The Vault - Art or Signs?

[willie_57]

Julie Cole has decided that the artwork that the owner of The Vault has placed on the exterior of her business (The old First National Bank) are officially signs, and therefore, should not have been placed there. As city planner, or whatever her official designation, it is within her rights to make this decision. I just happen to disagree with it. I thought the various images added a bit of life and color to the exterior of the business, and will be disappointed if the owner is forced to remove them.

[james_t]

The story the Herald had on that is here, if anyone wants some background:

http://www.heraldrepublicanonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3289:Decision-on-signs-upheld&catid=51:latest&Itemid=53

[blue adept]

Julie Cole has decided that the artwork that the owner of The Vault has placed on the exterior of her business (The old First National Bank) are officially signs, and therefore, should not have been placed there. As city planner, or whatever her official designation, it is within her rights to make this decision. I just happen to disagree with it. I thought the various images added a bit of life and color to the exterior of the business, and will be disappointed if the owner is forced to remove them.


The story the Herald had on that is here, if anyone wants some background:

http://www.heraldrepublicanonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3289:Decision-on-signs-upheld&catid=51:latest&Itemid=53

This is the kind of Crapola I have been talking about. Historical preservation ordinances can force you to do very stupid things, and allow one or more people that do not have any financial responsibility, to tell you what you can, or cannot do to your building.

[michael medeski]

Julie Cole has decided that the artwork that the owner of The Vault has placed on the exterior of her business (The old First National Bank) are officially signs, and therefore, should not have been placed there. As city planner, or whatever her official designation, it is within her rights to make this decision. I just happen to disagree with it. I thought the various images added a bit of life and color to the exterior of the business, and will be disappointed if the owner is forced to remove them.

good topic willie. maybe julie cole does not want anything looking better, distracting, or taking money away from potential customers that might spend money at her business. seems like a conflict of interest. one can't help but think it gives her some biased perspective on deciding things. it does seem she is the only person that decides what is right for downtown. to be fair all business owners should have a say in what is right or wrong or what improvements get done. take a vote among all of them and let them decide what goes on there.

[Thorman]

Have any of you actually checked to see what the ordinance says regarding signs? I think that the rules regarding signs must be clear since the BZA followed them in its ruling. The H-R article reported that The Vault signs needed a variance as Julie Cole said the ordinance required. The BZA backed Cole on her decision. It now seems to me that the ball is in The Vault's corner regarding their signs. They simply have to go through the process to get a variance as would everyone else in that situation. No special treatment should be given because these signs are considered by some to be "art." Rules are rules.

In addition, let us be clear on something: Julie Cole is not the only person deciding things regarding uptown. There is the Plan Commission, the BZA, the Downtown Improvement group, the historical commission, the City Council, the mayor, INDOT, etc., all involved in making decisions regarding the downtown in PUBLIC meetings. There have been plenty of opportunities for people to contribute to decisions regarding downtown, including signs/"art." As the city planner it is Julie Cole's job to enforce the rules as they were written. But now she takes heat because she is simply doing her job. At the same time some other people accuse her of some wrongdoing or ulterior motives without any proof in this forum. That seems to me to be unfair to her and the governmental process in Angola.

And somewhat of a cheap shot.

[blue adept]

Have any of you actually checked to see what the ordinance says regarding signs? I think that the rules regarding signs must be clear since the BZA followed them in its ruling. The H-R article reported that The Vault signs needed a variance as Julie Cole said the ordinance required. The BZA backed Cole on her decision. It now seems to me that the ball is in The Vault's corner regarding their signs. They simply have to go through the process to get a variance as would everyone else in that situation. No special treatment should be given because these signs are considered by some to be "art." Rules are rules.

In addition, let us be clear on something: Julie Cole is not the only person deciding things regarding uptown. There is the Plan Commission, the BZA, the Downtown Improvement group, the historical commission, the City Council, the mayor, INDOT, etc., all involved in making decisions regarding the downtown in PUBLIC meetings. There have been plenty of opportunities for people to contribute to decisions regarding downtown, including signs/"art." As the city planner it is Julie Cole's job to enforce the rules as they were written. But now she takes heat because she is simply doing her job. At the same time some other people accuse her of some wrongdoing or ulterior motives without any proof in this forum. That seems to me to be unfair to her and the governmental process in Angola.

