THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, December 16, 1994 TAG: 9412160575
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MIKE KNEPLER, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Medium: 99 lines
Is image everything? Maybe not.
But image won out at City Hall on Thursday as Daniel Lee, the downtown merchant who sleeps in his store, lost his plea for a metal security grille to protect his storefront.
Lee, who owns the Manhattan clothing shop in the 300 block of Granby St., says he's been sleeping in his store because he fears late-night burglaries.
He wanted to put a security grate in front of his windows, but city officials worried that the protective device would make downtown Granby Street look unsafe.
Earlier this fall, the Planning Commission postponed action on his request so staff members could prepare guidelines on security grilles and give Lee time to consider alternatives. But the delay dragged into two months, about 30 days longer than promised.
Last week, the commission adopted the new guidelines. And on Thursday, the commissioners decided it would be unfair to apply them to Lee's application, already in the pipeline.
Nevertheless, the commission voted 5-1 against his security-grille application. Members cited the philosophy behind the guidelines without referring to the particulars.
``I think that we would be negatively impacting the image, projection and the future of our community,'' said Robert Layton, a commissioner.
Commissioner Barbara Zoby said Norfolk needs to be perceived as ``a friendly city and safe place to go, but a security grille is not sending this message out.''
The commission had urged Lee to consider installing aesthetically pleasing polycarbonate windows or plastic-type films that are difficult to break.
Another option, the commission suggested, was placing the security grille inside showroom windows to be less noticeable.
Lee had argued that many stores on downtown Granby Street already have exterior security grilles and that he was being punished by a change in rules.
Alternative protective devices may safeguard his store against burglaries, he agreed. But he contended that his store still would be subject to costly vandalism, such as frequently broken windows.
He said security grilles would amount to a one-time charge of about $10,000, but broken windows would be a continuing cost.
Most commissioners didn't accept Lee's arguments.
``I'm not sure I'm ready to vote just to protect glass,'' said Donald L. Williams. ``I want to keep the burglar out, but I think we can keep the burglar out by putting the screen on the inside.''
Ewin A. Ottinger, the only commissioner voting for the security grille, criticized his colleagues.
``It's an extraordinarily unfair thing for us to substitute our business sense for his business sense at his business,'' he said. ``I don't think any of the businessman on this panel would appreciate it for their businesses.''
Ottinger also said that approval for Lee's exterior security grille would not amount to a precedent. The new guidelines, he said, should be applied on a case-by-case basis.
Lee fell into his predicament after moving from the 400 block of Granby St., where he had a store with an exterior security grille. His former location is being taken for part of the downtown campus of Tidewater Community College.
After relocating, Lee discovered that City Hall had changed some downtown zoning, making an exterior security grille an encroachment into the public right of way.
The rule does not affect existing security grilles but requires applications for new ones.
Planning officials said they recognized the dilemma when Lee applied in the fall. So they created new guidelines to promote the city's image while allowing exceptions for hardship.
On Thursday, William L. Craig Jr., commission chairman, said he was not convinced that Lee had fully explored alternatives. Craig invited the merchant to reapply when he could prove his case better.
Lee said he was disappointed with the commission's decision. But he said he probably will drop the issue and install an interior security grille.
His contractor, Woody Ball of the Overhead Door Co., said the interior grating would cost slightly more. And, he cautioned, it would leave windows subject to vandalism.
``I'm scared,'' Lee said. ``But I've got to do something. We've spent too much time.'' ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
DESIGN GUIDELINES
This month, Norfolk's Design Review Committee and Planning
Commission adopted new guidelines for downtown security grilles.
Businesses are encouraged to consult with police to explore
alternatives for protecting their storefronts from smash-and-grab
burglaries.
The preferred options include:
Transparent security-glazing materials, such as laminated glass,
acrylic and polycarbonates that can withstand high-energy impacts.
Installation of architecturally compatible security grilles
inside showroom windows instead of outside. The material must allow
for visibility into the store.
Exterior grilles may be allowed in special circumstances. But
then, its architectural impact must be minimized.
by CNB