‘Whimsical’ development generates plenty of discussion before council upholds Planning Commission’s changes
A local developer’s appeal of approved changes to his project of hotel cottages and a meeting space on the corner of Mission Drive and Alisal Road drew substantial comment from City Councilmembers and the public at the Monday, Oct. 13, regular meeting before council voted to deny the appeal and confirm the changes.
The Item 7.A, Public hearing to consider an appeal of Planning Commission decision approving amendments to facades and building colors for 1704 Mission Drive, concerns the project on the corner at that site, on the corner of Mission and Alisal Road, just west of Mission Santa Ines and across the street from Svensgaard’s Danish Lodge. The applicant, local developer Ed St. George, had been building the project consisting of nine separate cottages ranging in size from 250 to 390 square feet that would serve as one-bedroom hotel rooms and an on-site ancillary building.
Briefly it seemed that there would be no discussion, as St. George requested a continuance to the next meeting on Oct. 27 so he could extend an offer to members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Committee to tour the project under construction before making a decision on it.
St. George said his original offer was accepted only by Mayor David Brown, who had mentioned at the onset of the hearing that he had, in fact, toured the building with St. George. City Councilmember Elizabeth Orona said she had toured the site with another person without the presence of St. George.
“This is, I feel, the most important project In last 25 years. I want to give you two more weeks to make one of those appointments [to tour the site],” St. George said. “I feel Solvang is not being represented by the city, since they didn’t show.”
Brown made a motion to continue the item to the next meeting. Councilmember Mark Infanti eventually seconded, but not before saying that he didn’t accept the offer to tour the site because he didn’t think it was necessary, because the item was a policy matter involving the Planning Commission. Infanti then seconded, but then the motion failed when Councilmembers Elizabeth Orona, Claudia Orona, and Louise Smith all voted no to defeat the motion 3-2.
In introducing the item, Community Development Director Rafael Castillo pointed out that St. George appealed the following requirements: Removing some of the half-timbers on Units 2,4,5, and 9 that create additional patterns (in contrast to just straight or diagonal shapes) or that “does not emulate authentic appearance and pattern of historic buildings in Europe,” and remove the colored red and white banding on the roof of one structure.
Before the item went to public comment, Infanti explained his refusal to tour the site, while emphasizing he was in favor of the project.
“I like it, but that’s not important,” he said. “If we approve any of this, aren’t we setting precedent to limit the DRC and Planning Commision in the future. Someone will come along later and say ‘If he can change things, why can’t I?’”
Meanwhile, Brown expressed that he didn’t agree with the amendments and the reasons for them.
“I have seen buildings with half-timbers with curves,” the mayor said, referring to the apparent problem the Planning Commission had with the half-timbers. Roof colors like pin striping on a car, a signature.”
The council gave St. George a chance to speak on his project before Public Comment.
“The reason I did this is I wanted something that was kind of whimsical,” he said. “My inspiration is photos of other buildings in Solvang. I probably could have built a four-story building, or affordable housing, but I wanted to do this, it’s a project from someone with a lot of passion.
“It was important to me that this corner be something Solvang could be proud of, emulate what it was trying to be, more cottage-style, close to mission, and a genesis of community,” he said. “And now some of the features are asked to be removed, and they are on other buildings in Solvang.”
In Public Comment, there were 18 speakers on the subject with approximately half in favor of, or at least complimentary of the project.
Speakers like Jean Simon and Michael Mendoza praised St. George’s artistic vision with the project and thought it would be an excellent site for someone coming into town.
“My imagination takes hold when I see the medieval village,” Simon said. “The Spirit of Hans Christian Anderson takes hold, and he would approve and want St. George to express himself artistically in these buildings.”
Among those opposed to the project, Janice Ziegler cited cultural appropriation as her reason for being against it.
“I strongly oppose those who practice cultural appropriation — it’s exploitive, disrespectful or devoid of context,” she said. “St. George’s project is 3-for-3 in that regard.”
Thorn Kinersley, a resident “on and off” of Solvang, said St. George’s situation is like when Kinersley tried to get a Tivoli wheel in Solvang, which was denied; however, he also said that many Danes’ who have been to Solvang view it as “a caricature, and this project adds to that.”
After getting it back to council, most of the members said the process of the project going through the DRC and Planning Commission must be respected, and they felt those groups did their due diligence.
“We must follow the rules; it’s important any development follow these rules,” Smith said. “Bend rules, would that make city vulnerable to other developers. It would be a slap in the face if we let this go through.”
Brown, however, was the lone holdout, saying he approved of the project and didn’t see it as a “slap in the face,” but just a different design and opinion. However, when he made a motion to uphold the appeal, he did not get a second.
With that, Infanti made a motion to deny the appeal, with Claudia Orona seconding. That motion passed 4-1 with Brown voting against.
The City Council will meet next on Monday, Oct. 27, at 6:30 p.m.
