A rendering of the planned building. (City documents)
A development that would replace a derelict senior living facility in the Museum District with hundreds of apartments will have to wait a few more weeks before knowing whether it’ll get the city’s stamp of approval.
The Richmond Planning Commission on Monday moved to delay a vote on a special-use permit for a 260-unit apartment building planned for 3600 Grove Ave.
The six-story structure would rise on an approximately 2-acre site where Windsor Senior Living once operated. The assisted living facility closed in 2021, and last year, Columbus, Georgia-based Flournoy Development Group put the real estate under contract and filed plans for the new building.
On Monday after nearly two hours of deliberation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the matter to its April 3 meeting. Lengths of the discussion were centered on the building’s setbacks from Thompson Street and Grove Avenue.
The setback is among the reasons the Museum District Association opposed the project. During the meeting, the neighborhood association also cited its concerns regarding the building’s height and traffic.
Since halting operations, the senior living facility has fallen into disrepair. (Mike Platania photo)
Flournoy’s counsel, Jennifer Mullen of Roth Jackson, said at Monday’s meeting that they could reexamine the building’s setbacks, but that such a change might have knock-on effects to the building’s design that may include reconfiguring the project’s planned parking garage. Flournoy is currently planning to build a 6-story, 335-space parking deck behind the building.
City planning staff, which recommends approving the SUP, wrote in a report to the commission that the portion of Thompson Street that Flournoy’s project would front “currently invites higher vehicle speeds that endanger pedestrians.” The new building, city planners argue, would help mitigate that.
“The combination of additional pedestrians, slower moving vehicles, balconies, and building height will make Thompson Street safer, quieter, and more attractive for residents, visitors, and the Museum District overall,” the planning staff’s report states.
Since initially filing plans, Flournoy has already tweaked the project at least once to include more red brick in the building’s façade. Those changes were unveiled at a January community meeting.
A rendering of the planned building. (City documents)
A development that would replace a derelict senior living facility in the Museum District with hundreds of apartments will have to wait a few more weeks before knowing whether it’ll get the city’s stamp of approval.
The Richmond Planning Commission on Monday moved to delay a vote on a special-use permit for a 260-unit apartment building planned for 3600 Grove Ave.
The six-story structure would rise on an approximately 2-acre site where Windsor Senior Living once operated. The assisted living facility closed in 2021, and last year, Columbus, Georgia-based Flournoy Development Group put the real estate under contract and filed plans for the new building.
On Monday after nearly two hours of deliberation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the matter to its April 3 meeting. Lengths of the discussion were centered on the building’s setbacks from Thompson Street and Grove Avenue.
The setback is among the reasons the Museum District Association opposed the project. During the meeting, the neighborhood association also cited its concerns regarding the building’s height and traffic.
Since halting operations, the senior living facility has fallen into disrepair. (Mike Platania photo)
Flournoy’s counsel, Jennifer Mullen of Roth Jackson, said at Monday’s meeting that they could reexamine the building’s setbacks, but that such a change might have knock-on effects to the building’s design that may include reconfiguring the project’s planned parking garage. Flournoy is currently planning to build a 6-story, 335-space parking deck behind the building.
City planning staff, which recommends approving the SUP, wrote in a report to the commission that the portion of Thompson Street that Flournoy’s project would front “currently invites higher vehicle speeds that endanger pedestrians.” The new building, city planners argue, would help mitigate that.
“The combination of additional pedestrians, slower moving vehicles, balconies, and building height will make Thompson Street safer, quieter, and more attractive for residents, visitors, and the Museum District overall,” the planning staff’s report states.
Since initially filing plans, Flournoy has already tweaked the project at least once to include more red brick in the building’s façade. Those changes were unveiled at a January community meeting.
I hope the commission will follow the recommendation of the planning staff and approve this project. The project is a positive change for the museum district and the city.
260 MORE apartments? 6 stories, when everything around this corner is 1-2 stories? Where is the parking for the 260-500 more residents? PLEASE do not approve this!
My non-sequitur – when did google rename 195 to Beltline Expressway?
There is another large project on the other side of 195. I think density along that corridor is perfectly acceptable. If you are not going to have density along major transportation corridors where else would it be acceptable? We hear the constant complaints about sprawl in the suburbs and density in City (even along major transportation routes). It really needs to be one or the other. Take your pick. Personally I will take density in the City.
I agree with you on the urban density, but the 6 story monstrosity does not fit the surroundings. If you have never lived in the fan area, parking is at a premium, and the city should require these huge apartment buildings to build sufficient parking. Additionally, I wish the City would encourage Condos rather than apartments. It would help the tax base and bring more community to the area.
