DRIPPING SPRINGS — The decision on whether or not to approve a zoning variance for an increased footprint for the Dripping Springs Sports Club (DSSC) was postponed by the Dripping Springs Board of Adjustments (BOA) at its June 3 meeting.
DSSC is a “first-of-its- kind fitness, wellness and sports hub,” according to a presentation by general partners of DSSC Ashley and Drew Rose, which intends to offer adult fitness, youth training, childcare, wellness and social spaces to the Dripping Springs community in a facility to be located on the northwest corner of Canyonwood Drive and US 290.
This location, which is in the Headwaters Commercial Tract and zoned to the Headwaters Planned Development District (PDD6), allows a maximum gross floor area of 100,000 square feet. The applicant originally requested a variance from the city to build a 160,000 square-foot building, but following discussions with concerned neighbors, amended the request to 150,000 square feet.
The meeting began with a presentation by the applicants, who laid out the desired plans for the facility.
“Currently, there's no central gathering place for families to connect over sports, for childcare, for food and beverage and to get fit and stay well,” Drew said. “These lack of local options forces us to leave the city almost on a daily basis, sometimes commuting over an hour to places as far as Round Rock, South Austin [and] Buda and there are a ton of missed economic opportunities. Dripping Springs families don't want to leave. They want to stay here; they want their dollars being spent to be impacting the city and for intentional growth in all different areas.”
According to the applicant’s presentation, the facility would include the following:
• 63,506 square feet for fitness and wellness.
• 19,252 square feet for adventure park and childcare.
• 40,000 square feet of indoor sports courts.
• 10,353 square feet for café and seating.
Drew also discussed a community meeting with the residents in the Headwaters and Sunset Canyon neighborhoods. He listed the main concerns he received, which were light pollution, sound pollution, visibility of structure and community voice.
In response to these concerns, DSSC made some concessions, which include:
• Installing window shades/screens at the mezzanine level on the north and eastern sides to reduce interior light leakage.
• Implementing motion-sensor parking lot lights.
• Constructing a 4- to 6-foot masonry fence on the northern and eastern exterior of the outdoor courts, in addition to an 8-foot horizontal cedar fence along the borders of the same sides.
• Creating a Headwaters Action Committee to allow direct communication between residents and developers.
“If the variance is denied, we're not just halting a community project, we are opening the door for a large national developer, likely to build a hotel, big box retailer or other high traffic commercial use that neighbors have already voiced stronger opposition to,” Ashley said.
“We understand and deeply respect the concerns of neighbors whose properties border the site. Views, light and noise are personal; and we've listened,” she continued. “That's why we're not here asking for a variance to expand indiscriminately, we're asking for a minimal increase needed to bring the entire programming under one roof, which, in turn, reduces noise, traffic and operational efficiencies. The alternative — developing in two phases across different sites — would actually increase traffic, spread out lighting and noise and require more infrastructure.”
Following the presentations by the applicants, planning director Tory Carpenter presented his report.
Carpenter clarified that the 150,000 square feet is the gross floor area of the interior, while the actual footprint of the building is 65,000 square feet.
According to his report, “The applicant states that the variance is necessary due to the nature and function of the building. The larger floor area allows the project to deliver its intended multi-purpose services without exceeding the site’s design limits in terms of footprint or setback.”
The applicant provided key points to consider as justification for the variance, which included:
• Anticipated $8 million in revenue by year three, with approximately 30 full-time employees and 60-90 part-time employees.
• Setbacks greater than required by code — 324 feet from the property perimeter, as opposed to the 25 feet required and 151 feet from Canyonwood Drive residences, as opposed to the 50 feet required.
• Turf and drought-tolerant landscaping to reduce water usage.
• Parking lot islands exceeding code in number, size and planting quality.
Ultimately, Carpenter said staff recommended approval of the variance request, with conditions as outlined in the applicant’s concessions.
The Planning & Zoning Commission report by chair Mim James, outlined the same information. The commission recommended approval of the variance by a 3-2 vote at its May meeting.
During the public hearing portion of the meeting, numerous residents spoke with varying viewpoints.
Theodore Crawford, who lives in the Headwaters neighborhood, expressed that he has “significant concerns with this potential development.”
