Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL REVISION v.1
Permit Number - TC-COM-0525-01018
Review Name: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL REVISION v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/23/2026 | Design Review Standard | APPROVED | PDF file of Design Professional's review is available in the TDC account and PRO. The design has been refined since the original Design Package approval but still meets the overall building design that was approved. | ||
| 06/05/2026 | Outdoor Lighting Standard | APPROVED | Approved, no changes from previously approved outdoor lighting. | ||
| 06/15/2026 | Water - PDSD Standard | APPROVED | |||
| 07/08/2026 | Bldg Permits - Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 07/08/2026 | Commercial Building Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | June 9, 2026 1st Review Lizard Rock Designs Attn: Carina Eichorst 1640 E. River Road, Suite 206 Tucson Arizona 85718 Re: CONGRESS STREET APARTMENTS NEW BUILDING (REVISIONS) City of Tucson Permit Number: TC-COM-0525-01018 Stantec Project Number: 185215066 Stantec File Number: TUC-26-035 Plan review for the project referenced above has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. PLEASE send all responses to comments back to the City through the permit portal! Responses sent directly to Stantec will be ignored. Also, please submit complete copies of all permit documents (i.e. plans, calculations, reports, etc.) even if they have not been changed. Please cloud and delta all changes and provide a letter with a written response to each of the comments indicating the action taken. The scope of this review covers the architectural, structural, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical designs as they relate to the codes adopted by the jurisdiction. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions, and concerns before permit approval. Occupancy Group Construction Type Area (Square feet) Occupant Load Automatic Fire Sprinklers Fire Alarms R-2 V-A 32,812 170 Yes Yes B S-2 Separate Permits: Automatic fire sprinklers and fire alarm. Deferred Submittals: Wood trusses. Special Inspections: Earthwork, concrete, epoxy and expansion anchors, and fabricated systems and elements. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS Sheet G1.5 1. The calculated fire rating performed in Detail 6 is incorrect. Per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.1, the calculation can only include the fire side membrane and the framing; the non-fire side membrane cannot be included. For a floor you can only include the lower membrane and the framing; you cannot include the upper membrane. The calculation should total 90 minutes and not 105 minutes. That said, per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.4, the upper membrane of this floor assembly must at a minimum meet the requirements of Table 722.6.2(4). The detail references the structural drawings for the floor deck, and the structural drawings indicate that the floor deck is 3/4" T&G WSP; this meets the requirement of the table. 2. The calculated fire rating performed in Detail 3A is incorrect. Per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.1, the calculation can only include the fire side membrane and the framing; the non-fire side membrane cannot be included. For a roof you can only include the lower membrane and the framing; you cannot include the upper membrane. Further, this detail indicates that Table 722.6.2(1) shows 60 minutes for 5/8” Type C gypsum board, however the table does not show a value over 40 minutes. The calculation should total 50 minutes and not 80 minutes which fall short of the required rating of 60 minutes. That said, per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.4, the upper membrane of this roof assembly must at a minimum meet the requirements of Table 722.6.2(4). The detail indicates 1/2” plywood sheathing and the table requires 15/32”; this meets the requirement of the table. Sheet A1.0 1. Suspect the handrail shown in Detail 9 at the ramp does not address edge protection as required by ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Sec. 405.9. The site plan and enlarged ramp plan suggests that the grade next to the ramp has a drop off greater than 1/2". There needs to be a curb per Sec. 405.9.2.1 or a barrier per Sec. 405.9.2.2 on both sides of the ramp. {This is to prevent a wheelchair from traveling off the ramp.