Commercial construction projects frequently face permitting delays, but according to Mike Marden, a registered architect and licensed general contractor at WDS Architecture in Phoenix, the most damaging holdups often occur before a single document is filed. Marden points to two key pre-filing issues: relying on scripted city counter advice and following a sequential project model that builds in unnecessary wait times.
The first issue arises when clients treat casual conversations with city employees as authoritative guidance. Marden notes that clients often call the city, describe their project in general terms, and receive a checklist or timeline that may not apply to their specific situation. “They often say, ‘we already spoke with someone at the city. They said we just turn in this form and this is roughly the time,’” Marden explains. “First of all, that’s not a documented conversation. There is no log number or record. None of that’s official. And everything on the checklist might not even apply.” The generic script provided by city staff can omit project-specific requirements or include ones that don’t apply, leading to unexpected surprises during review that clients don’t discover until it’s too late.
The second issue is the conventional sequential model, where design is completed, permits are submitted, and only after approval does construction begin. This approach treats permitting as a gate that stalls all other progress. While permit review is underway, the client’s lease clock is running, contractors are idle, and trade partners may be held up. Marden also highlights that the gap between design completion and construction start is often extended by contractor selection and mobilization. “Did you think about the gap where you’re bidding and trying to find a contractor, meanwhile, permits are ready and you’ve signed the lease?” Marden asks. He adds that this is common when the architect is separate from the contractor, as clients often finish drawings and then start searching for a contractor, adding weeks or months before permits are even submitted.
Marden claims that firms which consistently meet permit timelines do so by compressing the process itself, not by moving faster through standard steps. They engage the city early with preliminary questions, understand specific jurisdictional requirements, and begin construction activities that don’t require permits while review is underway. At WDS Commercial, “We can start building the project as we’re turning in for a permit,” Marden says. “We’re the contractor, already contracted with the Owner, and have spent months participating in the design. If we are questioned or told to turn in drawings, well, we have already done that because we are also the Architect! We can go right up to first inspection with our work, gaining a month versus waiting on bid results, contracts, permits, and mobilization, losing a month or two.” This parallel approach is only possible when the architect and contractor are integrated from the start, as Marden explains that a contractor who receives completed drawings from a separate architect cannot begin construction in parallel because they are waiting on a process they didn’t design.
WDS Architecture’s dual credentials as both an architecture firm and a general contractor enable this strategy. With the same team producing drawings and performing construction, the firm can mobilize for activities outside the permit scope—such as staging, layout, scoping, testing, demo, subcontracting, scheduling crews, and ordering materials—while the permit review proceeds. This compresses the overall timeline without cutting corners on compliance. The firm also leverages ongoing relationships with local jurisdictions to better predict project-specific requirements. “Over here, where we do this every day, we know what really needs to go in, how long it’s really going to take,” Marden says.
Marden also advises clients to consider permitting strategy during site selection, before signing a lease. He describes a common scenario where a cheaper location may carry hidden permitting complexity due to existing conditions, while a more expensive clean site might result in a faster opening. “It’s like building a project twice, when dealing with existing conditions, removing what is there so that new material can be installed to meet code,” Marden says. For example, a former restaurant space may seem ready for a new restaurant but require extensive code updates that erase apparent savings—something a client researching alone would likely miss.
For Phoenix business owners planning a commercial build-out, the practical implication is clear: the permitting timeline they’ve been told to expect likely understates reality, and the gap often stems from pre-filing decisions. By understanding these pitfalls, clients can better plan their projects and potentially avoid costly delays.
