Page 201 - Littleton, CO Comprehensive Plan

Fiscal Impact Analysis
The City of Littleton, CO

Scenario 2: Larger Nonresidential Share. This scenario incorporates more nonresidential
development than Scenario 1. With more vacant land utilized for commercial development, less land
is available for new housing. Because average PPHU is assumed to remain constant during the
planning period, this scenario generates less population growth than the trend scenario.
Nonresidential development is expected to generally align with the character of the current built
environment, with the average Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of approximately 0.33 increasing just slightly
to 0.35. A larger share of residential units is Attached (80 percent), as opposed to Single Family
Detached, and some of the nonresidential development (20 percent) will occur on existing commercial
sites by increasing building area. Scenario 2 diverges from historical development trends by attracting
more Retail development. Thus, achieving full build-out under this scenario may require a shift in the
City’s approach towards managing and attracting commercial development.

Scenario 3: Largest Nonresidential Share. Scenario 3 assumes the same level and type of residential
growth as Scenario 2, but it calls for additional commercial development. Achieving this level of
commercial growth requires more densification than Scenario 2, with a handful of key sites achieving
an FAR of 1.0, especially through more intensive mixed-use, master-planned “destination”
development and/or some level of transit-oriented development near the Mineral Ave. station. Like
Scenario 2, achieving these projected levels of development may require changes to the City’s
development related policies and economic development programs, such as more targeted market
interventions, a more streamlined development review process, or the implementation of other
incentive programs.

For all scenarios, KKC and/or the City of Littleton provided housing unit, population, and employment
data for the base year (2019) and final projection year (2040). TischlerBise interpolated between the
base year and 2040

It should be noted that the “policy options” referenced above are not modeled in this phase of the
fiscal analysis. This analysis and the report reflect maintaining levels of service for operations and
facilities and how different land use assumptions affect fiscal conditions. It could be argued that
without implementing policies and programs targeted towards attracting commercial development,
Scenarios 2 and 3 will not likely come to fruition.

13