after some uh deconstruction rebuilding of certain areas. >> Thank you Mitch. >> Thanks. Um Toronto is not really an art deco town. though this college eaten college street's a real treasure uh there's no question um I'm seeing maybe a lot of people don't realize that it is uh the legacy of um Timothy Eden's son John Craig Eaton uh sadly died before it was uh finished died early died young but I'm wondering if there's any talk about um remembering that early retailer the self-made man Timothy Eaton as he grew uh into what he was to, you know, an icon in Canadian retail and of course the flagship shop Eaton's College Street. Is there any talk about maybe having an a small museum or artifacts on display or interpretation boards on site about the Eaton Legacy? >> Yes, that's that's a a requirement from the city as part of the conservation plan. We're going to need to do an interpretation uh a set of panels. There's a wealth of material uh to to draw on for for those. So, we're kind of excited to get into that. Uh, but that'll come through the conservation plan. >> Are there other questions for our speaker? Leslie. >> Hi. Yeah, our panel really loved the design, especially the south side. The only thing is is an administrative thing, but we we had trouble with the image resolution, so we couldn't expand it to look in detail just for the future. >> Okay, >> that's it. thing. >> Uh Mitch, >> so just a question about um you know the the recreation if you want to say or the continues it always felt like an unfinished building and um this is fantastic that now someone's going to pick it up and finish it after 100 years. But um what about the craftsmanship 2026 compared to 1926 27 28? I mean the materials will there and the craftsmen or women or persons in this day and age. Uh how do you feel about you know that whole comparison contrast kind of picking up what was done 100 years ago as opposed to doing something different? >> Yeah, I I can speak to that. Toronto has has a great uh round of of cross people uh you know depending on which which industry or which area of of construction you're looking at. Um there's great masons, there's great metal workers. Uh in our our our work uh on the car, the car was was severely damaged uh from the years of dereliction, the partial demolition and uh the uh vandalism that had happened on the interior. Um, and we were able to recreate a great deal of of uh that floor uh based on what we understood to be the originals and and what we saw, you know, in in fragmented form uh left in the in the building. So, a lot of the metal work in the ground floor and on the seventh floor is actually new from from 20 years ago. Uh, a lot of the glass work we bought up all the um uh the white opal glass in North America to to replace all the smashed glass. Um and uh uh so that was a that was an interest that um the the owner had at the time. We we've still got the same client. Um this is still Great West Life. Uh and um we're we're uh uh we're we're feeling positive about how this is going to move forward. >> Thank you very much. Other questions for our speaker? Mitch, >> I'm just wondering, are you familiar with what's been done at the Old Eatens on St. Catherine Street in Moral? >> Yes. and uh if if if you're if that's impacting you or if it's informing your choices on how to improve the seventh floor. >> But so it was open it was open when I was in architecture school. So it was a a place that we would go for for lunch on occasion and uh when we started the the Caru project. We went to the um the the space with the intent to try to understand all the grills that we were missing, uh pieces that were missing, the way that details might happen where something had been renovated out. Uh to be able to see it in person, do some paint scraping and try to understand, you know, what the layers were that that don't come through in a black and white photo. Um so I I I was just there uh for lunch a few months ago. It's fantastic. I love the way they've repurposed uh part of the the uh foyer for um for dining which wasn't part of the original intent but it's a a really beautiful um restoration. >> Other questions Mitch? >> So I go to an annual meeting um at the Caru and I'm assuming now so it's not a a shutdown place. Some people might think it's a dare place. It is happening. Seventh floor Eaton's College is pretty vibrant, right? I'm sure it's used a lot, but I guess you might say it's a little down at heel now after 20 years. But, uh, will it shut it down for a decade? I mean, how's that going to impact because Eaton's College is or College Park as you call it is a pretty vibrant place even though you say maybe not too many tenants, but you walk through it, there's the connection to the subway, there's a metro, there used to be a Winners, it's a bit of a hodgepodge food court, you know. >> Yeah. Um I and I I didn't intend to say that the Caru was was down at the heel. I think it's it's um it's it's doing very well. It's more the overall site uh is is not necessarily meeting its potential. Um the car that the seventh floor will need to shut down. Uh all of the heritage work is part of the first phase of the project. So tower one or the first tower which is at the north end of the site is being constructed uh as as rental in order to accommodate people being moved out of the existing rental building. And as part of that uh that phase uh the new podium is going to be built and all the restoration work uh and alterations that will need to happen to the arcade and to the the seventh floor will happen at the same time. Thanks. >> Other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for your time today. When we'll move into questions of staff, are there questions for staff? Seeing none, uh, is there discussion amongst ourselves? