Plan Commission approves expanded parking for Pankratz office despite requests for a parking study

The Madison Plan Commission on July 28 approved a conditional‑use request to allow expanded surface parking at an office campus near Dane County Regional Airport, finding the application met conditional‑use standards despite concerns from commissioners about the lack of a formal parking study.

City staff explained that the site, in a Suburban Employment zoning district and also within the Transit‑Oriented Development (TOD) overlay, would be limited under TOD rules to a maximum of 78 stalls based on the office area unless the Plan Commission approved an expansion. Staff told the commission the applicant proposed expanding surface parking to a total of about 180 stalls to serve existing and expanded office uses.

The applicant team, represented by architect Jim Traitik and MSA Professional Services representative Mike Stuntz, said the existing office supports roughly 110 employees and that expansion at the site could bring employment to about 180 people. Stuntz said the parking lot is “continually full” on work days and that the site also stores fleet and survey vehicles; the applicant’s materials estimated a potential parking demand of up to 220 stalls when accounting for fleet vehicles, training sessions and peak events.

Opponents and commenters: Dylan Pozorski of Isthmus Montessori Academy spoke in support of the expansion, citing the applicant as a neighbor; Matt Golick opposed the request and quoted the TOD ordinance’s statement of purpose: “The Transit Oriented Development, TOD Overlay District is intended to support investment in and use of public transit and bicycle connections,” arguing that adding surface parking runs counter to that goal.

Commissioner discussion focused on the record of evidence for the conditional‑use standards. Commissioner McHughill said the applicant’s demand estimates appeared to layer multiple peak uses together and that he was not convinced the first standard was met without a formal parking study. Commissioner Woznikski (who indicated they would not vote on the item) and others also urged more rigorous occupancy data. Staff noted that the planner presenting the item disclosed a past employment relationship with the applicant’s firm but said staff found the conditional‑use standards could be met based on the application and supplemental materials and recommended approval.

Outcome: Commissioner Solheim moved to approve the conditional use subject to the conditions in the staff report; Commissioner Heck seconded. The commission approved the request; a roll‑call was recorded and Commissioner McHughill voted no. Staff will apply the conditions listed in the staff report and the applicant will proceed with the parking expansion under the conditional‑use approval.

Commissioners who opposed granting the permit without more data asked that the applicant continue and strengthen transportation demand management measures, such as bicycle parking, carpooling encouragement and use of existing overflow parking on adjacent property when trainings or events increase demand.