Jump to content

Dilworth Projects (Kenilworth, Morehead, East)


Southend

Recommended Posts

The third Morehead St project is close to breaking ground.  The developer of Solis Dilworth just received their building permits and recently closed on the purcase of the land at the SW corner of Kenilworth and Morehead.  This is the site where the Walgreens was originally proposed and denied during rezoning.

 

The will be demolishing the ~1920s apartment building a the corner, plus I believe 3 other former single family homes along Kenilworth and Morehead.  This is the craftsman bungalowish looking project that had a rendering posted on here several months ago.

 

RES52.jpg

Demo fencing is up. You were right about the number of houses to be demolished. It's a shame as several of them and the apartment building have a lot of character, but I guess I am ok with this in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Demo fencing is up. You were right about the number of houses to be demolished. It's a shame as several of them and the apartment building have a lot of character, but I guess I am ok with this in the long run.

I agree with this.  The writing on the wall for those buildings has been pretty obvious for a couple years.   I do think that by at least having an upgraded aesthetic and back to the land use called for in the area plan, it is a better match than the Walgreens, especially if Walgreens ends up in the ground floor of a mixed use building. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

sign #437 that Charlotte is incapable of enforcing what was (once) a decent set of neighborhood plans:

 

Mecklenburg Times reports that the City Council will vote on June 16th on modifying PED overlay requirements to require _more_ parking for residential projects (from 1 to 1.25 spaces per unit). All thanks to requests from the DCDA.

 

They will also vote on some design requirement changes that should help make large buildings less monolithic -- not sure if that matters given recent legislative discussions.

 

http://mecktimes.com/news/2014/05/23/design-and-parking-changes-could-be-required-in-dilworth-area/

Edited by kermit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not really vacant, its used for storage of equipment for the Boulevard films sound stages which are in the warehouse next door (between Lil General and Nan & Byrons). The Boulevard holding company owns both parcels, but not the prosthetics facility behind the C store. The prosthetics place completes the square, without it the value of the c store and warehouse parcels are limited for teardown redevelopment.

Boulevard mostly makes commercials, they have been around forever and are quite successful. A neighbor of mine who is in the business says that they feel no need to move and they trumpet their Southend location when they solicit clients (e.g. 'We are near lots of bars and restaurants'). Having said that, the name of the holding company of the parcels is 1700 South LLC which suggests to me that the owner (Billy Patete) does see the two buildings (with an eye on the adjacent prosthetics business on Kingston) as an eventual development project.

Edit: gezzz, my info goes stale fast. Thanks for the update prodev!

Edited by kermit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the story on the former Lil General convenience store at the corner of E Kingston and South Blvd?  Seems like it is a great little space for a shop or restaurant, yet it sits there vacant.  

 

Piedmont Properties recently began marketing the BLVD space adjacent to it for lease. The flyer states that they will knock the c-store down for parking once a lease is signed. 

Edited by Prodev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

As the Duke Endowment building is nearing completion (and looks fantastic due mostly to the nice materials IMO), it is unclear to me whether they may actually be starting something at "site B", fronting Oriole St. That area has been cleared of the construction trailers and excavated about 10 feet deep in the middle. It doesn't look like a definite sign of anything but does anyone know what their plans were for this part of the site and if movement on it is possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ This just got out of the ground, with the 2 levels of underground parking completed in the back corner. Just driving and walking by, you can already tell that its going to be leaps and bounds higher in quality than any low rise apartments we've seen go up here in a while. I think its setting a great precedent for development along the greenway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The small 12 unit condo project on Tremont between Cleveland and Euclid has a sign on it saying "Only 3 units left". I think with the presumed success of this small condo project, we're going to start seeing more small infill condo deals very soon.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any reason why we get quality architecture like this on Morehead but get dumpster fires littered all along S Blvd?  Is the demand for higher end that much more significant a mile away?

They probably do it just to placate the Dilworth crowd. Easier to just do a higher quality project from the start than fight the neighborhood association. Developers don't really have to worry about that in South End.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They probably do it just to placate the Dilworth crowd. Easier to just do a higher quality project from the start than fight the neighborhood association. Developers don't really have to worry about that in South End.

