Demolition work has begun on 5th Avenue South to make way for Pine Park, a 14-unit townhouse development that will occupy the former Baskin-Robbins ice cream and Curves fitness studio locations at 614 and 616 5th Ave. S.
According to developer Augie Bukowski, the property will consist of six live-work townhomes and eight residential townhomes. The project is estimated to be completed in the next 16 months, he said.
“This development is perfect for the location, and illustrates the lower-density development that can be accomplished instead of large condo buildings, while mixing in small-format commercial space for local professionals to operate their business from home,” Bukowski added.
The Baskin-Robbins closed its doors in November 2015, at which time it was announced that the ice cream store building and vacated building next door — formerly home to Curves — would be replaced by a new branch of HomeStreet Bank in late 2016 or early 2017. The bank branch was never built, and Seattle-based BK Investment Group/Seattle Luxury Homes purchased both parcels from HomeStreet in August 2020.
If that is what they call low density I will hate to see high density
Wow!!! What a cool idea!!!
This IS low-density. This IS responsible growth. Downtown Edmonds is full of 3-story condo complexes. This is no different. Not sure why there are people who feel the need to complain EVERY time something new is built (or opened) downtown.
This is a very good point. Edmonds condominium epidemic ran wild long ago and this modest building is more like what they should have built instead of those huge buildings that locked out so much commercial space for the kind of mix development that brings the revenue the city is begging for now. Edmonds cannot remain a condominium town forever and pay its bills. That’s much is clear.
Taller.
I’m a bit surprised to see not much exterior articulation or a design style that more closely reflects downtown Edmonds architecture.
agree….dismal urban design
I agree Jim, and could have made a more appealing design. Two Boxes.
Oh no. The Kirklandization of Our Edmonds continues and when will it stop??
1. Previous work/live designs have not worked well. Be prepared to have the 6 frontages shuttered and just used as personal “lofts”. 2. The 8 other residential townhouses will have rooftop decks, which will be loud if Ballard is any example. They will also have insufficient off-street parking (one spot per) 3. Lost several beautiful, mature trees in the demolition. 4. No HOA planned to ensure standards, so expect these to become investment rentals with tenants crammed in. Hope for the best!
I agree with both Doug and Delores. If the actual buildings look like the rendering shown in today’s Edmonds News, then they couldn’t be more blah. It seems to me that a little more effort could have gone into the exterior design to make it more pleasing. As to Doug’s comment about making them “reflect Edmonds architecture”, I guess I would ask – how would you define Edmonds architecture? To me it’s a mixture of early 1900’s, beach cottages, and modern. But still, the designers of Pine Park could have used a little more imagination.
These are not townhomes… they’re condos. Townhomes are more appealing, with an individual entrance, a small yard, and usually their own garage. Townhomes typically cost more to build and are more appealing to live in and look at. These are nothing more than low cost unimaginative condos.
Actually, the developer says their townhomes. https://pinepark14.com/
New, comparable units in a prime location, with sizes ranging from approximately 1,800 to 2,200 square feet, are being sold for over $1,000 per square foot. We’ll see, but I wouldn’t exactly describe them as low-cost.
I’ve attended numerous Planning Board meetings, as well as City Council meetings regarding this project. It is a disaster in the making. I feel so sorry for the residents in that neighborhood who fought hard to try to reason with the planning board. Their logical and sensible suggestions fell upon DEAF ears meeting after meeting. Thanks for nothing city administrators, past and present.
In response to Dawn Malkowski’s letter: I am one of the neighbors bordering this development. My neighbors and I attended several Design Review Board meetings and Public Hearings regarding this project beginning in 2021. Among the concerns that we raised repeatedly (and that were never adequately addressed) were the potential for traffic congestion and emergency vehicle access where the alley bordering the south edge of the project intersects with 5th Avenue.
The alley will be the primary access and egress off 5th Avenue for eight townhouses and six live/work units in addition to the numerous condos and apartments using the alley, as well as service, garbage, and delivery vehicles. The potential for congestion and concerns about pedestrian safety are considerable.
Another concern, expressed repeatedly, was trash and recycling pick up. No provision was ever made for potentially twenty-plus trash cans plus recycling except to say they needed to be picked up in the alley and not 5th Avenue. As the property is divided into fourteen discreet lots it’s hard to imagine any new owner will consent to their lot being the trash collection site.
