Site Planning Committee Meeting Minutes

Site Planning Committee Meeting Minutes

St. Theresa Catholic Church

Site Planning Committee Meeting Minutes

December 14, 2007

FamilyCenter, St. Theresa Church Office

In Attendance:

MonsignorBill BrooksSteven Ramsey

Al Simmons William Scott

John Blood Bob Kamm

Stephen MulvaGordon Bohmfalk

Neal McMasterJamie Riscen

Andy Dimas


Al Simmons introduced Steven Ramsey to the committee. Mr. Ramsey is a Civil Engineer with Baker-Aiklen & Associates, Inc. and was the engineer that created the site plans in 1997 of the entire St. Theresa Catholic Church property.

Monsignor Bill introduced William Scott to the committee. Mr. Scott is an employee of St. Theresa Catholic Church and has worked for the church for 37 years (longer than any other employee). Msgr. Bill felt it would be helpful to have William in on the discussions since he is more familiar with the property then anyone else.

About thirty minutes into the meeting, Bob Kamm and then Gordon Bohmfalk joined the meeting. Mr. Kamm is a full time lobbyist for the state and Mr. Bohmfalk is an architect for the firm QMET. Msgr. Bill introduced them to the group and explained that they were with St.TheresaSchool and had proposed a plan to have a sports field added to our property.

Property Discussions:

John Blood communicated that the two main conflicts we face in development at St. Theresa’s is impervious coverage and parking spaces.

Steven Ramsey mentioned that the construction plans 10 years ago included the waste water line for the east side of the campus.

He added that there were four construction phases in the plans and the construction of the church covered the first two phases. He also mentioned that there was a 15 year growth management policy in place in 1997, so by 2012 we would need to begin construction on Phase 4 of the plans.

When they developed the plans at that time, they maxed out the impervious coverage. Additionally, 385 parking spaced were needed and 385 proposed.

If we wanted to move around existing buildings, we would need to submit the plans to the city as a “Site Plan Correction”. This costs approximately $165.

It was discussed that the existing slope of the property affects the amount of impervious coverage allowed in the plans. The steeper the slope, the lower the amount of impervious coverage allowed. Could the slope of the area be altered to increase the buildable area?

When looking at developing on our property, the existing buildings could be moved as long as the prior locations were taken to dirt to maintain the necessary impervious coverage amount.

Water retention was accounted for when the plans were developed in 1997 and 2 waste water lines in the conservation appeasement area were created for additional growth.

It was suggested that we meet with the city before any new construction begins to maintain a healthy working relationship with the city. A “Predevelopment Conference” with the city needs to be scheduled.

Msgr. Bill asked how many parking spaces we can still add to the property at this time. He was answered that over by the playground, 35 additional spaces were allotted for in the master plan proposal.

In 1997 the property plans allowed for two additional buildings to be built.

For the different buildings, the parking spaces allotment is as follows:

  • Two parking spaces per classroom in the education building or
  • 1 for every 10 seats
  • In the administrative buildings it is one space for every 300 square feet

When we present our plans to the city, we need to be careful of designate the use ofthe new buildings in terms of how the city will perceive our parking requirements.

If we build anything over 365 square feet on our property, the surrounding neighbors will be notified by the city. Communication is important in this process and we need to make sure we work with the neighborhood as we progress on this project.

It was suggested that we check with Mark Bove about the size of the church and questions why it was built for only 800 people. By guidelines from the city, it will probably be okay to extend the church.

The 35 feet height restriction on the church came from the city.

Communication is important in this process and we need to make sure we work with the neighborhood as we progress on this project.

It would cost about 4X the normal amount to try to build down (excavate) on the property.

Signage Discussion

2222 is classified as a scenic arterial road which enforces that the 100 ft. buffer adjacent to the roadway cannot be touched.

To place a sign on 2222 for the church it would be need to be an artistic rendering with the limitation of 12 feet in height. John Blood said he could create an artistic rendering stone sign like the one on 360 for Nalle Woods.

Stephen Mulva spoke with the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) about adding a small sign to the existing MountBonnell sign and he was told that we could add a sign, but it could only read “Church”.

It was agreed that the artistic rendering combined with the green state sign would work well in advertising the church. This combined plan would also fall within the guidelines of the Hill Country Buffer Ordinance.

Field Discussion

Bob Kamm and Gordon Bohmfalk joined the meeting at this time and brought the plans Gordon developed to add a sports field to the St. Theresa Catholic Church property.

Sarah Kemper donated the land to the church and it was originally used as a zoo. The land came with a restricted covenant which allowed for the zoo. The idea would be to add the land adjacent to Crossvalley Run to the donated land to increase the area of our conservation easement. It was mentioned that increasing the conservation easement amount should help with their discussions with the city.

