Davies Property

Project description

The site is parcel 57 4 02 040, approximately 2.69 acres located in the City of Fairfax, Virginia. The existing condition is a single-family home. The approved proposal would replace that home with a mixed-use development containing up to 276 upper-story residential apartments (rental tenure), 6,608 gross square feet of retail use, and approximately 4,188 square feet of office use—with the office component comprising a co-working space (2,653 GSF) and a business center (1,535 GSF) as labeled on the General Development Plan sheets. The applicant's most recent documents consistently describe approximately 423 shared parking spaces; the City project directory states 424 spaces in structured parking. The project status is Approved.

The number of affordable units was not confirmed at an extraction confidence adequate to report; that figure has been demoted to unconfirmed in the source data. Building height was revised between resubmissions: the April 2025 General Development Plan labels Building B at 5 stories / 46'–9", while the July and May 2025 resubmissions label it at 5 stories / 58'–1". The current approved configuration reflects the later height.

Economic effects

New demand. At an assumed occupancy rate of 0.90–0.97, the 276 proposed units are projected to generate 248–268 occupied households. Applying Rutgers CUPR residential demographic multipliers for multifamily units by bedroom mix (persons per unit range 1.5–2.2), the project would add approximately 373–589 new residents. These households are modeled with an income premium over the site-tract mean—reflecting the tendency of new-construction rental product to attract higher-income households—which affects all spending estimates proportionally.

Spending clusters. New household spending was estimated by applying BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey 2023 category figures scaled by per-category income elasticities (grocery 0.45, restaurant/bar 0.85, comparison retail 0.95, convenience retail 0.60, personal services 0.90, entertainment 1.05). The largest spending pools generated are comparison retail ($2,079,000–$3,748,000/yr), entertainment ($1,759,000–$3,243,000/yr), and restaurant/bar ($1,625,000–$2,865,000/yr).

Where spending lands — Huff capture estimates. These are screening estimates. The model applies a joint destination-and-mode choice framework in which each retail point of interest competes as a destination, with capture probability proportional to attraction and inversely proportional to travel-time decay (P(j,m) ~ A_j × w_m × exp(−b_m × t_mj), aggregated to named clusters for reporting). It ranks where new spending is likely to land and provides sensitivity bounds; it is not a prediction.

The top two clusters by projected capture are Fairchester Drive & Hill Street ($2,058,000–$3,537,000/yr, led by grocery and comparison retail) and Chain Bridge Road & North Street ($1,462,000–$3,338,000/yr, led by restaurants/bars and entertainment). Fair Lakes Parkway & Fair Oaks Mall ($674,000–$1,019,000/yr) and Mathy Drive & Pickett Road ($500,000–$799,000/yr) follow. The Huff model estimates that approximately 59%–65% of food-away spending and approximately 59%–65% of all-retail spending would land at destinations inside the City boundary (in-city capture shares 0.62–0.71 for food away, 0.59–0.65 for all retail).

Project's own ground-floor retail. The project's 6,608 SF of retail space competes as a destination in the same Huff model. The model estimates the ground floor would capture $18,000–$43,000 per year of the new residents' own spending—a small share of total household retail demand, reflecting the limited scale of the on-site space relative to nearby retail options.

Foot-traffic index. The foot-traffic index change on the 10 nearest commercial street segments is estimated at 0.2% (relative index). This figure is a screening estimate computed as exact marginal trip flows from the site against a sampled baseline betweenness index of today's population; it is not calibrated to observed pedestrian counts.

Jobs. The existing single-family use is estimated to support 0 on-site commercial jobs removed. The proposed retail space (6,608 SF / assumed sqft per retail job) yields an estimated 9–17 on-site retail jobs added. The proposed office space (4,188 SF / assumed sqft per office job) yields an estimated 8–17 on-site office jobs added. The net on-site job change is estimated at approximately 18–33 jobs, computed as retail jobs added plus office jobs added minus existing jobs removed.

Fiscal effects

Current tax. The current real estate tax on parcel 57 4 02 040 is $51,032 per year, computed as the current assessed value multiplied by the City real estate tax rate.

Projected real estate tax. The projected assessed value is estimated at $101,409,000–$131,193,000, computed as proposed units × assessed value per unit (derived from three City of Fairfax apartment comps built since 2011: assessed values of $360,982/unit, $359,599/unit, and $458,932/unit) plus retail square footage × a commercial assessed value per sqft assumption plus office square footage × an office assessed value per sqft assumption. Applying the FY2027 City real estate tax rate to that projected value yields a projected real estate tax of approximately $1,088,000–$1,407,000 per year, an increase of approximately $1,037,000–$1,356,000 over the current site tax.

