Fountain Hills approves cantilever development on steep slopes, defers permits pending architectural guidelines

Fountain Hills Approves Cantilever Development Standards on Steep Slopes—But Freezes Permits Until Design Guidelines in Place

The Fountain Hills Town Council voted unanimously on October 3, 2018 to adopt Ordinance 18-11, permitting cantilever construction on single-family residential lots with slopes of 30% or greater. However, Mayor Linda Cavanaugh made approval conditional: no building permits will be issued until the town establishes formal architectural guidelines and engages the North Scottsdale Preserve Owners Association (NPOA) to conduct design review—a mandate that effectively delays implementation while preserving council authority over aesthetics on properties currently without HOA oversight.

The decision caps an 18-month effort initiated by Councilman Dennis Brown and local builder John Fontaine to make previously non-buildable hillside lots developable. Of the town's remaining 895 vacant single-family residential lots, only 28 meet the 30%-slope threshold under the ordinance. Yet the absence of design standards on 52 lots outside HOA or NPOA protection proved the sticking point, with Mayor Cavanaugh refusing to greenlight the ordinance without guardrails against unsightly architectural results visible from neighboring properties.

Key Speeches

"This is a sensible solution to a problem that nobody has been able to address. And if we can work through the architectural review, I think that it will be a win-win for the lot owners and the town of Fountain Hills." — Councilman Dennis Brown

"I'm not opposed to cantilever homes and my question about other municipalities was just a matter of curiosity. Of course Fountain Hills is extremely unique. All I'm trying to understand is I'm not in a position tonight to say okay fine, check this off and move it forward. I think that we need to take a look at developing some architectural guideline standards. It's hard for me to vote when there are no standards in place. If you come back to us with standards, then I can make a more responsible vote. I can't responsibly vote tonight where there are 52 homes with no architectural standards." — Mayor Linda Cavanaugh

"Well, if you paid your money to own a lot and the town tells you can't build on it, should the town buy it back?" — Councilman Dennis Brown, responding to Planning and Zoning Commission concerns about building on "non-buildable" lots

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: Councilman Brown and builder John Fontaine presented the policy rationale: lots originally sold under county ordinances became unbuildable once the town adopted more restrictive hillside-protection rules. Fontaine, whom Brown described as having the longest tenure of any active builder in Fountain Hills (since the 1970s), proposed cantilever design as a solution.

• Staff recommendation: Senior Planner Marissa Moore presented a detailed slope-analysis showing that of 895 vacant single-family residential lots, only 28 meet the 30%-or-greater slope threshold. She noted that 52 lots lie outside HOA or NPOA boundaries and thus lack design review; fewer than 10 of those 52 actually qualify for cantilevers. Moore emphasized the difficulty of writing code-based design standards without a formal design-review board, showing extremes of cantilever design—from attractive to aesthetically jarring—and proposing height limits (12 feet above curb grade, 24-foot wall planes) to constrain visual mass.

• Public comment: Two speakers addressed the council. Professional engineer Bob Shellstrom, with 40 years of experience in foundation design, endorsed cantilevers contingent on requiring professional geotechnical reports before permit issuance—a safeguard Councilman Brown noted is already standard practice on all new Fountain Hills construction. Shellstrom also urged aesthetic design review to prevent cost-cutting that degrades appearance.

• Council discussion: The debate centered on architectural standards. Mayor Cavanaugh stated she could not responsibly approve the ordinance without them, refusing to vote in favor despite supporting the concept. Councilman Brown countered that Fountain Hills is uniquely hillside-dependent, compared the town's 24-foot soffit clearance favorably to Paradise Valley's more restrictive 8-foot cantilever limit, and grew impatient after 18 months of deliberation: "It's nice, it's typical... it's time to kind of call the vote and decide." Councilman Leger raised concerns about the 52 unprotected properties and pressed for compatibility assurances. Councilman Magazine sought clarification on the slope-analysis methodology and the original intent when these lots were sold.

• Vote: Unanimous approval of Ordinance 18-11 on a roll-call vote: Council Member Leger (yes), Council Member Brown (yes), Council Member Deporter (yes), Council Member Magazine (yes), Mayor Cavanaugh (yes). Vice Mayor Artolas was absent from this particular vote sequence in the transcript.

Opposition

• Number of speakers against: None formally opposed; however, Mayor Cavanaugh and Councilman Leger registered conditional objections centered on design governance, not the cantilever concept itself.