Bingo. 

DCDA would not approved of something lower quality. Unfortunately SouthEnd doesn't have a council of crazies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/HDC/Cases/2014/2014-101.pdf

 

An interesting development planned for the empty parcel at the corner of East and Winthrop.  Apartments that were there burned 9 years ago and the site has remained a field ever since.

 

Overall I like it, assuming building materials are high quality, though I do think the fact that it doesn't sit back as far from East Blvd as any other structure within several blocks is odd, and maybe they should lose the East Blvd facing protruding porch/decks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/HDC/Cases/2014/2014-101.pdf

 

An interesting development planned for the empty parcel at the corner of East and Winthrop.  Apartments that were there burned 9 years ago and the site has remained a field ever since.

 

Overall I like it, assuming building materials are high quality, though I do think the fact that it doesn't sit back as far from East Blvd as any other structure within several blocks is odd, and maybe they should lose the East Blvd facing protruding porch/decks.

I like the fact that it is closer to the street than most of the other buildings. Dilworth is urbanizing and buildings built closer to the street will reflect this.

Looking at the images of this thing on east blvd with the other buildings around it makes me really like this new building!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/HDC/Cases/2014/2014-101.pdf

 

An interesting development planned for the empty parcel at the corner of East and Winthrop.  Apartments that were there burned 9 years ago and the site has remained a field ever since.

 

Overall I like it, assuming building materials are high quality, though I do think the fact that it doesn't sit back as far from East Blvd as any other structure within several blocks is odd, and maybe they should lose the East Blvd facing protruding porch/decks.

I've been wondering about this site for quite a while, and love this plan! I was imagining townhomes, but didn't even think it possible to fit this many units there. Not normally my style of building but I think its a perfect fit for the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That project was shot down a week or two ago by the Historic District Commission, and it got so personal against the owner (who was just telling me this today) that the potential developer for the project backed out rather than try to deal with the HDC again. A few of the neighbors got up to speak against it because they didn't want "their" public alleyway to be used, and it snowballed from there. So for the foreseeable future at least, it's not happening and it'll stay an empty lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a resident of "old" Dilworth for many years I can tell you these alleys are a source of continuing acrimony. The original plat of Dilworth in 1890 includes Worthington to Park Avenue and at that time the rear 10' (or 12') of each lot was "reserved for use in common with all owners of the block for ingress, egress" etc. Recall that this was before motor vehicles so coal was delivered with horse and hand cart and packages came to your back door and rubbish was collected at the rear. Utilities later were run through this alley. Thus property owners may not restrict access to their neighbors and neighbors may have to insist on their right to use property they do not own or pay tax upon. This deed restriction prohibits any structure that will prevent access. These are not public alleys. They are owned by each street-facing property owner but with serious restrictions as above. Personal use and continuing access over many years may seem to have superseded these deed restrictions though any decent lawyer will determine this is not the case.

As always, shared use property is a headache.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case I think it's a public right-of-way alley, but even if it wasn't, the proposed building complied with all the setbacks and didn't encroach on the alley at all. It was just people looking to find a reason to shoot the project down. As far as the street setbacks, it complied with all the city's rules in the PED district, but the HDC wanted it set back from the street further, and on both streets it faces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At meckrodindex.com, the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds site, if one looks at Map book 230, page 60, the original plat of original Dilworth is shown. This map indicates all properties with full depth lots, with no indication of alleyway. The deeds are written as I described above with owners of the full depth property with the restriction as to "ingress, regress" and so on. The tax maps and GIS are more recent creations, and property conveyed may not be the same as shown on such maps. As always, refer to your deed and survey.

These hand drawn maps were sometimes done in colors and I have seen a few of the older ones from the late 1800's that are lovely with colors for foliage and elevation, and with calligraphy that is stunning today. They were (at that time) stored in a vault at the ROD office. Extra large folio size volumes.

A public official must have had superb handwriting for that job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.