Loading...
Revision Review Cyle 2 RTC 2789 5404 Cypress Center Drive, Suite 140 Tampa, FL 34698 813.509.2319 bowman.com March 2, 2026 City of Boynton Beach 100 E Boynton Beach Blvd Boynton Beach, FL 33435 561-742-6260 Project: Walmart 2789-245 FY25 RM Boynton Beach FL Project No.: LDP-2026.02.1100 To whom it may concern: This letter is in response to your letter dated February 27, 2026. Engineering – Luiza Pessoa Guazzelli COMMENT 1 Survey requires a 3rd party verifiable digital signature per FAC 61G15-23.004. The standalone survey provided appears to be a scanned version that does not include digital signature. Response: Please see the survey with the digital signature. COMMENT 2 See markups on Sheet C1.1: a. Crosswalk cannot be in conflict with the stop bar. Either provide the crosswalk at the intersection with the stop bar located 4’ behind the crosswalk, or consider switching location of proposed landscaping and curb ramp so that the proposed crosswalk is located perpendicular to the direction of travel and allows at least one car to stack at the stop sign without conflict with the crosswalk. Refer to the markups. b. Consider a smooth curb transition to channelize drive aisle. As currently designed, the curb juts out into the drive aisle without advance warning that the drive aisle width is abruptly being reduced, which results in an unsafe condition for drivers. Refer to the markups for the recommended channelization. Response: a. As discussed with Luiza Pessoa Guazzelli and Emily Rodriguez via email, the crosswalk has been updated accordingly. b. Please see the updated curbline to better channelize the existing drive aisle. bowman.com COMMENT 3 See markups on Sheet D1.0: a. Coordinate parking stall detail with City detail K-3. Hairpin striping to be provided. Response: Comment noted, the detail has been updated to reflect the city detail regarding hairpin striping. Advisory Comments COMMENT 4 At the time the Engineer of Record submits plans for a Land Development Permit (LDP), an in-depth review will take place. The plans shall be in compliance with all Land Development Regulations, the Engineering Design Handbook and Construction Standards (EDHCS) and all other applicable standards and requirements set forth by the city or other public entities having jurisdictional responsibility. Response: Comment noted. COMMENT 5 Permits required from other permitting agencies such as Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Palm Beach County Health Department (PBCHD), Palm Beach County Engineering Department (PBCED), Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resource Management (PBCDERM) and any others, shall be required prior to issuance of a Land Development Permit. Response: Comment noted. Previous submittal provided the SFWMD and LWDD permit. Planning & Zoning – Leticia Sabio Planning & Zoning COMMENT 6 Parking: The required number of parking spaces is calculated incorrectly. The City’s parking ratio is 1 space per 200 sq. ft. Based on the overall improvements: -Total Floor Area: 223,418 sq. ft. -Required Parking: 223,418 ÷ 200 = 1,117.1 spaces (rounded up to 1,118 spaces) bowman.com With a 5% reduction, the requirement number comes up to 1,062 spaces. Indicate this information in the parking data table. The proposed parking count of 1,077 spaces meets the requirement; however, the calculations must be revised to reflect correct information. Additionally, the project narrative shall include a justification for the parking reduction, which shall mention the exactly reduction type and how the project meets the criteria for the reduction. Please review Chapter 4, Article V, Section 3: https://codehub.gridics.com/us/fl/boynton- beach#/b52a8681-8ec5-4491-a61e-6975897761fa/db75a048-e5b7-4762-be65-bd1c0200c179/da2d5dcf-14fa-4462-8da0-15bac4abed8e/dba2ba77-b304-4ca1-a3c5-58a90d142602 Response: Please see the updated parking table that calls out the total parking required parking count and the 5% reduction. Also, please see the updated narrative regarding the parking reduction request. Photometric – Previous comment not fully addressed COMMENT 7 The illumination levels shall not exceed 5.9 footcandles for any spot location reading, excluding those areas where higher lighting levels are required for automated teller machines (ATM) or as identified in crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) (Part III, Chapter 4, Article VII, Section 4.C). Some readings exceed the 5.9 maximum. Please revise photographic plan accordingly. Illumination levels in a few spots still exceeds this limit. If the intent is to meet CPTED, this shall be clearly indicated on the plans and coordinated with the Police Department. Response: Photometric design has been updated to reflect no calc points within the proposed scope of work to exceed 5.9 FC. COMMENT 8 Code requires a minimum average illumination level of one (1) footcandle, with no more than ten percent (10%) of the spot readings below one (1) footcandle and none below one-half (½) footcandle (Part III, Chapter 4, Article VII, Section 3.C). Response: bowman.com Please refer to the updated photometrics noting compliance with averages above 1FC and no calc point falling below 1FC. COMMENT 9 The drawings must indicate that the proposed lighting fixtures will emit warm white lighting. The color temperature of warm white light typically ranges from about 2700K to 3000K on the Kelvin scale. The response letter indicates that the new fixtures provide 3000K lighting, but this information was not found on the plans. Response: The photometric plan has been updated to reflect the proposed lighting to be 3,000K. COMMENT 10 In no instance shall an outdoor free-standing lighting pole exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height unless the height limitation is found to be incompatible with guidelines and/or recommendations of an adopted redevelopment plan or other public works project (Part III, Chapter 4, Article VII, Section 4.D). New light poles shall not exceed 25 feet in height unless intended for CPTED and approved by the Police department. Response: Per discussion with the reviewer, the light poles within the new pickup stalls have been noted as removed and replaced as 37’tall on a 3’ base matching the previously approved plans. Applicant is also requesting a waiver for