And somewhat of a cheap shot.

I don't think you are looking at the real problem here. Historical preservation ordinances, automatically look at anything not "Historical" in an unfavorable light. {ie. "SIgns"} I agree that Ms. Cloe is just doing her job, but the problem is, they did not stop their council from passing a Historical Preservation Ordinance. Now you know why I am So against one here in K-ville!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[michael medeski]

In addition, let us be clear on something: Julie Cole is not the only person deciding things regarding uptown. There is the Plan Commission, the BZA, the Downtown Improvement group, the historical commission, the City Council, the mayor, INDOT, etc.,


i must have missed all those other people in the downtown infomercial they made. how come the business owners do not have a say in what goes on? do you think property taxes will go up for them? do you think the planned parking arrangement is what is best for every business?

bottom line, it's ridiculous that they can't hang up some art to make things look a little better. i thought that's what they wanted, "to make the downtown look better". all they are doing is making it difficult for them. seems like a waste of time and taxpayer money for everyone involved. where have i heard that before?:hmmmm:

[matt_s]

There are tons of reasons that communities have sign ordinances. Sometimes they are to protect sight lines. Sometimes they are for a common aesthetic appearance. Sometimes they are for safety reason. Sometimes they are to preserve a historical vision of the community. I've seen ordinances that apply to each of those reasons.

I've never witnessed a community enacting a sign ordinance out of spite. So I doubt it was enacted specifically to target the signs/art/whatever in question today. Ordinances are voted on in public session and usually require multiple readings to pass. So I'm betting that people had the opportunity to comment on these ordinances.

I don't know the wording of the ordinance in Angola nor do I know why it was enacted. But, it has been enacted. It is the duty of the city to enforce the ordinance once an issue has been reported or noticed. They are enforcing it. The ball is in the Vault's court to apply for a variance.

[LuciusBeebe]

I'm all for a town deciding what the business can display. People will cry "property rights!" until a business owner displays a giant sculpture of Obama, then they'll cry to the commissioner.

[matt_s]

I'm all for a town deciding what the business can display. People will cry "property rights!" until a business owner displays a giant sculpture of Obama, then they'll cry to the commissioner.

Unless of course somebody tries to put up the 10 commandments first.

[LuciusBeebe]

And you know this, man.

[RaceFan]

Remember when stores used to have advertisements painted on their outside walls and barns used to have tobacco advertisements painted on the ends.
I always thought that looked sorta tacky.

[jims]

The Pizza Forum is no longer owned by Julie Cole or her husband.

[Thorman]

The Pizza Forum is no longer owned by Julie Cole or her husband.

But wait,...that information would not allow me to continue to suggest that Cole has evil ulterior motives in her decisions. I know! I will ignore reality so that I continue to make statements on this forum intended to impugn someone else. I mean, come on, kneejerk reactions are more fun and are guaranteed to get someone upset.

Now that is sarcasm ... or is it entertainment? I'll get back to you on that. :)

[michael medeski]

The Pizza Forum is no longer owned by Julie Cole or her husband.

good. allow me to do the honers then :footmouth: although, i swore i remember reading they just opened a new one somewhere not too long ago.

thorman, do you work for the city? it seems you take things very personal when the downtown or city gets brought up.

[blue adept]

The Pizza Forum is no longer owned by Julie Cole or her husband.

I bet the building is!

[blue adept]

There are tons of reasons that communities have sign ordinances. Sometimes they are to protect sight lines. Sometimes they are for a common aesthetic appearance. Sometimes they are for safety reason. Sometimes they are to preserve a historical vision of the community. I've seen ordinances that apply to each of those reasons.

I've never witnessed a community enacting a sign ordinance out of spite. So I doubt it was enacted specifically to target the signs/art/whatever in question today. Ordinances are voted on in public session and usually require multiple readings to pass. So I'm betting that people had the opportunity to comment on these ordinances.