Gordon said that about 10% of this donated lands 6.8 acres would be about half the size of the proposed field.

Bob said that in his position of a lobbyist, he would take the proposed plans to the city.

The committee agreed that we need to ensure that no area on the property or surrounding area will receive any additional flooding because of the addition of the field.

A concern was expressed that the houses surrounding the field will be within the 300 ft guidelines from the city.

The retaining wall and removal of the trees will be the neighbor’s primary concerns.

The proposed field area is in a flood plain which would then become a FEMA issue which will elongate the approval process.

For the entire approval process, it will take a minimum of 10 months: 6 months for FEMA, 2 months for the city’s approval and 2 months for development.

It was asked how close the field would be built to the creek and Gordon said that a portion of the field will actually go over the creek and a culvert would be built.

We will need to check with the Diocese and determine if they would be willing to have a trade off with the conservation easement.

The City Council and the Diocese would determine if the restrictive covenant could be amended.

We would also need to check with the city so that we stay within the guidelines of our water quality and buffer zone.

It will be a lengthy process to have the field put in, but all agreed that working with the neighbors was significant in the process.

To pursue the field will affect the existing restrictive covenant, but it could be viewed as an amendment to the existing covenant.

There were concerns regarding the pathways to the field and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compatibility. Gordon said that new guidelines for the Act are about to be released and we should check to see if they are less restrictive.

John was concerned about whether or not the pathway to the field would affect the impervious coverage.

The group agreed that the field was feasible, but Msgr. Bill wants all issues addressed and resolved before we start looking into cost.

William’s Review of the Buildings


  • FamilyCenter ceiling is sinking due to humidity.
  • Foundation and plumbing is good.
  • Roof is good after recent repairs.
  • Doors have never worked well and they swell up in damp weather.

(Neal noted that the FamilyCenter and the administrative buildings are the most expensive to operate at about $3,500/month. The FamilyCenter is expensive to cool due to poor insulation. In addition, the air conditioning units will be the next to be replaced in the next year or two.)


  • The doors do not close well.
  • Roof leaks often because it is flat. Half of the roof was recently replaced.
  • Plumbing is poor in the building.
  • Heat pumps do not work well.
  • The building is too small for the school.
  • Need a cafeteria for the school.
  • Williams suggested we make the portable buildings space a two-story building and have the cafeteria in that area.

Jordan Hall:

  • Jordan Hall has a good roof and there are no leaks.
  • The bathrooms are getting worn.
  • The building is too small for bleachers.


  • Sanctuary needs more space, but the building is holding up well.
  • When they added the bathrooms to the sanctuary, they were placed on top of tree roots so the roots are coming through the pipes.

(Al suggested we can an arborist to determine what we can do about that situation.)

Administrative Offices:

  • Need to be replaced.
  • Patios will flood in hard rain.
  • Insufficient space for offices and conference rooms.


  • 2nd grade portable has plumbing problems.
  • William was concerned when this portable was added because it obstructs the fire trucks access to the buildings.

William said that all new buildings will need more storage.

William will tour the buildings with the sub-committee groups (i.e. engineers, plumbers, electricians, etc.) that Al and Stephen are forming.

John Blood will ask Ron Jordan to tour the buildings with them as well since he did the reconstruction on the school.

Options that Msgr. Bill Would Like the Committee to Consider:

Option 1:

  • In 1993 St. Theresa Catholic Church was approached by the owners of the green building on the corner of Mesa and 2222 to determine if we were interested in purchasing the property for $1,000,000.
  • We declined at that time for financial reasons, but Msgr. Bill would like us to look into purchasing it now.

Option 2:

  • We could completely move from this location and build a brand new facility on a new site. For example: St. William’s Catholic Church in Round Rock.

Option 3:

  • We could knock down the existing buildings and combine the impervious coverage and build all new buildings.

Closing Discussions

Msgr. Bill would like the church to be able to hold 1,500 people. It currently holds only 800.

John suggested that we relocate the church only and Msgr. Bill agreed that he does not want to move the school. This would be a Diocesan decision.

Only about 25% of the parishioners realize how tight we are on space.

We need to approach the Diocese about adding the field and purchasing the green building.

Action Items:

  1. Msgr. Bill wants the group to think outside the box with plan ideas.
  2. John Blood will call Rick DuPont and have him look into the green building.
  3. Msgr. Bill will meet with the Diocese about the field and the green building.
  4. Al and Stephen will continue to work on forming the sub-committees for the Site Planning Committee.
  5. Stephen will continue to work with TXDOT about signage.
  6. Al will look into the farm property by the DellCommunity Center near Far West.

Next Meeting:

The next meeting was scheduled for 12 p.m. on Friday, January 11th at The University of Texas Club.

Minutes prepared by:

Jamie Riscen


Site Planning Committee Meeting Minutes – 12/14/071