Flagstaff Planning Commission endorses conditional-use permits for data centers, rejects outright ban

Good afternoon. I'd like to call the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, March 25th, 2026 um open. Call to order. Notice of option to recess into executive session pursuant to ARS 38-431.02.

Notice is hereby given to the members of the commission and to the general public that at this meeting the commission may vote to go into executive session which will not be open to the public and that would be for legal advice and discussion with the commission's attorney on any item listed on the following agenda pursuant to ARS 38431.03 A3. Um, if I can get roll call. Carol Mandino, present. Mary Norton, present. Joshua Mayor, present. Christine Shehy, present. CJ Lukey, present.

Megan Weller, present. Rebecca Copa. I have gotten an email from her that she's joining by the link today, but I do not see her in the the virtual room. So, we'll see if we can get her connected. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, if you are here and you want to speak on an item on the agenda, we're asking you to fill out these cards. Um, so if you they're in the back of the room. So, if you'd like to fill out a card to speak, um, please do so. Right now it's um open call to public.

At this time any member of the public may address the commission on any subject within their our jurisdiction that is not scheduled for the commission today. Due to open meeting laws, the commission cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda. to address the commission on an item that is on the agenda. Please wait for me as chair to call for public comments at the time the item is heard.

If we can move to approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on March 11th 2026. Mary. Um, I move to approve the minutes from March 11th, but with one correction on 6A on the third bullet. Um, I believe it was CJ Luki, Commissioner Luki that asked for the draft version of the amendment that would prohibit data centers as a use. And she and I conferred before. I just want to make sure I remembered it correctly that it was she that asked. So, that was my only uh revision.

Are there any Well, is there a second to the second with changes? Thank you. So, it was um the motion was made by Commissioner Norton to approve the minutes as corrected and it was seconded by Commissioner Lukey. Any other corrections or additions to the minutes? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? hearing none. The motion passes. Thank you. Now we're going to move on to the public hearing and um Tiffany is going to present PZ 260018 on data centers.

Chair ju just a quick note, our new commissioner has joined us online. So commissioner, thank you and welcome to the commission. Thank you. slides that sort of gave the background and the why. So, but I'll just start really quickly with that. Data Oh, it's way far away from me, isn't it? Data centers would consider would currently be considered a permitted use in the heavy industrial and the heavy industrial open zone and would be a conditional use in the light industrial zone.

That would qualify under what is called a general heavy industrial land use. So, I just wanted to make that really clear from the get-go that data centers would already currently be permitted under the zoning code. With that said, recently we were asked to review our code to see how we would address data centers. Um, realizing that we didn't have any special parameters and the discussions around the state, we decided to take a proactive approach to address data centers specifically.

um in light of the fact that the use is already permitted, we pursued a process of trying to understand is it permitted in the right zones and um do we have the right conditions applied to the land use in order to mitigate potential impacts affiliated with the data center. So that is the why of why why we're here today to discuss this particular amendment. We have two proposals to present today. The first proposal is about adding the land use data center.

The second proposal is specifically for banning the use data center. So for the first proposal, we would add a definition of data center to the code. Um this will stay the same throughout. Uh there is an exception that is built into the code that would allow ancillary uses. I mean technically there is a data center per this definition in this building right now. So we have a server room. It is not more than 10% of our total building. Um you know the hospital is going to have a server room.

NAU is going to have server facilities. So we want to make sure that those ancillary uses um do not fall into this definition. Next up, we make data centers a listed use and they would only be a permitted or they would no longer be an outright permitted use. So, right now they are an outright permitted use without a conditional use permit. This would make them only available or only permissible with a conditional use permit.

Conditional use permits are required to be reviewed by the planning and zoning commission. the city council has that authority to appeal for any reason a conditional use permit within 10 days of its approval. Also, any member of the public can appeal a conditional use permit um to city council as well if city council themselves chooses not to appeal that. I want to go ahead and just pull up the zoning map for heavy industrial so you can see what that land area is in the city of Flagstaff.