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in the report? Mitch. And if all those in favor, please raise your hand until I call your name because I'm remembering this is a recorded vote. We have Leslie, we have Kash, Paul, Matthew, Wendy, Mitch, Jeff, and Julia. Any opposed? None. That carries. Thank you very, very much. And we can bring Peter back. Welcome back, Peter. Moving on now to PB 45.6. Hi, Neil. You have the floor. Everyone. >> Hi everyone. Uh I'm Neil McKay, heritage planner, and I'm presenting on uh agenda item PB45.6. Uh staff recommends the city council approve the alterations proposed for the designated heritage property at uh or at 64 WY Street East under section 33 of the OA in connection with the proposed development of the subject property. A previously approved application related to a approved zoning bylaw amendment has been revised. Next slide please. So, the development site uh 64-66 Welsley Street East and 552 to 570 Church Street is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Church and Welssley Streets in the Church Welsley Village neighborhood. The subject site is currently occupied by three commercial buildings and one residential building. The heritage property at 64 Wy Street East, is um located on the western portion of the development site and fronts along Welsley Street East. Next slide. The property at 64 Wy Shies contains the Welssley Apartments, a five-story multi-unit residential apartment uh building constructed in 1931. The property was designated under part four of the OA for its association with the preWorld War II apartment building type, its design as a representative example of the Georgian revival style, and its role in supporting the context of the church in Welsie Village. Next slide. The uh current development proposal contemplates a 36-story residential mixeduse building. Consistent with uh previous approvals, the Welsley Street Apartments at 64 WS East will be partially retained and integrated with the new construction and other buildings on the development site are proposed to be demolished. Next slide. Uh so since the previous scheme was approved, the applicant has revised the conservation strategy accompanying the related site plan control application. The current conservation strategy however continues to propose the insitue retention of portions of the designated heritage building including the entire south uh principal elevation a portion of the west return wall to a depth of 10 m and a portion of the east return wall to a depth of uh 2.2 m. The north rear wing does not contain any heritage attributes and will continue to be it is proposed to be continued to removed and reconstructed. Next slide. The proposed massing of the new construction has been revised. However, the proposed tower continues to include a 5 m step back above the primary elevation of the heritage building and a 1.9 m step back from the front wall of the heritage building to the tower face. The proposed residential tower is expressed as a distinct element characterized by frame openings and visual depth. Um the staff are satisfied that the uh that is compatible with subordinate to and distinguishable from the on-site and adjacent heritage properties. Um the design of the reveal has also been revised to remove um proposed support columns which reduce the visual impact of the new density over the heritage resource and the revised height of the reveal um remains sufficient to conserve the scale form and massing of the heritage building when viewed from the public realm. Um, so the proposal in provides a 6.5 m reveal uh reduced from 10.5 m due to the applicant minimizing shadow impacts onto Barber Hall Park and maximizing the width of the public realm along Church Street and Welsley Street East. Next slide. Uh the proposed development will continue to include the construction of a new masonry clad base building um with punched window openings. The revised design of the base building references the massing of the heritage building at 64 WY Street East and will continue the rhythm of the street wall on Welssley Street East and Church Street and will reinforce the lowscale pedestrianoriented character of the Church Welsley village. Uh ongoing design development will continue to ensure that the massing, articulation, and materiality of the base building properly responds to the character of the area. And the buildings at 66 W Street East and 552 and 554 Church Street within the development site both have murals that were painted for world pride. In accordance with previous approvals, the associative value of the murals will continue to be