City Council member raises, then drops, University Heights redevelopment proposal

Brandon Jenson: It was a mistake to bring the rezoning request back to council.

Councilmember Brandon Jenson nudged a sleeping dog at the Springfield City Council meeting last night, reviving the dormant issue of a commercial development at Sunshine Street and National Avenue and then dropping it with an apology.

At its Oct. 21 meeting, council voted down a rezoning requested by developer BK&M LLC for the busy corner, now classified single-family residential and the subject of a court appeal that seeks to keep it that way.

According to city code, a six-month wait is required before a new rezoning measure can be brought before council by the developer, but a member of council can reintroduce it.

“I felt as though there was an opportunity for the neighborhood to have some really meaningful gains and identify a path forward for this project,” Jenson said at last night’s meeting.

Criteria for early reintroduction of a rezoning measure include whether there is a significant revision to the proposal and whether there is a community benefit to bringing it forward early.

As he withdrew his sponsorship of the bill, Jenson said he made a mistake in how he communicated with neighborhood residents.

“I very clearly made a mistake in how I brought this forward,” he said. “This has been a very harsh reminder of the lesson that anything you do for me without me is against me, and to the folks here tonight, I sincerely apologize for that.”

The measure brought by Jenson would have allowed the rezoning process to restart, he said – it did not indicate approval or even his support. Changes proposed in Jenson’s measure would have included the addition of residential development on the site, major off-site traffic calming measures and significant site design alterations.

“My goal is simply to allow the public process to review these significant changes and determine if they were sufficient to address the concerns that have been brought to us repeatedly for several years,” he said.

The redevelopment was first introduced in a public meeting in August 2022. That meeting turned heated, with neighbors to the property registering their opposition to a commercial development in their all-residential University Heights neighborhood. That vocal opposition has been present throughout the rezoning effort by the company.

Jenson said he heard multiple concerns from neighborhood residents and community members after his decision to reintroduce the issue the before the six-month waiting period. One was that he would be rewarding a bad developer. He said he takes issue with that kind of language.

“Ultimately, I view it as my responsibility as a City Council person to review every proposal with a neutral analysis as to the parties that are involved and simply look at it and engage its alignment with the comprehensive plan and with the codes that we have in place,” he said.

Jenson said he accepts full responsibility for reintroducing the zoning measure, and while many in the audience at the council meeting were angry, that anger should be directed only at him.

“Whenever there’s an issue in front of me, I have a pretty single-minded focus, and I don’t let go of it until I’ve found the best possible solution that I can find,” he said. “The reason we are all here is because I chose to bring this resolution forward. It was not another member of council. It was not a staff member that asked me to bring this forward, but it was truly me believing there was a path forward to get a significant win for the community.”

Council voted to table the bill until the next meeting, slated for Jan. 13. Unless a new sponsor emerges from the other council members, it will not be brought back for a vote, according to council procedures.

BK&M responds

Asked for comment following the meeting, Ralph Duda, president of BK&M, issued a statement about the failed measure, noting he felt council was close to passing the rezoning at its October meeting.

Duda’s statement – which is online as a letter to the editor – highlights what he calls costly failures for his company and the concessions his company was willing to make. These included buying a house at 1101 E. Sunshine St. to remove a planned access point to the property from University Street and place it on Hampton Street instead, thus addressing a neighborhood concern.

The concessions also included adding seven residential dwellings or lodging units – a number chosen to compensate for the seven homes the company would be removing.

The company would also agree not to build a one-story retail strip center on the site.

Duda said he believes the measure should be allowed to come back to the table early to curtail future expenses, like repairs to existing property, taxes, insurance and mortgage costs.

He concluded by pointing out that two other commercial developments were rezoned at the intersection within the last seven years and went through without much difficulty.