89 replies to this topic

[Stadtplan]

As usual, I'm not sure I'm finding the current thread on this one.  Let me know if there's a (better) spot for it.  This is a big project site.
 
Drainage Study Filed:
 
Record DS-22-0048: Drainage Study
Record Status: In Review
 

Permit Address
800 W VICKERY BLVD
(East and West of the intersection between W Vickery St. and Hemphill St.)
 
Record Details
Applicant:
Brian Downing
Halff Associates, Inc
4000 Fossil Creek Blvd
Fort Worth, TX, 76137
 
Project Description:
Vickery at Near Southside
Multi-family residential with parking and restaurant
(One multi-family residential building, 4 commercial buildings, 2 parking lots)
 
Owner:
HEMERY LIMITED LIABILITY CO
5608 MALVEY AVE STE 110
FORT WORTH, TX 76107
(Trademark Property Company)
 
DRAINAGE PROJECT INFO
Total Plat or Project Area (Acres):10.13
Land Disturbance Area (Acres):10.13
Concept Plan:No
DS - Grading Permit:No
DS - Infrastructure Plan Review (IPRC):No
Final Plat:NoPreliminary Plat:Yes
Drainage Study for Zone A Floodplain:No
Previous related study or studies:Near Southside 2D Study
The project utilizes Low Impact Design:No
The project does not drain through any downstream City Infrastructure:No
 
Parcel Number: 108416
Legal Description: JENNINGS NORTH ADDITION Block 1 Lot 1

[Austin55]

There was a bit of discussion here. This is a pretty fresh development though. Trademark always does great work, I'm excited to see what they pull off in the Near Southside. 

[Austin55]

Trademark (presumably) teasing this on their website. 
 

 

TRADEMARK + MULTIFAMILY

Trademark to announce two ground up developments soon. Make sure you don’t miss any multifamily updates.

https://trademarkproperty.com/

[Stadtplan]

Trademark (presumably) teasing this on their website. 
 

 
TRADEMARK + MULTIFAMILY
Trademark to announce two ground up developments soon. Make sure you dont miss any multifamily updates.

https://trademarkproperty.com/

The other one is Westbend? I did a full site search the other day too.

[rriojas71]

 

Trademark (presumably) teasing this on their website. 
 

 
TRADEMARK + MULTIFAMILY
Trademark to announce two ground up developments soon. Make sure you dont miss any multifamily updates.

https://trademarkproperty.com/

The other one is Westbend? I did a full site search the other day too.

 

The other what is Westbend?  I did a site search as well and was curious as to what you found.

[Stadtplan]

 

 

Trademark (presumably) teasing this on their website. 
 

 
TRADEMARK + MULTIFAMILY
Trademark to announce two ground up developments soon. Make sure you dont miss any multifamily updates.

https://trademarkproperty.com/

The other one is Westbend? I did a full site search the other day too.

 

The other what is Westbend?  I did a site search as well and was curious as to what you found.

 

I was half-joking, half-serious thinking maybe they were referring to Westbend South.

 

https://www.tad.org/property/02464837/

[Stadtplan]

UDC Filing for this project on 2/28/22:

 

Record UDC-2022-026: 

Urban Design Commission

Record Status: Pending

 

Work Location

800 W VICKERY BLVD

 

Record Details

Applicant: Weston Graves

Trademark Property

1701 River Run

Fort Worth, TX, 76107

-------@trademarkproeprty.com

 

Owner:

HEMERY LIMITED LIABILITY CO

5608 MALVEY AVE STE 110

FORT WORTH, TX 76107

 

DESIGN REVIEW

Building Review:Yes

Parking Lot Review:No

Sign Review:No

Landscape/Accessory/Reivew:No

Use:New

Appeal Date:02/28/2022

 

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONCommercial/Residential:Commercial

Collapse Parcel Information

Parcel Number:

108416

Legal Description:

JENNINGS NORTH ADDITION Block 1 Lot 1

 

[Stadtplan]

New Building Permits for The Vickery at Near Southside:

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

 

Project Description:

The Vickery

MF Building, Mixed-Use Project

Housing Units:308

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery

Townhome Bldg #1

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery

Townhome Bldg #2

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery

Restaurant

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery

Multifamily Building

[WTXKid]

Any hint to the mf height?