I don't know the wording of the ordinance in Angola nor do I know why it was enacted. But, it has been enacted. It is the duty of the city to enforce the ordinance once an issue has been reported or noticed. They are enforcing it. The ball is in the Vault's court to apply for a variance.

And why do people that do not pay for those buildings get to decide what an owner can do with his "historically" significant building?

[michael medeski]

I bet the building is!

i don't know, but if that's the case, there still would be a business interest there.

[blue adept]

i don't know, but if that's the case, there still would be a business interest there.

Mr. and Mrs. Cole started a Pizza Forum here in K-ville too. They sold the business, but still own the building.

[matt_s]

And why do people that do not pay for those buildings get to decide what an owner can do with his "historically" significant building?
Gee, I don't know, for the continued good of the community. Do you think people should be able to build any kind of building or conduct any kind of business on any property they own? Community planning and zoning already limits what people can do with their properties. Most people already see this as a good thing. This is done to protect property values of neighboring properties. In the case of a historical district it is often done to make a community eligible for government funds for development. It sometimes allows for a growth in tourism dollars and a variety of other benefits to the community as a whole. Sometimes it looks nice too. But this isn't something that is simply foisted upon a community. The district was open to public debate at some time before it was enacted and the pros and cons were weighed.

I think if somebody doesn't like a historical district, the time to stop one from being developed is before it is enacted (Kendallville has this opportunity now). If, someone buys a business already located in one, then they they knew what they were getting in to or didn't do the proper due diligence.

[denali]

I personally love the artwork on The Vault. If they violate a sign ordinance a variance is required. I firmly believe in sign ordinances and actually wish that Steuben County had stricter sign ordinances. Drive down North Wayne street and you will quickly see that our sign ordinances are not too strict.

If the signs/artwork violate the ordinance, they violate the ordinance. Good for our planners for doing their job.

[james_t]

Mr. and Mrs. Cole started a Pizza Forum here in K-ville too. They sold the business, but still own the building.

I'm told that's the case in Angola as well.

[michael medeski]

I'm told that's the case in Angola as well.

But wait,...that information would allow me to continue to suggest that Cole has ulterior motives in her decisions. I know! I will ignore reality and think the city can do no wrong so that I can continue to make statements when i have no clue what i'm takling about. i mean come on who cares about freedom of speech?

[Thorman]

But wait,...that information would allow me to continue to suggest that Cole has ulterior motives in her decisions. I know! I will ignore reality and think the city can do no wrong so that I can continue to make statements when i have no clue what i'm takling about. i mean come on who cares about freedom of speech?

Oh please, we all care about the freedom of speech or we would not be using this forum. At the same time we all have some responsibility in our comments on the forum to prove statements. That is the unwritten rule of the First Amendment.

Again, I will ask: where is your proof that Cole has done anything wrong in her enforcement of the sign ordinance? Proof of her bias? Monetary gain? Do you have anything? Or will you continue to insinuate wrongdoing without proof?

[michael medeski]

Oh please, we all care about the freedom of speech or we would not be using this forum. At the same time we all have some responsibility in our comments on the forum to prove statements. That is the unwritten rule of the First Amendment.

Again, I will ask: where is your proof that Cole has done anything wrong in her enforcement of the sign ordinance? Proof of her bias? Monetary gain? Do you have anything? Or will you continue to insinuate wrongdoing without proof?

if you look at my first post, i said maybe and put in bold. i'm merely offering a suggestion. i never said it was set in stone or had to be true. do you have proof there is not a bias on any of the decisions she makes?

[Thorman]

if you look at my first post, i said maybe and put in bold. i'm merely offering a suggestion. i never said it was set in stone or had to be true. do you have proof there is not a bias on any of the decisions she makes?

You are clearly smart enough to know that it is impossible to prove a negative; however, I am sure that there are records or minutes taken at every meeting that is held by a governmental body. Any attempt at prejudice against any person or group would be clearly noticeable by any one at the public meeting, including members of the media who would be there to report on the meeting. That is why all such decisions are made at a public meeting. A prejudicial decision or one influenced unduly by anyone would be reported immediately by the newspaper and/or radio people there. We would all know.