This developer is now planning a second townhouse project for 3rd and Dayton. There will be public hearings on this proposed project. I encourage you to be involved in this process.
I hope they will have parking under the building!! Please we need more street parking for customers!!
I thought about that, Barry, as I wrote the note. My personal feeling is that the Edmonds architecture style should not be boxes based on maximizing square footage. We need our own identity much as Carmel and Santa Barbara, California have theirs. And we do have rich architectural history from which to draw. Good architecture does not have to mean strictly turn of the century buildings. A good architect can blend history with contemporary needs. I don’t believe, however, that the stark Mies Van der Rohe type building is part our history, Look to the one on lower Main St. It’s a sour note in a wonderful town. I am also not an advocate of ‘let them build whatever they want’. Of course not everyone has an appreciation for art and architecture. So let the ‘business side of building’ be handled by the developers while they meet our community master plan and standards. I agree too with Sharon in that parking is essential. While I’m at it, Rick Steves’ idea of a pedestrian square at the core of Edmonds is a wonderful idea that should be supported community wide. Edmonds is a gem of a town and hodgepodge buildings dilute the community. Barry, that’s as close as I can get to answering your question.
Sharon, according to the developer’s website (pinepark14 dot com), every unit comes with a 1-car garage or 2 off-street parking spaces. And, Barry, I agree about the look. We don’t need any more gray around here. Painting the top half a lighter color would do wonders. However, new housing is more exciting to look at than a vacant building and vacant lot.
The live work element is a design concept that has provided little if any benefit to communities. It is not a sustainable vitalization of the downtown commercial experience. This is just a work around to cheat the BD zone design guidelines.
We’ll he glad to get rid of this old, abandoned eyesore that greets every visitor who drives into Edmonds on 5th Avenue. The new building plans look good. Our thanks go to Mayor Mike Rosen for likely helping to move this along and to the BK Investment Group for investing in downtown Edmonds.
I fully support building something better on the site but it should comply with the intent of the BD development guidelines. Also a clarification to note, this project was submitted and reviewed during the prior administration (not Mayor Rosen).
Can you add a few more details about the intent of the BD development guidelines for those of us with limited knowledge. My quick review included a 30′ height limit and 12′, 1st floor (assume for retail). Based on the rendering, the building is 3-story. Can 3-story be built (floors are typically 10′) with a 12′, 1st floor? Could these 3-story townhomes be built in the BD zone if they were completely residential without the live-work element. Can they all be converted to residential if the live-work element no longer applies? Thanks in advance!
Hi Jon, their proposal assumes 12’ first floor and 9’ second and third floors (A and B), 8’-6”, 9’-6”, 9’ (C). No on just residential along street fronts. Per the Site Development Standards within the BD2 and BD3 zones (this proposal is BD3), development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. – 16.43.030, B7. Buildings A and B along the street front are live/work, and building C not along the street front is just townhomes.
I don’t know if this meets the definition of low density housing but regardless I guess it is better than a derelict building. The proposal was submitted the city did its due diligence and approved it, done deal. I don’t like higher population density but apparently my government does I guess if there is one consolation I can’t see it from my house. Welcome to Edmonds
Have to laugh at the comments insinuating Edmonds has some kind of architectural style that must be followed. Exactly what is that style? And “I know it when I see it” isn’t a good answer.
My thoughts exactly. Port Townsend has a style. Leavenworth has a style. Edmonds has buildings with no consistency or style and has everything from tacky 80s condominium style, to cold war era looking office buildings and banks, to strange weird ultra modern mcmansions next to small cottage homes. This baby will fit right in because the only consistency is inconsistency.
Paul, you nailed it. The “consistency of inconsistency” is such an endearing part of Edmonds, IMO: a living history of the diverse parade of people, organizations, and enterprises that have added their little piece to the puzzle over time (not to mention a testament to the dynamic, organic evolution of forms and styles that shaped Edmonds before the boom of anti-growth sentiment, where our shift towards central planning of building and function began!) We are slowly starting to remember the old ways; I am optimistic that future generations will be able to experience Edmonds as a similarly dynamic place.
We can hope for the best, but do expect the worst. No HOA? That is begging for trouble.
Yay! Another uninspired box of architectural blah that looks like any other box of blah.