Applicant seeks replat of Pinecrest Canyon parcels; neighbors urge denial over unfinished road work and erosion, commission continues review

An Emigration Canyon land-use hearing on Nov. 13 considered SUB2025-001345, an application to replat parcels on North Pinecrest Canyon Road that would alter existing lot lines and expand development potential. The applicant, identified by staff as Evan Glassman, and municipal planning staff described a series of civil and geotechnical reviews but commissioners and neighbors said critical materials were missing from the packet.

Chair Tim Harpst opened the meeting and asked MSD planning staff to present. Justin, a municipal planner, told the commission the submission includes parcels addressed between 1128 and 1162 North Pinecrest Canyon and that the proposed subdivision would be processed as SUB2025-001345. Staff said two northern parcels (Lots 32 and 34) are zoned FR-20 and were removed from the proposed plat; the remaining parcels are FR-0.5. Justin recommended approval subject to conditions: municipal geologist review and incorporation of geotechnical recommendations on the final plat, municipal engineer approval of final grading and drainage, Unified Fire Authority consent for a road design that does not meet a 28-foot turnaround, installation or bonding of road and public improvements before recording, and performance bonds for retaining walls, grading and storm drainage if not installed before recording.

Neighbors who spoke during the public-comment period urged denial. Amy Cutting, representing nearby homeowners, said the applicant was previously granted a grading/driveway waiver and that required retaining walls and terraces were never constructed. "We have watched the open hillside slough and slide during rainstorms and snow melts," she said, adding that sediment runoff had reached downstream wells and driveways. David Gruenwald and other neighbors echoed concerns about ongoing erosion and asked the commission not to approve a replat that could create a false sense of buildability for future buyers.

The applicant responded that engineers and multiple agencies had reviewed the plans and that he had worked with MSD staff and private engineers. He said he intends to transfer the approved plat to a professional builder and that civil and storm-drain plans exist but were not clearly presented in the commission packet. Justin said several agencies had given conceptual approvals but that some formal letters and consolidated documentation were missing from the packet handed to commissioners.

Commissioners focused on technical questions: whether the submitted slope analysis and grading plans demonstrated buildable areas under the FCOS 30% slope standard, whether driveways and septic fields can be located outside steeper slopes, and whether the original waiver’s retaining-wall and terracing conditions had been satisfied. Commissioners and staff discussed HB 368 and state timeframes for subdivision review; they also discussed the process for a lot-line adjustment for the FR-20 parcels versus rezoning.

After extended Q&A and public comments, Commissioner comments converged on the need for a complete civil plan set and a clear overlay showing building pads, driveways and septic locations against the slope analysis. Legal staff recommended the commission either deny with ordinance citations or continue so staff and the applicant can provide the missing documentation. Commissioner motioned to continue the application to the commission’s December meeting for additional due diligence; the motion passed unanimously.

What happens next: the commission asked MSD staff to compile and deliver all agency responses, the applicant to supply the full civil set and slope-overlay showing driveways, septic and building pads, and for Unified Fire and municipal engineers to resolve outstanding conceptual approvals. The continuance preserves the commission’s ability to act after members review the compiled materials at the next meeting.

Votes and formal actions at the meeting included unanimous approval of the September minutes and a unanimous vote to continue SUB2025-001345 to the December 2025 meeting for additional documentation and agency confirmations. The meeting adjourned after the continuance vote.