Fountain Hills approves $30M Copperwind resort expansion and steep-slope housing regulations unanimously
FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA — September 6, 2017

Fountain Hills approves $30M Copperwind resort expansion and steep-slope housing regulations unanimously

Council approved major 300-room Copperwind Resort expansion and new canyon-side zoning regulations, while ethics concerns were raised during public comment regarding council member conduct and transparency.

Council Greenlights Copperwind Expansion and Canyon-Side Housing While Ethics Complaint Looms Unaddressed

On September 6, the Fountain Hills Town Council unanimously approved a transformative $30 million expansion of the Copperwind Resort and a sweeping new zoning ordinance permitting residential construction on steep-slope properties—two landmark decisions that will reshape development patterns in the foothill community. But the meeting also exposed festering tension: a volunteer commissioner publicly accused an unnamed council member of using the town's official email system to retaliate against him for questioning the member's business interests, an allegation that drew no council response and no formal action.

The votes themselves were decisive and unanimous. All seven council members approved the Copperwind Planned Area Development amendment (Ordinance 17-09) and the companion development agreement modification (Resolution 2017-27) in back-to-back 7-0 votes. The new canyon-side zoning ordinance (Ordinance 17-08) also passed 7-0. But the public comment that preceded the Copperwind discussion signaled deeper institutional concerns—concerns the council declined to engage.

The Copperwind Expansion: Phased Growth, Strategic Height Waivers

The Copperwind Resort and Club, perched on the hill at 13225 North Eagle Ridge Drive, currently operates 32 hotel rooms and serves the community's high-end event market. The expansion, presented by attorney Jordan Rose of Rose Law Group, PC on behalf of owner Bill Hines, will add 300 new rooms across three phases, along with 11,000 square feet of new and renovated banquet space, a 3-level parking garage, expanded pools, fitness centers, and dining facilities.

The phasing strategy is aggressive but realistic:

The resort's architect, Michael Marcu of Allen & Phelps, and the applicant team spent months with town staff—principally planner Andrew Marissa and engineer Bob (last name not fully stated in transcript)—negotiating the height and topographic issues. The central technical challenge: the site slopes away dramatically in multiple directions. The Phase 1 Building 1 sits on terrain that drops more than a full story (roughly 14 feet) beneath the building footprint. The Phase 2 Building 2 faces a similar condition on its downhill end.

The town's base height limit for the Planned Area Development is 50 feet. But as the renderings and site-section drawings showed, rigid application of that standard to sloped terrain would either force awkward architectural compromises or leave significant buildable floor area unused. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, and the council approved, two conditional height waivers:

  1. Phase 1 Building 1: maximum 75 feet on the southern (downhill) end, 50 feet on the northern (uphill) end.
  2. Phase 2 Building 2: maximum 60 feet (presumably on the downhill end, though not explicitly restated).
  3. Phase 3 (rooftop units on the parking garage): remains subject to the 50-foot limit.

Vice Mayor Gayle Earle asked the applicant team about occupancy assumptions embedded in their revenue projections. Rose deferred to Hines, who stated the project is underwritten at 70% occupancy—a conservative assumption for a high-end destination resort in a market with strong demand.

On timing, Rose stated:

"Our timing is we will have our construction documents in by the end of December. We are hopeful to start construction January [2019]. So we'll complete construction January [2019]." — Jordan Rose, Rose Law Group, PC

That schedule—construction documents finished by December 2017 and completion by January 2019—assumes rapid permitting and aggressive contracting. Rose also noted that the project clarifies several elements that emerged during the construction document phase: specifically, where to measure "grade" and how height is calculated in relation to natural topography. The amendment itself is, in Rose's words, "really just bringing you more rooms quicker."

The resort's general manager, Brian Klein, spoke during public comment to affirm support from both the planning process and the broader community:

"We were really looking forward to having that move forward with the amendments and some of the stipulations was really great to see, and we were really looking forward to having that move forward so that we can start this project and have it completed. I've talked to a lot of the members of the community these last couple of weeks and the overwhelming positive reaction about this project is wonderful." — Brian Klein, General Manager, Copperwind Resort

Six additional community members submitted speaker cards in favor of the project but elected not to speak, signaling strong passive support.

Canyon-Side Lot Ordinance: Opening Steep-Slope Development

Ordinance 17-08, titled "Canyon Side Lot Regulations," addresses a class of Fountain Hills properties that have long been difficult or impossible to develop: parcels with slopes of 30% or greater on the downhill side of a road. The town's existing hillside development regulations (20% or greater slope) already impose strict standards; the canyon-side ordinance creates a targeted pathway for residential construction on the steepest lots.

