Mat-Su Planning Board approves minor right-of-way vacation in Cooper Woods to resolve setback

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Board on July 17 approved a petition to vacate a 2.23-foot by 32.44-foot portion of public right-of-way along the eastern boundary of Lot 16 A in Cooper Woods Phase 2, contingent on staff recommendations 1–7.

The vacation affects property immediately south of East Gemini Lane and west of North Kavanaugh Circle in the North Lakes Community Council area, Assembly District 6. Planning staff said the petitioner seeks the change to address a building setback: the house on the lot sits about 22.8 feet from the right-of-way where a 25-foot setback is required.

Planning staff, represented at the hearing by Chris Kerlin, noted the right-of-way is constructed and being used. Public works (PD&E) submitted a comment opposing the vacation as proposed, saying it would create a substandard cul-de-sac; PD&E requested that, if vacated, a snow-storage easement remain in place. Internet and telecom providers (InStar and GCI) replied with no objections; MTA and MEA did not respond. No public comments were received before the meeting.

Craig Hanson, the petitioner’s representative, described the issue as a common boundary error that left the house corner inside the required setback. Hanson said the proposal would “feather” the right-of-way line inward a small amount at the curve and convert the lost strip into a snow-storage easement, so the practical use of the area would not change. Mary Lou Lavigne, who identified herself as the owner associated with the plat, spoke in support.

Board members questioned whether approving a vacation when the right-of-way is in use set a precedent and whether a variance might instead address the setback. Planning Director Alex Straub explained variances follow MSB 17.65 and that the typical variance criteria probably would not be met in this case because the lot has buildable area. Staff also clarified that decks only count as structures for setback purposes if they are more than 18 inches above grade (MSB 17.55 was cited).

Several board members said the vacation creates no physical change to the roadway or snow removal operations because the borough would retain ownership and the area would be redesignated for snow storage. Members weighed two concerns: avoiding rewarding construction that violates setbacks versus permitting a small, practical fix that prevents a cloud on title and potential lending problems. One member noted that if the borough ever needed the land for a reconstructed cul-de-sac, it could acquire it again through eminent domain.

Planning member Leibing moved to approve the vacation as described, and Planning member Salmon seconded. The roll-call vote was 4 in favor and 3 opposed; members voting yes were Leibing, Gilson, Salmon and Burtz; members voting no were Chavetta, Traxler and Krieger. The motion passed. The approval was expressly made contingent on staff recommendations 1–7, including preserving any necessary snow-storage easement, and the board record includes staff findings for approval and denial.

The board noted this matter had been continued from the June 5, 2025 meeting and that utilities for the subdivision are in place in the typical 15-foot utility easement outside the right-of-way, so utilities would not be impacted by the change.

The board moved on to its next agenda item after the vote.