REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Lopez Village Planning Review Committee
9.16.10
Lopez Library Meeting Room, Lopez Island
Committee Members Present: Sandy Bishop, Nancy Greene, Dan Drahn, Madrona
Murphy, Dennis Ryan, Jamie Stephens
Committee Members Absent: Bill Diller
Guests: Kermin Taylor
Called to Order: Nancy called the meeting to order at 4:06
Approval of Minutes:
Dan moved approval of the minutes as written
Dennis seconded the motion
The motion carried
Chair’s Report: Nancy announced that there is a Critical Areas Ordinance update
meeting on Lopez next Thursday from 4-6pm at LCCA. She is unable to attend but
recommends that committee members be there. One of the items being discussed is
buffer alternatives in Eastsound and Lopez Village UGAs.
Madrona volunteered to get draft material form Shireen Hale and distribute it to
committee members.
Nancy reported that she’s spent about an hour with Dick Jenison touring the new
stormwater project and asking questions. She still had some questions about how the
water splits at the control structure and how much of the flow goes through Weeks
Wetland.
Jamie reported that he’s talked to the folks working on the project and they’d told him
that the main direction of it goes to Weeks and overflow goes into San Juan Channel.
Dan said he’d designed it so that low flows are directed into the wetland--the “first
flush”—such that when stormwater stars, low flows get stored and are meted out to
Weeks Wetland and when the pipe is full and stormwater at peak flow it goes out into the
channel. This would mean that most storm events would go to Week’s Wetland but the
largest volume of water would go into the channel.
Nancy suggested that someone could take a look at the outlets once the rains start.
Nancy suggested that a subarea plan would improve communication about project in
Lopez village.
Approved by the committee 10.21.10
Public Comment: Kermin announced that there would be a trails committee meeting at
the library this evening, at 7pm. He told the committee that Dale Roundy, a Lopez land
use attorney, had worked with a landscape architect at Jones and Jones to get them to
donate some work with a software program they developed to assist the trails committee.
The meeting this evening will be an opportunity to start generating overlays of possible
trail routes, including information on ownership and permissions. The National Park
Service is also working with the trails committee, and is interested in the possibilities of
trails along the public right-of-way.
Jamie asked whether the committee had gotten an impression of people’s preference for
which materials should be used to construct trails.
Sandy answered that the feedback received was that people would prefer a mix of
surfaces appropriate to the trail’s location.
Kermin noted that the trails committee would be happy to construct a trail from Jamie’s
building (where the liquor store is) to the grocery store.
Madrona suggested that the feedback that a mix of surfaces was desirable was also the
easiest answer and that more detail may emerge with more discussion.
Nancy suggested that the committee could identify where in the village hardscape is
necessary and have a vocabulary of options for materials in other areas.
Working Session Next Steps:
Nancy asked the committee what we would like to do next. Her sense is that the next
step is to have analyzed data and collected feedback from the community workshops.
Resubmitting the request for a subarea plan process is also necessary, since we can’t
legitimately go into a subarea plan until we have formal approval from the county, which
will take time once the submittal is accepted. She asked the committee what form they
see the analyzed data and collected feedback in. She noted that we’ve talked about
creating some plans from people’s feedback and then discussing them and alternatives.
Dennis reported on his meeting with Rene. One of his concerns, and an item they
discussed, was whose process is this? Are we expected to design the process and then
manage it, or will the county do that? Dennis reported that Rene was very clear that it
would be the county’s process. Dennis noted that this could be good for the committee,
in that it would provide some working room, as long as the process is good, efficient,
robust and accurate.
Dan asked what process meant in this instance. Dennis noted that he meant the
framework and draft language as well as the public input and involvement in the plan.
There was a discussion of the UGA planning process led by Pat Mann as a good example
of effective county leadership.
Approved by the committee 10.21.10
Nancy raised the question of who would be the public face of the process.
Dennis suggested that in the resubmittal the committee should be clear about it
commitment to the process and its role in working with the county and the community.
He suggested that the committee has a lot of work to do, going through our own overlay
process and talking to groups in the community.
Jamie suggested getting out and talking to community groups now. Dennis proposed
having base maps and data to show what the ideas we’ve begun to assemble grow out of.
Nancy suggested that the committee plan a long meeting—like a half-day working
session to try and synthesize our work so far and create some images and ideas to show
people.
Sandy proposed finding someone who can donate some technical time to the committee
to help generate maps, overlays and images.
Jamie asked about the status of the resubmittal. Nancy noted that the intention is to
redraft the submittal and then meet with Rene.
Dennis’ impression is that Rene would like the submittal to be fleshed out and in more
detail and that it needs to say why the current plan is inadequate.
Dennis suggested including more material from the public workshops in the resubmittal
so that the process be taken up from where we are already.
Dennis noted that his students could put together a website for the committee to provide
information to the community.
There was a discussion of whether the committee needs to address the rusubmittal from a
political standpoint as well as a technical one. It was noted that the County Council had
made the subarea plan one of their priorities.
There was a discussion of what additional information to include in the resubmittal.
Dennis suggested adding workshop results for each matrix item. Nancy suggested that
committee members be responsible for expanding their matrix item(s). Additional
documents from each workshop could be attached as exhibits, so that the matrix itself is
concise and uniform. Dennis suggested that the matrix column for how the current plan
doesn’t meet needs can be strengthened using the workshop results and that the date of
the workshop could be referenced (with the notes attached).
Nancy proposed e-mailing out the current matrix and having the committee members
correct and expand their items. It could expand to one page per item and be put together
in a binder for resubmittal including meeting notes, summaries for the workshops and
Approved by the committee 10.21.10
some of the historical documents. Then a paper copy and electronic copies could be
provided to the planning department.
Nancy suggested having a workshop to go through all the collected information. She
noted the importance of including property owners in the village, the chamber of
commerce and people outside of the village.
The next meeting will be the 1st week in October.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:35.
Approved by the committee 10.21.10