Development at the Ballot Box: Colorado Communities Push for Greater Control

In 2025, Colorado municipalities continue to see significant activity in ballot initiatives related to housing and land use, with many measures scheduled for the November election. While the last few legislative sessions have seen a rising tension  between state and local control of land use, these ballot measures signal another changing horizon—voters working to pull back zoning authority from their elected city leaders. From halting zoning changes to expanding development fees to requiring voter approval for larger projects, these proposals could significantly affect project timelines, feasibility and strategies for developers statewide.

Ballot measures addressing zoning and land use have grown steadily since 2020, peaking in 2023 with 11 initiatives statewide and still going strong in 2025 with several citizen-led measures on the ballot. Similarly, ballot questions targeting short-term rentals surged in 2022 (with 24 initiatives), declined in 2023–2024, and show renewed momentum in 2025, with the new focus being lodging tax or fee proposals being referred to voters by local governments.

---

KEY LOCAL EXAMPLES

Estes Park: Ballot Question 300
This citizen-initiated measure would require any rezoning or Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to obtain written approval from two-thirds of property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. This would grant neighboring landowners substantial control over land use changes—an approach historically absent from Colorado zoning law, which typically relies on public hearings rather than neighbor consent.

A relevant precedent is Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge (1928), where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar ordinance, ruling that delegating governmental authority to private citizens without clear standards violated due process. If passed, Ballot Question 300 could face comparable legal challenges, making it a uniquely controversial proposal.

---

Littleton: Ballot Question 3A
This citizen-driven initiative proposes amending the Littleton City Charter to preserve single-family residential in certain specific zoning districts (SLR, MLR, LLR and ACR). It locks in the permitted land uses for these districts as they were defined in the Littleton Unified Land Use Code (ULUC) as of Jan. 1, 2025, effectively preventing future changes that could alter neighborhood character in these districts.

Ballot Question 3A was spearheaded by a citizen group that was active in blocking Littleton City Council’s proposed (but now indefinitely paused) Ordinance No. 31-2024, which would have allowed duplexes, triplexes and other multiunit housing in the single-family residential zoning districts in an effort to address housing affordability and diversity. If approved, Ballot Question 3A would freeze Littleton’s zoning laws in its City Charter, nullifying any subsequent changes—including expanded housing options—unless directly approved by voters.

---

Louisville: Ballot Questions 300 and 301

Two citizen-initiated measures led by the community group Love4Louisville have been certified to appear on Louisville’s ballot. Developers should note significant restrictions on residential development and expanded impact fees that may affect project feasibility and timelines.

• Ballot Question 300 would prohibit residential rezoning or land use approvals for residential uses in three major Louisville General Development Plan (GDP) areas: Centennial Valley, Redtail Ridge and Avista Adventist Hospital. The measure applies to all residential types, including single-family detached, attached, multifamily and mixed-use, and covers both vacant and developed properties currently zoned for commercial, office, hospital or industrial uses. Rezoning between residential categories (e.g., from detached homes to apartments) may also be restricted. The only exception is for developments where at least 30% of units are on-site, deed-restricted affordable housing for households earning at or below 80% of area median income (AMI). Notably, the initiative does not permit off-site alternatives or cash-in-lieu payments to satisfy this requirement. Opponents caution that the measure could conflict with state laws prohibiting anti-growth measures and requiring flexibility in affordable housing compliance.
  
  
• Ballot Question 301 proposes a significant expansion of Louisville’s development impact fee program. Currently limited to library, transportation, and parks and trails facilities, the program would expand to include open space, recreation, emergency services, municipal buildings, water, wastewater, sewer, flood control and affordable housing. The measure also mandates a third-party impact fee study by June 1, 2026, with updates every five years, and establishes an Impact Fee Liaison Committee composed of representatives from relevant city advisory boards. While City Council retains authority to set fee amounts, the initiative creates a framework for more categories and ongoing review.

On Tuesday, the Louisville City Council unanimously voted to oppose the two ballot questions, citing hinderance to the city’s planning and economic flexibility and potential legal complications. While this does not interfere with the measures’ inclusion on the ballot next month, it does mean that significant organized opposition to Questions 300 and 301 is likely as Election Day approaches.

---

Telluride – “Let the People Decide” Charter Amendment

A citizen-initiated measure titled “Let the People Decide” proposes a Town Charter amendment that would significantly change approval processes for large developments. It requires voter approval for:

1. Town-funded projects with total costs of $10 million or more, including all phases and associated costs (interest, acquisition, design, planning, debt, construction, consulting). Disputes over cost thresholds must go to voters.
   
   
2. Commercial rezonings or PUD amendments for third-party development with expected costs exceeding $20 million, including projects previously approved but not yet under construction.
    
3. Extensions of municipal water service to large-scale developments outside town boundaries requiring more than 10 new residential taps or one new commercial tap.

If approved, this measure would create significant new procedural hurdles and potential delays for high-value projects, making early cost analysis and community engagement critical.

---

Short-Term Rentals: Focus on Lodging Tax Increase and Fees

Over the last five or so years, local ballot measures have focused on changing the regulations, licensing and locations of short-term rentals (STR) in communities. The 2025 ballot measures seem to be focused on increasing or imposing lodging taxes on STRs and modifying the fees. These measures are part of a broader trend across Colorado counties leveraging new authority under House Bill 1247, which raised the maximum allowable lodging tax rate from 2% to 6% and expanded eligible uses to include housing, child-care, infrastructure and emergency services.

Illustrating how contentious housing and rental tax measures are this year, the Beaver Creek Resort Company, which acts as a stand-in municipal government for the village at the base of its namesake ski area, threatened to incorporate as an official town in response to a proposed lodging tax increase in Eagle County.

Here is a complete list of communities and the lodging tax measures they will be voting on in November:

• Custer County voters will consider an increase in their lodging tax from 2% to 6%.
  
  
• Steamboat Springs voters will decide whether to allocate 75% of the city’s existing 9% STR tax revenue to the Yampa Valley Housing Authority to support affordable housing development at Brown Ranch in Ballot Measure 2I.
  
  
• Ouray County voters will consider a proposed 6% lodging tax on STRs to be used for affordable housing, child-care services and first responder support.
  
  
• Vail voters will consider Ballot Issue 2A, adding a 6% tax on condotel-style STRs (individually owned units operating like hotels) to fund workforce housing initiatives.
  
  
• Gilpin County will consider increasing its STR lodging tax from 2% to 6%.
  
  
• Mountain View voters will consider establishing a new 6% lodging tax on STRs.
  
  
• Severance voters will consider establishing a new 3% lodging tax on STRs.
  
  
• Rifle voters will consider increasing their STR lodging tax from 2.5% to 5.5% to fund visitor improvements, historic preservation and special events.
  
  
• Chaffee County voters will decide on Ballot Issue 1A increasing the lodging tax (STRs and hotels) from 2% to 6%; this will include Buena Vista, Poncha Springs and Salida with an estimated revenue of $3.5 million.
  
  
• Eagle County voters will decide Ballot Issue 1A increasing its existing lodging tax (on both STR and hotels) from 2% to 4%.

---

This document is intended to provide you with general information regarding local ballot measures in Colorado related to real estate. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about the contents of this document or if you need legal advice as to an issue, please contact the attorneys listed or your regular Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP attorney. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. The information in this article is accurate as of the publication date. Because the law in this area is changing rapidly, and insights are not automatically updated, continued accuracy cannot be guaranteed.