Emigration Canyon planning commission continues review of Glassman subdivision after neighbors, commissioners cite slope, drainage and retaining‑wall concerns

The Emigration Canyon Planning Commission on Nov. 13 continued review of a subdivision application from property owner Evan Glassman after commissioners and neighbors raised questions about whether the proposed lots are buildable under the municipality’s slope rules and whether required retaining walls and erosion controls have been completed.

The application, filed as SUB 2025-001345, proposes replatting parcels on North Pinecrest Canyon Road into additional lots served by a private road. Planning staff recommended approval subject to conditions including a geotechnical review, municipal-engineer approval of final grading and drainage, and consent from the Unified Fire Authority for the road design. Commissioners said the packet lacked clear agency responses and an integrated civil set showing how building pads, septic fields and driveways avoid slopes of 30% or greater.

Why it matters: Commissioners and several neighbors said the site already shows erosion and runoff problems from earlier grading and that the previously approved waiver for road construction required terraces and retaining walls that have not been installed. Approving a replat that appears to show buildable lots, they warned, could create an expectation that homes can be constructed even where slopes or soils make building unsafe or impractical.

Neighbors urged denial or delay. Amy Cutting, representing a nearby PUD, urged commissioners to deny the application until the previously required terraces and retaining walls are completed. “We have watched the open hillside slough and slide during rainstorms and snow melts,” Cutting said. She asked the commission to require completion of the terrace and retaining‑wall work before approving further development.

Applicant and staff response. Applicant Evan Glassman said he has worked with engineers and county planners and that he has taken steps to mitigate erosion; he confirmed he intends to transfer the project to a professional builder. “I deeply disagree and deny a lot of whatever those accusations were,” Glassman said, and said he would rely on a builder to complete remaining improvements.

Technical gaps cited. Commissioners and staff said the submission included conceptual or “blank” agency pages in the packet and inconsistent maps: a preliminary plat, a slope analysis and civil plans that were not clearly overlaid. Commissioners asked for a full civil set, the geotechnical recommendations to be incorporated into the final plat notes, documentation that septic locations and driveways meet the FCOS slope limits, and clear evidence of agency approvals or the conditions they require.

Legal and process context. Staff and legal counsel referenced HB 368, noting recent state changes that affect subdivision review timetables and the options available to developers — either installing improvements before recording a plat or posting a performance bond. Counsel said the city has processes to require bonds or, if necessary, pursue notices of violation for unpermitted or harmful work.

Procedure and next steps. After deliberation commissioners voted unanimously to continue the application to the commission’s December meeting and directed staff to compile all agency responses, provide fuller civil plan sets and identify the specific ordinance citations that would support denial if the commission chooses that path. The commission also asked the applicant to provide a clear overlay of the proposed plat with the slope analysis and building‑pad, driveway and septic locations.

The commission is scheduled to take up the application again on Dec. 11, 2025; staff said they will aim to provide the consolidated agency letters and the civil set requested by commissioners.