commemorated through photographic documentation prior to the demolition of the two buildings and the interpretation strategy. Will continue to explore the site's association with Toronto's 2SLgt BQ plus community. That concludes the presentation. Thanks. >> Thank you very much. We have two speakers. One we've already confirmed. Emily from ERRA Architects is here to answer questions. And then we have a second speaker, Tom. You're here. Um, are you here to answer questions or do you have you have 5 minutes to speak? Absolutely. Please come and have a seat and I will start the clock. Testing. Okay, great. Um, this is my first time speaking at the Toronto Preservation Board and so I'm not entirely sure about the how the process of affairs is done here and outside of the committee outside of the committee rooms, but um I'm a resident of W 13. Uh I frequent Church Street a lot and I was wondering um the current plan right now is to demolish 64 to 66 Wley Streetish where um where the Heritage Board has recommended that 64 Wley Street with the Welsley Apartments is kept in in moderate form into into the new into the new building. um a decision by I think it was either this council or the East York council said that we will retain the heritage of the region which is which has only mentioned 64 Wley Street East. Um this was the decision back there there was also a decision by the heritage commission I think here to to designate the back in 2013 to designate specifically the region because of its post for architecture but it has no mentioned of the murals on 66 WY street which would make sense because the murals were added in 2014. Um, in consider in consideration for the proposal to accommodate the demolition of 66 Wsley Street, the heritage proposal does note that the World Pride artwork be saved as pictures on a USB drive and in commemoration as as photographic documentation that they once existed. Um, considering the the the nature of Church Street as possibly the capital of the Pride Movement in Toronto, um, I was wondering if this if this board has in it the authority or the ability to recommend that the city council ask that the developers add a form of pride related murals onto onto the facade of the new building that they're going to build. because as of now the to quote um photographic commemoration seems a bit um lacking for the for the general artistic nature of the entire street itself. If you go down Short Street, there's pride, there's flags everywhere and to commemorate it in a photo and then replace it with a just a simple red brick facade would slightly denigrate the artistic importance of the region. And thus I would be recommending that I would as I implore you to recommend the the Toronto East York Council and possibly the the uh the developers to include the possibly as best of a recreation of the World Pride murals as much as possible on the new design. I understand that this council cannot just right say no to the design because there was a council vote passed several years ago when I was under 18 and I couldn't and didn't attend this so I couldn't comment on that at the time I was 17 but now we're here and I was wondering if the this heritage council could just recommend that the world pride murals be incorporated into the facade of the building. I think it would benefit the heritage conservation of the region and it would do these artists justice from back from 2014. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for joining us today. I'm going to take your question and I'm going to ask it to um Miss Collins in a moment. But before we do that, as part of our procedures, um are there any questions for for Tom? Oh, Mitch. Hi, Tom. I'm looking at 66 Welssley Street East. We know it's an 1886 Bane Gable construction under all that uh modern signage and graffiti and stucco. There's a real gem under there. It was Ebenezer Johnston's home, who was the assistant attorney general of Ontario. And it's uh it's a a very handsome building if you use your imagination. And I'm sure we uh we have the ability now in 2026 to be able to bring it back to its former glory. I'm wondering why it's just going to be demolished. Um if Heritage has done a report and realize the significance of that building as well as the corner shop, don't know the number goes up church with some distinctive features which has also been altered but probably could be brought back to its former glory as uh 19th century retail along that strip. Mitch, I think that's perhaps a question for Miss Collins from ERRA Architects and not for Tom. >> Oh, right. Um, I'd love >> you guys can have a lovely confl, you know, the beauty of that area and this restoration, but let's let's keep our our focus >> separate and the same. Yeah, absolutely. Oh, yeah. You had the deer in the headlights look. Sorry about that, Tom. >> Are there questions for our current speaker? Seeing none, thank you so much for taking the time today to join us. And I'm going to Mitch, I'm going to ask of Emily first his question about is there a way and an opportunity through the conservation plan or the interpretation plan to perhaps be more sensitive to the community valuation of these murals in the area? And is