} 2. At Detail 10, is there a grade difference 30” or greater next to the stairs? The riser height is not specified, however counting the risers there appears to be at least 28” based on 4 risers and assuming 7” height per riser. If the difference is 30” or greater, then a guard is required per 2018 IBC Sec. 1015.2. Please clarify these requirements on this detail. {Note, the handrail extension at the bottom of the stairs could be shortened per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Sec. 505.10.3.} Sheet A2.4 1. How do the revisions to Studio A affect the information found on Sheets P2.5 and E4.1. Please coordinate. Sheet A4.0 1. There appears to be a major change to the mechanical layout on the roof plan presented on this sheet. Where are the revised Sheets S2.30, M2.4, P2.4, and E3.4? Sheet A8.0 1. The second layer of gypsum board has been removed from the bottom of the stairs, which is acceptable. However, what is the construction of the ceiling and walls enclosing Riser 121? Per 2018 IBC Sec. 1011.7.3 the walls and floor/ceiling of this enclosed space under the stairs need to be 1-hour fire resistance rated, and the plans are not clear. {The First Floor Exiting Plan on Sheet G1.1 does show 1-hour walls; but ceiling is not clear.} Should you have any questions regarding the plan review comments, please contact the plan reviewer listed for the appropriate discipline. Plans reviewed by: Joel Svoboda, RA Senior Associate 520-545-7415 joel.svoboda@stantec.com |
||
| 07/08/2026 | Commercial Electrical Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | June 9, 2026 1st Review Lizard Rock Designs Attn: Carina Eichorst 1640 E. River Road, Suite 206 Tucson Arizona 85718 Re: CONGRESS STREET APARTMENTS NEW BUILDING (REVISIONS) City of Tucson Permit Number: TC-COM-0525-01018 Stantec Project Number: 185215066 Stantec File Number: TUC-26-035 Plan review for the project referenced above has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. PLEASE send all responses to comments back to the City through the permit portal! Responses sent directly to Stantec will be ignored. Also, please submit complete copies of all permit documents (i.e. plans, calculations, reports, etc.) even if they have not been changed. Please cloud and delta all changes and provide a letter with a written response to each of the comments indicating the action taken. The scope of this review covers the architectural, structural, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical designs as they relate to the codes adopted by the jurisdiction. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions, and concerns before permit approval. Occupancy Group Construction Type Area (Square feet) Occupant Load Automatic Fire Sprinklers Fire Alarms R-2 V-A 32,812 170 Yes Yes B S-2 Separate Permits: Automatic fire sprinklers and fire alarm. Deferred Submittals: Wood trusses. Special Inspections: Earthwork, concrete, epoxy and expansion anchors, and fabricated systems and elements. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS Sheet G1.5 1. The calculated fire rating performed in Detail 6 is incorrect. Per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.1, the calculation can only include the fire side membrane and the framing; the non-fire side membrane cannot be included. For a floor you can only include the lower membrane and the framing; you cannot include the upper membrane. The calculation should total 90 minutes and not 105 minutes. That said, per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.4, the upper membrane of this floor assembly must at a minimum meet the requirements of Table 722.6.2(4). The detail references the structural drawings for the floor deck, and the structural drawings indicate that the floor deck is 3/4" T&G WSP; this meets the requirement of the table. 2. The calculated fire rating performed in Detail 3A is incorrect. Per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.1, the calculation can only include the fire side membrane and the framing; the non-fire side membrane cannot be included. For a roof you can only include the lower membrane and the framing; you cannot include the upper membrane. Further, this detail indicates that Table 722.6.2(1) shows 60 minutes for 5/8” Type C gypsum board, however the table does not show a value over 40 minutes. The calculation should total 50 minutes and not 80 minutes which fall short of the required rating of 60 minutes. That said, per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.4, the upper membrane of this roof assembly must at a minimum meet the requirements of Table 722.6.2(4). The detail indicates 1/2” plywood sheathing and the table requires 15/32”; this meets the requirement of the table. Sheet A1.0 1. Suspect the handrail shown in Detail 9 at the ramp does not address edge protection as required by ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Sec. 405.9. The site plan and enlarged ramp plan suggests that the grade next to the ramp has a drop off greater than 1/2". There needs to be a curb per Sec. 405.9.2.1 or a barrier per Sec. 405.9.2.2 on both sides of the ramp. {This is to prevent a wheelchair from traveling off the ramp.