Columbia Board of Adjustment Meeting - April 14, 2026

The Board of Adjustment met on April 14, 2026, to consider a variance application (Case 110-2026) for a proposed 5-story, 109-room hotel at 5320 Clark Lane. The applicant sought a 16-foot height variance (from 45 to 61 feet) and a 1-foot parapet height variance (from 6 to 7 feet) under the Unified Development Code. After public testimony and deliberation, the board denied both variances by a 4-1 vote.

Consent Calendar

• The agenda and minutes from the February 10, 2026 meeting were approved unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Applicant (Phoebe Lamar, Tim Crockett, Mike Patel): Argued that the site's low elevation (the lowest point of the property) creates a practical difficulty; a 5-story hotel is needed to meet market demands and ADA accessibility. They stated the site was moved south at staff's request and that a 4-story hotel is not economically feasible for the current Hilton brand. They cited a previous variance granted at the Grindstone/63 interchange.
• Opponent (Caleb Colbert, attorney for MM2 LLC): Represented the adjacent property owner to the southeast. Argued that the hardship is self-created—the applicant chose the location, zoning, and lot configuration, and could have pursued a planned zoning district or replat. He stated that a 4-story hotel is feasible and that the variance criteria are not met. He warned that if granted, he would seek the same relief for his client's property.
• Rebuttal (Phoebe Lamar): Contended that the site's topography is unique and not self-created; the prior hotel user backed out, and no other chain would build a 4-story hotel there. Also noted that the opponent's site is 10-12 feet higher, so a 4-story hotel there would be comparable in height.

Discussion Items

• Staff report by Pat Zenner (Planning and Development) outlined the variance criteria and noted that the site's grade is the only unique factor. He stated that alternatives (e.g., replatting, reducing room count, stepping floors, using a planned district) were not explored in the submitted materials. He also noted that the nearest residential development (The Links) was notified but did not comment on this request.
• Board members discussed the perceived height, the cost of exploring alternatives, and whether the hardship was sufficient. Mr. Norgaard noted that the height restriction is about perception and that the building's low elevation mitigates visual impact. Ms. Rogers wanted to see at least one alternative option. Ms. Hammond expressed concern about lack of evidence of exploring alternatives.
• The board considered the two variance requests separately.

Key Outcomes

• Motion 1 (Height Variance): A motion to approve a 16-foot height variance (to allow a 61-foot building) was made and seconded. Failed 4-1 (Mr. Minchu in favor; Mr. Norgaard, Ms. Hammond, Ms. Rogers, Ms. Gaines opposed).
• Motion 2 (Parapet Height Variance): A motion to approve a 1-foot parapet height variance (to allow a 7-foot parapet) was made and seconded. Failed 4-1 (same vote).
• The board denied both variances, meaning the proposed hotel cannot proceed as designed under the current zoning.
• The meeting concluded with a recognition of Ms. Hammond's final meeting after 13 years of service.