 

New Building Permits for The Vickery at Near Southside:

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

 

Project Description:

The Vickery

MF Building, Mixed-Use Project

Housing Units:308

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery

Townhome Bldg #1

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery

Townhome Bldg #2

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery

Restaurant

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery

Multifamily Building

 

[rriojas71]

 

Any hint to the mf height? 

 

 

They are going to be multi family buildings and most likely less than 5 stories....  so maybe 80 feet max. 

[Stadtplan]

Additional Building Permits:

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery Bldg 6 - Multifamily Building Townhomes for 800 W Vickery mixed Use Projects

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery Bldg 7 - Multifamily Building Townhomes for 800 W Vickery mixed Use Projects

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

Parking Garage for 800 W Vickery Mixed Use Project . Pool will be permitted separately at a later date.

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

Dumpster enclosure for 800 W Vickery Mixed Use Project

[Jeriat]

 

Additional Building Permits:

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery Bldg 6 - Multifamily Building Townhomes for 800 W Vickery mixed Use Projects

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

The Vickery Bldg 7 - Multifamily Building Townhomes for 800 W Vickery mixed Use Projects

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

Parking Garage for 800 W Vickery Mixed Use Project . Pool will be permitted separately at a later date.

 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:

Dumpster enclosure for 800 W Vickery Mixed Use Project

 

I really need to see a rendering.

[Stadtplan]

 
Additional Building Permits:
 
https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=
Project Description:
The Vickery Bldg 6 - Multifamily Building Townhomes for 800 W Vickery mixed Use Projects
 
https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=

Project Description:
The Vickery Bldg 7 - Multifamily Building Townhomes for 800 W Vickery mixed Use Projects
 

https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=
Project Description:
Parking Garage for 800 W Vickery Mixed Use Project . Pool will be permitted separately at a later date.
 
https://accela.fortw...ShowInspection=
Project Description:
Dumpster enclosure for 800 W Vickery Mixed Use Project
 

I really need to see a rendering.

Me too. This one sounds mildly interesting.

[Stadtplan]

Austin55 usually handles the UDC and other boards and commission packets, but I'll try to fill in while he's away.  Here's first looks at Vickery at Near Southside... see figure 4 at the bottom of this post.

 

UDC Packet:

https://www.fortwort...ry-vacation.pdf

 

GENERAL INFORMATION

REQUEST Recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council

APPLICANT/AGENT Chad Colley/Trademark Acquisition LP

LOCATION 800 W. Vickery Blvd

ZONING NS-T5I/NS-T5

 

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED WORK

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS

The applicant requests a recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council on the vacation of a portion of Vickery Boulevard.

BACKGROUND

The project area is an approximately 4.5-acre parcel at 800 W. Vickery Boulevard (the north west corner of Hemphill Street and Vickery Boulevard, just south of the freeway). It is a historically industrial site and is currently vacant. The proposed use (multifamily and potential mixed us) is allowed by right under the property’s NS-T5I and NS-T5 zoning. The site is accessed from Vickery Boulevard, which is considered a Primary Street in the Near Southside District Standards and Guidelines.

The UDC approved a recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council on a previous application for the vacation of a portion of the north side of Vickery Boulevard located west of Jennings Avenue and east of Lipscomb Street that was approximately 9 feet wide and about 295 feet long (0.061 acres). This vacation is the completion of an earlier effort to reduce the width of Vickery along the frontage of the 800 lot by approximately 9 feet; in 1991, the city approved the vacation of 9 feet of Vickery Bouvard for approximately 973 feet from Adams street to Lipscomb (Ordinance Number 10897).

 

APPLICABLE NEAR SOUTHSIDE DESIGN STANDARDS & GUIDELINES

SECTION 4.A.– Intent and Principles

7. Limit vacations of existing public rights-of-way, including streets and alleys, only to situations where there is no adverse impact to future circulation and desirable redevelopment or in cases where such vacations are absolutely necessary for an exceptional redevelopment project that is clearly consistent with the general development principles.

 

FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS

The Urban Design Commission is charged with reviewing requests for street and alley vacations. The UDC makes a recommendation to the Plan Commission, who in turn makes a recommendation to the City Council.

