May 13, 2015

Case Study: Arlington Mill Community CenterJennifer Smith, Columbia Pike Revitalization Coordinator,Department of Community Planning, Housing & Development

Presentation Outline

• Background

• Initial Development Proposal (2002 – 2005)

• Mixed Use Proposal (2005 – 2009)

• Final Project (2009 – 2013)

• Lessons Learned

2

Background

1996: County purchases vacant Safeway site at Dinwiddie Street and Columbia Pike• Acquisition cost: $2.35M• Renovation cost: $1.66M

1998: County leases 63% of building to APS• APS programs intended to

move to old Shirlington Library site after 5 years

3

Initial Development Proposal

• APS and County decide to jointly fund and build a shared facility at Arlington Mill

• Community Center• Continuing education high school• Arlington Education and Employment Program (REEP)

• Allocation of space within facility approximately 50/50 County/School programs

4

Initial Development Proposal

• March 2002: County adopts Columbia Pike Initiative – A Revitalization Plan

• Arlington Mill site designated for a “civic building”

• 2002 – 2003: Work team consisting of County and APS staff, community members, and design team develop overall vision for building and programs

• Included public forums and work sessions with program and service providers

• More diverse set of services than typically offered at County community centers

• Much larger facility than other County Community Centers

5

Initial Development Proposal

• 2004: Arlington Mill Steering Committee established• Work with APS & County staff and architect to develop schematic design,

using 2003 Community Process Report as benchmark• Provide input on materials, landscape, Four Mile Run buffers, parking

strategies

• Early 2005: Design work begins on project

• September 2005: County and APS decide to proceed independently on respective programs

• APS interest in moving ahead with a shorter timeline at an alternate site• County interest in pursuing public-private partnership to help finance

community center• Columbia Pike Revitalization Plan and its 2005 update emphasized

mixed-use development and affordable housing

6

Mixed Use Development Proposal

• Winter 2005-06: County finalizes community center program, including community preference for larger gym and flexible classrooms

• Summer/Fall 2006: County issues Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for private development partner

• Responses indicate multi-family housing as an additional use

7

Mixed Use Development Proposal

• November 2006: Voters approve $26M bond funding to construct community center

• May 2007: County selects Public Private Alliances as joint development partner

• 2007 – 2008: Arlington Mill Review Committee meetings, and frequent Community Update meetings with Steering Committee allow for public input on development proposal

8

Mixed Use Development Proposal

• County/PPA Form-Based Code proposal:

• 6-story mixed use community center/retail/residential building

• 5-story residential building• 3 stories of below-grade parking• Public plaza• Residential component: 192

apartments (131 market rate and 61 affordable)

• Affordable component financed in part by Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)

Image source: PPA

9

Mixed Use Development Proposal

• June 2008: County Board approves use permit for project

• PPA unable to secure financing for market rate portion of development due to recession

10

Final Mixed Use Project

• December 2009: County Board directs staff to proceed with modified, phased plan for community center and plaza, including parking structure

• Decision eliminates residential portion of community center building

• Board commits to development of at least 61 affordable units on remainder of site

• June 2010: County gives initial consideration to relocating Columbia Pike Library to Arlington Mill site

• County Manager withdraws proposal due to strong community support for keeping library at existing location

11

Final Mixed Use Project

• June 2010: County issues Request for Proposals for a new development partner for residential component

• September 2010: County Board approves Use Permit Amendment

• Separates project into two phases for community center and residential building

• Community center building height changes from approved 6 stories (3 community center + 3 housing) to 5 stories (all for community center uses with ground floor retail)

• October 2010: County selects Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing (APAH) as new development partner

12

Final Mixed Use Project

• APAH Proposal for Arlington Mill Residences:• Approved residential building reduced to 122 units; height

reduced to 4 stories• Addressed community concerns• Reduced construction costs per unit• Shortened construction time

• 100% committed affordable units, including 13 permanent supportive housing units and units for lower-income households (30, 50, and 60% of the Area Median Income)

• County offered below-market rate ground lease, built parking garage for entire site at one time (APAH purchased its share of common garage)

• Co-location with community center reduced costs by $75,000 per unit

13

2013: Community Center Opens

2014: Residences Completed

Lessons Learned

• County seized the opportunity to acquire an available site without a definite long term program plan

• Later community engagement process and broader Columbia Pike planning led to vision of a mixed-use project to anchor revitalization efforts

• Form-Based Code anticipated civic buildings along corridor

• Prescriptive set of design standards, allowed for more streamlined process

• Community embraced code; helped build community support for mixed-use development

16

Lessons Learned

• Neighborhood Steering Committeewas critical to site programmingand design

• Persistence – keep working thedeal

• County maximized height andbuilding space of communitycenter at time of construction

• Portions of building left unfinished toallow for future program expansionas County grows

• Less costly to build upfront than toadd on later

17

Lessons Learned

• Constructing parking garage upfrontsaved on total project costs versusseparate garages for each phase andcaused less disruption to theneighborhood

• Community center retail space notyet occupied – difficulties of locatingin a public building

• Form-Based Code approval process allowed housing to meet ambitious timeline without delaying community center construction

18

Lessons Learned

• Affordable housing can be a good partner in public land• Reduced land costs allowed

APAH to leverage LIHTC equity and provide housing at lower income tiers

• Meets County goals of locating affordable housing near transit and providing community center programs and amenities to residents

19