The article explicitly states there is a 335 unit parking garage.
MY bad!
“I wish the City would encourage Condos rather than apartments. It would help the tax base” Ah, yes, let’s prioritize home ownership at a time when most cannot afford to buy a home and homelessness is soaring. When this project is ultimately shot down I am sure the vacant nursing home will at least make for a great homeless camp, most of which will not need the many under-utilized parking spaces available in this rundown edge of the Museum District. You do realize that apartments also pay property taxes, right? Apartments can also eventually convert to condos, as many have… Read more »
So, density, but just not in your area? Also, not anywhere near something shorter? If that was the case then the entire city would be 2 stories. This is not directly adjacent to significant amounts of SF. There are many examples of this type of larger building amongst other shorter buildings. Look at 5100 Monument or the Tuckahoe out at Three Chopt and Cary.
5100 Monument and Tuckahoe are Condos – so YES, I would be in favor of 10 story CONDOS in the Fan. People OWN these homes and that is why those buildings have remained beautiful. Most apartment buildings are downright trash after 30 years, let alone 60+ years.
And as someone else pointed out, the aesthetics are more appropriate in similar architectural areas like Scotts Addition, Broad Street, Boulevard, even Monument.
Read the article: it says there is a parking deck with 335 spaces attached.
MY bad….so at least they DO have parking!
It is not a rename as that section has always been I-195 “Beltline Expressway” much like the other portion is SRT-195 “Downtown Expressway.” Highways often have a route designation and a formal or informal name such as I-95 from Downtown South being the “Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike” and SRT-76 being “Powhite Parkway.”
I’ve lived here a long time, and have heard and used all of the other road designations, but I have never, and I mean never, heard anyone call 195 the “Beltline Expressway”. Maybe that name came from VDOT?
No thank you go back to Columbus and build it in a residential neighborhood down there
Want shorter buildings? Come down to the Tri Cities area then.
High mass tall buildings make sense in formerly overlooked industrial and commercial areas like Scott’s Addition & Manchester but everything about this project runs contrary to the character of the neighborhood. This is a litmus test…should this be approved in 23221 means it can happen in your neighborhood too. If you don’t stand up for others don’t expect them to stand up for you.
Have you been to this part of our neighborhood? Just because it is technically in the Museum District does not mean it is in character with what we associate with the district. That was lost when the expressway was put in and now most of it is an eyesore with a collection of rundown tenements and outdated low-rise office spaces surrounded by weed filled parking lots. This combined with the off-ramps makes for an unpleasant walking experience. No-one is going to put nice townhomes here but a buffer of street-engaging mixed-use would be of great value to the surrounding area.
Getting rid of some of the off and on ramps would definitely help matters. Especially ones that are too close together.
No, removing on-ramps would not accomplish much to help restore anything to the area unless you removed all of 195, which isn’t happening. However it would be nice to have a roundabout at Patterson, Kensington and Thompson instead of that oddly shaped and dangerous intersection, which always gets backed up.
I agree with the roundabout part but, you do realize that getting rid of some of the ramps would be less conflict points for people walking and biking. The particular ramps I would target on the northbound side of 195 would be closing the West Cary and Hanover Ave ramps. Also, just cap certain parts of 195 if you’re worried about that.
This is the most insane take on this site ever
Remember, they want to cap a part of 95 near Chamberlayne.
It sounds like the city is slowly becoming a city.
Richmond still has lots of cleaning to do.
Agreed – even if, unfortunately, it has to be dragged kicking and screaming toward becoming a real city. (The pushback comments in this thread certainly bear this fact out.)
I’m glad the city is starting to build dense housing in other places besides Board Street. What is so frustrating how hard it is for a city to go above two stories I’m glad this is going to put 240 units of housing in a place that was already built on. It would be nice if they build some 5 to 8 story apartments along Grove Ave in the part of town were it’s all one story buildings.
I agree with you on all points. Re: your final point about larger/taller residential buildings: sadly, at 60 years of age, unless I somehow make it to 100, I don’t think I’ll live long enough to ever see that happen.I love the concept, though.
Respectfully Peter, you would “love” to have the 8 story apartments right next to your $800K Grove Avenue home? I am suspect.
Me? – I’m all NIMBY.
I have apartments very near to me in the MD. I have happily survived.
Some of us who live in cities actually like living in cities. Otherwise I’d live in Hanover. I don’t know why the people who want emptiness and parking don’t move, honestly
As noted above the biggest reason why appears to be a $800k Grove avenue home.
great project it deserves support