Such thoughts are also a disservice to all those people who serve on those boards. Go talk to any member of the BZA and see if they were unduly influenced by Cole. Deep in your heart you have to know that everyone was simply doing their duty to the community and requiring The Vault to get a variance for their signs as called for by the sign ordinance.

[michael medeski]

You are clearly smart enough to know that it is impossible to prove a negative; however, I am sure that there are records or minutes taken at every meeting that is held by a governmental body. Any attempt at prejudice against any person or group would be clearly noticeable by any one at the public meeting, including members of the media who would be there to report on the meeting. That is why all such decisions are made at a public meeting. A prejudicial decision or one influenced unduly by anyone would be reported immediately by the newspaper and/or radio people there. We would all know.


one would hope so. we may never know.:hmmmm:

[blue adept]

Gee, I don't know, for the continued good of the community. Do you think people should be able to build any kind of building or conduct any kind of business on any property they own? Community planning and zoning already limits what people can do with their properties. Most people already see this as a good thing. This is done to protect property values of neighboring properties. In the case of a historical district it is often done to make a community eligible for government funds for development. It sometimes allows for a growth in tourism dollars and a variety of other benefits to the community as a whole. Sometimes it looks nice too. But this isn't something that is simply foisted upon a community. The district was open to public debate at some time before it was enacted and the pros and cons were weighed.

I think if somebody doesn't like a historical district, the time to stop one from being developed is before it is enacted (Kendallville has this opportunity now). If, someone buys a business already located in one, then they they knew what they were getting in to or didn't do the proper due diligence.

Apparently you do not know how this is being done. they are asking for input, but in the end, the city council gets to decide for all of us, even if they don't own affected property. Kinda like our Dept. heads that keep asking for more and more equipment when they know they are not paying the taxes for them. I did not buy property in an area were this was already in place, and yes it is being foisted on us!

[matt_s]

Apparently you do not know how this is being done. they are asking for input, but in the end, the city council gets to decide for all of us, even if they don't own affected property. Kinda like our Dept. heads that keep asking for more and more equipment when they know they are not paying the taxes for them. I did not buy property in an area were this was already in place, and yes it is being foisted on us!
Ah the joys of a representative form of government. I am very sure I do know how it is done. I worked for a municipality for 2 years and had the responsibility of representing our department (EDC) at every council meeting. I also served on the community's cable oversight committee. This doesn't work any differently than any other rule or ordinance enacted by the council that you are still subject to. We don't get to pick and choose which ordinances we will obey just because we don't like them. As you obviously don't support these ordinances, I'm sure you are working to have them removed. I wish you luck in this quest. Hopefully you are raising enough awareness of the problems here and in other venues that those who feel as you do can achieve this. Unless of course you are in the minority.

[Torget]

Getting back on topic.....

I took a good look at the alleged "signs" today. Noting that the items in question are nothing more than landscape pictures with no wording, advertising, or message of any sort on them, and after actually checking with Websters on the true definition of "sign" and "art". the displays in question are undeniably ART! Now, if there is an ordinance against displaying art or pictures, then I can see a reason for concern. But as I haven't accessed the ordinance being imposed, I do not know if this is the case or not.

I see nothing wrong with the pictures as they are, where they are.

[matt_s]

For Reference

Steuben Co. Ordinances (signs are section 14) (http://www.co.steuben.in.us/departments/plan_commission/plan_documents_view.aspx?app=4&id=ae9ccfd0-b150-4378-ae70-7cd6aec3b607&pn=departments%2fplan_commission%2fplan_documents_ list)

Angola Historical District Design Guidelines (http://www.angolain.org/Downloads/Planner/DesignGuidelinesAngolaDraft.pdf)

I couldn't find a sign ordinance for the city of Angola

[blue adept]

Ah the joys of a representative form of government. I am very sure I do know how it is done. I worked for a municipality for 2 years and had the responsibility of representing our department (EDC) at every council meeting. I also served on the community's cable oversight committee. This doesn't work any differently than any other rule or ordinance enacted by the council that you are still subject to. We don't get to pick and choose which ordinances we will obey just because we don't like them. As you obviously don't support these ordinances, I'm sure you are working to have them removed. I wish you luck in this quest. Hopefully you are raising enough awareness of the problems here and in other venues that those who feel as you do can achieve this. Unless of course you are in the minority.

