Solvang council upholds planning decision on 1704 Mission Drive; orders removal of disputed half‑timbers and roof banding

The Solvang City Council on Oct. 13 denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on exterior amendments for a hotel-and-cottages development at 1704 Mission Drive, and directed the applicant to remove specified half‑timber detailing and the red-and-white roof banding on the chapel.

The action preserves the Planning Commission and Community Development Director’s findings that the curved half‑timbers and painted roof banding are inconsistent with the city’s adopted community‑design policies for the village and the project’s original approvals. Councilmember Mark Infante and Mayor David Brown voted to deny the continuance earlier in the hearing; after public comment and deliberation the council voted to deny the appeal and adopt the Planning Commission decision.

Why it matters: The property sits at the corner of Mission Drive and Alisal Road and functions as a visible gateway into the village. Council and staff said the case raises questions about how closely constructed work must match approved plans, what changes can be made during construction, and how design review standards should be enforced.

City staff and the Planning Commission said the amendments submitted in 2025 diverged from the project’s December 2023 development plan and from the design guidance that first governed the entitlement. Community Development Director Rafael Castillo told council the appeal addresses two narrow elements — curved half‑timbers on Units 2, 4, 5 and 9 and red‑and‑white color banding on the chapel roof — and that the remainder of the project’s previously approved changes are not part of this appeal.

“Units 2, 4, 5 and 9 were not within the traditional historic Danish themes and do not emulate the eighteenth‑century Denmark half timbers,” Castillo said in his presentation, citing the city’s 1989 Community Design element, the 2008 Land Use element and the city’s Community Design Guidelines.

The applicant, developer Ed St. George, told the council he had collected local visual references and said curved timbers and the red‑and‑white banding appear in Northern European examples and some Solvang buildings. “I went and I took all these pictures to help inspire me for the design of these cottages,” he said, adding that he believed the materials and treatments were consistent with the village’s character.

More than two dozen members of the public spoke during the hearing. Supporters described the development as a long‑awaited reuse of a vacant, prominent corner and urged flexibility for an artistic interpretation of Danish‑inspired design. Opponents — including the chair of the city’s Design Review Committee — asked council to enforce the city’s adopted standards and noted the applicant had built elements that differed from approved plans during construction.

Council deliberations focused on whether the installed elements matched the “traditional and historic Danish themes” contained in the older design documents that governed the project’s 2023 entitlement. Several council members emphasized the need to follow the city’s established review process for amendments, and some noted the practical difficulty and precedent risk of approving work that was built without explicit approval.

Council action and next steps: The council voted to deny the appeal and adopt Resolution No. 25-1303 (the Planning Commission decision). The resolution, as described in the staff report and as adopted by council, requires the applicant to remove the identified curved half‑timbers on Units 2, 4, 5 and 9 and to remove the red‑and‑white banding from the chapel roof to achieve consistency with the city’s design policies. The council directed staff to work with the applicant on timing for compliance and to ensure remaining building and accessibility corrections are completed before a certificate of occupancy is issued.

The council also declined a motion to continue the hearing to the Oct. 27 meeting; that continuance motion did not carry. Castillo and planning staff noted a stop‑work order issued earlier in 2025 related to work beyond the scope of the issued permits (accessibility and state stormwater requirements) remains in effect until those issues are addressed.

Votes at a glance: A motion to continue the hearing to Oct. 27 failed during the hearing (roll call recorded in the transcript). A subsequent motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission passed (roll call recorded in the transcript). The Planning Commission decision and staff report identify the two exterior items listed above as the subject of appeal and the council’s adopted resolution requires their removal.

The council’s decision does not prevent the applicant from filing future, properly noticed amendment applications, but staff emphasized that any future amendments should be reviewed through the standard design review and planning channels before work is constructed.

Ending: Staff will return to the council with a compliance schedule and with any related permit or enforcement actions needed to implement the council’s direction. The item drew extensive public comment and drew repeated council instruction to applicants that material changes to approved plans should be pursued through the city’s formal review process, and not built first and appealed later.