there a way to incorporate an interpretation or a commemoration or a new one in a way that reflects those community values that we've heard today? >> Yeah, absolutely. So, the the previous approvals of the application did include an interpretation plan which spoke to the intangible values of the site and the murals that currently exist. And it's um through this revised application that interpretation plan will also be updated to reflect the latest design and street wall. And we can definitely explore ways that that those murals on the site can be further uh commemorated and perhaps how the documentation of those murals could be shared with the community. >> Can we see the murals? Do we have a images of them so that we know what we really know what we're talking about? >> We definitely have photographs in our heritage impact assessment. Um if that's accessible to those um just looking page 23 of our heritage impact assessment includes photographs Just bear with us as we sort of look for things. I think there's no way to get them up on the screen right now. There's no pictures of the mural anywhere that we can share. Okay, so we have our HIA reference. Um, that's unfortunate. Sorry, Jeff. Um, Emily, did you hear Mitch's question or do you need him to um repeat? >> No, I think I can speak to that. Um we had many discussions with staff back when we had um the original application of what was of value of the site and we did look at the corner building uh the other additional buildings on the development site to see if they had value and what their integrity was. Um I understand due to kind of their low integrity and how they met the 906 criteria it was decided to not uh pursue designation and protection of of those buildings. However, we did acknowledge that there were intangible values that uh were sought on that site and those are the items that will be spoken to further in the interpretation plan moving forward. >> Are there any other questions for this speaker? Leslie actually have a question for Emily. So, uh one of the items our panel was concerned with is the setback from the street. Was there ever a thought of pushing it back further from the sidewalk, the whole corner? >> Um, are you referring to the new street wall? >> Uh, yes. Right at >> Yes. >> Yeah, I understand that that has been explored and in previous iterations we did look at expanding that public realm. Um, it is going to be um set back to expand the public realm as much as possible. However, where we've kind of landed it is the best that could be done to kind of allow for that uh lower scale street wall to be conserved on Church Street in reference the building at 64 uh Welsley Street. >> Okay. And there's one more question that our panel was wondering about. Um there was some research done into 66 Wsley and that's where the artist Tom Thompson did a lot of painting before they moved to the other the other group of seven location. But the specifically the Northern Lakes paintings have the address 66 Wley Street East on a few of them. So we were wondering if that could be put somehow into commemorative some way in the development. >> Yeah, absolutely. I will definitely take note of that and that's something we can look at flagging in our interpretation plan. >> Thank you. >> Are there other questions, >> Mitch? I think I've got it right this time. You're not Tom. Okay, so you'd be the right person to ask. Um, yes. So the acco identifies 66 um originally known as the Ebenez or Johnston house as you know you you've done the research was fantastic as a building under threat. Obviously it's stays are numbered now. Um, I don't know if if if it's negotiable or if you're still kind of a little bit um in the planning stage where even if you could save some of the facade and somehow recreate just to give the streetscape a feel of the late 19th century because the the apartment building is 1930 did you say or 1920 art deco-ish a little bit a couple couple features. So just to get that you know as Toronto it's a mishmash you the passers by, the pedestrian, the streetscape would kind of capture some of the um late uh 20 late 19th century residential feel. And even that wonderful facade of the shop on the corner. I mean, you guys are geniuses about that. I don't know if it would be even possible to get the best bits, restore and and um reconstruct. Not to make it look like a Disneyland, but something that would respect the retail and the residential of the late 19th century in the zone. I'll just reflect back on to my previous note that these are things that were explored in the previous the original application and what's before us today is just original what a revision to the original application which was already approved which explores the removal of those buildings. However, uh introducing a new street ball that still references kind of that lower scale that we see on Church Street. >> Are there other questions? Jeff, >> I'm sort of going back to first principle. I'm just wondering what the status is or was of 66. Was it listed? What? Obviously wasn't designated, but what is the status from a heritage perspective? Um and and does staff agree with the applicant's um uh position that the building does not have heritage um value? So, let's hold that for questions of staff. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, pausing here. Do we have any other questions for Emily? >> Seeing none. Thank you very much for joining us. >> Thanks everyone. >> Thank you. And we have Jeff's question for staff. uh through the chair. Um I believe that the property at 66 was identified as having cultural heritage interest in the North Downtown Young Street urban design guidelines. However, it was not listed or designated under part four of the OA. Are there other questions for staff? No. Do you have a question or a comment? >> More of a com. >> Okay. So, we'll hold that for our discussion. Are there other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you very very much, McNeil, and we'll open it up to discussion amongst ourselves. Jeff, >> I I'm just a little surprised that this is coming now and revealing that there's another building that that that had potential and and is not being brought forward is not discussed anywhere. Um like what's the status? Um is is is it the the failure it's the failure for the public to bring forward a nomination for listing? Is that the issue or is is this the failure of of um the city to bring forward um for for listing? It's sort of it's in this sort of melt of confusion around listing. I guess >> it is and I think because we're seeing the you know an approved and we're revisiting sort of because it's a new scheme. So sometimes when we're at I think a you know 16 steps down from the initial conversation it also um can get um challenging whether you know listing or designated. As we heard from Neil it's neither listed nor designated and it wouldn't have been I think at that original point in time when when this this first came up um to the board. So, um I think unfortunate >> well maybe it's appropriate for for us to make a motion asking staff to report back to before this goes to council um as to possible listing and designation of that property. >> So, if you want to write something up, you need to do so now and please send it in. And I'm we'll table this in a moment. I would say that um just listening to Tom and having had such a fruitful discussion about the college park where there's a celebration of this arcade and in some ways the experience of that space is an intangible value much as we're talking about an intangible history with the experience of sort of public art and I'm not saying we should redo everything but I think if we are trying to be sensitive to the variety of intangible values that our community has I would really recommend and hope that through the interpretation plan process that something more than just pictures on a USB drive or just just for documentation's purposes can be done to reflect to reflect something that is of value to this area and to this community. And I think we've definitely heard that here and I think I think we have an applicant that's that's willing to work with us. So thank you for your time and we'll table this one as we move on to the next which is PB 45.6 six. And I think we have air online. Seven. I'm good with numbers. I promise. That's why I became a historian. No math. Um anyway, PB 45.7 and we have air. All righty. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. I am present. Uh my name is Amir Nissan. I'm a development review planner with the team at Heritage Planning and I will be presenting item PB45.7 regarding 79 Whiteall Road, uh, demolition of an existing structure and the construction of a new structure in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District. Next slide, please. So the next slide displays the context map with the subject sites location highlighted in red. 79 Whiteall Road is located on the south side of Whiteall Road between Gregory Avenue and Mlennon Avenue in the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District. Next slide, please. And the next slide shows photos of the pre-existing condition of the property. Um, these photos display the detached garage that's proposed to be demolished. Next slide, please. And the next slide shows the proposed site plan. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached garage located at the rear of the property and construct a new carport in its place, which will be located at the rear of the property. And so, for the reasons outlined in the staff report, staff are recommending that the application be approved. And that concludes my presentation. >> Thank you very much. Do we have any questions? We don't have a speaker on this one. Do we have any questions for me? And just pausing as I wait for my television screens to light back up so I can see people. Oh, there we go. Do we have any questions for staff? Jeff, I think did you you held this item? >> Yes. Sorry, I've been holding this. >> I know. I know it's it's high stakes here. Um, do you have a question though on the Rosedale item? >> No, not No. >> Okay. Do we have discussion amongst ourselves? >> Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before me. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in the report? Peter, thank you very much. All those in favor? And that carries. And then we move on to PB 45.8. And we have air. >> All righty. Me again. Uh good morning everybody. My name is uh Amir and I am a planner with the team at Heritage Planning. and before use item PB 45.8 regarding 162 Douglas Drive application to erect a structure or sorry to demolish a structure and erect a new structure in the North Rose Delh Conservation District. Next slide please. Uh this slide displays the context map with the subject sites location highlighted in red. Hold on a second. We don't have slides up. >> All right with us. We'll get there in a moment. >> No worries. All right. >> There we go. >> There we go. Uh 162 Douglas Drive is located on the north side of one uh of Douglas Drive in the North Rose Dale Heritch Conservation District. Next slide, please. This slide shows the existing condition of the property. These are photos taken from the front and rear of the property showing the existing detached garage that's proposed to be demolished. Next slide, please. And this is the proposed site plan. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and construct a new um ancillary building at the rear of the property. Uh so for the reasons outlined in the staff report, staff are recommending that the application be approved. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Bear with me a second. So yeah, >> thank you very much. Do we have any questions for staff? Mitch, >> yeah, just curious, what are the materials being uh proposed to be used to build the new structure >> through you, Madam Chair? I can't uh confirm the details right now. Um our review was based on uh the fact that the ancillary building was going to be located at the rear of the structure and it would not be it would have limit to no visibility from the public realm. Um and so the district design guidelines don't apply specifically to alterations or additions that don't have a significant impact uh visually from the public realm. So, uh, I can't tell you what the detail the the specific details relating to the materials right now, but our review was solely based on, uh, the location of the of the building and if the district design guidelines applied in this case, >> are there other questions for staff? Mitch? >> Yeah. Um, it you say it's not visible from the street, but that one photo that you showed us, it appears that if you look down the driveway, it's fairly visible. It's not tucked away. Just just a point about, you know, the possible impact if it's something egregiously shiny or something uh bright bright and shiny might catch your eye in a bad way. >> Mhm. Through you, Madam Chair. The photos that were shown on the second or third slide, those showed the existing detached garage. Um that garage will be demolished and the new building won't be constructed in the same place. will be uh constructed further towards the rear of the property behind the main building. >> Thanks. >> Are there other questions for staff? >> Seeing none, is there discussion amongst ourselves? Do we have any other questions for um the other sort of our speaker on the line? Seeing none and we had no discussion. So I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in the report? I will. All those in favor please. And that carries. Thank you very much. We're moving back to PB 45.6. And can I confirm, Jeff, no motion on this one from you or? Okay. No motion on this one. And I'll just sort of say it's a procedural thing because we're considering the application at 64 Wsley Street. Unfortunately, not 66. That came before and was already approved the scheme and det and was determined by council in 2023. So, it's already an approved scheme. So, we're sort of dealing with um as we had sort of talked about before the the refinement to it. Um is there discussion amongst ourselves as we close out this item? Mitch, I >> think it's sort of a case in point that 66 Wsley was on the acco radar, but it wasn't on our radar. And it's a shame. And I and probably the public wouldn't really have it on their radar because when you walk past 66 Welsley, it's not attractive. It's got a a newish kind of additional facade to it. It's peeling stucco. It's awful windows. And it's a lot of graffiti and garish signage for a hair and nail shop. But of course with a bit of imagination and a little understanding of history, uh what's behind that is a real treasure. I think just maybe going forward uh it might be a lesson to all of us to um understand what's behind uh the dirty facade and perhaps uh in future try to save a gem like 66 Wy Street East. Thank you. Are there other discussion points? Seeing none, I have a staff report with recommendations before us. Would anybody like to move the recommendations in that report? I'll do so. All those in favor, please. And that carries. Thank you very much. Which concludes our agenda for today. Um I said this last time I know and it didn't materialize but the July meeting is got a packed agenda so bring a bring a lunch if not for Murphy's law that that will be the thing that means we're really efficient but it is a very full agenda. So please make sure that you plan your time accordingly for it and we'll see you then. Otherwise I wish you a pleasant rest of your week and the meeting is adjourned.