I don't know of two many ordinance's that can remove property owner rights. This ordinance can make you remove a deck that you had erected, make you change your windows [at your expense of course] or any other change they decide on. Sounds a little like Fascism to me.

[michael medeski]

Getting back on topic.....

I took a good look at the alleged "signs" today. Noting that the items in question are nothing more than landscape pictures with no wording, advertising, or message of any sort on them, and after actually checking with Websters on the true definition of "sign" and "art". the displays in question are undeniably ART! Now, if there is an ordinance against displaying art or pictures, then I can see a reason for concern. But as I haven't accessed the ordinance being imposed, I do not know if this is the case or not.

I see nothing wrong with the pictures as they are, where they are.

i agree. they are not near as gaudy as some of the signs business put in their window's or hang up. BFD! why make it hard for them. one would think they have better things to police and do with their time?

i wonder who complained about them in the first place? someone obviously does not appreciate art and has a problem with the way things are decorated.

[matt_s]

I don't know of two many ordinance's that can remove property owner rights. This ordinance can make you remove a deck that you had erected, make you change your windows [at your expense of course] or any other change they decide on. Sounds a little like Fascism to me.
Normally (I should preface this with - all such ordinances that I have dealt with), these ordinances would be similar to a building code. If you have a structure, sign, or improvement on your property it is fine until you change it. But, once you change it, it becomes subject to the new ordinance. I have never heard of an ordinance that requires changes at enactment unless there is some public safety issue. I'm not saying this isn't the case, I've just never heard of one that was successfully passed. Communities have tried to enact them but they were shot down in court appeals.

My understanding is that it works like this. Let's say the new sign ordinance says that neon is verboten. You have a neon sign. It is fine until you make a change to the sign. At the time you make a change to the sign the new sign must follow the new ordinance. This is no different than with building codes. If you were up to code on some facet of your building, if the code changes, when you make an improvement, the improvement must meet the new code.

[sophie8386]

I believe the problem with the Vault's pictures is not the pictures themselves but that the owner did not follow the proper procedure before hanging them. When anyone starts a business in any town there are certain zoning regulations you have to follow...I don't care where you live.
The sign ordinance for Angola is in the "City of Angola Unified Development Ordinance" on the City Website.

http://www.angolain.org/Planning/Downloads/AngolaUDO2009_03_08.pdf

[evilkumquat]

In these posted ordinances, I missed the part where signs are defined (possibly because I was too lazy to do more than a cursory examination).

What is the definition of a "sign" as determined by the relevant ordinances?

Isn't that the question in this situation after all?

Are signs defined as promotional structures with a clear commercial message, or are they defined as anything posted with a non-permanent or non-integral nature?

In other words: because the pictures the Vault screwed into the walls weren't part of the building's original structure, are they considered "signs" even though they convey absolutely zero commercial messages?

[matt_s]

In some communities, a sign is defined any non-structural attachment to a building.

[blue adept]

Normally (I should preface this with - all such ordinances that I have dealt with), these ordinances would be similar to a building code. If you have a structure, sign, or improvement on your property it is fine until you change it. But, once you change it, it becomes subject to the new ordinance. I have never heard of an ordinance that requires changes at enactment unless there is some public safety issue. I'm not saying this isn't the case, I've just never heard of one that was successfully passed. Communities have tried to enact them but they were shot down in court appeals.

My understanding is that it works like this. Let's say the new sign ordinance says that neon is verboten. You have a neon sign. It is fine until you make a change to the sign. At the time you make a change to the sign the new sign must follow the new ordinance. This is no different than with building codes. If you were up to code on some facet of your building, if the code changes, when you make an improvement, the improvement must meet the new code.

Except that with codes you are talking about public safety, with this you are talking about someones idea of what the community should look like. This is fascism plain and simple, If they want to change the downtown let them buy the buildings and then they can do what they want.