“... every day that passes, more people are learning about the project and more people are choosing to stand up and have their voices heard,” Crawford said. “I understand that DSSC holds the unenviable position of being the first to develop this land. In all likelihood, whatever went up there was going to cause a stir, but the reality of the situation is there's a deep fear for a lot of folks that allowing this variance to pass will set a dangerous precedent, not just for the remainder of PDD6, but for the development along the [US] 290 corridor as a whole. While I understand that this vote today is supposed to be narrow in its scope and limited solely to the merits of this particular variance request, that's not all that's on the minds of the concerned residents here today.”
Crawford asked that the board consider delaying its decision “to give it some time for ideas to be shared [between residents and DSSC] and improvements to be implemented.”
Other residents, such as Evan Payne, agreed that a delay would be ideal.
“Last week, I stood here to oppose the variance for the proposed structure and let me be clear, I'm not standing here in complete opposition this week. I do believe we can and should welcome businesses that address genuine needs in our area,” explained Payne. “Let's take the time to ensure the concerns of the neighborhood are fully addressed and that we work together to create and design a plan that we can all support with confidence … I believe this is a step in the right direction and delaying the vote would give us time to engage a community further and refine the plans in a meaningful way. Let's work with the community and not against it, so that we're not operating out of fear of what could be, but really a confidence and understanding of what will be for the residents.”
In addition to concerns about structure camouflaging, noise reduction and parking lot light mitigation, some residents worried about the safety of North Canyonwood Drive, given the additional traffic.
“It's understood that there may be plans to create vehicle access to this project from North Canyonwood Drive. The section of this street where this driveway would have to be located is on a steep hill. Vehicles exiting on North Canyonwood to [US] 290 would encounter these vehicles trying to enter or exit the facility. Furthermore, vehicles turning on North Canyonwood from 290 and turning left would cause a traffic backup from the turn lanes,” said Mark Bennett. “Having lived in Sunset Canyon for 20 years, we're very familiar with this intersection. If a vehicle access is allowed from North Canyonwood, it's not if, but when a collision will happen, injuring or possibly killing people.”
Some residents spoke in full support of DSSC, such as Zach Wallace, who lives in Headwaters and works in the neighborhood gym.
“Fairly recently — within the past two years — there's been a school that's been built in that valley just to the right of my view and when I stand outside in my backyard, my view is now impeded by that school,” Wallace stated. “I have about 25 to 30 clients that I meet with on a weekly basis [and] every single one of them support this club and when I spoke to one that lives right next to that school that has the construction lights going into their home at night, she said, ‘Zach, I hate that, but at the same time, I know the benefit that it's going to have to me, my kids and the entire community.’ That's why I'm here tonight in support of Dripping Springs Sports Club [because of] the impact that it's going to have on communities, not only the Headwaters community, but every person, every family that's in Dripping Springs. We can't even think about that fully right now; the opportunities that kids are going to have is the most important.”
Board discussion began with a few clarifying questions, before the members stated their desire to have additional information before making a decision.
“So, the two categories of information that I would like to have, that I feel like we don't have right now are one, Tory [planning director], a real understanding of what else could be on this site and where on the property,” said board member Taline Mannasian. “I want to know a little bit more about what are the risks; if not this, what else? Is a question I always ask so that's something I'd like us to discuss … the other category I'd like us to have an understanding of is sort of, legally, how can we restrict this to address our concerns of who else, what else could come into an approval of this size.”
Board member Travis Crow echoed Mannasian’s sentiments and also had concerns about the traffic impact analysis (TIA) that is in progress, but has not been completed yet.
“I don't like approving anything without seeing a TIA. The traffic in there — in and out, the accessibility and the dangers — are major concerns. Without a TIA, I have a hard time knowing what I'm looking at for the safety of the community,” Crow said.
“I do want to commend you on the work you've done with residents. I've been here for four years, going on my fifth year, [and] I haven't seen a developer do the kind of work you've done, so I really appreciate that,” said board member Sherrie Parks. “I think if we can get some of our questions answered with the legal stuff, we could probably move forward in the near future, but yeah, appreciate everything you've done so far.”
Board member Geoffrey Tahuahua made a motion to delay the board’s decision until the July 15 meeting, with direction that the applicant have at least one other meeting with the community and provide a copy of the TIA.
A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved unanimously among the board.
To watch the full discussion, visit bit.ly/4dVtw4C.
