Lopez Village Planning Review Committee members pressed San Juan County Public Works staff on July 22 to adopt formal standard plans and land‑use requirements to ensure sidewalks, paths, planting strips and driveway siting protect pedestrians and bicyclists in the village.

Committee members said earlier plans for a pedestrian‑ and bicycle‑friendly village were adopted as recommendations rather than requirements, and that change left new developments able to place driveways and parking in ways that undermine the village design. “The plan really relied on a strong network to how the village worked for the people in the village,” one committee member said during the meeting; the committee later noted that several code changes replaced specific building and planting requirements with looser language that reduced enforceability.

The committee focused on Weeks Road, where members said two large projects will add multiple driveways and vehicle trips in a short corridor used heavily by pedestrians and bicyclists. “There are gonna be 9 driveways on the north side of the road and 6 driveways and 1 road intersection on the south side,” a committee member summarized, and the group described frequent bicycle traffic and elderly residents who use walkers along the same short segment.

Colin, a San Juan County Public Works staff member, told the committee the county can manage frontage improvements two ways: (1) adopt standard drawings and land‑use regulations that require developers to build consistent frontage improvements, or (2) direct Public Works to undertake public projects that rebuild corridors. “Most often you will see both of those being used,” Colin said, explaining why piecemeal private development can produce gaps but waiting for a public project can leave built driveways and utilities in place.

Colin also described the county’s existing approach: the department maintains a set of standard plans (he referenced the Eastsound standards) and Public Works reviews required frontage improvements as part of development review. He said there is little practical restriction on driveway siting under the county’s rural driveway rules unless the development is covered by village‑specific standards or the council directs a public project. “People are entitled to have a driveway generally at the location of their choosing,” Colin said, noting that county driveway rules were developed with rural parcels in mind and may not suit a village context.

Planning staff told the committee that the group’s annual docket request to revise Lopez Village code was approved by county council and added to the department’s future work plan, but that implementation awaits staff capacity or assignment to the incoming planning director in September. “Because it’s Lopez Village‑specific code, whoever’s working on it would probably take what you’ve suggested, draft something, show the draft to you guys, get your feedback,” Sophia Cassel, planner with the Department of Community Development, said.

Committee members asked Public Works and planning staff to coordinate on producing a single set of standard plan drawings (paths, crosswalks, sight lines, planting relationships to sidewalks and buildings) and to establish how the committee can review drafts. Colin agreed to follow up on standard plans and to pull the permit file for the Housing Lopez development so staff can confirm driveway spacing and other details the committee raised.

The committee did not vote on a formal change to code at the meeting. Members agreed to prepare standard‑plan recommendations and requested that planning staff notify the committee when work on the docket item starts so the group can provide input.

The discussion highlighted two recurring constraints: (1) the county can require frontage improvements only when a development is reviewed under village‑specific standards or when the council funds a public project; and (2) the county’s existing driveway approach reflects rural norms that allow more flexible driveway siting than committee members believe appropriate in the village context.

Committee next steps include drafting detailed standard‑plan recommendations, coordinating a review meeting with Public Works, and following up with planning staff when the docket item is staffed.