The applicant is requesting a recommendation to vacate an additional 8-foot portion of the north side of Vickery Boulevard located west of Hemphill Street and east of Adams Street. The total area proposed for vacation is approximately 8 feet wide and about 1,268 feet long (.210 acres). The applicant is requesting an additional 8’ to be added to this vacation in order to retain the current proposed site plan while ensuring that some elements of the project (such as stoops and front steps) remain on the private side rather than in the right-of-way, since this would require an encroachment agreement.

Vacation of this portion of Vickery Boulevard does not have a negative impact to the overall circulation in the district, as it does not impact the width of any existing drive lanes. Overall it will benefit the urban form of the street at this location, reducing the distance between the parcel edge and the sidewalk boundary, and enabling the proposed development to pull closer to the street.

The site plan for this project has progressed since the UDC’s last review of this project. So far, the proposed site plan is meeting the design requirements of the Near Southside. It is not anticipated at this time that the project will require any waivers.

Given the above, Staff recommends the following motion:

 

That the request for a recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council on the vacation of a portion of Vickery Boulevard be approved.

 

 

 

 

 

[steave]

Not bad. So the garage says it's 5.25 levels, I wonder what that means? 4 floors with parking on the top deck? I wonder how tell the multifamily section will be, then?

[Stadtplan]

The public park by the standalone restaurant looks interesting too.

[rriojas71]

Not bad. So the garage says it's 5.25 levels, I wonder what that means? 4 floors with parking on the top deck? I wonder how tell the multifamily section will be, then?

I'm assuming the MF section will be 5 stories.  Most MF are the same height as their parking garages unless it is stacked on top however that doesn't seem to be the what the drawings show.  I'd be extremely surprised and excited if it was taller than 10 stories

[Stadtplan]

I would be curious what the portion of this project east of Hemphill entails?

[rriojas71]

I would be curious what the portion of this project east of Hemphill entails?

Me too.  I didn't notice that initially

[Jeriat]

 

Austin55 usually handles the UDC and other boards and commission packets, but I'll try to fill in while he's away.  Here's first looks at Vickery at Near Southside... see figure 4 at the bottom of this post.

 

UDC Packet:

https://www.fortwort...ry-vacation.pdf

 

GENERAL INFORMATION

REQUEST Recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council

APPLICANT/AGENT Chad Colley/Trademark Acquisition LP

LOCATION 800 W. Vickery Blvd

ZONING NS-T5I/NS-T5

 

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED WORK

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS

The applicant requests a recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council on the vacation of a portion of Vickery Boulevard.

BACKGROUND

The project area is an approximately 4.5-acre parcel at 800 W. Vickery Boulevard (the north west corner of Hemphill Street and Vickery Boulevard, just south of the freeway). It is a historically industrial site and is currently vacant. The proposed use (multifamily and potential mixed us) is allowed by right under the property’s NS-T5I and NS-T5 zoning. The site is accessed from Vickery Boulevard, which is considered a Primary Street in the Near Southside District Standards and Guidelines.

The UDC approved a recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council on a previous application for the vacation of a portion of the north side of Vickery Boulevard located west of Jennings Avenue and east of Lipscomb Street that was approximately 9 feet wide and about 295 feet long (0.061 acres). This vacation is the completion of an earlier effort to reduce the width of Vickery along the frontage of the 800 lot by approximately 9 feet; in 1991, the city approved the vacation of 9 feet of Vickery Bouvard for approximately 973 feet from Adams street to Lipscomb (Ordinance Number 10897).

 

APPLICABLE NEAR SOUTHSIDE DESIGN STANDARDS & GUIDELINES

SECTION 4.A.– Intent and Principles

7. Limit vacations of existing public rights-of-way, including streets and alleys, only to situations where there is no adverse impact to future circulation and desirable redevelopment or in cases where such vacations are absolutely necessary for an exceptional redevelopment project that is clearly consistent with the general development principles.

 

FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS

The Urban Design Commission is charged with reviewing requests for street and alley vacations. The UDC makes a recommendation to the Plan Commission, who in turn makes a recommendation to the City Council.

The applicant is requesting a recommendation to vacate an additional 8-foot portion of the north side of Vickery Boulevard located west of Hemphill Street and east of Adams Street. The total area proposed for vacation is approximately 8 feet wide and about 1,268 feet long (.210 acres). The applicant is requesting an additional 8’ to be added to this vacation in order to retain the current proposed site plan while ensuring that some elements of the project (such as stoops and front steps) remain on the private side rather than in the right-of-way, since this would require an encroachment agreement.

