Lincoln Historic Preservation Commission says “no” to rustic tin-roof awning

[May 07, 2015]  LINCOLN - On Tuesday evening, the Lincoln Historic Preservation Commission met for their May meeting. Commissioners present for the meeting were Chairman April Doolin, Julie Cooper, Kay Dobson, Julie Gerardeau, Brian Messner, Karen Sager and Bill Vinyard.

On the agenda was a request to place an awning and sign over the entryway at Simply Homespun, a downtown business owned and managed by Melody Sinnett.

Simply Homespun is located in the 600 block of Broadway in the former Mission Mart location. The business opened last fall and offers handcrafted and re-purposed items by a variety of local artisans.

Sinnett’s petition was seeking permission to erect a rustic looking tin-roof style awning across the front of the building to replace the canvas awning that was there when Mission Mart occupied the business.

Sinnett was also seeking approval for a wooden sign to be placed above the awning identifying her business.

Sinnett addressed the Commission and explained what she wanted to do. The tin roof she said would have a rustic look, painted blue, but with bare metal and rust showing through. She said the awning would tie in with the type of merchandise offered, and the style of the store in general.

She explained that when Mission Mart moved out, they left behind the canvas awning that had their business name on it. She said it caused confusion for shoppers who came in expecting the store to be Mission Mart. In addition, in spite of the fact that Mission Mart had left the awning behind, the company had issued complaints that it was still there and had asked for it to be taken down.

Sinnett said she had removed the awning, and now what remained was the metal framework that is attached to the building. She wanted to build her new awning on the existing framework.

She said the sign she wished to put up would be eight feet long and 20 inches high with 10-inch and five-inch red lettering on a beige background. The sign would be wood and paint with no lighting.

Doolin asked for a motion to approve the request, but the commission members seemed to be hesitant to make such a motion. Doolin then explained that in order to comply with the Open Meetings Act, a motion had to be made before the Commission could discuss the topic. Messner then made the motion with Julie Cooper offering the second.

Dobson was the first to express concern over the overall design of the awning, but as discussions progressed, it was clear that all the commissioners agreed. The awning, they felt did not fit into the goal of preserving the historic integrity of the downtown area. It also did not gel well with the other awnings that currently exist on other buildings in the area.

Dobson and others voiced that the idea and design were clever and attractive, but not suitable for the specific location.

The discussion moved to the question; is any kind of awning historically correct in the downtown area? Sager said that she didn’t believe any of the downtown buildings were originally constructed with an awning, so to be truly historically correct maybe there should be no awning.

However, awnings do exist in the downtown area, and the Commission has no authority to require they be removed. Therefore, the consensus was that any awning added to a downtown building should be canvas and fit well with other awnings in town.

Sinnett said she had looked into the cost of a canvas awning, and it was something she could not afford. She noted that she had asked her landlord for assistance, and he had refused. She noted the landlord had put up the awning for Mission Mart, but was now not interested in replacing it.

Later, it was noted that the landlord has been trying to sell the building, so it was somewhat understandable that he would not want to invest dollars in the building at this time.

The Commission members said they understood that the cost was an issue, but at this point that is the only option unless Sinnett wanted to take the framework off the building and go without an awning completely.

Sinnett said her concern there was that there would be no weather protection for shoppers. She also asked if the Commission has any financial assistance available to help her comply with their requirements. Doolin explained that the Commission worked for the city of Lincoln but was not given a budget, so there would be no financial help available. She said Sinnett could look into grants from the State Historic Preservation Agency, but didn’t know if there would be anything available there either.

In considering the cost of the canvas awning, Vinyard suggested that instead of covering the entire 30 feet length of the front of the building, Sinnett might look into putting the awning only over the entryway. He said that would surely have to cost less, plus it would be something a little different from the rest of the stores on the block, which might get her business more attention.

Doolin said she knew from personal experience that there is a local seamstress who can work with the canvas awning. She suggested perhaps that person could cut out and replace the portion of the old canopy that said “Mission Mart.” Sinnett said when the canopy was removed; it had to be cut to get it away from the framework. She doesn’t believe it would fit now if it were modified. None-the-less, Doolin said she would provide Sinnett with contact information for the seamstress.
 

Vinyard said he could help as well. He noted that Heartland Community College is aiming to put an awning back on its downtown location. He said he will get the contact information for the company they want to hire. He noted that there might be a cost reduction if the company had two jobs side-by-side.

Sinnett indicated that she would try to come up with a different plan for the awning, but asked if the Commission would go ahead and approve her request for a sign. Doolin said they could make that a new and separate motion. Dobson made the motion with the second coming from Vinyard.

The Commission confirmed it would be a wood sign with paint, mounted on the front of the building above the entrance. Doolin then called for a “yea” or “nay” vote. All the commissioners voted in favor of permitting the sign.

[Nila Smith]