• Ira Kaylin

    The comments previously stated should be reinstated.

    I attended the City Council meeting and concur fully with Mr. Khanmalek’s observations. It should be noted that the four speakers who objected to all or part of the project were the following : a neighborhood concern that the side of building facing Park Ave., the City’s ceremonial street will utilize a lower quality of siding
    that fails to meet the City’s Special Exception Guidelines; Mr. Khanmalek
    pointed out that the Kensington represents a permanent under utilization of
    scarce downtown commercial space since retail is limited (only 4% of total sq.
    ft,) and lacks parking for even that small amount of retail space (the proposal
    is about 40% short of City requirements). The other two speakers, including
    myself, demonstrated that the Kensington does not produce enough financial
    benefit to justify the Special Exception.

    In particular I mentioned that the City’s Staff Report had “Cherry picked” data when it stated that the Kensington was in the same league as the top financial performers of recently approved Special Exception projects (eg. Harris Teeter, Reserve at Tinner Hill, and the Hilton Garden). Actually, in terms of direct benefit to TAXPAYERS it is the 7th lowest performer (out of 10) after deducting the$120,000 of tax revenue the City collects from the current site occupant (Burger King). The 8th lowest performer is a project from the same developer as the Kensington.

    The City Manager justified the City’s approach on the basis that “it has always been done that way”.

Back to top
mobile desktop