VMFA’s plan for art storage facility draws pushback from neighbors

The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts is getting bigger. But some Museum District residents aren’t happy about what that might mean for their neighborhood.

Last month, a group of people who live across Grove Avenue from the VMFA made an emergency visit to a city Planning Commission to raise alarms about construction fencing that had appeared on a plot of VMFA-owned land that looks like a grassy, oversized alley. The space has previously been used mostly for parking, but the art museum now has bigger plans for it.

The VMFA is planning to build a 12,000 square-foot art storage facility on the site next year, an addition the museum says will allow art to be moved around as it begins a larger expansion project that will add a new wing to the main museum building.

The plan for the storage facility — which will be built behind the museum’s Studio School at the corner of Grove and Sheppard Street — is drawing objections from nearby homeowners who feel a warehouse shouldn’t be forced into a historic residential area for the convenience of a state-owned museum.

“They’re putting the building in the middle of the block. And it’s a monster,” said Geena Reese, one of several neighbors who say they were upset to learn about the museum’s plans after seeing the fencing go up. 

Museum officials indicated they would answer questions about the project, but they did not provide any comment by the deadline they were given for this article. The Richmonder first reached out to the museum about the warehouse project on Nov. 21.

It’s unclear where the confrontation might lead, but it’s already caused some tense interactions between neighbors and VMFA Director Alex Nyerges. One property owner, Thomas Courtney, has sent museum representatives a cease-and-desist letter threatening a potential lawsuit.

Courtney and others from the neighborhood spoke about the issue at the Nov. 19 Planning Commission meeting. The VMFA project wasn’t on the agenda because the city didn’t have to approve the plan apart from issuing standard building permits, but Courtney said his group wanted to raise awareness of the situation.

“Prior to tonight, it has not been known to the public about this conflict,” Courtney said at the meeting.

In response to the neighbors’ criticism, city planning officials have indicated zoning rules give the museum the right to build the storage facility without needed any special approval from the city. Opponents of the art storage facility have pointed to a 1987 special use permit (SUP) for the site in question that indicated the parcel would be used for a VMFA parking lot.

City officials have said the decades-old permit doesn’t mean the site can only be used for parking. The city has ruled that the art warehouse is essentially an extension of the museum campus, which is allowed under zoning exceptions that allow government-owned museums, parks, libraries and schools in residential districts.

“A SUP in no way prohibits an owner from using their property in a manner that is consistent with the underlying zoning,” city Planning Director Kevin Vonck wrote in a Nov. 15 email. “In this case, museums operated by a government agency, including their accessory structures, are permitted by right in the R-6 zoning district.”

The property that will be used for the storage facility is owned by the VMFA Real Estate Company, an LLC affiliated with the museum and the private foundation that supports the museum. The distinction between the government museum and the private entities connected to it didn’t change the city’s analysis, because officials consider the art warehouse a museum use no matter which VMFA-affiliated entity builds and owns it.

“The Commonwealth of Virginia would be responsible for payment of all taxes, insurance and any other expenses for the operation and maintenance of the facility,” Vonck said in a written statement to The Richmonder.

Museum representatives have said they conducted a search for possible storage facilities that could meet the special climate control and security needs required for a building that will house valuable works of art. After deciding there were no suitable options within a reasonable distance, the museum chose to build its own facility on Richmond property it already controls.

The frustrated neighbors feel that decision didn’t take into account the impact on them. Reese said she and others are concerned about imposing brick walls going up right behind their houses and the potential noise from the HVAC equipment needed to protect the art from damage.

“The bottom line is we were blindsided,” Reese said. “And we were not made part of the process.”