Park Rd - Townhomes

Project description

The site consists of fourteen parcels (block 57 1 44, lots 000A through 013) with a combined lot area of 1.16 acres (50,778 SF) as stated in the January 2023 Master Development Plan, which is the most recent plan submission. Project documents also reference 1.18 acres in narrative descriptions; the engineering plan sheet figure of 1.16 acres is used as the primary value here. The existing zoning is CR (Commercial Retail), and the site was previously used as commercial/retail. No existing residential units are recorded.

The proposal is for 13 three-story townhomes with 2-car garages and 26 parking spaces, per the January 2023 Master Development Plan. Earlier plan submissions (March 2022 and September 2022) showed 33 spaces; the most recent submission controls. The zoning table in the January 2023 plan notes a permitted building envelope of 45 feet/4 stories on the commercial-adjacent side, while the narrative descriptions in the Statement of Justification consistently describe the buildings as three stories. No ground-floor retail, office space, or affordable units are documented in the project materials. Tenure (for-sale versus rental) is not established in the project documents; this analysis applies rental defaults for household size, occupancy, and income assumptions, and notes that for-sale product would raise all three. The project is currently under construction, and current assessed values on the parcels reflect the built or under-construction project rather than the pre-development baseline.

Economic effects

New households and residents. The project is estimated to yield between 11.70 and 12.61 occupied households, computed as proposed units multiplied by an occupancy rate assumption (central 0.95, range 0.90–0.97). New residents are estimated at 17.55 to 27.74, derived by multiplying households by persons per multifamily unit using Rutgers CUPR bedroom-mix multipliers (Listokin et al. 2006); the central estimate is 22.23 residents. The household size assumption (1.5–2.2 persons per unit) is the single largest driver of variation in the fiscal results.

Household spending. Annual aggregate household income for the new residents is estimated at $2,026,158 to $2,729,685 per year, based on households multiplied by the mean income of site Census tract 51600300400 (ACS 5-year 2024, B19025/B11001, $173,176) and a new-construction income premium (central 1.125, range 1.0–1.25). Spending by category is derived from BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey 2023 figures scaled by Engel-gradient elasticities: grocery ($72,033–$116,131/yr), restaurants and bars ($61,438–$108,298/yr), comparison retail ($76,586–$138,045/yr), convenience retail ($12,994–$21,663/yr), personal services ($17,646–$31,454/yr), and entertainment ($63,149–$116,393/yr).

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

• Fairchester Drive & Hill Street: $103,447–$215,563/yr, with the largest shares in grocery and restaurants
• Chain Bridge Road & North Street: $38,456–$71,682/yr, led by entertainment and restaurants
• Fair Lakes Parkway & Fair Oaks Mall: $32,135–$52,757/yr, dominated by comparison retail

Additional capture is estimated at Mathy Drive & Pickett Road ($13,890–$18,933/yr) and Blenheim Boulevard & Fairfax Boulevard ($12,812–$16,538/yr). The in-city capture share across all retail categories is estimated at 0.56–0.62 (fraction of total spending landing at destinations inside the city boundary); for food away from home specifically, the in-city share is estimated at 0.60–0.67.

Project's own retail capture. The project includes no proposed ground-floor retail square footage. Accordingly, annual capture at the project's own retail is $0, and spending arriving on foot at own retail is $0. These figures result directly from the absence of retail space in the program.

Foot-traffic index. The foot-traffic index change for the 10 nearest commercial street segments is estimated at 0.0% relative to today's sampled baseline. This figure is computed as exact marginal trip flows from the site (using POI-weighted destinations and exponential walk decay on shortest paths) compared against a seeded, sampled betweenness index of today's population; it is not calibrated against observed pedestrian counts. Walk-arriving spending at nearby businesses is estimated at $6,834–$180,793/yr (central $39,391/yr), derived as the walk-mode share of the joint destination-and-mode Huff choice summed over businesses. This figure represents new residents' spending that arrives on foot at nearby destinations — not total pedestrian commerce at those locations. New resident walk trips are estimated at 8.8–55.5 per day (central 22.23), computed as new residents multiplied by a daily walk-trip rate (central 1.0 trips/resident/day, range 0.5–2.0).

Jobs ledger. The existing commercial site has no documented occupied square footage yielding measurable on-site employment in this analysis; on-site jobs removed is estimated at 0. The proposed project includes no retail or office square footage, so on-site retail or office jobs added is also estimated at 0. Net on-site job change is 0, computed as retail jobs added plus office jobs added minus existing jobs removed.

