Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Mohr was not comfortable ordering a property owner to plant vineyards. There <br />should be some incentive for that to happen. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt this was setting the vision for the area. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if some consideration could be given for further study of uses of the <br />area other than residential such as wineries, bed and breakfast inns, restaurants or other non- <br />residential uses compatible with the vision. She could then sec~ond the motion. <br /> <br /> A substitute motion was made by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to include <br />some of the objectives outlined by Mr. Pico, but that this would be a study area so planning <br />could be done, taking into consideration previous uses and developing a Specific Plan to <br />accomplish the goals of the gateway area, to be generated by City staff and using the <br />existing Specific Plan information. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt no one wanted to set a specific number for the allowed units and she <br />wanted to look at the property right next to Ruby Hill and see what is appropriate. She wanted <br />to develop a winery if viable and to develop the Corridor re~istic~lly. She could not support <br />putting an agriculture designation on the flattest area. She liked having wide setbacks and <br />vineyards interspersed throughout the homes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt a study area was appropriate, otherwise a great deal of time will be spent <br />debating actions for this area alone. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver explained that Mr. Pico's motion was to retain the gross developable areas <br />and yield about 127 units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift pointed out that those units could ouly be placed in areas designated for <br />development, so almost all of those 127 units would be between the existing edge of <br />development and the end of the MS* curve. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if Ms. Michelotti's motion changed the land use designation <br />recommended by the Steering Committee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt it was open to review under the study area and Specific Plan and <br />would include where it is shown as all agriculture on the north side of Vineyard. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ta~er felt that if the principles in terms of what is trying to be achieved for the area <br />as set out by Mr. Pico were applied, and incorporated a modification to the motion to consider <br />in a specific plan some alternatives to that, then Council could discuss more units if they are <br />appropriately designed. <br /> <br />07/01/96 <br /> -24 - <br /> <br /> <br />