} 2. At Detail 10, is there a grade difference 30” or greater next to the stairs? The riser height is not specified, however counting the risers there appears to be at least 28” based on 4 risers and assuming 7” height per riser. If the difference is 30” or greater, then a guard is required per 2018 IBC Sec. 1015.2. Please clarify these requirements on this detail. {Note, the handrail extension at the bottom of the stairs could be shortened per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Sec. 505.10.3.} Sheet A2.4 1. How do the revisions to Studio A affect the information found on Sheets P2.5 and E4.1. Please coordinate. Sheet A4.0 1. There appears to be a major change to the mechanical layout on the roof plan presented on this sheet. Where are the revised Sheets S2.30, M2.4, P2.4, and E3.4? Sheet A8.0 1. The second layer of gypsum board has been removed from the bottom of the stairs, which is acceptable. However, what is the construction of the ceiling and walls enclosing Riser 121? Per 2018 IBC Sec. 1011.7.3 the walls and floor/ceiling of this enclosed space under the stairs need to be 1-hour fire resistance rated, and the plans are not clear. {The First Floor Exiting Plan on Sheet G1.1 does show 1-hour walls; but ceiling is not clear.} Should you have any questions regarding the plan review comments, please contact the plan reviewer listed for the appropriate discipline. Plans reviewed by: Joel Svoboda, RA Senior Associate 520-545-7415 joel.svoboda@stantec.com |
||
| 07/08/2026 | Commercial Mechanical Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | June 9, 2026 1st Review Lizard Rock Designs Attn: Carina Eichorst 1640 E. River Road, Suite 206 Tucson Arizona 85718 Re: CONGRESS STREET APARTMENTS NEW BUILDING (REVISIONS) City of Tucson Permit Number: TC-COM-0525-01018 Stantec Project Number: 185215066 Stantec File Number: TUC-26-035 Plan review for the project referenced above has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. PLEASE send all responses to comments back to the City through the permit portal! Responses sent directly to Stantec will be ignored. Also, please submit complete copies of all permit documents (i.e. plans, calculations, reports, etc.) even if they have not been changed. Please cloud and delta all changes and provide a letter with a written response to each of the comments indicating the action taken. The scope of this review covers the architectural, structural, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical designs as they relate to the codes adopted by the jurisdiction. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions, and concerns before permit approval. Occupancy Group Construction Type Area (Square feet) Occupant Load Automatic Fire Sprinklers Fire Alarms R-2 V-A 32,812 170 Yes Yes B S-2 Separate Permits: Automatic fire sprinklers and fire alarm. Deferred Submittals: Wood trusses. Special Inspections: Earthwork, concrete, epoxy and expansion anchors, and fabricated systems and elements. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS Sheet G1.5 1. The calculated fire rating performed in Detail 6 is incorrect. Per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.1, the calculation can only include the fire side membrane and the framing; the non-fire side membrane cannot be included. For a floor you can only include the lower membrane and the framing; you cannot include the upper membrane. The calculation should total 90 minutes and not 105 minutes. That said, per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.4, the upper membrane of this floor assembly must at a minimum meet the requirements of Table 722.6.2(4). The detail references the structural drawings for the floor deck, and the structural drawings indicate that the floor deck is 3/4" T&G WSP; this meets the requirement of the table. 