17 replies to this topic

[John S.]

A City of Fort Worth public notice requesting a zoning change from "PD" (Planned Development) to TUN1 (Trinity Uptown new development-senior village) has been sent out to residents near the proposed project's impact area (300 ft.) I have a lot of details to share but if I can get a proposed project map uploaded, you can see for yourself. This will be a four story building and represents a major new mid-neighborhood development. To the south of the site is a faith-based institutional facility for troubled teenagers.(Teen Challenge) It has been quietly well-managed for decades and I know of no one in the neighborhood who objects to its presence or intended use. The proposed Senior Village should be a compatible use and suitable neighbor.

[John S.]

(posted 12/25 and moved from the Westchester House discussion under "Misc" topics)
Perhaps related in some way is this tidbit of real estate information that a request for a zoning change has been made for the large westside bluff lot at 761 Samuels Avenue for purposes of constructing a retirement center. My spouse received a call Dec. 24th from a neighbor who said he had received a notice in the mail from the city about a zoning change hearing for 761 Samuels. This large, expansive lot was formerly the site of the old Foster-Poole Mansion built in 1882 but it was regrettably bulldozed about 6-7 years ago to make way for new development. This picturesque, Trinity bluff location has sat vacant since then with the exception of the Trinity Uptown information sign standing at the front of the lot. Assuming a zoning change is approved and construction then goes forward, this would be the first new development project on Samuels Avenue since the recession began. Moreover, this large, prominent lot at 761 Samuels is somewhat significant in that it is right next door (due south) to the Texas historic landmarked Garvey Mansion at 769 Samuels (see separate Garvey Mansion message thread in the Historic Preservation topic column) If the proposed retirement center features a traditional design (historically based) then it should architecturally compliment or at least be compatible with the adjacent Victorian era mansion landmarked site. However, if something is proposed similar in design to the "brutalist" downtown campus building nearing completion close to our historic 1893 courthouse, it may clash visually and diminish the esthetics of both the new and the adjacent old. Careful and sensitive design considerations are very important for any new development in this oldest of Fort Worth's neighborhoods. Conceiveably, and relevant to this topic thread, the addition of a new retirement center in the downtown area could have future implications for the Westchester House retirement facility. I'll be sure to add details about this proposed Samuels Avenue project as they become available.

[John S.]

Brian,
Thanks for the beautiful photos. I consider you an "honorary" resident of Samuels Avenue; anyone who is willing to come out at 4 AM to take moonlit photos of the Garvey House deserves some recognition. I shall attempt to upload a 1990's photo of the 1882 Foster-Hodgson-Pool House that once stood on this site. (the c. 1915 bungalow seen on the right was saved and moved to another location) The Foster-Hodgson-Pool House was bulldozed around 2003 to make way for new development and the expansive vacant lot has been owned by the Trinity Uptown developer since then. The property's connection with the adjacent historic Garvey House site was far more than casual.

