Wow, didn't realize how much the time the board spent sitting around knit-picking about things like number and size of signs. If only the city had that much concern for detail when it came to fixing our roads.

Unless Mr. Mail has actually been to Afghanistan or is, for some reason, an authority on Afghani airports, I find his comment about the proposed design to be a rather needless and insensitive comment. Yes, it was an otherwise nondescript meeting of a less-prominent governmental organization, but that's not how we should want our city officials commenting when it comes to city business. Would we want them saying insensitive phrases like "Chinese fire drill" or "Indian giver"? No, and, barring Mr. Mail having some sort of personal experience with Afghani airports, it seems like he made a similarly offensive comment.

For the sake of research, here's what Afghani airport towers look like:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Airport_towers_in_Afghanistan

You'll find they look just like those in this country.

7 spaces is fine - works well for Continental Grill and also Circle K. Furthermore, when you buy a house near a commercially-zoned street, this is what you should expect - Dave Schumann needs to stop complaining.

Mr. Mail, you've managed to turn an otherwise run-of-the-mill article into into a forum for your stupidity. Obviously you are entitled to your own opinion. If you don't like the building, fine. Why insult others? You are in a position to represent Kent and what you say really does matter.

Perhaps it DOES resemble an airport tower, Afghanistani or elsewhere, although on a much shorter scale. Have the critics of Mr. Mail seen any plans for the building?
It is not nice to call Mr. Mail stupid and an imbecile. He moved into the community a few years ago and is a credit to the community.
Must be democrats. Republicans and independents are generally much more civil!

The mockups of the building are included in the story. If it does resemble an airport tower, then why not just say so? The use of "Afghani" was obviously pejorative.
It has nothing to do with political party.

Yeah, what does this have to do with political party?

Joseph and Cy: Do we know for certain that Mail isn't a vet who has seen Kabul Airport up close and personally, and that it is possibly the airport tower with which he is most familiar? J: IMHO, your litany of racial slurs is far more offensive than the original comment (for which we don't know the background).

Sarah: I'm so glad the commission did nit-pick. Their job is to make sure that development in Kent is a welcome addition.

No, Mr. Paxton, I abandoned unquestioning loyalty to the republican party many, many years ago, and finally identified myself as an independent voter. I am basically still of a conservative nature but am far from being a right-winger.
It just really bothers me that someone calls a person an imbecile when knowing little or nothing about that person.
By the way, I did not refer to all democrats as being uncivil.

"Have the critics of Mr. Mail seen any plans for the building?" Yes, they are in the photos accompanying this article. The comment made by Mr. Mail was inappropriate whether one likes or dislikes the look of the building. I have attended a number of BZA meetings and am always discouraged when comments such as these are made by board members or citizens. I think it is FABULOUS that DD is coming into town and will attempt to limit my donut intake to no more than 3 per week.

The first thing that comes to my mind over this proposed project is, I will see more litter with the Dunkin' Donuts logo on it filtering down route 59 and not just the other conglomerate food chains'.

@Laurel,
Obviously, not every reference to race or culture or nationality is insulting. Let's not be ridiculous with the "Chinese Garden" example. If you were saying you disliked the garden, and used "Chinese" in the pejorative, then it would at least be considered insensitive. The way the story is reported it seems as though Mr. Mail was using Afghani as an insult. The context here matters and, as Joseph said, the reporter should have realized this an done a better job of clarifying his comments.

If Mr. Mail's intent was to make people lose sight of the fact the zoning board set a dangerous precedent by allowing an overbuilt structure that breaks 6 different zoning codes, he has succeeded. It's disappointing that we are dissecting an offhand comment and not looking at the decision they thought out.

These zoning rules are set in place for a reason, one would think. So what's the point if we're just going to allow anything that's proposed? Now that they have set a precedent that businesses can have 4 signs and not 2, what's stopping everyone else? What if a coffee drive-thru wants to use the old Robin Hood land? Can their building go right up to the sidewalk? Do they not need ample parking? How can a business staff 8 employees and provide 7 parking spaces? The list of questions that are relevant to the future of our city is lengthy. But let's focus on if Mr. Mail has travelled outside the country. Unbelievable. Well, actually, sadly predictable.

The city will regret not following the ordinance of ten parking places. One when the students are here it is crowded, unless someone thought parking tickents and towing would let some people make a little money. Wreaks that will make others some money. Why are they trying to squeeze a building in a small area, oh yeah money. Despite the negatives which plenty abound. The ones who are suppose to make logical decisions for the betterment of our community just jump on dumb train. I hope you got paid under the table for this one, nothing else makes sense.

I think Duncan Donuts should be prohibed from building on such a small lot and they must stand their ground and demand that the 10 spaces must remain. The liter all over a pretty city is brought there by messy students. People have no pride in their neighborhoods any more. Tell Duncan Donuts to find another lot to build.

well problem is all seven parking spaces will be taken up by the kent police cars wont be any room for people who want a doughnut and drive by

Seems to me that this company has come in with a reasonable request, which, at worst, will only really affect their bottom line. The commission did well in limiting signs and considering the potential issues with parking, and made an informed decision. A good compromise is a better end than a derelict gas station. (full disclosure, I park in the Rockwell lot for work, and will likely be inconvenienced by non-permit holding donut lovers)

Sure, there are lots of alternatives available, but I don't see anyone else whipping out their checkbook or running for a post on the zoning commission (but someone should, since Mr. Mail is tone deaf and a little coarse for the job).