• Main concerns:

  1. Fifty-two properties outside HOA/NPOA boundaries lack any design-review mechanism and face no architectural standards.
  2. Unfinished soffits (underside of cantilevers) visible from neighboring residences could degrade aesthetics in infill scenarios where homes occupy both uphill and downhill slopes.
  3. Absence of a formal design-review board makes it difficult to regulate aesthetics through code alone; subjective language invites disputes.
  4. The ordinance, as proposed, does not restrict single-story structures, which may have unintended consequences (though Councilman Brown clarified that two-story cantilevers would obscure the soffit from below).
  5. Compatibility with adjacent existing homes—particularly in cases where adjacent properties were developed under previous, more restrictive standards.
  6. Potential for cost-cutting by builders if no design oversight occurs, leading to "horrendous" aesthetic outcomes (per Shellstrom's remark about California beach-house examples).

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Mayor Cavanaugh's insistence on architectural standards before permits: "I can't responsibly vote tonight where there are 52 homes with no architectural standards."
  • Shellstrom's warning that without professional design review, cost pressures would incentivize corner-cutting, as has occurred in California coastal developments.

• Organized groups: None explicitly opposed; however, Councilman Brown noted that Eagle's Nest and Fire Rock (two major HOAs) had recently rewritten their architectural guidelines to encourage terraced retaining walls and single-level homes—suggesting a proactive HOA response to the cantilever ordinance.

Support

• Number of speakers in favor: One—Bob Shellstrom endorsed cantilevers with conditions.

• Main arguments:

  1. Cantilevers are structurally sound if properly engineered (Shellstrom, as a licensed civil engineer, attested to this).
  2. The 28 affected lots represent a small fraction of the town's vacant inventory (3% of 895), limiting widespread impact.
  3. Cost savings benefit lot owners and builders; savings are inherent to rope-and-flag disturbance markers vs. chain-link fencing (addressed in Ordinance 18-12, also approved).
  4. Other municipalities (Cave Creek, Carefree, Gilbert, Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale) do not require cantilevers but do allow them; Paradise Valley has a cantilever ordinance, albeit more restrictive.
  5. These lots were originally sold as buildable under county ordinances; the town's new rules made them non-buildable—creating an inequity that cantilevers remedy.
  6. Properties with surrounding homes built on 25–28% slopes under county ordinances demonstrate that steep-slope development is integral to Fountain Hills' character.
  7. No structural negatives; cantilevers build "exactly like a traditional home," with foundation design identical (Councilman Brown).

• Organized groups: Eagle's Nest and Fire Rock HOAs, through recent board decisions (described by developer Steve Vargo, per Brown), endorsed steeper slope development by allowing terraced retaining walls.

Project Details

• Case number: Z2018-03

• Applicant / developer: John Fontaine (builder / proponent); indirectly supported by Steve Vargo, MCO Realty and Eagle's Nest part-owner, whose recent board decision to allow terraced retaining walls signals HOA-level endorsement.

• Attorney: Eric Arnson (newly introduced as town attorney during the meeting; no private applicant counsel noted in transcript).

• Location / address: Fountain Hills town limits; affected parcels concentrated in areas with 30%+ slopes, including Fire Rock Crest, View Eagles Nest, Sycamore, Driving Gray Stone Drive, and state trust land pending platting. Approximately 28 of 895 remaining vacant single-family residential lots.

• APN (if stated): Not stated in transcript.

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Single-family residential (no zone change); text amendment to Section 1.12, 5.10a, 5.10b, 10.9, and new Section 5.10c of the Zoning Ordinance to add cantilever development standards.

• Density / units / square footage: No specific density or unit count; applies to single-family lots only. Height limits: maximum 12 feet above curb grade; maximum 24-foot wall plane; maximum 24 feet of clearance between soffit and grade beneath.

• Changes from previous version (if reconsideration): No prior ordinance version; this is a new text amendment born from an 18-month deliberation cycle initiated by council retreat discussion approximately 18 months prior.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: Unanimous approval (5–0 on recorded votes).

• Yes: Council Member Leger, Council Member Brown, Council Member Deporter, Council Member Magazine, Mayor Cavanaugh.

• No: None.

• Abstentions / absences: Vice Mayor Artolas's position on this item is not explicitly stated in the roll-call transcript section provided, though he was present at the meeting and took votes on other items.

Outcome & Next Steps

Ordinance 18-11 is approved contingent on the following conditions, as articulated by Councilman Brown in his motion and accepted by the council:

1. No permits will be released until formal architectural guidelines are drafted and adopted.
2. NPOA engagement: Staff will approach the North Scottsdale Preserve Owners Association to conduct design review for cantilever projects—including those outside NPOA boundaries—likely on a fee basis.
3. Finished soffits: The architectural guidelines will require finished soffits on the underside of cantilevers to prevent unfinished/unsightly undersides visible from neighboring properties.
4. No specific one-story restriction, though guidelines may address multi-story implications for visual mass.