Staff planner Marissa presented the ordinance as the result of extensive research. The town reviewed how Paradise Valley, California, and other mountain-adjacent communities address steep-slope development. The town also worked closely with a local builder, John Fontaine, who has been developing in Fountain Hills since the late 1970s and brought the issue to the town's attention. Councilman Brown acknowledged Fontaine's contribution explicitly during council discussion:

"I'd also like to thank a builder in town John Fontaine who's been in town since the late 70s building because he is the one that actually brought this to us brought this idea to us to allow us to build on extremely steep lots and I commend John Fontaine for putting the time and energy into it." — Councilman Brown

The ordinance establishes two criteria for "canyon-side" classification:

  1. The property must be on the downhill side of a road.
  2. 30% or more of the area under the building footprint must have a slope of 30% or greater.

When a property meets both criteria, the owner may:

Marissa illustrated the concept with site-section drawings showing both a 30% slope and a 50% slope scenario, demonstrating how the 10-foot setback and 50-foot overall/30-foot-from-grade limitation allow vertical development while preventing the "cliff face" appearance that concerned communities like Hollywood, California.

Importantly, all other hillside development regulations—applying to any slope of 20% or greater—remain in effect.

Councilman Brown noted the ordinance's potential limitations and requested flexibility:

"I would like to think that we've got a one-size-fits-all ordinance and as we run into different obstacles, hills, different hillside sloping obstacles that we would be open to the fact of adjusting and working until we finally get it to where the one size will fit all and that would be my only request." — Councilman Brown

Councilman Yates framed the ordinance as a housing-diversity tool:

"Just to echo a little bit real excited about the opportunity you're creating because diversity of housing is such a big thing especially with the diversity of lots that we have in town so this is tremendous good job." — Councilman Yates

No public speakers registered for the canyon-side ordinance item. Both votes—on the ordinance itself and on staff's recommendation—passed 7-0 without dissent or further discussion.

Ethics Complaint: Unaddressed Allegations of Retaliation and Improper Advertising

The meeting's most volatile moment came during the "Call to the Public" segment, when Gene Michael Isaac, identified as a volunteer and appointee to town commissions, took the podium to allege ethics violations by an unnamed council member.

Isaac's complaint had several layers. First, he questioned the accuracy of statements made to the council about a lagoon proposal. He submitted public-records requests to the Fountain Hills Sanitary District and Arizona State Parks Department and discovered, he said, that statements attributed to those agencies in town materials were inaccurate. He wrote letters to the Fountain Hills Times addressing the discrepancies.

His second complaint targeted what he described as retaliation for those letters. According to Isaac, a council member responded to his public criticism by using the town's official email system to "berate, insult, and defame" him. The emails, Isaac said, questioned his right to expose facts, accused him of "unethical conduct" and "divisive and partisan behavior," and attacked his character. Significantly, Isaac noted:

"The email accused me of unethical conduct of divisive and partisan behavior. I take these allegations very seriously. The anger by the aforementioned town council member is not new. It has its genesis and my questioning and improper advertisement still being displayed in our town." — Gene Michael Isaac, volunteer/appointee

Isaac then disclosed that he had requested the town hire someone to investigate the advertisement in question—one promoting a council member's position as part of a "marketing effort to promote business for his private company." The town engaged a retired judge, Judge Patterson, to investigate.

Isaac's crucial claim: Judge Patterson's findings vindicated his concern, even if they did not support a full ethics violation:

"Judge Patterson did conclude that the councilman's advertisement quote has a facial appearance of violating unquote the town rules. A procedure judge Patterson recommended that the language be removed from the advertisements. The language has not been removed." — Gene Michael Isaac pointed out that the council member cited Judge Patterson's investigation—which, in Isaac's reading, supported the removal of the problematic language—as justification for the retaliatory emails. Finally, Isaac raised a concern about volunteer recruitment and intimidation:

"This council knows the difficulties in getting people to volunteer for town commissions that effort will be more difficult if volunteers are required to ignore the truth and remain silent even if they see and hear things that are wrong." — Gene Michael Isaac did not ask the council to take immediate action against the council member. Instead, he requested that his written comments and supporting documentation be included in the official council record. He framed his complaint as a warning signal: the council member's behavior represented "hopefully the low point for unacceptable behavior."

The Council's Response: Silence

After Isaac completed his remarks, Mayor Cavanaugh issued a procedural reminder:

"We have no excuse me let me remind you that this is council chambers and not a theater we don't clap regardless of whether you like something or you don't like it let's just give everybody the respect to say what they want to say without comment like that." — Mayor Cavanaugh

The mayor then stated:

"During call to the public I will remind you that we cannot comment no one specifically was named if anyone feels that they want to comment then they can signal that they do but it is very difficult for us to do that since the item was not agendized." — Mayor Cavanaugh

No council member asked clarifying questions. No council member moved to investigate or request follow-up. The council proceeded directly to the consent agenda.

