As you’ve no doubt seen in the Journal Star, the new parking deck at Bradley University is being built a little too close to Main Street:
The parking deck’s concrete base – which already is in place – is anywhere from 2 to 9 feet closer to the city’s right-of-way property than allowed. “They [the local contractor] found the error and immediately informed us,” Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken, whose district includes Bradley University, said.
My question is, shouldn’t this have been caught sooner? Say, by Peoria’s building inspections department? Aren’t they supposed to make sure that a building is being constructed in compliance with city codes and the approved site plan?
Here’s another example. Take a look at 819 E. Fairoaks (corner of Fairoaks and Illinois). This is a new house being built in an older neighborhood — in fact, it’s within the Heart of Peoria Plan area and falls under the regulations of the Land Development Code. The site plan that was submitted to and approved by the city was in compliance. But the house that’s constructed there — and almost completed — is different than the site plan, and decidedly not in compliance (The attached garage was supposed to be “set back 6′ from longest plane of street side facade,” but instead it was built 12′ in front of the facade, a difference of 18′). Once it came to the attention of the Planning & Growth Department, a stop work order was issued, and now the contractor will either have to comply with the approved site plan or seek a variance.
In both cases, the construction progressed to an advanced stage before non-compliance was discovered. And in both cases, the non-compliance was not discovered by the city, but by someone else (contractor, citizen) who reported it to the city. So my question again is, why isn’t the building inspections department catching this sooner in the construction process? According to the City of Peoria’s website:
The City of Peoria has six full time building inspectors who inspect all construction requiring a permit. These inspectors verify that the construction or alterations specified in the permit are carried out at the construction site.
So, how did they miss these two properties? And how many other properties are out of compliance that haven’t gotten caught?
I have a brother who built a garage based on an approved site plan. After the garage was done (and was exactly were the site plan said it would be) the city decided it was on an easment and would need to be torn down at his expense. The Peoria code department claimed it was not their job to check easments even when they sign off on the site plan. All told he lost about $15,000 on that deal. My guess is that Bradley will get a better offer from the city and will not be told to tear it down. Just one more example of the double standard that makes people say screw this and move out of the city.
When we reshingled our roof it was our responsiblity to call to have it inspected once we put down our decking. The guy came out stood in our front yard (didn’t even climb up to look) and told us it was okay and to call when it was completed. I would hope they don’t rely on the honor system with new construction but it looks like that may be the case.
The city will never, ever, every tell B.U. to demolish and rebuild. This is obvious from history. The city makes noise, but always bows to BU’s wishes.
Amen bubba.
Billy — For the record, Bradley is not asking for a waiver. Their stated position, according to Barbara Van Auken and our neighborhood associations reps, is that the contractor should fix it. The contractor is making a direct appeal to the neighbors and the city.
Unfortunately there is often a disconnect with the plans approved and what is finally built. Part of it is easily preventable but requires a closer working relationship between Planning and Building Inspections. Building Inspectors too often focus only on compliance with the trades (actually construction of the building) and less with the set-backs, compliance with plans, and other special conditions that may be imposed by Planning).
That said, it is the responsibility of the builder to comply with what was approved. It will be interesting to see how this case is handled – though a simple variance approval can cure the defect and should be seriously considered unless the intrusion into the right of way causes other problems.
Ever heard of a ” payoff ” ?
The contractor is receiving no benefit from this mistake, so what’s the big deal? A mistake was made by one or more persons, no harm done, go ahead and get the job done. If there are any additional costs, let the contractor bear them. People, quit looking for folks to stick daggers into, and get into a more positive attitude.
C.J. B.U.’s position doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s not in B.U.’s interest to stop construction and make the contractor fix the mistake … unless the city refuses to grant the waiver. It sets a horrible prescedent if BU is allowed to get a bigger facility because a mistake was made. How could the city force others to not make the same “mistake” if it doesn’t do so with BU?
And the city doesn’t seem much to care when less influential institutions make “mistakes” either.
Billy,
BU won’t get a bigger facility….just one that is closer to the right of way than was anticipated. At least as read the facts, it was a matter of mislocation not expansion of the footprint.
PeoProud: So, there’s MORE space in the inner part of the campus.
“So, there’s MORE space in the inner part of the campus.”
More space for those ‘BIG Plans’ Glasser alludes too.
I am with Billy, something about all this just smells bad.
As much as many of us have a love/hate relationship with Bradley, it is quite possible, and I would say probable that this really was a mistake. They can either modify their half built deck at great expense or try to appease the city in other ways, as it appears they are willing to do.
I do not think they intended to do this. The city can approve an adjustment to their plan, as they also could for someone who built their garage in the wrong spot, if they petitioned it to the city council.
I assume the contractor was working off of an approved copy of the blue prints.If everyone is working and inspecting off the same blue prints w/changes made, an approved as the work continues, there can be no mistake on what is actually built.Unless someone gets a differant copy and kept out of the loop.And the guy who built the garage on an easement,had he being doing the physical upkeep of the easement for a long time? If so he might be able to file for Adverse Possession of easement,or a simple request for quit title to property,you can look it up at Easement Acquired by use (upkeep)of easement.
Billy,
Come on– 9 feet difference — it’s not like BU is going to build another building on that space. The article was clear – the contractor screwed up by building off the wrong set of plans (an initial draft not the final approved ones). They have further indicated that they were responsible and will be required to correct the error if the change cannot be approved. BU has absolutely no culpability here — they hired a firm that made a mistake. Let’s let the conspiracy theories remain in Dallas.
I agree with the Pundit. If it was an ordinary citizen they would get hammered.
I think we all know that. This episode is just another reason for the citizens to distruct the City elite (as if they needed one). Oh, and PeoProud, I know you are Mr./Ms. Establishment, as your handle implies, but you might consider that conspiracies do happen, not all conspiracy theories are wrong (at last count I think over 80% of the people think the official version of what happened in Dallas in 1963 is bunk. The other 20% are just gullable, I guess).
Mouse,
So far — there is nothing in this “episode” (as you called it) that warrants the public losing any confidence in their government. The City issues a stop work order! Surely doesn’t sound like pandering to those in the loop. Bradley indicated they are holding the contractor responsible and the contractor has taken responsibility. The facts are that Bradley has done nothing wrong and the private company did (using the wrong set of plans).
However, I would support the change in plans (to prevent a $1 Million change) if the neighborhoods get added concessions that ends up with a better product. Unlike some of you, I don’t think we need to force the expensive correction “just so some special benefit” isn’t granted to Bradley. If this is the end result, the contractor (private company) will take the hit – not Bradley.
It’s easier to say sorry afterward than to get permission beforehand.
The extra 9′ should be just big enough to land that black helicopter.