Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conceptual review: University Baptist Church redevelopment and two-building student housing proposal draws board feedback
Summary
The board reviewed a conceptual redevelopment that would demolish existing buildings, house a reconfigured University Baptist Church presence on-site, and build two student housing buildings totaling roughly 837 beds; commissioners asked for greater clarity on the church’s street presence, base materials and public space.
The University Impact District Review Board reviewed a conceptual master plan that would redevelop the block including the University Baptist Church site and a separate parcel to deliver two student‑oriented housing buildings and a new church presence on High Street.
Applicant American Campus Communities and partners described a multi‑building scheme that, in the current submission, includes a 9‑story mixed‑use building facing High Street, a larger Lane Avenue building with a multi‑level garage (the team told the board the wider project would include roughly 837 beds across both buildings and about 347 garage spaces in a four‑story parking structure serving the Lane Avenue building). The church, which will remain on the site in the proposed plan, will occupy ground‑floor and lobby spaces the team described as a “porch” intended to read as public and to function as an active gathering place for students and neighbors.
Board members generally praised the project’s intent to activate the corner with transparency and program, and welcomed the team’s commitment to a public‑art program and to integrating the church presence rather than relocating it. But commissioners flagged several design issues to be resolved at later reviews: the relationship between the church podium and the taller residential massing above; the visual transition between masonry base and metal‑panel upper stories; how banners or signage should be handled in the highly visible base; façade material proportions and the location and treatment of the corner element; and the design of the alley/sidewalk edges to ensure they are not experienced as a “canyon wall.”
The board also asked the team to provide a full site plan, including lighting, landscaping, detailed pedestrian connections (the team discussed a north–south pedestrian linkage and improvements to a public alley), and a heritage assessment for the Little Bar building flagged in staff comments as “potentially contributing.” Commission members recommended the design team show how the cast‑stone/cornice line and the brick base read together at pedestrian scale and suggested increasing visible transparency into the church’s day‑to‑day spaces.
No formal action was taken. The applicant was encouraged to return with refined elevations, clarified base materials, and a lighting and landscape plan that improves the pedestrian experience and addresses the board’s concerns about base articulation and signage.
