HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/2026 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board
College Station, TX
Meeting Agenda
Design Review Board
1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, TX 77840
Internet: www.microsoft.com/microsoft-teams/join-a-meeting
Meeting ID: 229 329 720 704 69 | Passcode: PB3kp2uD
Phone: +1 979-431-4880 | Phone Conference: 620 089 875#
The City Council may or may not attend this meeting.
March 27, 2026 11:00 AM 1938 Executive Conference
Room
College Station, TX Page 1
Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the meeting body will be present in the physical location
stated above where citizens may also attend in order to view a member(s) participating by
videoconference call as allowed by 551.127, Texas Government Code. The City uses a third-
party vendor to host the virtual portion of the meeting; if virtual access is unavailable, meeting
access and participation will be in-person only.
1. Call meeting to order and consider absence requests.
2. Agenda Items.
2.1. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes.
Attachments: 1. December 5, 2025
2.2. Presentation, discussion, and possible action to consider Alternative Compliance to the Unified
Development Ordinance Section 7.10 Non-Residential Architectural Standards for Kraken's
Revenge Mini Golf located at 508 Earl Rudder Freeway South. Case #NRA2026-000008
Sponsors: Jeff Howell
Attachments: 1. Staff Report
2. Letter from the Architect
3. Elevations
4. Approved Site Plan
5. Renderings of Site Plan and Elevations
3. Adjourn.
Adjournment into Executive Session may occur in order to consider any item listed on the agenda if a
matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion.
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website and at College Station City Hall,
1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on March 16, 2026 at 5:00 p.m.
City Secretary
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting
and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters,
readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD
Page 1 of 26
Design Review Board
Page 2 March 27, 2026
at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the
meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification
at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to
provide the necessary accommodations.
Page 2 of 26
December 5, 2025 Design Review Board Page 1 of 4
Minutes
Design Review Board
December 5, 2025
City Hall 1938 Executive Conference Room
Board Members Present: Chairperson Jason Cornelius, Dr. Keith Sylvester, Nicole
Gallucci, Ivan Rusyn and Andrew Arizpe
Board Members Absent: Ray Holiday and Barry Ely
Staff Present: Director of Planning and Development Services Anthony Armstrong,
Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Molly Hitchcock, Land
Development Review Administrator Robin Macias, Senior Planner Jeff Howell, and Staff
Assistant II Tiffany Romero
1. Call to order
Chairperson Jason Cornelius called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.
2. Hear Visitors
There were no visitors.
3. Agenda Items
3.1 Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes.
• July 11, 2025
Board Member Rusyn motioned to approve the minutes. Board Member Arizpe
seconded the motion, which passed (5-0).
3.2 Presentation, discussion, and possible action to consider an appeal to the
landscape buffer standards in the Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.4.AB.
“Specific Use Standards” and Section 7.7.F. “Buffer Requirements” for 11720 Old
Wellborn Road, which is zoned R Rural. Case #AWV2025-000034
Senior Planner Howell presented the request explaining the UDO buffer requirements for
this item. He stated that Section 6.4.AB Utilities states that activities not within a building
that abuts single-family residential uses shall construct a twenty (20) foot buffer yard with
a six (6) foot privacy fence, in accordance with the Buffer Requirements Section of Article
7, General Development Standards of the UDO. He also cited Sections 7.7.F.2.b that
requires a combination of canopy and non-canopy trees along the buffer and Section
7.7.F.4.h. that states that buffer plantings may be reduced by 50% percent if a wall is
Page 3 of 26
December 5, 2025 Design Review Board Page 2 of 4
provided where a fence is required. The request is to reduce the 20-foot required landscape
buffer down to 10 feet along the northern and western side of the property, and down to 15
feet on the southern side of the property. The applicant is also requesting to provide only
non-canopy trees as well as an eight-foot masonry wall. Senior Planner Howell continued
stating that the UDO requires 28 canopy trees and 46 non-canopy trees. The applicant is
proposing zero canopy trees, 55 non-canopy trees, and 259 shrubs along the property line.
Staff is recommending denial of the appeal request that in granting this would negatively
affect the development.
Board Members discussed the buffer requirements and canopy trees.
Director Armstrong mentioned that they have known about the requirements from the
package that the department sent to them since November 2021.
Board Member Sylvester asked what milliwatts they are putting in this location.
Applicant Jarod Cain mentioned that the station will be the level of service 138 Kilovolt.
He stated that location is ideal since it is located adjacent to BTU’s existing transmission
line. He explained that Old Wellborn Road has no future plans for the road to be extended.