Vacation of this portion of Vickery Boulevard does not have a negative impact to the overall circulation in the district, as it does not impact the width of any existing drive lanes. Overall it will benefit the urban form of the street at this location, reducing the distance between the parcel edge and the sidewalk boundary, and enabling the proposed development to pull closer to the street.

The site plan for this project has progressed since the UDC’s last review of this project. So far, the proposed site plan is meeting the design requirements of the Near Southside. It is not anticipated at this time that the project will require any waivers.

Given the above, Staff recommends the following motion:

 

That the request for a recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council on the vacation of a portion of Vickery Boulevard be approved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm...

I still need more renderings. 

[Crestline]

Looks great, although I wonder at the need for the restaurant when there are already a few lounges and restaurants in-place right across Vickery to the south. I say just replace the restaurant with more townhomes from the left or apartments from the right to further boost population density.

[Stadtplan]

That public parking lot looks too small for a standalone restaurant.

[rriojas71]

That public parking lot looks too small for a standalone restaurant.

I read that as a public "park" not parking

[Stadtplan]

Here's the area I was referring to:

 

[Big Frog II]

There appears to be a lot of street parking available on Vickery for any restaurant.

[rriojas71]

Here's the area I was referring to:

 

I was looking at it on my phone so I couldn't make that out so my bad that I overlooked that.

[Stadtplan]

Here's a few renderings from the UDC meeting:

 

[Jeriat]

Here's a few renderings from the UDC meeting:

 

 

...well it definitely fits the "Near Southside" aesthetic... I think.

[rriojas71]

I already knew from the site plan that this is exactly what they were going to look like.   Boring and uninspired.   The only positive thing is that they are going to be taking up vacant land and making them productive.

 

Jeriat, they fit the "all areas" of the FW aesthetic.  Nothing new being brought to the table.  Wash... Rinse... Repeat

[Jeriat]

I already knew from the site plan that this is exactly what they were going to look like.   Boring and uninspired.   The only positive thing is that they are going to be taking up vacant land and making them productive.

 

Jeriat, they fit the "all areas" of the FW aesthetic.  Nothing new being brought to the table.  Wash... Rinse... Repeat

 

I wasn't so much complaining about the look, just still thinking about my disappointment with the Katy Lofts and maybe it was rubbing off on this project. 

Still haven't heard anything with that since before the Pandemic. 

[JBB]

There was something in the transportation masterplan about funds from Katy Lofts being diverted for other use.  It may not be dead, but I doubt it's happening soon.

 

From the section on the TEX Rail extension:

 

"The federal cost share of the project is made up $71.4 million in funds from the Regional Transportation Council; $38.9 million in leftover funds from the initial TEXRail project to the airport; and $11.3 million in federal funds being reallocated from the Katy Lofts project. The Regional Transportation Council has also allocated the equivalent of $21.1 million in Transportation Development Credits for the project."

[Jeriat]

There was something in the transportation masterplan about funds from Katy Lofts being diverted for other use.  It may not be dead, but I doubt it's happening soon.

 

From the section on the TEX Rail extension:

 

"The federal cost share of the project is made up $71.4 million in funds from the Regional Transportation Council; $38.9 million in leftover funds from the initial TEXRail project to the airport; and $11.3 million in federal funds being reallocated from the Katy Lofts project. The Regional Transportation Council has also allocated the equivalent of $21.1 million in Transportation Development Credits for the project."

 

Figures.

[Stadtplan]

As I learn more about city government, I'm always a little suprised the lack of conversation taking place within the commissions and boards as part of the public meetings.  I know it is the public's opportunity to speak for or against a case but there just doesn't seem to be much resistance to most of these designs, if any.  Anyone can register to speak as a member of the public and just get on the line and say "this design is boring and uninspired" but then what's the follow-up to that?  I know they have workshops to look at some of these things in more detail, but more often then not, it feels like these designs are waived through with little to no resistance or scrutiny by the boards.  I don't think they set out to make developers and architects lives miserable, but it seems like simply changing something from an undeveloped lot into anything new is good enough as if any idea is better than nothing or no interest at all. 

