A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish a comprehensive site plan and design review process that ensures compliance with the adopted plans, policies, and ordinances of the city. The overall goal of this chapter is to minimize land alteration, provide greater site development flexibility and consequently provide more creative and imaginative design than generally is possible under conventional zoning regulations. It is further intended to provide for the review of development proposals with respect to overall site design and to provide a means for guiding development in a logical, safe, attractive, and expedient manner, while also allowing property to be developed in phases. An additional purpose is to promote those specific purposes for each zoning district stated in Chapter 18.06 BIMC.
B. Applicability.
1. Site plan and design review shall be required prior to the issuance of construction permits in any of the following circumstances:
a. The new construction of a nonresidential building or other structure; or
b. The expansion, remodel, or alteration of any building by more than five percent of its existing floor area, or, in the case of structures with no floor area, the expansion, remodel, or alteration by more than five percent of overall size, or expansion that creates a new dwelling unit; or
c. A change of use that:
i. Proposes to alter the exterior of the structure; or
ii. That results in increased parking demands; or
d. The construction of new wireless communication support structures (but not the location of wireless facilities on existing buildings).
2. Exemptions. The following types of activities shall not require site plan and design review pursuant to this section. Properties within jurisdiction of the shoreline master program, as defined by Chapter 16.12 BIMC, or containing critical areas or critical area buffers, as defined by Chapter 16.20 BIMC, may require review pursuant to those chapters.
a. Permits authorizing residential construction for single-family residential use and accessory dwelling units.
b. Any activity that does not require a building permit, or any activity that is not considered a change in use, as determined by the director.
c. Interior work that does not alter the exterior of the structure and does not affect parking standards; provided, that the application does not result in the following:
i. Additional sleeping quarters;
ii. Nonconformity with Federal Emergency Management Agency substantial improvement thresholds; or
iii. Increase in the total square footage or valuation of the structure thereby requiring upgraded fire access or fire suppression systems.
d. Normal building maintenance and repair.
e. Maintenance or expansion of existing parks where the proposed activities are exempt from SEPA review in accordance with WAC 197-11-800.
f. Construction of public communications towers.
3. The provisions of this section supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.030 when the application is for site plan or design review. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.030 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.
C. Major and Minor. This section provides two methods of site plan and design review: major and minor. Application materials for both major and minor site plan and design review can be found in the administrative manual.
1. Minor. Minor site plan and design review is required for minor projects that can clearly meet the decision criteria in subsection F of this section, as determined by the director. Examples of minor administrative projects include:
a. A fourplex multifamily development;
b. Minor commercial remodel or the addition of a small room; and
c. A minor change in use, such as from a church to a preschool.
2. Major. Major site plan and design review requires design review board and planning commission review and recommendation, and is required for projects that:
a. Are determined by the director to be more complicated than those in subsection C.1 of this section, due to site constraints or the complexity of the project; or
b. Receive written public comment(s) during the public comment period concerning the effect on the land use application of the comprehensive plan, shoreline master program, or matters not addressed by specific provisions of this code; or
c. Are located on property zoned business/industrial after November 22, 1999.
D. Review Procedures – Proposal Stage. Review of site plan and design review proposals shall include all of the following in the order listed:
1. Preapplication Conference. The applicant shall participate in a preapplication conference in accordance with the provisions and requirements in BIMC 2.16.020.I.
2. Public Participation Meeting. As part of the project proposal phase, applicants are required to participate in a community meeting through the city’s public participation program at a planning commission meeting and as outlined in Resolution No. 2021-07. The public participation meeting is a meeting of public engagement, and the applicant’s opportunity to respond to questions, comments, and assessments of the proposed project.
E. Review Procedures – Application Stage. Review of site plan and design review applications shall include all of the following:
1. Application. An applicant may submit an application for site plan and design review at any time after completion of the required steps in subsection D of this section or approval of a waiver in accordance with BIMC 2.16.020.I.3 or I.4 or subsection D.1 of this section. The applicant shall submit a complete application with all required submittal requirements listed in the administrative manual including design review submittals.
2. Review by Design Review Board. Upon receipt of the application and determination of completeness, the director shall schedule the applicant on the next available agenda for a design review board meeting. The applicant shall make a presentation to the design review board per the requirements of the design review board manual. The design review board reviews the project materials and makes a recommendation on project consistency with Design for Bainbridge standards. A design review board recommendation is not a final decision and therefore there is no appeal of the recommendation. The design review board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the planning department and may include recommended changes to the design (to be evaluated by staff before issuing the permit) as well as recommended conditions on the permit related to design. Any recommended changes to the design or conditions on the permit must be intended to achieve consistency with one or more specific standards in the Design for Bainbridge manual.
3. Review by Kitsap Public Health District.
a. Upon receipt of the application and determination of completeness, the director shall transmit a copy of the application to the health district.
b. The health district shall provide written recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the preliminary long subdivision application pursuant to the decision criteria in subsection F of this section.
4. Review by City Engineer.
a. Upon receipt of the application and determination of completeness, the director shall transmit a copy of the application to the city engineer.
b. The city engineer shall provide written recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the preliminary long subdivision application pursuant to the decision criteria in subsection F of this section.
