Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC delays decision on Rasmussen building paint to coordinate with neighboring property
Summary
The Solvang Design Review Committee continued review of a proposed red‑and‑white paint scheme for the Rasmussen building, asking the applicant to coordinate colors with a neighboring application and to return at the March meeting; the motion to continue passed 4–1.
The Solvang Design Review Committee voted 4–1 to continue consideration of a proposed repainting of the Rasmussen building until the next regular meeting in March so staff and the applicant could coordinate colors and presentation with an adjoining property owner’s upcoming application.
The applicant proposed red and white as a nod to Danish colors; several public commenters and committee members urged a toned‑down or more earth‑toned red and a less stark white. Dennis B. B. Sullivan, a public commenter, said he was “not sure where the red's going” and expressed concern the scheme might repeat a split‑gable look on a neighboring façade. The applicant’s representative described the intent as “freshening it up” and keeping a predominantly red field with white accents.
Why it matters: Committee members said the street faces several distinct facades and recommended coordinating paint decisions across adjacent properties so the block reads as a cohesive whole as the city develops new design guidelines and palettes. One committee member suggested that if the neighboring building’s colors are presented simultaneously the committee could better judge harmony across the shared façade.
Committee discussion and vote
Committee members repeatedly urged tones that would complement existing brick and the broader “old world” Solvang palette rather than a very bright red and stark white. A staff member noted there are design palette books the DRC consults but that those palettes are not yet formally adopted as regulations; staff recommended the applicant work with staff to return with better renderings or alternative swatches. The committee discussed two procedural options: tabling the item during the same meeting to allow the applicant to present new swatches later that night, or continuing the item to the next meeting to permit coordination with a neighboring applicant who intends to be on the March agenda.
A motion to continue the item to the March meeting carried on a 4–1 roll call: Member Melissa Bates voted yes; Member Goetz voted no; Member Johnson voted yes; Vice Chair Boyd voted yes; Chair Jacobson Bates voted yes.
Public comment and applicant response
- A member of the public, who identified himself as Dennis B. B. Sullivan, asked for clarification of which gable and which portions of the building would receive red paint and said he did not want a split gable like a building to the east. - The applicant said the intent was to “soften” the original bright red and use a more muted red with white accents, and that the goal was to “freshen it up” after the façade had not been painted for decades.
Next steps
The DRC directed staff and the applicant to coordinate with the owner of the neighboring property and to return to the DRC at its March meeting with revised color swatches and improved renderings so the committee can evaluate the façade in the context of adjacent projects and the upcoming objective palette guidance.
