Amador County – The question of inclusion of wineries was brought up several times during the Amador County Board of Supervisors’ discussion of a draft design review guidelines and ordinance at its early September meeting.

Supervisor Brian Oneto of District 5 pointed out the issue late in the discussion and said in the Shenandoah Valley, some people love the wineries, and some do not. But he said vintners are real entrepreneurs and they have individual visions of what they want. He said he did not want to “take away their visions and entrepreneurship” with guidelines for design.

Oneto said the historic buildings of the Gold Rush region, including Amador County, often include false walls. Supervisor Vice Chairman Louis Boitano agreed, saying that “Gold Rush architecture” was practical and cheap, and people built what they needed quickly.

Supervisor Richard Forster said if the county wants to be consistent, it should be consistent, and said some of the new winery designs in the Shenandoah Valley were not very handsome. He supported including all wineries, vintners and tasting rooms under design review guidelines, because some of the wineries attracted more people than commercial businesses in the county.

Supervisor Ted Novelli said wineries have big metal buildings, and they do not see it as a problem. He said Shenandoah Valley has something very unique, and it is just as good as what they have in Napa Valley.

Supervisor Chairman John Plasse said he would “like to critique some of the categorizations in here more closely,” as they continue to work on the ordinance. Oneto agreed, saying he would “like to fine-tune what’s in this.”

Plasse said he would like to send the design review ordinance and guidelines back to the Planning Commission. Planner Nathan Lishman asked about some comments, including proposed districts for design guideline areas, and also looking at applicability, and defining uses.

Plasse said he would like to look at having districts, instead of going county-wide. He also saw a problem with loading areas and parking areas. He said having two access areas to a building could present major logistical problems for some businesses. Oneto said they should consider issues with reciprocal or access driveways.

Lishman asked if staff should bring back another proposal, and Plasse suggested that each Supervisor submit their own comments to the Planning Commission, which could then apply the comments, and then bring it back to the board of supervisors.

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.