 

From what I gather, these type of projects create more "traffic" and activity in areas that may not have seen so much activity in the past.  I'm not sure I agree with this approach but just my observations for what its worth.  Perhaps more people need to speak up and say "couldn't you guys/gals do a little better than that?" and make them go back to the drawing board a couple more times or how about giving us two different options to review?  I hear what is being said and it feels like we would put more thought into buying a new pair of tennis shoes than the attention or lack of giving to a building that we will look at for the next 30+ years.

[JBB]

The problem with "boring and uninspired" is that it's subjective and relative.  Is bad or completely unattractive?  No, not even a little.  Does it look like everything else being built in the area?  Yes, of course.  That look is what's in right now and you're going to see a lot of it.  There's probably someone on here that will say that the David Schwartz work around town over the last quarter century is boring and uninspired.  Some of the acceptance of whatever is proposed has to do with the constraints of the code that governs the work of boards and commissions.  Zoning typically has very little leeway.  If it meets the code as written, there's not much they can do to stop it.  The design district boards may have a little more flexibility.  Someone correct me if I'm off on that assessment.  At the end of the day, what is boring and uninspired to those of us that pay attention to and appreciate architecture and design is perfectly acceptable to someone driving by a new development.  

[Stadtplan]

For me, the disappointment is that so many apartments have no mixed-use elements.  This project at Vickery is giving us a pocket park and a restaurant, albeit a standalone restaurant.  Here's a rendering of a target store in an urban retail / residential setting, it just seems like a better use of space in an urban /walkable setting and forward-thinking enough to assume there will be more infill and density at some point in time.

 

  

[JBB]

Yes, I completely agree with that.  As much as many parts of the Montgomery Plaza development (the big hole in the facade, the big box elements) grind my gears, the mixed use of the old building was nicely done.  I could almost forgive the hole in the facade if they had integrated the Target store into the ground floor or at least given it more of an urban look and style.

[Jeriat]

If we're being honest, these kinds of buildings (apartments and mixed-use) all have similar looks, regardless of them being ultra modern like what we see in this Vickery project or a fauxback design like that Target building Nit just posted. 

In a way, it's always been like that in every decade or era, even before the 60s when everything started going "modern". So I personally don't get that hung up on the design, UNLESS it's just too ugly or boring looking. If every one of these new mixed use buildings looked like Burnett Plaza, I'd fall into a depression and believe we were headed towards a dark age of monotony. And I know some of you may think we're already there, but at the very least, these current modern designs have color and some difference in look. 

[rriojas71]

Yes boring and uninspired is my personal opinion.  I base that on the fact that this looks exactly like the town homes and buildings in Uptown or the townhomes in West Bank.  I did say that I do like that a vacant lot is getting new life and new residents will be in the area.  If that is the silver lining then I guess that is better than no lining at all.  

 

I was hoping for something more exciting from Trademark but I guess it's my fault for getting my hopes up.  I should've known better.

[johnfwd]

Yes boring and uninspired is my personal opinion.  I base that on the fact that this looks exactly like the town homes and buildings in Uptown or the townhomes in West Bank.  I did say that I do like that a vacant lot is getting new life and new residents will be in the area.  If that is the silver lining then I guess that is better than no lining at all.  

 

I was hoping for something more exciting from Trademark but I guess it's my fault for getting my hopes up.  I should've known better.

This entire area south of the freeway around Hemphill has been underdeveloped for years.  I, too, agree this project, as mediocre in design as it appears, is better than nothing.

[Austin55]

Looks nice. Thanks for grabbing those views from UDC, nitix.

[JBB]

Yes boring and uninspired is my personal opinion.

Please understand that I'm not knocking anyone's personal opinion about the design being boring and uninspired. I'm just pointing out that such a subjective opinion is unlikely to be used by a government body to change or stop a project like this.

[rriojas71]

 

Yes boring and uninspired is my personal opinion.

Please understand that I'm not knocking anyone's personal opinion about the design being boring and uninspired. I'm just pointing out that such a subjective opinion is unlikely to be used by a government body to change or stop a project like this.

 

No offense taken.  I'm a big boy and I am totally okay with differing opinions and debate.  All good JBB

[gdvanc]

I wish a stronger local vernacular architecture had developed here that was expressed in some way in the designs of some of these developments. Or maybe a nod to some of the streams of design from Fort Worth's better past buildings. As it is, they not only look a lot alike, they look a lot like developments in every suburb in the country.

