Dripping Springs Board delays vote on Sports Club variance after extensive public comment

The Dripping Springs Board of Adjustment on June 2 postponed a decision on a requested zoning variance that would allow the Dripping Springs Sports Club to exceed the 100,000‑square‑foot gross floor area limit in Planned Development District 6. The board set a special meeting for July 15, 2025, and directed the applicant and staff to provide a traffic impact analysis (TIA), hold further neighborhood engagement, and refine screening and landscaping plans.

The variance application from Dripping Springs Sports Club asks permission to build a facility with 150,000 square feet of gross floor area — 50,000 square feet above the PDD 6 standard — while showing a building footprint the applicant described as roughly 62,000–65,000 square feet. Applicant Ashley Rose framed the proposal as a community benefit, telling the board the lack of a central recreation facility forces families to drive long distances and called that loss of time and money “a hidden tax that we are paying for not having a central place to gather, train, and connect.”

Co‑applicant Drew Rose walked the board through site constraints, program components and concessions the team has offered after community meetings. He described the requested change as a gross‑floor‑area variance: “So the variance request is to construct a facility 50,000 square foot larger than what’s currently allowed under Planned Development District 6,” he said. He also said the team reduced the earlier proposal from 160,000 to 150,000 square feet and offered mitigation measures, including blackout shades on mezzanine windows, masonry walls around outdoor courts, perimeter screening (applicant asked to be allowed horizontal wood screening in some locations) and a neighborhood advisory board to meet during construction and the first year of operation.

Planning Director Tory Carpenter reviewed the zoning background and staff’s recommended conditions, and said staff supported approval with a set of conditions to address neighborhood concerns: “staff does recommend approval of this variance request, with the following conditions,” she said, listing masonry or equivalent screening, an alternative exterior design review, a 150,000‑square‑foot gross floor area cap, supplemental masonry walls at courts, timers and blackout shades, fully shielded downward‑facing parking fixtures, and establishment of a neighborhood advisory board prior to certificate of occupancy.

Public comment split along neighborhood lines. Supporters — including local coaches, educators and parents — described unmet demand for indoor courts, jobs and youth programming and urged approval. Several Headwaters and Sunset Canyon residents opposed the variance or asked for a delay, citing concerns about views, property values and use of North Canyonwood Drive for project access. Opponent Theodore Crawford asked for more time to negotiate concessions and said residents were still forming an opinion: “I can’t yet fully endorse the variance request,” he said, adding that many neighbors fear that a variance could set a precedent for larger development along the 290 corridor.

Much of the board’s questioning focused on technical distinctions between footprint and gross floor area, what conditions the board could lawfully attach to an approval, and whether an approval for a large gross floor area would allow a different, less community‑oriented use if the sports club did not follow through. The city attorney advised that variances generally govern the use and that conditions can be imposed but that careful drafting is needed to limit potential unintended outcomes.

Citing unanswered questions about traffic and the legal levers available to restrict future use, a council member moved to postpone the decision to a date‑certain special meeting on July 15, 2025, with directions to provide the TIA, conduct additional neighborhood outreach and return with screening options and legal analyses. The motion passed unanimously.

What’s next: the applicant and staff will provide the requested traffic study and screening options, hold at least one additional neighborhood meeting, and return to the Board of Adjustment on July 15. The postponement keeps the variance decision open while the board and the community seek more detailed information about traffic mitigation, graphical sight‑line impacts and precise conditions the board could adopt.