Winding the clock back to 1881 when Isaac and Mary Cornelia Samuel-Foster as well as Lula Foster-Garvey and William B. Garvey arrived in Fort Worth from Owen County, Kentucky, here's the story: After Baldwin Samuel passed away in Oct. 1879, his considerable neighborhood land holdings must have prompted the Fosters and Garveys to sell their Kentucky farms and start new lives in Fort Worth. (Baldwin Samuel was born in Todd County, KY in 1803 and came to Tarrant County in the 1850's fresh from a successful stint in the California Gold Rush) In 1883, Isaac and Mary Foster deeded the current site of the Garvey House to the Garveys (their daughter and son-in-law) and Mr. and Mrs. Garvey soon constructed a small cottage which still stands behind the later large Queen Anne style house. Originally, the fine stone retaining wall which stands in front of the Garvey House extended across the Foster property as well and until shortly before the Foster house was demolished, the original matching wrought iron fence and gate from the Foster property was sitting in the weeds behind the Foster House. Thus, there was a uniform appearance linking the Foster and Garvey Houses back in the day. In 1890, Isaac Foster was listed in the City Directory as a "Capitalist" and thereafter retired. By selling off the many neighborhood lots they owned, I'm sure the Foster's retirement years were quite comfortable. The Garveys also benefited from the Baldwin Samuel estate and land inheritance. Isaac Foster died in 1901 followed by Mary Cornelia Samuel-Foster a decade later. Their home, which was once graced by a central tower (mansard roofed?)over the entry, was sold to Arthur Hodgson, general manager of Nash Hardware. The former Charles E. Nash home was next door. Apparently, Mr. Hodgson sub-divided the lot in the teens so the nice bungalow house (present re-location site unknown) could be built. Both of the Garveys died within months of each other in 1915. In 1927, the house sold again to the Pool Family and they were the last owners of the house while it was standing. According to the last descendant of the Pool Family, the steep tower roof was damaged in a storm in the 1920's and was removed, giving the roofline a flat-top. Unfortunately, deferred maintenance also took its toll over the years on the historic home and by the time it was bulldozed (I have sad photos of the demo) the interior had sustained severe water damage from a failing roof. It would have been restorable, but then as today it would take a generous person with deep pockets to bring the house back from the brink. For some reason, no one in Fort Worth with these proverbial deep pockets appears to want to get involved in saving any remaining historic homes in this oldest of Fort Worth neighborhoods. Given the horrendous losses seen in Fort Worth's once fabled Quality Hill, expecting a better fate for Samuels Avenue is unrealistic, I suppose. The former Foster house site belongs to a developer and will be long-term leased to any builder on the site, as far as I know. It is but one of several lots along Samuels Avenue owned by the developer for future projects. A nicely designed retirement center would be a positive for this long-vacant lot. Let's hope whatever gets built here compliments rather than detracts from the landmark Garvey House-the most architecturally significant historic home remaining on Samuels Avenue. My apologies for taking this off the original Westchester House thread but it is now part of a separate topic thread.

[John S.]

The request for the Zoning change comes up before the Fort Worth Zoning Commission at 10:00 AM Weds. January 12, 2011. The request then goes before the City Council for approval on Tuesday, February 1st 2011 at 7:00 PM. Hope all interested parties will make note of these dates and times.

[John T Roberts]

I have a problem with the design for this project. The building will apparently be built right up to the property line, which is just behind the sidewalk. At four stories, it will be much taller than the houses on the street and will block the view of the Garvey House coming from the south.

[John S.]

I have a problem with the design for this project. The building will apparently be built right up to the property line, which is just behind the sidewalk. At four stories, it will be much taller than the houses on the street and will block the view of the Garvey House coming from the south.

John,

The point you make is quite valid. The proposed senior village project will certainly have a visual impact on the 700 Block of Samuels where most of the houses are well set back from the street.(I'd like to see an artist's rendering of the proposed "Village") But then again, assuming continued re-development of Samuels Avenue is in the cards, a more high-density utilization of the limited land available along the river bluff is to be expected. The imposing old Victorian mansions set well back on expansive, estate-size lots were sadly part of the long ago history when Fort Worth was a young, much smaller city. Although approval of the pending zoning change is not quite a done deal, the neighborhood developer and other investors already own many of the vacant lots and land along Samuels. Therefore, the Senior village project's zoning approval or lack thereof will not slow development along Samuels.

Nonetheless, I'm glad we did not sell our historic property in the summer of 2008.(still for sale, BTW) The prospective developer-buyer candidly told us that he planned to demolish our home, build 10 LEED certified housing units on our 1/2 acre lot, and, in doing so begin Samuels Avenues' mid-neighborhood re-development. For most of us who have long lived here, it was a foregone conclusion that additional development was in the cards once the recession started showing signs of easing. It's also unrealistic to hope there's some mysterious millionaire "benefactor" who is going to quietly swoop in and buy up the undeveloped part of Samuels to save all of the old homes by creating a protected historic district. While I think putting the new housing units of this senior village towards the back of the lot would be esthetically ideal, I'm certain a lot of careful planning and thought went into this proposed project layout. The developer has owned this multi-acre lot since about 2003, so has had plenty of time to consider appropriate projects for the site. I'd be far more pleased with a low-key retirement village being built there than having some 4 story generic apartments. It is essential however, that the exterior design be sympathetic and compatible design-wise (Traditional?) with adjacent historic homes. I'd be appalled to find a modernist glass and steel box going up right next to the landmarked Garvey House as was commonly seen in the past along Summit Avenue as it was redeveloped. As for the adjacent Garvey House property, (which is still for sale, BTW) the most likely future use for it will be for (Law) offices, a Bed & Breakfast/Wedding Chapel, corporate retreat, or some other semi-commercial/institutional use rather than remaining as a single-family private residence.

