iPic Meeting
The debate Monday night before the Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Board was weird.
It wasn’t weird because of the public comments about the iPic project, although that portion of the meeting had its predictable share of weird moments. More than one speaker, directly and indirectly, accused the unpaid board members or city commissioners or both of being bought off by iPic, whose project is formally called Fourth and Fifth Delray. “Just go ahead and approve it,” grumped one man.
He implied that things had been greased. iPic CEO Hamid Hashemi might have been thinking to himself, “If only.” In fact, the board voted down Fourth and Fifth Delray, despite staff recommendations for approval of added height and abandonment of an alley. Hashemi’s only chance is an appeal to the city commission.
The debate was weird because Delray Beach should not have been at this point. It has been nearly two years since the community redevelopment agency (CRA) chose iPic to develop the site that once was home to Delray Beach’s library and chamber of commerce. It has been even longer since the first plan—for a hotel—fell through.
Because city commissioners appoint CRA board members, one would assume that the thinking of the CRA aligns reasonably well with the thinking of the commission. One would assume that the CRA vetted the Fourth and Fifth project, and then concluded that it had a reasonable chance of commission approval because of what would be good for the city in that location. The CRA owns the site, but the commission has final say on the project.
Instead, Delray Beach is where the city was Monday night, with opinion divided about iPic but passions running high. Architect and former City Commissioner Gary Eliopoulos got so emotional as he praised the project that he turned to the audience and began preaching. Board Chairman Robin Bird had to remind him, “Gary, we’re over here.”
Despite the hyperbole—one speaker described relatively small development projects as “monsters”—several speakers made credible points.
One of those speakers was Bonnie Miskel, iPic’s Boca Raton-based attorney. The company wanted conditional use approval for a 60-foot building where the rules limit height to 48 feet. To accommodate the first-floor, eight-screen boutique theater and its projection equipment, Miskel said, iPic needs nearly 30 feet. The next two floors would each be 15 feet.
That added height, however, would not mean added density. Indeed, Fourth and Fifth Delray would be 90,000 square feet overall—30,000 square feet less than if the project were shorter but denser. iPic was asking for far less than the legal maximum.
The most credible opponents focused on traffic and parking. iPic cited its study—based on the company’s theater at Mizner Park in Boca Raton—that traffic would be manageable because the company staggers showtimes. No two theaters would let out patrons at the same time.
Problem: iPic also argued that the project would bring business to downtown merchants—especially during their summer slow time, which is when the movie business picks up. For that to happen, moviegoers would have to stay longer. Their cars would stay in the parking garage. Where would the later-coming patrons park? iPic’s argument about traffic thus became an argument against the project.
Hashemi, though, has a legitimate gripe about the process—a gripe that could lead to a lawsuit, whether or not he appeals. He has two years of expense into the project, having followed the request for proposal the CRA issued. Because a movie theater is not a permitted use downtown under Delray’s master plan, the CRA should have made sure that the project would be compatible.
Instead, iPic’s representatives struggled Monday night to explain how traffic would flow reasonably well, even with the company buying another property to the southwest. Ultimately, they couldn’t persuade the board that the project’s traffic plan would work. Many speakers also referenced Atlantic Crossing, which would be just a block to the east but much larger, with other traffic issues. Two speakers even ripped iPic’s sleek, contemporary design, which I considered impressive. The project also would bring iPic’s corporate office and Class A office space that downtown Delray lacks.
Hashemi will decide his next move. Delray Beach’s leaders must review why the city needlessly got to Monday night’s weirdness.
Land use for library site
Despite Monday night’s vote, Delray Beach continues to debate the legal issue of whether former city property can be conveyed for use as part of the iPic project or any project on that downtown site. Last week, the debate got as testy as it did Monday night on the project itself.
The issue before the city commission was whether to amend an agreement among the city, the community redevelopment agency and the chamber of commerce. The agreement sets the payment schedule from the CRA to the former sites of the chamber and the Delray Beach library.
The CRA voted in 2013 to convey the land to iPic upon commission approval of the project. Commissioners Shelly Petrolia and Mitch Katz, however, have questioned whether the transfer would be legal. Among other things, they question the commission vote last July that added two small properties to the site.
According to a memo at the time from the city’s legal staff, the properties should have been included in the 2004 swap that gave the CRA the chamber and library sites. The memo referred to approval of the quitclaim deed as “time-sensitive” because of the developer’s “time line.” The transaction was described as basically a housekeeping issue. Unanimous commission approval made the properties public right-of-ways.
Last week, the commission was supposed to decide whether to accept an additional $1 million in repayment from the CRA this year, a move that also would save the CRA about $200,000 in interest costs. Most of the discussion, however, focused on the legal questions that Commissioner Jordana Jarjura called “not rational.” She also referred to commission “paranoia.”
Petrolia responded by saying that the 2014 vote was “not done properly” and criticized “the answers I’m getting” from the city attorney’s office. Perhaps Jarjura, Petrolia said, believed that those answers provided her with enough information to make a decision “based on what’s in the best interest of this town, but it’s not to me.”
In an email, Jarjura said the discussion “turned into a debate on iPic rather than what it actually was—an additional $1 million payment into our general fund this year.” The commission, she said, “has complete discretion on whether or not to approve that development.” The meeting “was nothing but political posturing.”
At the meeting, Glickstein agreed with Jarjura that the debate became “a proxy” for the iPic debate. Glickstein also agreed with Petrolia, however, that the 2014 item “wasn’t presented accurately.” The issue preceded the current city attorney and city manager. So Glickstein joined Petrolia, Katz and Al Jacquet in deferring the vote to amend the agreement.
Part of the Petrolia-Jarjura dispute is perspective. Jarjura is not just a lawyer; she’s a land-use lawyer. Petrolia is not a lawyer. From the wider city perspective, Delray Beach needs fewer of these dangling questions that stem from questionable work by city staff. Pfeffer and Cooper didn’t cause these problems, but their priority should be to make sure they have stopped.
Randy Schultz was born in Hartford, Conn., and graduated from the University of Tennessee in 1974. He has lived in South Florida since then, and in Boca Raton since 1985. Schultz spent nearly 40 years in daily journalism at the Miami Herald and Palm Beach Post, most recently as editorial page editor at the Post. His wife, Shelley, is director of The Learning Network at Pine Crest School. His son, an attorney, and daughter-in-law and three grandchildren also live in Boca Raton. His daughter is a veterinarian who lives in Baltimore.
