Fairfax Presbyterian Church

Project description

The site consists of two parcels — Parcel 57-1-02-122-A (3.02 acres) and Parcel 57-1-02-123 (5.23 acres), totaling 8.25 acres — currently occupied by a 43,000-square-foot church with an accessory day care center and parking; the existing use is classified as a Religious Institution. The proposal is to develop up to 10 townhouses in the northeast corner of the property, each with three levels, three bedrooms, and two bathrooms; all 10 units are designated affordable. The tenure mix is 8 for-sale owner-occupied units and 2 rental units (the rental units are noted as sold to Homestretch). No retail, office, or ground-floor commercial space is proposed. The project status is listed as Under Construction.

Several site details evolved across successive application rounds: parking spaces were stated as 38 in earlier narratives and revised to up to 30 in the October 25, 2022 Summary of Commitments (the most recent authoritative document); open space coverage was revised from approximately 54% to approximately 32% of site area; tree canopy coverage was revised from 40% to approximately 36.5%; and the tree-save area was revised from approximately 133,400 square feet to approximately 116,100 square feet. An earlier application round (March 2021) described all units as owner-occupied; later narratives from October 2021 onward describe the 8/2 split noted above.

Economic effects

The 10 proposed units, at an assumed occupancy rate (low 0.90, high 0.97, central 0.95), yield an estimated 9.0 to 9.7 new households (central 9.5), computed as proposed units multiplied by the occupancy rate. Multiplying households by persons-per-multifamily-unit using Rutgers CUPR bedroom-mix multipliers produces an estimated 13.5 to 21.3 new residents (central 17.1).

Annual household spending by category is estimated using BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey 2023 data, scaled by household count and an income-ratio Engel elasticity per category. The top spending clusters, in order, are comparison retail ($58,912–$106,188/yr), grocery ($55,410–$89,332/yr), entertainment ($48,576–$89,533/yr), and restaurants and bars ($47,260–$83,306/yr), with smaller amounts in personal services ($13,574–$24,195/yr) and convenience retail ($9,996–$16,664/yr).

Where spending is likely to land is estimated using a Huff model over individual retail points of interest — a joint destination-and-mode choice model of the form P(j,m) ~ A_j × w_m × exp(−b_m t_mj), with CES category spending as the demand base. These are screening estimates: they rank where new resident spending is likely to be captured, with sensitivity bounds, and are not predictions. The top clusters by estimated annual capture are:

• Fairchester Drive & Hill Street: $71,182–$141,189/yr (central $100,844), led by grocery, restaurants and bars, and comparison retail
• Chain Bridge Road & North Street: $36,276–$76,282/yr (central $53,348), led by entertainment and restaurants and bars
• Fair Lakes Parkway & Fair Oaks Mall: $21,916–$34,547/yr (central $29,469), led by comparison retail
• Mathy Drive & Pickett Road: $12,958–$18,676/yr (central $16,692)
• Blenheim Boulevard & Fairfax Boulevard: $9,769–$13,065/yr (central $12,309)

The in-city capture share across all retail categories is estimated at 0.58 to 0.65 (central 0.61); for food-away-from-home specifically, the in-city share is estimated at 0.61 to 0.70 (central 0.65). These figures are also screening estimates from the same Huff model.

The project has no proposed ground-floor retail; accordingly, the project's own on-site retail capture is $0 across the full range, and no on-site retail jobs are added.

The foot-traffic index change on the 10 nearest commercial street segments is estimated at 0%, computed as the exact marginal trip flows from the site against the seeded sampled baseline betweenness of today's population. This is a screening estimate: the percentage comparison uses a sampled index of today's walkers, not calibrated pedestrian counts.

On the jobs ledger: the existing 43,000-square-foot church and day care, treated as commercial space, implies a removal of an estimated 86 to 172 on-site jobs (central 123), computed as existing commercial square footage divided by a square-footage-per-office-job assumption (low 250, high 500, central 350 sq ft/job). No on-site jobs are added by the proposed residential-only development. The net on-site job change is therefore estimated at −172 to −86 jobs (central −123). Readers should note that the existing use is a religious institution and day care, not a typical commercial office tenant; the sqft-per-job assumption spans a wide range to reflect that uncertainty, and the implied job count at the lower end of sqft per job (denser fit-out) is substantially higher.

Fiscal effects

The current real estate tax on the two parcels is $245,093/yr, computed as current assessed value multiplied by the real estate tax rate.

After redevelopment, the projected assessed value is estimated at $3,595,993 to $4,589,325 (central $3,609,825), computed as 10 units multiplied by an assessed value per unit benchmarked to three apartment-class comparables in the City of Fairfax assessment database built since 2011 (low $359,599/unit, high $458,932/unit, central $360,983/unit). No retail or office square footage is proposed, so those components contribute $0 to the projected assessed value. The projected real estate tax is estimated at $38,567 to $49,221/yr (central $38,715/yr). The real estate tax change is therefore estimated at −$206,526 to −$195,873/yr (central −$206,378/yr), reflecting the replacement of a high-assessed-value institutional parcel with a modest residential development.

Other recurring revenue lines include:

• Personal property tax on resident vehicles (rough estimate): $3,345–$14,422/yr (central $7,690), computed as new households multiplied by assumed vehicles per household and an assumed average assessed vehicle value, then multiplied by the personal property tax rate. The method note flags this as order-of-magnitude only; no project-specific vehicle data exists.
• Meals tax on captured in-city dining: $1,300–$2,641/yr (central $1,894), computed as restaurant spending multiplied by the in-city capture share from the Huff model, then multiplied by the city meals tax rate.
• Local sales tax share on captured in-city retail: $721–$1,388/yr (central $1,017), computed as in-city captured retail spending multiplied by the local-option sales tax share under Va. Code § 58.1-605.

Service costs are estimated under a marginal framing: non-school services that do not scale with new infill residents are excluded; the method applies a marginal cost factor (low 0.25, high 0.55, central 0.35) to the non-school per-capita cost, then adds school costs computed separately as estimated students multiplied by the net local cost per pupil. The estimated K-12 students generated are 0.5 to 1.2 (central 0.8), yielding an annual school cost of $9,980–$23,953/yr (central $15,968) within the service-cost estimate. Total annual service cost under the marginal framing is estimated at $27,712–$85,617/yr (central $47,413).

The net annual fiscal impact — marginal framing is estimated at −$286,776 to −$205,134/yr (central −$243,189). This net is computed as incremental new recurring revenue minus service costs, and the dominant driver of the deficit is the loss of the current real estate tax from a highly valued institutional parcel.

Comparison to the city staff estimate: The October 24, 2022 Planning Commission Public Hearing staff report (Attachment 1, Analysis, Z-21-00099) states, as published: "Staff anticipated fiscal impact estimate for the proposed development of ten affordable townhomes ranges from −$52,000 to −$85,000." This analysis's net range of −$286,776 to −$205,134 and the staff report's range of −$85,000 to −$52,000 do not overlap; the staff estimate is materially smaller in magnitude. The methodological differences visible in the respective method descriptions are: the staff report does not appear to subtract the current site real estate tax as a revenue loss (this analysis's method explicitly computes projected minus current real estate tax as a negative), and it likely does not apply the same marginal cost framing or the same assessed-value-per-unit benchmarks. The staff figures are reported as published and are not combined with or averaged into the estimates above.

Not evaluated in this version

Bike-lane corridor, trail network, active-transportation connectivity, environmental impacts (including stormwater, Resource Protection Area, and tree-canopy effects), and comparable-places analyses are not computed in this version of the report and are deferred to future analysis passes.