The mayor's statement about "no one specifically was named" is technically accurate—Isaac never said the council member's name aloud. However, the complaint was detailed enough that knowledgeable residents would likely understand to whom Isaac referred. The fact that the complaint was "not agendized"—that is, not placed on the formal meeting agenda in advance—gave the council legal cover to decline substantive engagement. Council rules typically require that items be on the agenda before the body can vote or formally act on them. But the rules do not prohibit council members from addressing public concerns raised during comment, from requesting staff investigation, or from calling for a special meeting.

The council chose none of those paths.

Other Notable Items

Development Impact Fee Audit: The town received a two-year development impact fee audit from Wildan Financial Services, required under Arizona state statute (2012 legislation). Auditor Kevin Burnett reported that the town's land-use assumptions, capital improvements program, level-of-service standards, and fee assessments were all compliant and on track. No issues were identified; the audit effectively gave the town an "A+" on fiscal management of development fees.

EPCOR Water Main Breaks in Sunridge Canyon: Town Manager Grady reported that multiple water main breaks in the Sunridge Canyon neighborhood prompted a high-level meeting with EPCOR senior management and engineering staff. The root cause: the pipes are sitting on bedrock, causing movement and weakening over time. EPCOR committed to a capital improvement project and promised to provide a timeline and schedule by the end of September 2017.

Fountain Park Fountain Repairs: The fountain at Fountain Park, which had shut down intermittently over a 6-9 month period due to wind, was repaired with a new control system. Pumps now activate based on wind speed: two pumps below 8 mph, one pump at 8-15 mph, all pumps off above 15 mph. The fix also brought the fountain into compliance with ADEQ permit requirements, keeping overspray within the park boundary.

Staff Recognitions: The council appointed Rachel Goodwin as Community Services Director (promoted from Recreation Manager, CPM-certified, pursuing an MPA at ASU) and Justin Weldy as Public Works Director (11 years with the town, 30+ years public works experience, competing against 30 external candidates). The town's parks and recreation department received two Arizona Parks and Recreation Association awards: best facility under 25,000 population (Fountain Hills Musical Instrument Park) and best sports program (Nerf Wars, which has engaged over 500 children).

Project Details

Copperwind Resort Expansion

Canyon-Side Lot Regulations

Vote Breakdown

Ordinance 17-09 (Copperwind PAD Amendment)

Resolution 2017-27 (Development Agreement Amendment)

Ordinance 17-08 (Canyon-Side Lot Regulations)

Outcome & Next Steps

The Copperwind expansion is now legally approved under amended ordinance and development agreement. The applicant team has committed to delivering construction documents by the end of December 2017 and beginning construction in January 2018, with substantial completion targeted for January 2019. The town's planning and zoning commission stipulations—conditional height limits for each phase—are incorporated into the approval. Any subsequent changes to the site plan or phasing will require amendment.

The canyon-side lot ordinance is now law. Properties meeting the two criteria (downhill location and 30%+ slopes under building footprint) may apply for approval under the new provisions. Councilman Brown signaled openness to adjusting the ordinance as implementation reveals unforeseen complications.

The ethics complaint raised by Isaac has been entered into the official record but is not scheduled for council action. The alleged council member remains unidentified in the official record. No investigation has been requested; no council discussion has been scheduled.

Controversies & Context

The Advertisement Dispute: Isaac's complaint centers on a council member who, in his private business capacity, is being advertised or promoted in town materials. The retired judge hired to investigate found that the advertisement had "a facial appearance of violating" town rules or standards, but stopped short of recommending formal action—Judge Patterson instead recommended language removal. According to Isaac, that language removal has not occurred, and the council member has not been held accountable. This unresolved issue forms the backdrop to the retaliatory emails Isaac alleges.

Volunteer Intimidation: Isaac explicitly framed his complaint as a canary-in-the-mine warning: if volunteers who raise questions about accuracy or ethics are publicly attacked via official town email, fewer people will volunteer. His comment reflects a broader governance concern: the chilling effect that personal retaliation can have on civic participation.

The Mayor's Gatekeeping: Mayor Cavanaugh's response—that the item was "not agendized" and therefore the council cannot comment—is procedurally defensible but strategically notable. It prevented the council from engaging substantively with the complaint while maintaining strict adherence to council rules. A council member could have moved to add the topic to a future agenda or requested that the town manager investigate. No member did so.

Fiscal Discipline: The development impact fee audit validates the town's financial stewardship. No extraordinary fees have been waived or misapplied; the capital improvements program is on schedule. This is a "good governance" moment for town staff and leadership.

Duration