the light pole heights. COMMENT 11 Provide details of the proposed new lighting fixtures. Ensure the fixtures are baffled, shielded, screened, or recessed to prevent visibility of the lit portion of the fixture from off the premises. Response: Please see the new light pole fixtures. COMMENT 12 Provide photometric plan in a better quality drawing (not image), as staff is unable to determine the location of roads, curbs, parking stalls, etc., within this drawing. bowman.com Response: Please see the updated photometric plan. COMMENT 13 [For reference only] The applicant has elected to provide payment in lieu of replacement to the Tree Canopy Fund as the mitigation option for the removal of the existing oak tree. Please note that tree sizes must be measured in caliper inches (not DBH), as specified. At the time of permitting, this information will need to be updated to calculate the payment in lieu of replacement, which is $250 per caliper inch for trees that are in good or fair conditions. The building permit will only be approved once the City receives a check with the Tree Canopy Fund payment. Response: Comment noted. COMMENT 14 It seems that changes to the elevations are being proposed, as the elevation drawings provided do not seem to match existing conditions. Clarify if repainting and/or any other work to the elevation is being proposed with the scope of this application. If so, include it with the project narrative. Response: The exterior scope involves repainting the outside of the building, removing the existing signage and installing new signage. We are using the existing colors but applying them differently on the building. Both the exterior colors and signage were reviewed and approved in Minor Site Plan Modification 2024.07.61326 on 01/24/2025. The only proposed change between 01/24/2025 and today is the addition of a new tenant sign next to the Home & Pharmacy entrance. This sign is outside of this project’s scope and is to be permitted separately by the franchisee. Utilities – Milot Emile COMMENT 15 Provide a utility Plan or Civil drawings showing all the utilities. Response: bowman.com Please see the utility plan within the civil set showing the utilities within the proposed scope of work area. As discussed with the city on 2/10, the only proposed utility modification is within the area north of the proposed expansion. COMMENT 16 The proposed building expansion is less than 10 feet(required minimum horizontal distance) from the existing water main, as the building overhang is situated within the utility easement. Furthermore, the building foundation is positioned too close to the utility, potentially exerting surcharge pressure on the water main. This condition creates a significant liability and operational hazard. As a municipality, we must prioritize unhindered access for maintenance and ensure the structural integrity of both the utility and the building. While the City could potentially consider a Revocable Encroachment Agreement or a Hold Harmless Agreement, the complexities of this specific conflict make those options unfeasible. Due to the structural risks and operational constraints involved, relocating the water main around the proposed expansion is the City’s required course of action. Response: From discussion with Milot on 2/10, it was determined that Walmart can proceed with the hold harmless agreement without the relocation of the watermain. Please see the attached Hold Harmless Agreement. Public Art – Leticia Sabio (Approved) COMMENT 17 In accordance with City Code, Part III, Chapter 4, Article XIV – Art in Public Places and Public Beautification, the Applicant is required to Payment-In-Lieu of a Public Art Project on-site. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant must pay an administrative fee of thirty percent (30%) of the Public Art Budget to the City's Public Art Fund. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion, the applicant must provide Payment-in-Lieu of a Public Art Project in the amount of sixty percent (60%) of the Public Art Budget to the City’s Public Art Fund. The applicant can choose to pay both the administrative fee and the Payment-in-Lieu of providing a Public Art Project prior to permit issuance to avoid any future delays. If the applicant chooses bowman.com this option, please contact your reviewer so the total fee of ninety percent (90%) of the Public Art Budget (1% of the total construction cost) can be charged to the applicant's application. Please be aware, pursuant to City Code, once a payment is made into the Public Art Fund no refunds are available. Response: Comment Noted. COMMENT 18 During permitting, please complete the new 'Art in Public Places' (AIPP) form as the one submitted is old and no longer in use by the City. The correct AIPP form can be retrieved at: https://www.boynton-beach.org/DocumentCenter/View/873/Art-in-Public-Places-Form?bidId= The AIPP Form must include the Public Art Budget and indicate whether the Applicant will provide a Public Art Project on-site, with a value of seventy percent (70%) of the Public Art Budget, or if the Applicant will provide a Payment-In-Lieu of a Public Art Project paid directly to the City's Public Art Fund with a cost of sixty percent (60%) of the Public Art Budget. Response: Comment Noted. COMMENT 19 Payments for Public Art fees are assessed only during the permitting stage. The previously approved plan with a similar scope of work (2024.07.61326) was also required to submit an Art in Public Places and Public Beautification form and select one of the two available options. During the Minor Site Plan modification stage, all information provided is for reference only. All requirements must be addressed, and payments completed during permitting. Response: Comment Noted. P&Z Reviewer Contact For any inquiries or clarification regarding my review comments, please contact Leticia Sabio, Planner I, at SabioL@bbfl.us or by phone at 561-742-6258. Email is the preferred method of communication, as it allows me to provide the most accurate information. When resubmitting, be sure to include a letter responding to each review comment. bowman.com If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (321) 270-8990, or send an email to Walmart-Remodel@bowman.com . Thank you, Jacquie Pedevillano Project Manager Bowman