Snowmass Town Council Approves $29,800 Peer Review for Draw Site Housing

What does a $29,800 check for a design review actually buy you in a town where housing costs are skyrocketing?

That’s the question hanging over the Snowmass Town Council as they greenlight a peer review for the Draw Site affordable housing project. It’s a small price for what could be the difference between a built community asset and another stalled development. The council voted Monday to bring in Jim Kehoe of Keo Studio Works to look at the verticality of the proposed building — a concern raised by Council Member Britta Gustafson.

Let’s be clear about the stakes. To get the project built, the council, acting as the “owners” of the site, needs a super majority. They haven’t quite got it yet. The peer review is the wedge they’re using to crack that impasse.

Snowmass Town Manager Clint Kinney put it plainly: “If the council believes that this peer review would be helpful in getting that super majority from the owners, then it’s a worthy endeavor.”

It’s a worthy endeavor, sure. But Mayor Alyssa Shenk isn’t buying the enthusiasm without some skepticism. She zeroed in on the budget cap. The letter of agreement caps the review at $29,800. Shenk asked the obvious question: “Is there a world in which (Kehoe) comes to us and says, ‘I need more money?’”

Council Member Tom Fridstein shut that down. He called Kehoe’s approach “methodical and appropriate.” He trusts the architect to stick to the brief. But trust doesn’t pay the bills, and it doesn’t guarantee a vote.

Gustafson called the $29,800 a “drop in the bucket” compared to the total project cost. She’s right. In a town where a single condo unit can cost millions, spending less than $30k on a design study is negligible. The real cost is time. And the real risk is that the review changes nothing.

Shenk’s hesitation cuts deeper than budget caps. “I don’t understand what the end game is,” she said. “At what point do we feel like we’re going to move forward?”

She’s asking for a timeline. She’s asking for a decision matrix. If the review doesn’t sway the holdouts, do they kill the development? Or do they just keep spending money on consultants until the money runs out?

Council Member Susan Marolt and Cecily DeAngelo are optimistic. They want to move forward. They believe the review will provide the clarity needed to secure that super majority. Kehoe’s letter promises “clear, experience-based observations” and “potential alternative design direction.” That’s bureaucratic speak for “we might change the shape of the building so you guys stop arguing.”

The catch? The recommendations are conceptual. Planning-level. They aren’t binding. They’re suggestions. And suggestions don’t break ground.

For context, the site is critical for affordable housing. But without a super majority, it’s just land. The peer review is the bridge. If the bridge collapses, the project stays in limbo. If it holds, we get housing.

The $29,800 is the toll. Whether it gets you across the river depends on whether the council can agree on what “across” looks like.