Planning & Zoning Commission 7/16/26 Part 1

Meeting Overview The Town of Montreat Planning and Zoning Commission convened on July 16, 2026, for a public hearing regarding a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application submitted by the Mountain Retreat Association (MRA) for the property at 309 Collegiate Circle. The primary focus of the session was reviewing the proposal to rezone the property from Institutional/Residential (IR) to a PUD district. The meeting also addressed procedural updates to the Commission’s rules of procedure and approved the minutes from the previous gathering.

Key Decisions and Votes The Commission took several procedural actions before addressing the main application. A motion to amend the agenda, made by Council Member Eleanor and seconded by Sally, was passed unanimously. This amendment adopted a "Special Order" for the hearing, establishing a five-minute time limit per speaker, and simultaneously amended the Rules of Procedure to remove the future requirement for such Special Orders, as the information is now redundant with the published agenda. Additionally, the Commission unanimously approved the motion to adopt the previous meeting’s minutes, which included corrections to a statistic and the Chair’s name. A motion to excuse Council Member Alan Crawford and seat Gail Sawyer as an alternate voting member was also passed.

Discussion Highlights The core of the meeting involved a detailed review of the MRA’s development plan, which proposes a 24-room lodge, two eight-bedroom cottages, and the retention of three existing lodges, with a total capacity limited to 70 rooms and 140 beds. Staff member Alexis Moore clarified that this is a legislative hearing, not a quasi-judicial special use permit. Applicant Richard DuBose explained that this "Option 2" cottage plan was chosen over a previously approved larger plan to better fit community preferences and preserve the conference center’s mission.

Significant discussion centered on parking calculations, building height, and the distinction between "permitted" and "approved" uses. Applicant Chuck Kreckelberg argued for using a "basket" calculation for parking (one space per 1,000 sq. ft.) to accommodate mixed-use components. Commissioners Bill Hamilton and Sally raised concerns about the clarity of listing "permitted uses by right" from the underlying IR district (such as swimming pools) when these are not depicted on the site plan. Staff member Brandon clarified that while these uses remain permitted in the new zoning district, they cannot be executed without amending the specific PUD site plan, thereby retaining town control over future changes. Commissioner Clay Tucker questioned the practical implications of these definitions, particularly regarding the difference between a "lodge" and a "commercial hotel."

Community Input and Public Comments The applicant presented testimony from Richard DuBose, Chuck Kreckelberg, and Tanner Pickett. DuBose emphasized that the facility operates as a conference center for groups rather than a commercial hotel targeting tourists. Kreckelberg addressed technical concerns, noting that blasting for an underground garage would be a last resort and that landscaping is currently in process. Pickett reinforced that the MRA does not market to standard tourists. Commissioners asked clarifying questions regarding van accessibility in the garage, tree protection in the right-of-way, and the percentage of open space, which the applicant confirmed exceeds the required 20% minimum.

Follow-ups and Next Steps Staff members Brandon and Angie agreed to draft the final recommendation for the governing body. They committed to ensuring the ordinance language clearly distinguishes between "permitted uses" (what is allowed by zoning) and "approved uses" (what is on the site plan) to address the Commission’s concerns about clarity. The applicant, Richard DuBose, indicated he was amenable to adding clarifying language to the application stating that uses not depicted on the plan require a PUD amendment. The Commission expressed a desire for the final recommendation to clearly reflect this distinction to prevent misinterpretation by the public and future developers.

Impact on Residents This meeting established the procedural framework for reviewing the MRA’s redevelopment plans, ensuring that the final zoning ordinance will clearly restrict the execution of certain uses until they are explicitly included in an approved site plan. By clarifying that the PUD process allows for flexibility while imposing stricter limitations than the underlying IR zoning, the Commission aims to balance the MRA’s desire for development with the community’s interest in preserving the area’s character and controlling future property changes. The outcome will determine how strictly the town can regulate future modifications to the 309 Collegiate Circle property.