They redesigned the plans to try to fit equipment and canopy trees but since an easement
is in that location and canopy trees are not permissible to be within the easement, the
spacing of the station and specific distances and clearances didn’t allow much room with
the buffer. He also stated that there are certain clearances and spacing requirements from a
safety standpoint to the exterior to prevent the public from being able to reach into or have
access to. He informed the Board that BTU will add an eight-foot wall all around the
location.
Board Member Rusyn asked the applicant if it was true that the design considerations were
in their possession for years and could have designed this space accordingly.
The applicant stated that there was limited flexibility regarding what could be placed on
the lot. Due to the property’s adjacency to the existing 138 kilovolt transmission line
configuration, locating the 138 kilovolt station across from that alignment was necessary.
The applicant stated building this station will help future development in the area.
Chairperson Cornelius asked why there is a discrepancy with the size of the land that was
purchased and the plans that were shared with everyone. The property was purchased with
prior knowledge of City standards, and the configuration should have been considered at
time of purchase. This has been in everyone’s hands since 2021.
Mike McMillan with BTU spoke that with the detention pond there they had to rearrange
the facility to have enough clearance and because of the terrain, there is another restriction
on where they could put the above-grade facilities.
Page 4 of 26
December 5, 2025 Design Review Board Page 3 of 4
The Board discussed whether, at the time of purchase, additional portions of the property
could have been acquired from the owner, given the applicable guidelines to adhere to from
the City of College Station.
Chairperson Cornelius asked if this body was to deny the applicants request what does that
do with the substation.
Applicant McMillan said they would have to eliminate some of the services they were
trying to offer out of this site and find another site. He gave examples of how other
substations look in College Station.
Director Armstrong explained all the requirements were laid out upfront and that our job
is to protect the integrity of the code and of the area. He stated that BTU does service the
Barracks, Mission Ranch and some other areas around that location. He also said that BTU
has a much broader service area and that most of this service would not be for College
Station.
Board Member Gallucci asked the projected height of the shrubbery that BTU was
proposing.
Applicant Cain listed off the proposed landscape.
Director Armstrong said that the projection would be two to three feet.
Chairperson Cornelius asked if there were some visualizations of what the walls were going
to look like.
Applicant McMillan explained how the fence would look, stating that FM 2818 has a
substation that has a wall around it and it will look like that.
Board Member Rusyn explained that this type of substation will produce electromagnetic
radiation. Electromagnetic radiation requires space to decrease rather than barriers. It can
go through walls, it can go through people, and it decays with distance rather than with
destruction. An extra 10 feet will go a long way if there are residential areas that could
surround it.
The Board discussed how they were against the buffer and reduction of plantings.
Board Member Rusyn motioned to deny the waiver, Board Member Arizpe seconded
the motion, which was denied (5-0).
4. Possible action and discussion on future agenda items.
Board Member Sylvester requested that the planning committee view and intensify
requirements regarding industrial development such as power stations within the city
limits.
Page 5 of 26
December 5, 2025 Design Review Board Page 4 of 4
5. Adjourn
Chairperson Cornelius asked for motion to adjourn.
Board Member Arizpe motioned to adjourn the meeting, Board Member Rusyn seconded
the motion, which passed (5-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 12:57 p.m.
APPROVED:
_________________________________
Chairperson, Jason Cornelius
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Tiffany Romero, Board Secretary
Page 6 of 26
Design Review Board
March 27, 2026
Page 1 of 4
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Non-Residential Architectural Standards
Alternative Compliance
for
Kraken’s Revenge Mini Golf
NRA2026-000008
REQUEST: Alternative compliance to the Non-Residential Architectural
Standards
LOCATION: 508 Earl Rudder Freeway S.
ZONING DISTRICT: GC General Commercial
APPLICANT: LINTZ CONSTRUCTION LLC
PROJECT MANAGER: Jeff Howell, Senior Planner
jhowell@cstx.gov
ITEM SUMMARY: An outdoor, 18 hole mini-golf course with small structures on
approximately 25,000 square feet in area, located on 1.09 acres
near the intersection of University Drive East and State Highway
6 Frontage Road West.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Non-Residential Architectural Standards in UDO Section
7.10 are intended to promote visual interest along building facades within view of a public right-
of-way. By using natural and built features to create a unique and special place themed as a
pirate cove, the proposed buildings at Kraken’s Revenge Mini Golf would add visual interest and
attract visitors to the area. Strict adherence to the Unified Development Ordinance would not
allow for creativity of the designer and venue. This item was previously presented and approved
by the Design Review Board on December 3rd, 2021, however the application has since expired
which is why is it is going through the process again. Staff recommends approval of the
Alternative Compliance Request.