Other recurring revenue lines. Additional revenue lines estimated on a rough-estimate basis include:

• Personal property tax on resident vehicles (rough estimate): $92,000–$398,000/yr, computed as new households × assumed vehicles per household × assumed average vehicle assessed value × the City personal property tax rate. No project-specific vehicle data exists; treat as order-of-magnitude.
• BPOL business license tax on project retail (rough estimate): $486–$3,933/yr, computed as proposed retail sqft × assumed gross sales per sqft × the BPOL retail rate × a net-new share assumption, with a displacement adjustment for resident spending that would shift from existing city businesses.
• BPOL business license tax on project office (rough estimate): $5,026–$13,402/yr, computed as proposed office sqft × assumed gross receipts per sqft × the BPOL professional-services rate. Not displacement-adjusted, as professional and medical practices serve regional demand.
• Business tangible property tax (rough estimate): $1,783–$6,688/yr, computed as proposed commercial sqft × assumed equipment value per sqft × the City personal property tax rate.
• Meals tax on captured in-city dining: $45,450–$90,960/yr, computed as restaurant spending × the in-city capture share × the City meals tax rate, linking directly to the Huff model results.
• Meals tax on the project's own restaurants (rough estimate): $3,281–$61,945/yr, computed as ground-floor sqft × assumed sales per sqft × assumed restaurant share of retail × the meals tax rate × a net-new share assumption.
• Local sales tax share on captured in-city retail: $24,204–$46,211/yr, computed as in-city captured retail spend × the local sales-tax share under Va. Code § 58.1-605.
• Local sales tax on the project's own retail (rough estimate): $2,430–$19,665/yr, computed as ground-floor sqft × assumed sales per sqft × the local sales-tax share × a net-new share assumption.

Service cost — two methods, named. Two cost framings are applied, and they differ materially.

The naive per-capita method computes service cost as new residents × the citywide non-school General Fund expenditure per capita ($5,254, derived from the FY2027 budget as ($207,912,496 − $76,429,791) ÷ 25,026 residents) plus estimated K-12 students × the net local cost per pupil ($19,961, derived as ($76,429,791 tuition − $14,492,271 state education revenue) ÷ 3,103 students). This method allocates fixed citywide costs — roads, administration, and other overhead that do not actually grow in proportion to infill residents — to every new resident at the full average rate. It therefore represents an upper bound on cost. Estimated cost under this method: $2,233,000–$3,756,000/yr.

The marginal framing applies a marginal cost factor (range 0.25–0.55, central 0.35) to the non-school per-capita cost, then adds the school cost calculated from the project's own student estimate directly. This reflects the view that fixed services do not scale with infill at the full per-capita rate, while school costs follow actual enrollment. This method may understate costs if service capacity expansions are triggered. Estimated cost under this method: $765,000–$2,363,000/yr.

The school cost component — estimated at 14–33 K-12 students × $19,961 net local cost per pupil, producing approximately $275,000–$661,000/yr — is identical in both framings.

Net fiscal range. Combining all recurring revenue lines with the range across both cost methods, the net annual fiscal impact is estimated at −$2,543,956 to +$1,232,014. The naive per-capita framing alone yields −$2,543,956 to −$236,173 (negative across its full range). The marginal framing alone yields −$1,151,462 to +$1,232,014 (a range that crosses zero). The wide span reflects genuine methodological uncertainty about how municipal costs scale with infill residential development.

Comparison with external (city staff) estimates. Two city staff report estimates are available and are reported here as published; they are not computed by this analysis and are not combined or averaged with the figures above.

The June 23, 2025 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report states: "The estimated net fiscal balance is calculated as a range between −$308,000 and +$321,000 annually."

The December 5, 2023 City Council Post-Submission Work Session Staff Report states: "The estimated net fiscal balance is calculated as a range between −$344,000 and +$405,000 annually (avg. = +$61,000)."

Both external ranges overlap with this analysis's full range of −$2,543,956 to +$1,232,014. However, this analysis's range is substantially wider in both directions. The principal methodological reasons visible from the metric methods and notes: this analysis presents two named cost framings explicitly bracketing the naive-per-capita and marginal approaches, while the staff estimates appear to use a narrower cost methodology that produces a tighter band. The staff estimates also reflect project-specific assumptions (unit mix, proffer commitments, enrollment projections) that may differ from the general-purpose assumptions used here. Neither set of figures should be treated as more authoritative than the other for purposes of this comparison; they are produced by different methods for different purposes.

Not evaluated in this version

Analyses of the bike-lane corridor, trail connectivity, broader pedestrian connectivity network effects, environmental impacts (stormwater, tree canopy, impervious surface), and comparable-places benchmarking against similar mixed-use projects in comparable jurisdictions are deferred and were not computed as part of this version of the analysis.