[AndyN]

Where the heck is the parking located? I just saw the city posting the sign notifying change of zoning yesterday. I really am concerned about the scale of the project in the middle of the neighborhood. While the building is not zero lot line, it looks like there is only a 25 foot fire line keeping it from being a zero lot line building. Is there a rendering available yet?

[John S.]

Where the heck is the parking located? I just saw the city posting the sign notifying change of zoning yesterday. I really am concerned about the scale of the project in the middle of the neighborhood. While the building is not zero lot line, it looks like there is only a 25 foot fire line keeping it from being a zero lot line building. Is there a rendering available yet?

Andy, those are very good questions. I'm assuming, without seeing any artist project renderings, that there is a parking garage located somewhere within the footprint of this rather massive, four story structure. I hope the developer will soon post some conceptual drawings of the proposed project. Given it's substantial size, it will certainly have a major visual impact on Samuels Avenue's mid-neighborhood where the largest concentration of historic homes are located. This important project may determine the character of all future development along this stretch of the neighborhood as well, so I sincerely hope it is very well thought out. If anyone can find out more information or a link to conceptual drawings, please post them here.

[AndyN]

Well, I've got a call into the developer. We'll see what he replies with.

Struhs Commercial called me back about 4:20pm and said they will transmit the rendering via email. Will post when received.

Edited by AndyN, 28 December 2010 - 04:33 PM.

[AndyN]

OK, apparently the first floor will be clubhouse and offices at the front and parking behind that.



Seems like a lot of building to stuff on that lot. I like the improvements coming my direction, but we will have to see if the neighbors tolerate the density.

[David Love]

.


So it looks like a big apartment building...

[John S.]

OK, apparently the first floor will be clubhouse and offices at the front and parking behind that.

Seems like a lot of building to stuff on that lot. I like the improvements coming my direction, but we will have to see if the neighbors tolerate the density.

Thank you, Andy. So the second drawing shows the building's street view facade? I have to agree with David that it does look somewhat apartment-like. But this is a powerpoint type illustration, not a real conceptual artist drawing. What will define the final appearance will be the choices of building materials, levels of finish, and colors used. However, the design itself is fairly restrained and certainly not radical. I think it's far better visually than some of the currently popular "retro" circa-1960 concrete-glass-steel boxes or perhaps worse, building an ersatz "Victorian" styled edifice on the exterior that architecturally mocks its genuine Victorian era neighbor.

As for the structure's high density, lot-hugging footprint, I think this specific characteristic is to be expected for most future development projects along the high-value bluff view side of Samuels Avenue. We should keep in our minds the evolving Trinity Lake project which, if it comes to fruition, will place a premium on land along the bluff above the lake. On the other hand, at least in the interim, four stories may visually overwhelm the adjacent landmark Garvey House. Of course, if all of Samuels becomes redeveloped, it's unlikely this particular structure will stand out any more than the others to come. I do know the developer is conscious of design issues and envisions a logical future streetscape where all the various projects will appear visually compatible. It's nice to see the structure's parking area is located internally even if that adds another story to the building. I'm sure the future "Village" residents and their families will appreciate having such easy access parking. Last, like you Andy, I'm mildly positive about this project and feel most of my neighbors will be too. (except for the few who always oppose any change) I've talked to one of the Kelley Bros. who owns the adjacent Garvey House and he too is supportive. A large, weedy vacant lot does not do much esthetically to enhance the neighborhood either. This project, if done right, might just be the catalyst which helps bring new investment to save and restore the major historic homes remaining on Samuels. Having a large number of active seniors will also enhance the perceived safety of our formerly marginal neighborhood. I also can't see it having a negative impact on property values whereas a generic apartment building might. Other viewpoints, opinions?

