A commercial property along Highway 52 West will see new development after Steinbach City Council unanimously approved a variance application Tuesday evening.
The request was submitted by David Golke on behalf of property owners Jung Seok Kang and Young Hee Hwang for 13 PTH 52 West. The variance allows for a reduced rear yard setback of five feet instead of the required 20 feet under the C2 commercial community zone.
City Manager Troy Warkentin said, “The administration’s recommendation is that council approve the application, subject to a cross-access agreement being entered into with the owner of the adjacent property at 9 PTH 52 West.”
No concerns or objections
No objections were filed in response to the public notice and city staff reported no concerns.
Applicant David Golke told council the plan is to align the new building with the neighbouring property to improve parking space and traffic flow at the front of the lot.
“They were planning on having a similar building like #9 and to provide more space in front for parking,” Golke said. “The plan is to line up both buildings.”
Mayor Earl Funk confirmed the details.
“So to build the size of building you want and leave your space in front for parking — you need to move 15 feet closer to the property line,” Funk summarized, to which Golke replied, “Correct.”
No objections or comments were raised by members of the public or council during the hearing.
Motion to approve
Councillor Jac Siemens made the motion to approve the variance.
“What I like about this specifically is it’s similar to the other building and it will have a setback the same amount from the highway, so the parking is there,” Siemens said. “There’s been no objections from the neighbourhood and our city planners see no issues with it.”
Siemens also noted that although the Central Business District normally encourages buildings closer to the street, this particular area already features parking in front of existing structures, and it makes sense to maintain that layout.
Councillor Jake Hiebert seconded the motion, saying he had visited the site in person and noted that it's a parking lot behind the property in question.
“Ordinarily I don’t like variances that vary by that much,” Hiebert said. “But in this case, the building referred to in #9 is set back even further than what the application is asking for here. I don’t see that the setback would infringe on anybody else’s property, and I think it fits well into the area.”
Council voted in favour of this application.