Page 7 of 26
Design Review Board
March 27, 2026 Page 3 of 4
Page 8 of 26
Design Review Board
March 27, 2026 Page 3 of 4
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY
As stated in Section 7.10.A of the Unified Development Ordinance, non-residential architectural
standards are intended to:
1) Protect and enhance the character and quality of non-residential buildings and
associated site elements in the interest of the general welfare of the City;
2) Establish minimum design parameters for the appearance of non-residential buildings,
including heightened standards for more visible and prominent areas of the community;
3) Not limit architectural creativity or prescribe a specific architectural style; and
4) Provide a balance between the community’s economic and aesthetic concerns.
The Unified Development Ordinance grants the Design Review Board (DRB) the authority to
hear and decide proposals for alternative compliance to the Non-Residential Architectural
Standards. Specifically, Section 7.10.D states:
"The Design Review Board may authorize variation to the overall requirements of this Section
through an application from a licensed architect for an alternative compliance approval that
would allow the innovative or visually interesting design or to address unique circumstances
not otherwise permitted through strict adherence to this Section. Such requests must show
reasonable evidence that the purposes of the requirements as set forth in this Section were
maintained and that the additional design flexibility afforded does not provide a means to
permit the design of lesser quality.”
Based on these criteria, the Design Review Board can act upon the proposed request as follows:
1) Approve the request as proposed;
2) Approve the request with conditions; or
3) Deny the request.
STANDARD CRITERIA: In order to promote quality construction and visually interesting non-
residential structures, the UDO specifies minimum architectural standards to achieve this goal.
Non-residential building projects in the GC General Commercial zoning district that wish to go
through the staff review process would need to comply with the following standards.
1. Horizontal Façade Articulation (wall plane projections or recessions)
Façade articulation of at least 4 feet in depth is required on the first 2 stories of primary
facades over 200 feet in length, with not more that 33% of any primary façade on the same
plane.
2. Building Entry Design
All public entrances on a building are to feature a protected entry though the use of an
awning, canopy, porte-cochere, recessed entry or the like.
3. Architectural Relief (Canopies, awnings, wall plane projections, columns, pilasters,
cornices, recessed entries, balconies, etc.)
The first 2 stories of a façade facing a public street have to have at least 1 architectural
relief element for every 25 feet. There have to be at least 2 different types of relief on the
façade, with no element consisting of more than 50% of the required elements. Design
elements can be grouped, but there should not be more than 75 feet of façade without a
relief element.
Page 9 of 26
Design Review Board
March 27, 2026 Page 3 of 4
4. Roof and Roofline Design
On buildings 3 stories or less, the horizontal line of a flat roof or parapet along a primary
entrance façade and along any façade facing a minor arterial thoroughfare (or higher
classified street), shall vary up or down by at least 2 feet so that no more than 66% of the
roofline is on the same elevation. When required to articulate, the parapet roof line shall
feature a will-defined cornice or other element to visually cap the building along the roofline.
5. Building Materials
After the 86th Texas Legislature passed H.B. 2439 in 2019, the City may no longer regulate
building materials allowed by the International Building Code in the GC General Commercial
zoning district. Materials that are presented as part of an alternative compliance process
may be considered.
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE: The intent of the Design Review Board’s alternative
compliance process is to offer an approval option that allows architects and the Board the ability
to discuss overall visions and individual design decisions, focusing on what the architect and
building owner are trying to achieve without a focus on non-compliant design elements. The
architect for the project has provided a letter regarding the request, which is attached to this
report.
The applicant states that with the composition and variety of materials and detailing provided,
this building meets the design intent of the Non-Residential Architectural Standards outlined in
the Unified Development Ordinance.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS:
1. Letter from the Architect
2. Elevations
3. Approved Site Plan
4. Renderings of Site Plan and Elevations
Page 10 of 26
www.thetfordarchitecture.com ● 979-587-6483 ● alan@thetfordarchitecture.com ● College Station, Texas 77840
Design Review Board
City of College Station
1101 Texas Ave.
College Station, Texas 77842
Re: Alternative Compliance for Non-Residential Architectural Standards
Dear Design Review Board Members,
The purpose of this letter is to request permission for alternative compliance to the City
of College Station’s Non-Residential Architectural Standards. The proposed project is a
miniature golf course called Kraken’s Revenge and is located between the existing
Olive Garden and the existing Ramada on North Earl Rudder Freeway.