5. Review and Recommendation by Planning Commission.
a. In the case of a major site plan and design review application, the planning commission shall review the application prior to the review and final decision by the director.
b. The purpose of the planning commission review and recommendation meeting is to review a proposed project for consistency with applicable design guidelines, BIMC Title 17, and the comprehensive plan.
c. The planning commission shall consider the application at a public meeting where public comments will be taken. The planning commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial of an application. In making a recommendation, the planning commission shall consider the applicable decision criteria, all other applicable law, and the recommendation of the design review board. If the applicable criteria are not met, the planning commission shall recommend the proposal be modified or denied.
d. The design review board’s recommendation shall hold substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the planning commission. Any deviation from the recommendation shall be documented in their written findings of facts and conclusions.
e. The planning commission will forward its written findings of facts and conclusions, their determination of the project’s consistency with the comprehensive plan, and their recommendation, including any conditions attached by the planning commission and design review board, to the staff planner. The planning commission’s written findings will be included in the staff report transmitted to the director. The planning commission’s recommendation shall be given substantial weight by the director in making a decision.
f. A planning commission recommendation is not a final decision and therefore there is no appeal of the recommendation.
6. Review and Approval by Director.
a. The director shall review the application materials, information provided by the health district and city engineer, staff report, any public comments received, the recommendations of the design review board and, in the case of major site plan and design review applications, the recommendations of the planning commission, and shall make a final decision based on:
i. In the case of a minor site plan and design review application, the final decision on an application is made by the director based on:
(A) Decision criteria in subsection F of this section;
(B) The DRB recommendation; and
(C) Consideration of any public comments received.
ii. In the case of a major site plan and design review application, the director will make the final decision based on:
(A) The decision criteria in subsection F of this section;
(B) The recommendation of the planning commission;
(C) The recommendation of the design review board; and
(D) Consideration of any public comments received.
The design review board’s and planning commission’s recommendations shall hold substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the director. Any deviation from those recommendations shall be documented in the director’s report.
b. The director shall make compliance with the recommendations of the design review board and/or planning commission a condition of approval, unless the director concludes that the recommendations:
i. Reflect inconsistent application of design guidelines or any applicable provisions of this code;
ii. Exceed the authority of the design review board or planning commission;
iii. Conflict with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or
iv. Conflict with requirements of local, state, or federal law.
c. The director shall adopt a planning commission recommendation of denial of an application unless the director concludes that the recommendation:
i. Reflects inconsistent application of design guidelines, the comprehensive plan, or any applicable provisions of this code;
ii. Exceeds the authority of the design review board or planning commission;
iii. Conflicts with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or
iv. Conflicts with requirements of local, state, or federal law.
7. Relationship to Other Land Development Applications – Consolidated Project Review.
a. If requested by the applicant, a site plan and design review application that is part of a proposal requiring multiple land use permits may be combined in a consolidated project review. Related applications requiring a public hearing shall be considered at one public hearing in accordance with BIMC 2.16.170.
b. If a site plan and design review application is part of a consolidated project, the director will review the site plan and design review application as prescribed under subsection E.6.a or E.6.b of this section, as appropriate, and forward the findings and decision to the appropriate hearing body for any required public hearing.
F. Decision Criteria. The director and planning commission shall base their respective recommendations or decisions on site plan and design review applications on the following criteria:
1. The site plan and design is consistent with all applicable provisions of the BIMC, design guidelines, the comprehensive plan, and applicable subarea and master plans; and
2. The locations of the buildings and structures, open spaces, and landscaping result in a context-sensitive design; and
3. The Kitsap public health district has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria:
a. The proposal conforms to current standards regarding domestic water supply and sewage disposal; or if the proposal is not to be served by public sewers, then the lot has sufficient area and soil, topographic and drainage characteristics to permit an on-site sewage disposal system; and
b. If the health district recommends approval of the application with respect to those items in subsection F.3.a of this section, the health district shall so advise the director; and
c. If the health district recommends disapproval of the application, it shall provide a written explanation to the director; and
4. The streets and nonmotorized facilities, as proposed, are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and
5. The city engineer has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria:
a. The site plan and design conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and
b. The site plan and design will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of properties downstream; and
c. The streets, nonmotorized facilities, locations of the buildings, structures, and vehicular circulation systems as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets and nonmotorized facilities serving adjacent properties and are adequate, safe, efficient and consistent with the island-wide transportation plan; and
d. If a traffic study shows that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required by the city engineer; and
e. If the site will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the site, and the required service(s) can be made available at the site; and
f. The site plan and design conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications,” unless the city engineer has approved a deviation from the standards; and
6. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan; and
7. If the subject property contains a critical area or buffer, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, the site plan and design review permit conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and
8. If the subject property is within the shoreline jurisdiction, as defined in Chapter 16.12 BIMC, the site plan and design review permit conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and
9. If the applicant is providing privately owned open space and is requesting credit against dedications for park and recreation facilities required by BIMC 17.20.020.C, the requirements of BIMC 17.20.020.D have been met; and
10. The Bainbridge Island fire department has reviewed the application and determined that the site plan has been properly designed to ensure fire protection; and
11. The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose and review procedures of this chapter.
G. Action of Director. The director may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for site plan and design review. Conditions may be imposed to enable the proposal to meet the standards of the decision criteria.
H. Adjustments to Approved Site Plan.
1. Minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review may be made after review and approval by the director. Minor adjustments are those that include minor changes in dimensions or siting of structures or the location of public amenities, but do not include changes to the intensity or character of the use. Minor adjustments are processed through a written request from the applicant and a written response from department staff. The city response is placed in the project file and is effective to modify the approval as described in the response.
2. Adjustments other than minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review require a new or amended application as determined by the director. Major adjustments are those that change the basic design, intensity, density, or character of the use. (Ord. 2025-07 § 5 (Exh. D), 2025; Ord. 2024-28 § 3 (Exh. B), 2024)