Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pet Supplies Plus Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan commission approves Pet Supplies Plus site plan with engineering and forestry contingencies
Summary
The commission approved the site plan for Pet Supplies Plus at 3415 Parmenter Street with contingencies including resolution of engineering staff comments, forestry review, an access/site circulation review (limited TIA) and facade articulation to be resolved with staff; the applicant said interior shelving constraints limit storefront glazing and proposed 53 parking stalls.
The Middleton Plan Commission voted July 14 to approve a site plan review for a Pet Supplies Plus store at 3415 Parmenter Street, subject to contingencies addressing engineering and forestry comments, an access/site circulation review and façade articulation to be finalized with staff.
Planning staff presented six contingencies and recommended approval. Commissioners added a requirement that both engineering and forestry staff approve final plans and that, if necessary, the applicant provide an access or site circulation review — the limited form of a traffic‑impact analysis recommended by the city engineer to assess circulation for the site’s multiple access points.
Steve Schulfer, the project architect, told the commission the retail layout places heavy shelving along perimeter walls and makes providing continuous street‑facing glazing impractical. "To apply windows across any one of these facades more so than what's currently there would be really challenging," he said, and proposed brick articulation and future‑cutting capacity so the façade could be adapted if the tenant changes.
Applicant Victor Baden said the store plan includes 53 parking stalls (down from 59 in an earlier design) and up to 10 grooming tables with corresponding staff; he raised concerns about losing structural wall space if windows are added and said staff parking needs were significant. Civil engineer Justin Grama with JSD said the design acknowledges engineering comments and requested flexibility on full curb and gutter around all existing pavement areas because some grading and drainage data remain to be collected until closing permits test pits.
Commissioners discussed the city engineer’s request for a site circulation review, the potential cost to the applicant and the limited scope of the recommended review (a memo‑style study focused on trip generation and circulation rather than a full TIA). Multiple commissioners said they preferred resolving technical questions through staff and the city engineer rather than overriding engineering recommendations. A substitute amendment to approve the site plan with contingencies as shown on the screen passed by voice vote.
Stipulated contingencies include resolution of engineering staff comments (including approval of any required access/site circulation review), forestry review of tree preservation plans, approval of lighting consistent with the city's outdoor lighting guidance, dumpster/trash screening per staff comments, and façade articulation to be approved by staff with design adjustments that do not require adding windows that would conflict with interior shelving. The motion passed; staff will work with the applicant on final engineering submissions and any required memos for circulation review.