Fiscal effects

Revenue. Projected assessed value is estimated at $4,674,790 to $5,966,122, computed as 13 units multiplied by assessed value per unit, using three apartment-class comparable properties from the City of Fairfax Real Estate Assessment Database (built since 2011, ranging from $359,599 to $458,932 per unit). Projected annual real estate tax is $50,137 to $63,987, derived as projected assessed value multiplied by the FY2027 city real estate tax rate.

Additional recurring revenue lines include:

• Personal property tax on resident vehicles: $4,349–$18,749/yr — this is a rough estimate computed as new households multiplied by an assumed vehicles-per-household figure (1.0–1.8), an assumed average vehicle assessed value ($9,000–$20,000), and the city personal property tax rate. No project-specific vehicle data exists; this line should be treated as order-of-magnitude.
• Meals tax on captured in-city dining: $1,659–$3,262/yr, computed as restaurant spending multiplied by the in-city capture share from the Huff model and the city meals tax rate.
• Local sales tax share on captured in-city retail: $911–$1,718/yr, computed as in-city captured retail spending multiplied by the local sales tax share under Virginia Code § 58.1-605.

Note: baseline revenue from the existing parcels was not computed — assessment lookups failed for all 14 parcels in this analysis. The net fiscal figures therefore represent projected new revenue rather than a change from a known baseline.

Service costs — two methods. This analysis presents cost estimates under two framings, and the net fiscal range spans both:

• Naive per-capita method: $105,179–$176,891/yr — computed as new residents multiplied by the non-school General Fund cost per capita ($5,254, derived from FY2027 adopted budget: ($207,912,496 − $76,429,791) ÷ 25,026 residents), plus estimated students multiplied by 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 to new residents and is considered an upper-bound framing for infill projects.
• Marginal framing: $36,026–$111,302/yr — computed as the non-school per-capita cost multiplied by a marginal cost factor (central 0.35, range 0.25–0.55), plus students multiplied by the full per-pupil cost. This method reflects that many fixed city services do not scale with a small increment of infill residents; it is considered a lower-bound framing but may understate costs if service capacity expansions are triggered.

In both framings, school costs are computed identically: estimated K-12 students (central 1.04, range 0.65–1.56) multiplied by the net local cost per pupil of $19,961, yielding $12,974–$31,138/yr. The student estimate is derived from units multiplied by a student-generation rate (central 0.08, range 0.05–0.12 per unit), sourced from Rutgers CUPR high-rise multifamily multipliers.

Net annual fiscal impact. Combining the revenue lines with each cost framing:

• Naive per-capita method: −$119,835 to −$17,464/yr (a deficit under all sensitivity scenarios within this framing)
• Marginal framing: −$54,246 to +$51,690/yr (spans both deficit and surplus)
• Combined range across both methods: −$119,835 to +$51,690/yr

Comparison to external estimates. City staff reported in Attachment 1 to the September 11, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing that "this proposal would bring a net fiscal benefit of between $20,000 and $51,000 annually." The applicant's Fiscal Impact Estimate (Attachment 8 to the same hearing) states a balance of "$20,000 [to] $51,000 — Note: All figures rounded," with total revenues of $122,000 and total expenditures of $84,000 as reported in that document. Both external estimates are reported as published and attributed to their respective sources; they are not computed by this analysis and are not merged with the figures above.

The external range of $20,000 to $51,000 and this analysis's combined range of −$119,835 to +$51,690 overlap at the upper end (approximately $20,000 to $51,690). They do not overlap at the lower end. Several methodological differences visible in the metric methods and notes are likely sources of divergence: the external estimates appear to produce exclusively positive results, consistent with a cost framing closer to the marginal approach and possibly a lower household-size assumption; this analysis's naive per-capita method, which allocates fixed citywide costs proportionally to new residents, drives the negative lower bound. The external estimates also appear to incorporate a baseline revenue figure from the existing commercial parcels (which this analysis could not compute due to failed assessment lookups), which would reduce the net fiscal benefit relative to a gross-revenue framing. Neither set of figures should be read as more authoritative; they reflect different methodological choices that reasonable analysts apply differently.

Not evaluated in this version

Several analyses are deferred and not included here: a bike-lane corridor assessment, trail connectivity and network analysis, broader multimodal connectivity evaluation, environmental impact analysis, and a comparable-places analysis benchmarking this project against similar residential conversions of commercial sites in comparable jurisdictions. These will be addressed in subsequent versions of this report as data and scope allow.