2. The calculated fire rating performed in Detail 3A is incorrect. Per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.1, the calculation can only include the fire side membrane and the framing; the non-fire side membrane cannot be included. For a roof you can only include the lower membrane and the framing; you cannot include the upper membrane. Further, this detail indicates that Table 722.6.2(1) shows 60 minutes for 5/8” Type C gypsum board, however the table does not show a value over 40 minutes. The calculation should total 50 minutes and not 80 minutes which fall short of the required rating of 60 minutes. That said, per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.4, the upper membrane of this roof assembly must at a minimum meet the requirements of Table 722.6.2(4). The detail indicates 1/2” plywood sheathing and the table requires 15/32”; this meets the requirement of the table. Sheet A1.0 1. Suspect the handrail shown in Detail 9 at the ramp does not address edge protection as required by ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Sec. 405.9. The site plan and enlarged ramp plan suggests that the grade next to the ramp has a drop off greater than 1/2". There needs to be a curb per Sec. 405.9.2.1 or a barrier per Sec. 405.9.2.2 on both sides of the ramp. {This is to prevent a wheelchair from traveling off the ramp.} 2. At Detail 10, is there a grade difference 30” or greater next to the stairs? The riser height is not specified, however counting the risers there appears to be at least 28” based on 4 risers and assuming 7” height per riser. If the difference is 30” or greater, then a guard is required per 2018 IBC Sec. 1015.2. Please clarify these requirements on this detail. {Note, the handrail extension at the bottom of the stairs could be shortened per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Sec. 505.10.3.} Sheet A2.4 1. How do the revisions to Studio A affect the information found on Sheets P2.5 and E4.1. Please coordinate. Sheet A4.0 1. There appears to be a major change to the mechanical layout on the roof plan presented on this sheet. Where are the revised Sheets S2.30, M2.4, P2.4, and E3.4? Sheet A8.0 1. The second layer of gypsum board has been removed from the bottom of the stairs, which is acceptable. However, what is the construction of the ceiling and walls enclosing Riser 121? Per 2018 IBC Sec. 1011.7.3 the walls and floor/ceiling of this enclosed space under the stairs need to be 1-hour fire resistance rated, and the plans are not clear. {The First Floor Exiting Plan on Sheet G1.1 does show 1-hour walls; but ceiling is not clear.} Should you have any questions regarding the plan review comments, please contact the plan reviewer listed for the appropriate discipline. Plans reviewed by: Joel Svoboda, RA Senior Associate 520-545-7415 joel.svoboda@stantec.com |
||
| 07/08/2026 | Commercial Plumbing Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | June 9, 2026 1st Review Lizard Rock Designs Attn: Carina Eichorst 1640 E. River Road, Suite 206 Tucson Arizona 85718 Re: CONGRESS STREET APARTMENTS NEW BUILDING (REVISIONS) City of Tucson Permit Number: TC-COM-0525-01018 Stantec Project Number: 185215066 Stantec File Number: TUC-26-035 Plan review for the project referenced above has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. PLEASE send all responses to comments back to the City through the permit portal! Responses sent directly to Stantec will be ignored. Also, please submit complete copies of all permit documents (i.e. plans, calculations, reports, etc.) even if they have not been changed. Please cloud and delta all changes and provide a letter with a written response to each of the comments indicating the action taken. The scope of this review covers the architectural, structural, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical designs as they relate to the codes adopted by the jurisdiction. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions, and concerns before permit approval. Occupancy Group Construction Type Area (Square feet) Occupant Load Automatic Fire Sprinklers Fire Alarms R-2 V-A 32,812 170 Yes Yes B S-2 Separate Permits: Automatic fire sprinklers and fire alarm. Deferred Submittals: Wood trusses. Special Inspections: Earthwork, concrete, epoxy and expansion anchors, and fabricated systems and elements. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS Sheet G1.5 1. The calculated fire rating performed in Detail 6 is incorrect. Per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.1, the calculation can only include the fire side membrane and the framing; the non-fire side membrane cannot be included. For a floor you can only include the lower membrane and the framing; you cannot include the upper membrane. The calculation should total 90 minutes and not 105 minutes. That said, per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.4, the upper membrane of this floor assembly must at a minimum meet the requirements of Table 722.6.2(4). The detail references the structural drawings for the floor deck, and the structural drawings indicate that the floor deck is 3/4" T&G WSP; this meets the requirement of the table. 