Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pet Supplies Plus proposes 9,000-sq-ft Middleton store; commissioners press stormwater and parking concerns
Summary
At the April 28 Middleton Plan Commission meeting, the applicant for Pet Supplies Plus presented a concept to expand the former Goldin Cars site at 3415 Parmenter Street to roughly 9,000 square feet. Commissioners expressed support for the use but urged reductions in impervious surface, clearer truck access, and a variance or PUD for setback relief.
The Middleton Plan Commission reviewed a concept plan April 28 for a Pet Supplies Plus store proposed at 3415 Parmenter Street, with architect Steve Shafer and applicant representative Victor presenting a footprint that would expand the rear building to about 9,000 square feet while preserving existing parking and access.
Victor, the applicant, said the company needs ‘‘convenient parking’’ for customers and staff and truck access for deliveries. "We are the grocery store for pets," he said, describing plans for grooming stations and retail shelving that drive the need for the larger footprint. He added he has a limited window to pursue the property and that a competing offer from a vehicle-rental business was on the table.
The commission’s feedback centered on stormwater and parking. Commissioners and staff noted the site is highly paved and that estimates of impervious surface in discussion ranged from roughly 80 percent to the mid-90s, depending on which survey or seller figure was cited. Multiple commissioners urged the applicant to reduce pavement and to incorporate detention or infiltration on the north or rear portions of the lot. One commissioner noted the zoning-code parking maximum cited in discussion (19 spaces) and questioned the proposal’s roughly 59-space layout, calling for a reduction in paved area if possible.
Setback and adjacency issues also came up. The proposed expansion would bring parts of the building within a few feet of the property line near an adjacent cemetery; the applicant said grade differences would reduce visual impact. Staff advised the applicant that relief would likely require a variance or a planned-unit development (PUD) process because the unusual triangular parcel and frontage determinations create a hardship argument for a variance.
Several commissioners said they liked the use and supported moving forward with variance discussions and subsequent design review; one commissioner suggested a PUD could better allow conditioning on stormwater and parking solutions if that becomes necessary. Staff said if the commission offers positive feedback the applicant can apply for the variance immediately and continue parallel work on design review.
No formal vote on the concept was required or taken; Commissioner Summers recused herself from portions of the discussion and left the virtual meeting temporarily. Staff will follow up with the applicant on next steps, including submittal of a variance application and detailed stormwater and truck‑turn analyses.