[Austin55]

There appears to be a lot of street parking available on Vickery for any restaurant.

 

Those spaces are already filled pretty frequently. 

[Austin55]

This project is on the Southside TIF agenda,

 

 

Consideration of a Resolution to Approve Tax Increment Financing Development Agreement with Vickery Village Development, LLC for public for improvements. (Michael Brennan, TIF Administrator)

https://www.fortwort...nda-revised.pdf

[Austin55]

Fort Worth Report covered the project and the TIF request.

 

https://fortworthrep...destination/

[Doohickie]

Fort Worth Report covered the project and the TIF request.

 

https://fortworthrep...destination/

The mixed-use project, called The Vickery on Near Southside, is located on the southside of Vickery, between Hemphill Street and Lipscomb Street. It sits on about 4.5 acres at 800 W. Vickery Blvd., the former location of a roofing company.

 

Located on the north side of Vickery....

[Stadtplan]

The Vickery hit TDLR:

 

https://www.tdlr.tex.../TABS2023001508

 

PROJECT

Project Name: The Vickery

Project Number: TABS2023001508

Facility Name: The Vickery

Location Address: 800 W Vickery Blvd.

Fort Worth, TX 75219

Location County: Tarrant

Start Date: 1/1/2023

Completion Date: 10/1/2024

Estimated Cost: $900,000

Type of Work: New Construction

Type of Funds: This project is privately funded, on private land for private use.

Scope of Work: Leasing and amenity center for an apartment building. New construction of Type IIIA. Occupancy type A-3.

Square Footage: 7,652 ft 2

Are the private funds provided by the tenant? No

Current Status: Project Registered

 

OWNER

Owner Name:

Vickery Village Development, LLC

Owner Address:

3800 Maple Ave Suite 260

Dallas, Texas 75219

 

DESIGN FIRM

Design Firm Name:

GFF Architects

Design Firm Address:

1702 River Run Suite 800

Fort Worth, Texas 76107

[Austin55]

On the agenda for next week's city council work session: https://fortworthgov...FE-370FD1F2F5A9

 

 

The purpose of this Informal Report is to provide the Mayor and Council with information on a potential new development near Vickery and Hemphill and to communicate an overview of the necessary agreements for facilitating the development. Vickery Village Development, LLC (“Developer”) is proposing to develop a mixed-use development on Vickery Boulevard near Hemphill Street adjacent to Interstate 30 (“Project”). The Project will be built on a site on the west side of Hemphill Street. A portion of the Project includes land that is currently owned by the City. The Project consists of a proposed mixed-use development on approximately 5 acres, including 0.44 acres of City-owned property located at 700 W. Vickery Street.

The proposed Project consists of a minimum 235-unit rental residential complex and a 3,500 sq. ft. restaurant on a site that is currently challenged by several constraints, including the location of stormwater infrastructure, the impact of the adjacent I-30 overpass, and remaining concrete from a previous demolition. 

On August 3, 2022, the TIF 4 Board authorized $3,300,000.00 to support the Project through the reimbursement of certain costs relating to street, streetscape, and other public improvements. To facilitate the development, the City intends to convey to the Developer the City-owned property located at 700 W. Vickery at the property’s fair market value of $225,000.00 as determined by an appraisal obtained by the City. The proceeds of the sale will be used as a grant to the Developer through an Economic Development Program Agreement (“380 Agreement”). To qualify under the 380 Agreement, the Developer must spend, or cause to be spent, a minimum $40 million on the development of the Project, with certain additional requirements relating to minimum hard costs and business equity spending for the Project. Completion of the Project must occur on or before December 31, 2026. In addition to the requirements necessary to earn the 380 Grant, performance by the Developer will be secured by a right of first held by the City and an escrowed amount of $225,000.00 payable to the City in the event of a Developer default. An M&C will be placed on the October 25, 2022 agenda for City Council consideration with the recommendation to authorize a purchase and sale agreement and 380 Agreement, and any other related agreements necessary to facilitate the Project as outlined above. For further questions, please contact Robert Sturns, Director of the Economic Development Department, at 817-392-2663.

[Austin55]

The city has sold land on the East side of the site for Trademark to integrate into the development. 

 

https://www.fortwort...vickery-village