Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Reconsideration topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board grants reconsideration for Cooper Woods Phase 2 after staff flags second‑story deck as part of setback

5614787 · August 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The planning board voted to reopen Cooper Woods Phase 2 (case 2025-051) after planning staff discovered evidence a deck on the property is a second‑floor structure that affects setback compliance; the matter was set for the board’s Sept. 18 meeting for full rehearing.

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Board on Aug. 21 approved a request to reconsider its earlier approval of Cooper Woods Phase 2, Lot 16B, Block 1, after planning staff said new evidence shows a second‑story deck encroaches into a setback and a utility easement.

Planning officer Fred Wagner told the board he filed for reconsideration under the board’s rules citing newly discovered evidence: staff received information indicating a deck is a second‑story structure and therefore counts in setback calculations because it is more than 18 inches above average grade.

“At first, we’ll go over the reconsideration process,” Wagner said, explaining the legal bases the board may use to reopen a prior decision, and that he was filing the request under the ground that “there is newly discovered evidence or a change in circumstances which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the original hearing.”

Wagner said the deck in question sits further into the setback and also lies within a utility easement; removing the deck would allow the vacation previously granted to achieve the petitioner’s intent without leaving a structure in the setback or easement. He recommended adding a condition of approval requiring removal of the deck if the vacation is to stand.

Board members discussed whether the deck had been shown on materials in the original hearing and whether its vertical status (first floor vs. second story) had been clear. One member summarized that the original approval concerned a principal building corner approximately 22.8 feet from the right‑of‑way and that the newly identified second‑story deck extends farther into the easement and setback.

After discussion, a motion to reconsider and place the item back on the board’s agenda was put forward and approved. The motion passed with one member recorded in opposition. Planning staff said that if reconsideration is granted, the board will schedule a new public hearing to consider conditions (including potentially removing the deck) and allow public testimony.

Action: The planning board granted reconsideration of Cooper Woods Phase 2 (case 2025‑051) and added the item to the Sept. 18 agenda so the board can review the newly submitted evidence and consider appropriate conditions of approval.

Why it matters: Reconsideration was initiated by staff after new information showed a structure not previously treated as part of the house could alter the outcome of a vacation of right‑of‑way and setback relief. If left unaddressed, the second‑story deck would remain in a setback and within a utility easement even after the plat vacation, potentially creating ongoing code compliance problems.

Next steps: The board scheduled the rehearing for Sept. 18. Staff said it will prepare findings and proposed conditions to resolve whether the deck must be removed or whether alternative remedies (additional vacation or easement adjustments) are appropriate.