2. The calculated fire rating performed in Detail 3A is incorrect. Per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.1, the calculation can only include the fire side membrane and the framing; the non-fire side membrane cannot be included. For a roof you can only include the lower membrane and the framing; you cannot include the upper membrane. Further, this detail indicates that Table 722.6.2(1) shows 60 minutes for 5/8” Type C gypsum board, however the table does not show a value over 40 minutes. The calculation should total 50 minutes and not 80 minutes which fall short of the required rating of 60 minutes. That said, per 2018 IBC Sec. 722.6.2.4, the upper membrane of this roof assembly must at a minimum meet the requirements of Table 722.6.2(4). The detail indicates 1/2” plywood sheathing and the table requires 15/32”; this meets the requirement of the table. Sheet A1.0 1. Suspect the handrail shown in Detail 9 at the ramp does not address edge protection as required by ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Sec. 405.9. The site plan and enlarged ramp plan suggests that the grade next to the ramp has a drop off greater than 1/2". There needs to be a curb per Sec. 405.9.2.1 or a barrier per Sec. 405.9.2.2 on both sides of the ramp. {This is to prevent a wheelchair from traveling off the ramp.} 2. At Detail 10, is there a grade difference 30” or greater next to the stairs? The riser height is not specified, however counting the risers there appears to be at least 28” based on 4 risers and assuming 7” height per riser. If the difference is 30” or greater, then a guard is required per 2018 IBC Sec. 1015.2. Please clarify these requirements on this detail. {Note, the handrail extension at the bottom of the stairs could be shortened per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Sec. 505.10.3.} Sheet A2.4 1. How do the revisions to Studio A affect the information found on Sheets P2.5 and E4.1. Please coordinate. Sheet A4.0 1. There appears to be a major change to the mechanical layout on the roof plan presented on this sheet. Where are the revised Sheets S2.30, M2.4, P2.4, and E3.4? Sheet A8.0 1. The second layer of gypsum board has been removed from the bottom of the stairs, which is acceptable. However, what is the construction of the ceiling and walls enclosing Riser 121? Per 2018 IBC Sec. 1011.7.3 the walls and floor/ceiling of this enclosed space under the stairs need to be 1-hour fire resistance rated, and the plans are not clear. {The First Floor Exiting Plan on Sheet G1.1 does show 1-hour walls; but ceiling is not clear.} Should you have any questions regarding the plan review comments, please contact the plan reviewer listed for the appropriate discipline. Plans reviewed by: Joel Svoboda, RA Senior Associate 520-545-7415 joel.svoboda@stantec.com |
||
| 06/02/2026 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit Activity Number: TC-COM-0525-01018 (REV 1st Review) Project: Rev.1: 5/27/2026 New single 4-story multi-family apartment building. Location: 701 W CONGRESS ST Review Date: 6/2/2026 Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate Reviewer Contact Information: marco.contreras@tucsonaz.gov Site Engineering Comments: 1. Site Engineering has completed its review of the submitted plan set and cross-referenced it against the associated development package. However, Site Engineering is unable to grant final approval for Commercial Permit : TC-COM-0525-01018 until the associated revision to Development Package TD-DEV-0325-00069 has received full approval and has been issued. Please resubmit for final approval once the development package has been approved and issued by all applicable reviewers. |
||
| 06/12/2026 | Site Zoning Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Bobby Parsons Zoning Section Review PROJECT: TC-COM-0525-01018 - TD-DEV-0325-00069 701 W. Congress St. Tucson, AZ 85745 New 4 story multi-family residential building (1st Revision Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: 6/12/2026 This site is located in the C-3 zone (UDC 4.7.22). Multifamily is an approved use in the zone (UDC Table 4.8-4). Comments: Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 1. Comment: Site zoning has reviewed the plans for compliance with the associated Development Package (DP) TD-DEV-0325-00069. While it appears the building plans match the DP, Site Zoning cannot approve this permit until the revised DP is approved by all review agencies. 2. Comment: Additional comments may be forthcoming depending on responses to zoning review comments and plans submitted. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Bobby Parsons at Robert.Parsons@tucsonaz.gov. |
||
| 06/17/2026 | Fire New Construction Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 05/28/2026 | PDSD Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED |