Staff tightened grading-permit practice; commissioners consider bonding for large retaining-wall projects after Pine Crest case

Metropolitan Stormwater/Grading staff reported an internal change to standard operating procedures and commissioners debated whether Emigration Canyon should add a formal bonding requirement after a problematic project in the Pine Crest neighborhood.

Alex (MSD grading, floodplain and stormwater manager) told the commission that staff now require retaining-wall permits to be approved before issuing related grading permits. The change followed difficulty in completing work on a high-profile project (referred to in the meeting as the Glassman matter in Pine Crest) where grading proceeded without required stabilization, leaving neighbors and access at risk.

Key points discussed: - SOP change: Staff now withhold grading-permit issuance when a retaining-wall permit is required for the same work; retaining walls over 4 feet or carrying surcharge require a separate permit under adopted building code provisions. - Bonding: Currently the jurisdiction does not require bonds on grading or retaining-wall permits. Commissioners debated whether to require bonding in cases where retaining walls exceed a threshold (a common drafting suggestion was to require bonding when a retaining wall permit is required, i.e., >4 feet or carrying surcharge) or to allow the planning commission to require a bond when granting exemptions or waivers. - Trade-offs: Staff expressed concern that mandatory bonding for all grading permits could slow the permit process because grading permits are often used to begin staged development; others countered that bonding provides a financial backstop should a project be abandoned and public safety or private infrastructure be left in jeopardy. - Scope and thresholds: Commissioners discussed limiting bonding requirements to retaining walls that create off-site risk or substantial slope stabilization issues, or to require bonding only when a retaining wall is part of a larger subdivision-style site plan; they also suggested taking examples from other jurisdictions to calibrate thresholds and bond amounts. - Extended foundation walls: staff and commissioners agreed that extended foundation walls should be treated as site retaining walls when they extend beyond the building footprint; participants proposed an 8-foot rule (if the foundation extension extends 8 feet or more beyond the building, treat it as a site retaining wall) to prevent using "extended foundations" to avoid retaining-wall standards. They also discussed visual/aesthetic limits to prevent very tall exposed retaining walls.

Next steps: staff will consult the chief building official, the city council, and other jurisdictions to craft proposed ordinance language. The commission suggested that city council feedback be sought informally first to determine whether council would be receptive to requiring bonds in targeted circumstances. Staff said it will help draft the specific bond-trigger thresholds and work with MSD to identify comparable community examples.