[AndyN]

After sleeping on it, my main thoughts are that I would prefer to see all new developments on Samuels incorporate at least a 6 foot or wider sidewalk (6 feet clear walk space, no utilities, light poles or tree wells within the 6 foot). Also, this narrowing of the street stuff like what happened on the south end is for the birds. I understand traffic calming and all, but if they are going to put higher density on all of Samuels, we're going to make the street impassable. As for this building, it would be nice if it had a 10 foot front setback from the front property line. We're losing so much green space with this development especially if you compare it to the building setbacks on all the adjoining houses. I think an additional 10 feet up front should be reasonable.

Normally I would think this drastic of a zoning change and density would not be allowed in an existing residential neighborhood, so if the residents fought it, it could be quashed. I'm not against it, but I just have a lot of problems with the narrowness of the new south end of Samuels.

[John S.]

Someone doesn't seem too pleased with this proposed project-this morning,(Dec. 31st) the city zoning request change sign was knocked over and laying on the ground. Perhaps unrelated, about 2 AM, someone squeezed off four rapid shots from a semi-automatic not far away. (700 block of Samuels?) Police cruisers were swarming up and down the street within a couple of minutes so maybe someone did a drive-by close to the Police storefront. You can take it to the bank that gunshots will ring out in this neighborhood at midnight to ring in the new year. In 1990, our first New Year in the neighborhood, it sounded like a war had broken out with hundreds of gunshots apparently coming from every other house along Samuels and from the many side streets. It has gotten much quieter in recent new years but there's still a stubborn few who illegally discharge firearms around here at midnight and for a short time thereafter. Not a good time to go out walking around the neighborhood...
(Update: Jan 1st...Happy New Year! just a few gunshots last night but otherwise peaceful-nothing like the "good old days" when nightly gunshots were common in the neighborhood not just at midnight on New Year's.)

[John S.]

Noticed when checking the recent agenda of the Zoning Commission that the proposed zoning change for this project was given a "30 day continuance at the request of the applicant". Can anyone else add to this as I did not attend the Zoning Commission meeting? It seems like the "applicant" still wants to do the project but were there objections raised at the meeting?

[John S.]

It's difficult to obtain reliable information about the status of the Senior village project. I sent an email to the developer a couple of days ago but have yet to receive a reply. However, there is some news, sort of: a small cottage located on the northwest corner of this large lot was demolished today. (Feb. 15) The cottage did have some history attached. It was formerly the home of Ms. Luella Nicholson, a housekeeper and cook for the Garveys at 769 Samuels who after their demise worked in the same capacity for Arthur D. Hodgson, an executive with Charles Nash Hardware who bought the former Isaac Foster residence at 761 Samuels from the Garveys around 1912. The only historical record I could find for Ms. Nicholson comes from an interesting testimony she gave in 1915 during a probate hearing for the deceased Garveys. (both died of natural causes in 1915)

During my research on the Garvey House in 1992, I contacted the FW Black Historical Society for more information about Ms. Nicholson but their records lacked additional information. The demolished cottage was constructed in a board and batten folk style with front turned porch posts and was around 500 sq. ft. or less but it did provide the Garveys' housekeeper with a private personal residence. Exact age of the structure was unknown but may have been 100+ years. The long abandoned home's condition was deplorable and a restoration, while possible, was not very practical. I had hoped it would have been pushed back over to the Garvey property from which it had been moved many decades ago but that is now a moot point. Thought I had a photo of the small stucture but cannot find it at the moment.

[John S.]

In looking at the April 2011 Zoning Commission meeting agenda from last week, I noticed on a 9 to 0 vote the zoning commission recommended denial of the proposed Senior Village project rezoning request "without prejudice". Does that now mean the project is dead or will have to be resubmitted (in a different form) in the future? Just curious, since the project would have a major impact on the middle of the Samuels Avenue neighborhood and especially on the adjacent Garvey House, a registered Texas Historic Landmark site. If anyone has more information to share, I'd appreciate hearing it.

[Fort Worthology]

I believe "without prejudice" means that it can be resubmitted at some point.