Timeline: Staff will draft architectural guidelines and negotiate NPOA participation; once finalized, permit applications for cantilever projects will be queued and processed. No timeline for guideline completion was stated.

Controversies & Context

The cantilever ordinance emerged from a 2017 council retreat policy-discussion in which Councilman Dennis Brown and builder John Fontaine identified non-buildable steep-slope lots as a lost-opportunity problem. Brown's framing underscored an equity argument: these lots were legally buildable when sold under county ordinances; the town's adoption of hillside-protection rules (requiring homes to occupy only 5–10% of lots with 20%+ slopes) retroactively rendered them unbuildable without town buyback or variances. Brown characterized the hillside-protection ordinance as a "taking of land" in its effect, though he acknowledged "no one wants to listen to that."

Mayor Cavanaugh's insistence on design standards reflects a broader governance tension: Fountain Hills lacks a design-review board, forcing planners to embed aesthetic regulations into zoning code. Marissa Moore acknowledged the difficulty of this approach, showing visual examples of "gun turrets" and other extreme cantilevers to illustrate the spectrum of possibilities. Paradise Valley's cantilever ordinance, cited for comparison, is notably more restrictive (8-foot cantilever limit vs. Fountain Hills' implied 24-foot soffit clearance), but no hard data on Paradise Valley's ordinance language appears in the transcript.

The 52 lots outside HOA/NPOA protection emerged as the crux. Of those 52, fewer than 10 actually qualify under the 30%-slope threshold, yet the ordinance extends to all non-HOA/NPOA properties within that slope band. Councilman Leger expressed particular concern about "infill" scenarios where cantilevers on downhill properties could face uphill neighbors developed under prior rules, creating incompatibility. Brown countered that you must be "in the bottom of a wash" to see a cantilever's underside—a remark that prompted a staff clarification from Marissa Moore that a few areas in the north-central part of town (near Middle School, inferred) do permit uphill-to-downhill sightlines.

Bob Shellstrom's geotechnical commentary introduced engineering risk—settlement, soils instability on steep slopes with sandy, silty soils ("calice"), and the need for professional geotech reports. Councilman Brown deflected by noting that all new Fountain Hills construction already requires geotech reports, a claim not contradicted.

The comparison to Crestview Estates—still built under county ordinances due to MCO's development agreement expiration and the threat of litigation—underscores the town's historical compromise with pre-incorporation standards. Crestview permits steeper driveways and taller retaining walls, visibly differentiating it from newer Fountain Hills neighborhoods. This context suggests the council's hesitation may reflect anxiety about precedent-setting and neighborhood aesthetics.

Duration

• This item (cantilever ordinance debate, 8a–8c): Approximately 60–75 minutes (public hearing, staff report, multiple council questions, public comment, motion, and approval).

• Total meeting: Approximately 2.5–3 hours (including two proclamations, youth commissioner reappointment, four consent items, three land-use votes, one playground contract, one building-inspection contract amendment, and one council appointment).

Other notable items (brief)

Ordinance 18-12 (Disturbance Boundary Delineation): Unanimously approved. Replaces required six-foot chain-link fencing with rope-and-flag markers on lots with 20%+ slopes—aligns with practices in Cave Creek, Carefree, Gilbert, Mesa, Chandler, and Scottsdale. Cost savings for builders and property owners; Council Member Leger noted ironic experience of "disturbance fence" blowing down in first storm and being dragged through desert during removal.

Four Peaks Park Playground Equipment Purchase: Unanimously approved. Game Time cooperative purchasing agreement for $100,000 in equipment (town pays $84,000 after a $30,000 grant). Two-to-five-year-old play space renovation with slides, climbing elements, shade structures, and potential sand-digger areas. Installation mid-spring 2019 pending site preparation. Community Services Director Rachel Goodwin praised for grant-writing and securing matching funds.

Brown and Associates Building Inspection Contract Amendment: Unanimously approved. $45,000 increase (from $15,000 to $60,000 total) for FY 2018–19 plan review and inspections through June 30, 2019. Mayor announced forthcoming fee study and workload analysis to assess need for additional inspector positions and permit-fee adjustments (last studied years prior). Chief Building Official Peter Johnson acknowledged the $60,000 will likely support only six months of activity; additional transfer anticipated later in year.

Sherry LeCrone Council Appointment: Unanimously approved. Former Planning and Zoning Commission member (four years) appointed to fill vacant council seat. Swearing-in scheduled for next meeting. LeCrone expressed gratitude and commitment to serving residents.