Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Building topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council gives first reading to ordinance allowing pool houses on larger residential lots; council asks committee for follow-up

2666428 · March 18, 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

On first reading, the council advanced Ordinance 6-48 to allow pool houses on certain residential lots, with council members asking the Architectural Review Committee to revisit lot-size thresholds and caps before second reading.

The Prospect City Council gave a first reading on March 17 to Ordinance 6-48, which would amend building regulations to permit construction of pool houses on certain residential lots subject to size and other restrictions.

The ordinance’s first-reading motion was made by Don Gibson and seconded by John Clark; the council recorded a unanimous vote to move forward with the first reading. During discussion, Councilman David Holmes expressed concern about the ordinance’s lot-size threshold, noting the text restricts pool houses to lots of three-quarters of an acre or larger. “Idon't understand where this came from…we're saying that you could only build pool houses on three quarters of an acre,” Holmes said during discussion, and he asked the committee to consider whether a smaller threshold (for example, one-half acre) would be appropriate for some properties.

Members of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) explained the ordinance ties allowable pool-house size to lot area and caps the accessory structure size relative to the main dwelling; committee members said the standards aim to preserve neighborhood character while allowing new accessory uses. ARC chair Bob Jacob and other committee members said they will review the wording and return with clarifying language to avoid loopholes and to confirm the appropriate lot-size threshold before the ordinance’s second reading.

Council members emphasized this was a first reading and that amendments are still possible. No retroactivity or enforcement changes were adopted at first reading; the item will appear for a second reading at a future council meeting after the ARC provides recommendations and any clerical corrections are made.