The Lane - Mixed-Use Development - News & Updates
- May 23, 2011 12:07 am at 12:07 am #86678
Resident says dry precinct could resolve parking problem
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
By ANDREW MILLER
ThisWeek Community Newspapers
Residents close to the Lane Avenue commercial district are concerned about on-street parking in their neighborhood and see changes to liquor licensing law as a possible solution.
“A Grape Juice Bistro would not generate the overflow parking The Wine Bistro does at present,” Chester Road resident Hu McCulloch wrote in an email to ThisWeek.
McCulloch has said that the group of residents he represents in that area would “reluctantly exercise the Local (Liquor) Option and vote (precinct 3-C) dry this November” if city council votes to repeal the contested permit parking on residential side streets along Lane Avenue per section 311.07 of the city traffic code.May 23, 2011 12:35 am at 12:35 am #445805
“Unfortunately, voting 3-C dry is a very indirect and clumsy way to address what is really a parking issue,” McCulloch wrote. “Pre-2002 establishments that responsibly put in adequate parking would regrettably be adversely affected, but residents are desperate to protect their children, their neighborhoods and their investments in their homes.”
This guy apparently doesn’t realize how ridiculous that sounds. Guess he didn’t want Clintonville to get all of the glory for local political absurdity.May 23, 2011 2:39 am at 2:39 am #445806
I do feel for the people right by all this stuff. Previous uses were much less intense and this kind of change will definitely hurt property values.May 23, 2011 3:37 am at 3:37 am #445807
Really? Having a busy restaurant nearby lowers property values? It’s not a strip club. The Short North has dozens of busy restaurants I don’t see the nearby residential property values declining.
I think having the liquor licenses revoked from La Chatelaine, Easy Living, Piada, Pizza Hut, Speedway and The Wine Bistro would be pretty likely to close some or all of those businesses.
An abandoned retail corridor would really help those residential property values to skyrocket.May 23, 2011 3:40 am at 3:40 am #445808
I’m not sure how this works in Upper Arlington, but in Columbus I don’t think it’s an impossible procedure to have parking restrictions applied in residential areas to prevent commercial use. I have to imagine that’s a better solution than revoking the liquor license of every business in that area, especially if it’s only a parking issue and not an alcohol-related issue.May 23, 2011 4:22 am at 4:22 am #445809
I think that is all they want…May 23, 2011 10:23 am at 10:23 am #445810
Why don’t they just make it illegal to drive a car in UA unless you live there? Then they’d have loads of parking.May 23, 2011 2:43 pm at 2:43 pm #445811
I want to live in a thriving area. Without all the thriving.May 23, 2011 2:46 pm at 2:46 pm #445812
Roland wrote >>
I want to live in a thriving area. Without all the thriving.
‘Zacly.May 23, 2011 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm #445813
If I read the article correctly, that is a bit of a stretch.
The residents don’t have a problem with the current thriving – and it seems to be thriving. What they do have a problem with is the potential of Council *changing* the status quo to remove the resident-only restrictions on street parking.
The article is (typically for the source) poorly researched. I suspect the main points of contention are the undeclared development plans and the newer parcel (which includes the Wine Guy Bistro) not having sufficient parking on their site. The business on the S side of Lane have parking and the older businesses like Pizza Hut and Le Chatelaine do as well. Left wholly ignored is whether businesses like the Wine Guy have asked for the changes or if the Council is planning ahead for what they assume is going to occur.
A.May 25, 2011 4:25 pm at 4:25 pm #445814
Common Sense CitizenMember
1. As a reporter/writer for a newspaper, I would think it would be prudent for you to report the facts and refrain from publicly expressing your personal opinions on a matter on which you wrote. Journalists have a code of conduct, and I question whether by posting here you are violating ethical tenants of the profession. You are free to express your opinion, but not if you are posing as a journalist at the same time. This also makes me question what other journalistic standards of conduct you are or have been violating.
2. Your article does not include all of the facts. As we speak, the City of UA is in violation of the law by not having the “Parking by Permit Only” signs up, signs which were taken down several years ago. That is all the residents are asking for, namely to have them returned to their legally-appointed place. The city has misled everyone as to why they were taken down and have not been returned.
You, yourself, said “I’m not sure how this works in Upper Arlington, but in Columbus I don’t think it’s an impossible procedure to have parking restrictions applied in residential areas to prevent commercial use.” Do your homework and ask city officials why the signs aren’t up when they legally should be there. THAT is the story you should be writing.
3. This is a huge safety issue. Wine Bistro patrons are whipping up and down the streets and turning around in driveways in order to secure a rare parking spot. Would you let your child play in your yard/driveway with this kind of manic behavior going on?
4. If you bother to do some research, you will find that the Wine Bistro has two locations, one in UA and one in Worthington. Critical here is the ratio of parking square footage to building square footage. I am not going to do your homework for you. Go to the Franklin County Auditor’s webpage and look at the stats for each, and report on what you uncover. This facility should never have been approved in the first place due to the dearth of off-street parking space available.
Are you truly a journalist or are you merely a shill/pawn for City officials?May 25, 2011 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #445815
lol @ wine bistro patrons driving like “maniacs” and “whipping up and down the streets”
did you have an extra shot in your venti carmel macciato while driving your saab this morning?May 25, 2011 4:54 pm at 4:54 pm #445816
And I thought I had neighborhood issues.
@Common Sense Citizen, PM me about putting code enforcement on speed dial.May 25, 2011 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm #445817
Common Sense Citizen wrote >>
1. As a reporter/writer for a newspaper, I would think it would be prudent for you to report the facts and refrain from publicly expressing your personal opinions on a matter on which you wrote. Journalists have a code of conduct, and I question whether by posting here you are violating ethical tenants of the profession.
Uhm… Mr. Miller didn’t post anything here.May 25, 2011 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm #445818
Common Sense Citizen wrote >>
You, yourself, said “I’m not sure how this works in Upper Arlington, but in Columbus I don’t think it’s an impossible procedure to have parking restrictions applied in residential areas to prevent commercial use.”
No. I said that. I’m not Andrew Miller. Why would you even think that?
The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.