Sebastopol’s Design Review Board on Wednesday (Dec. 7) followed
suit behind an earlier city Planning Commission vote and opposed
the application to build a CVS Pharmacy and Chase Bank on the
former Pellini Chevrolet location at the center of town.
The Board’s 3-1 vote was immediately appealed by the applicant
Armstrong Development Corporation, which means the project’s fate
will again be heard by the City Council.
The proposed $10 million project includes a 14,237 square foot
CVS Pharmacy building, a separate 4,120 square foot Chase Bank, 105
parking spaces, a drive-through pharmacy window, new street
landscaping with wider sidewalks and several improved vehicle
entrances on Petaluma and Sebastopol avenues.
Members of the Design Review Board rejected the project, citing
traffic and safety concerns, “architecture incompatibility” with
neighboring structures, a “sea of asphalt,” and for being an
“inappropriate use” for a major entrance to town.
City planning staff had recommended approval of the project
after some design changes had been agreed to by the applicant. The
staff report concluded the project satisfied all General Plan,
zoning, and CEQA environmental impact requirements.
Wednesday’s action was taken following a previous DRB meeting on
Nov. 16 that was attended by a standing room only audience of
mostly project opponents.
“This project ignores the small town character of Sebastopol,”
DRB member Lynn Deedler said Wednesday. “It’s a big box. It doesn’t
fit Sebastopol, but I think it could.”
The Armstrong-CVS-Chase project would place the larger
CVS Pharmacy building at the corner of Sebastopol and Petaluma
avenues. The 26-foot tall, single story building would be mostly
glass windows on its north and west fronts, with a mostly
straight-lined roof and neutral-colored stucco walls. A long wooden
arbor would connect the CVS building with the Chase Bank building
at the corner of Petaluma and Abbott avenues, next to
Frizelle-Enos.
A traffic study was completed by the applicant that anticipates
1,926 daily vehicle trips to the two proposed businesses. Opponents
to the project disputed many conclusions in the traffic study, city
“cumulative” impacts the project would be adding to other nearby
development.