Due to the unique nature of a mini-golf course, the small proposed structures have been
designed to promote an atmosphere consistent with the theme of a pirate cove. As a
result, strict adherence to the Non-Residential Architectural standards will be
detrimental to the atmosphere of the venue.
However, the following applicable requirements will be met:
Building Entry Design (7.10.C.3.b)
o Rather than a visible entrance to one specific building, a sense of arrival
and shelter will be provided through the use of building position and site
work (refer to the main entrance on the northeast side of the site on C1.1).
Architectural Relief (7.10.C.3.c)
o The primary structures avoid monotony through the use of architectural
relief appropriate to the scale of the structures, variation with materials,
and diversity of colors.
Building Materials (7.10.C.3.e)
o Where possible, glass fiber reinforced concrete has been used to provide
“concrete products with integral color and patterned to simulate stone”, but
it is not possible to meet the 30% minimum requirement on each separate
structure facing N. Earl Rudder Frwy. However, the aggregate total on the
site is greater than 20%.
o Wood siding represents greater than 30% of the façade on several
different structures, but we believe the theme of the mini-golf course
allows this to meet the intent of the Non-Residential Architectural
Page 11 of 26
www.thetfordarchitecture.com ● 979-587-6483 ● alan@thetfordarchitecture.com ● College Station, Texas 77840
standards.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our application for alternative compliance,
and we look forward to receiving your response. Schematic Design has been provided
by Tiny Town Studios, site planning and civil design by McClure & Brown
Engineering/Surveying, Inc., and architectural documentation will be provided by
Thetford Architecture, LLC.
Sincerely,
Alan Thetford
Architect Reg. No. 24267
Page 12 of 26
Page 13 of 26
Page 14 of 26
Page 15 of 26
Page 16 of 26
Page 17 of 26
Page 18 of 26
Page 19 of 26
Overall Plan
Kraken's Revenge Mini Golf
McCLURE & BROWNE
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING, INC.
Engineer Reg. No. F-458 · Survey Reg. No. 101033-00
1008 Woodcreek Dr., Suite 103
College Station, Tx. 77845 · (979) 693-3838 ISSUED FOR BIDDINGAND CONSTRUCTION12 34567891016
17181213141511
NO PARKINGKRAKEN'S
REVENGEMINIATURE
GOLF
COURSE
RES
T
R
O
O
M
(160
S
F
)
TIC
K
E
T
S
(128
S
F
)SHIP(300 SF)MistingStation(100 SF)TreeHouseSk
u
l
l
R
o
c
k
(1
3
1
.
2
6
S
F
)Pirate's Prison(99.06 SF)25 SF25 SFRampRESERVEDPARKINGVANACCESSIBLEVIOLATORSSUBJECT TO FINEAND TOWINGREVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISIONJEFF HOWELL, SENIOR PLANNER12/02/2025REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCECITY OF COLLEGE STATIONPLANNING & DEVELOPMENTSERVICES DEPARTMENTDEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISIONLINDSEY PRESSLER, GRADUATE ENGINEER II12/03/2025Page 20 of 26
Kraken’s Revenge Miniature Golf
OVERVIEW MAP
ATTRACTION NOTES:
Multiple Picture Op Features
- Pirates in Prison @ #1 Players can pose giving thekeys to the pirates or holding
them away.
- Skull Rock @ #18
Players can pose at the endof their memorable round atthe Skull Rock Wall
- Kraken Mister @ #9
Players can cool off and
take a social media worthypic at the same time!- Multiple other smaller Set
Pieces around the course
-Central Lagoon with playable
wrecked Pirate Ship being attacked by the Kraken- Small Business Pirates are
setting up shop around the
area, everything from Sharky’s
Used Boards to Pillory PictureOp Pirates-Multiple Misting Stations including
Kraken Tentacles, Pirate Boat Hut,
and Bone Pile Misters
Page 21 of 26
Kraken’s Revenge Miniature Golf
ENTRANCE - POINT OF SALE
Page 22 of 26
Kraken’s Revenge Miniature Golf
ENTRANCE - RESTROOMS
Page 23 of 26
Kraken’s Revenge Miniature Golf
ATTRACTION VISUAL - HOLE #7
Page 24 of 26
Kraken’s Revenge Miniature Golf ATTRACTION VISUAL - HOLE #8
Page 25 of 26
Kraken’s Revenge Miniature Golf
ATTRACTION VISUAL - KRAKEN MISTER
Page 26 of 26