Commission approves privacy‑fence exception at 9329 Catalina

The Prairie Village Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a fence‑exception for 9329 Catalina, allowing a privacy fence to extend along the property boundary with an adjacent apartment complex.

Staff planner Chris Bruce told the commission that PC‑26‑15 is a site plan for a fence exception for the lot at 9329 Catalina and that the property sits at the end of a cul‑de‑sac adjacent to an apartment complex. He said the proposal would replace an existing wood privacy fence in the backyard and extend the privacy fence along the shared boundary. “PC dash 2 6 1 5 is a site plan for fence exception, 93 29 Catalina,” Bruce said, and explained the proposed fence conflicts with two elements of the front‑yard fence standards: the applicant prefers the finished side to face inward on the portion of fence with greater street visibility, and the extension would place a privacy fence where the code treats part of the lot as front yard.

The applicant, Steve Maurer, told the commission he and his contractor planned a roughly 2‑foot buffer between the new fence and an existing chain‑link fence on the apartment property and that he had discussed the work with the apartment manager. “There is an existing fence that we're trying to replace, and we want to extend it all the way down to the southwest corner of the property with the finished side facing Catalina, the cul de sac,” Maurer said. He added that the apartment manager had indicated the apartment owner was amenable to clearing brush and permitting the work.

Commissioners asked whether the chain‑link fence was located on the apartment property, whether the applicant had authority to work near it and whether deferred maintenance on the apartment fence had created a code problem. Bruce said staff had identified the chain‑link as likely on the apartment parcel and recommended the commission could grant an exception because the design would provide better screening and fit the site. After discussion, a commissioner made a motion to approve the application subject to standard permitting and property‑owner coordination; the motion carried unanimously.

The approval allows the applicant to replace and extend the privacy fence but does not change property ownership or resolve any boundary disputes; staff said the permit process and coordination with the apartment property owner will address those implementation details.