So the areas shown in dark purple are the lands that are in either the heavy industrial or the heavy industrial open zones. They take up approximately 165 total. Heavy industrial is 165 acres. Heavy industrial open is an additional 31 acres. So those are the sum total of the lands that would be available for somebody to apply for a conditional use permit under this particular text amendment. Oh, sorry. Blow it up. Sure. So oops. This location here is near village at Aspen Place.

This is where the sheriff's um and our jail is located. It's called the LEAF facility. Uh most of this land is owned by either the county or the city. Uh it is adjacent to some residentially zoned land. This location here is um out near the trail head to Picture Canyon. This area here, which is the largest piece, is located adjacent to the Trails End subdivision and part of the so smoke rise neighborhood.

This other piece is also located not on that basically that Route 66 location towards that um Walnut Canyon area as well. So those are the pieces of land uh in the heavy industrial zone just for comparison just so you can see what's in the light industrial zone. So today again this land use would be permitted with the conditional use permit in the light industrial not the light industrial open. So this map is showing both.

Anything with the black dot over it is the light industrial open, but anything that is the solid lavender purple color is are those light industrial areas. Commissioner Nordon, a question about the the map for this uh light industrial. What about the technology park? I checked their website and it said that that land is pre-zoned for tech and light industrial. Is that true? And why would that not be reflected?

The tech park, I'm sorry, the tech park down off of JW Powell and near the airport, the city owned by the city. Yeah, it's zoned highway commercial, I believe. They're they're they're advertising it as prezoned as uh tech and light industrial. So So, but it's not. You're saying, okay, that reason why it's not on the map then. Thank you. I I trust my GIS department wholeheartedly. Um so they prepared these maps.

Um in terms of what is currently zone light industrial, the thing to understand is is that there are industrial uses that are permitted in the commercial zones. And so that may be why you see things advertised the way they are just like um there are residential uses allowed in commercial zones and so forth. It's never really just clear as mud. All right, going back to the presentation. So, we looked at what lands would this would apply to. Then the general requirements.

I'm going to try I've got a lot of folks here today to try to answer questions for you all. I will tell you um our economic vitality folks were not able to attend, but they were able to prepare a memo for you and that was sent on Monday. Um we have water services staff. They've also consulted um with some folks for some expertise and some language. That expert is online as well. Um and our sustainability staff is also present. So with that, just jumping back in.

And I'm going to try to not spend a lot of time on the points that we went through and I think there weren't really significant issues with but highlighting the items that we primarily talked about and we talked about changing. So we talked about adding a minimum 200 foot setback or a setback when the property line is abuing residential use or residential zoning. So in a perfect world you really wouldn't put heavy to industrial zoning adjacent to residential zones.

That unfortunately is not always the case. So in this case, we're looking at a 200 foot setback. Um that will also extremely limit the number of parcels then that would be that would then have the potential for conditional use permit. Uh then we changed the noise generated by all on-site operations and we added not only that DBA but the DBC. And I'm going to go into this really quickly.

And here's where I've kind of circled on this issue because data centers are only one land use allowed in the heavy industrial zone. And we're talking about calling out one specific land use and setting a a noise limitation on it when so many other land uses within the heavy industrial zone are very loud in of themselves. Um, so the original DBA levels we had set, um, the commission felt that that was those sound levels were too high.

But for industries that do make sound, if we don't allow them in our heavy industrial zone, then we we would not really be able to accommodate those businesses somewhere else. So rock crushing, for example, can go on throughout the day. There is no limitation on the DBA outside of like regular noise ordinances. I just want to make sure that people understand that where you would expect your heavy intensive uses, that would typically be your heavy industrial zones.

So DBA is a weighted noise measure. It's not the same as a decibel. So when you look at it just a dB level, the dB level, it will rate differently than a dba. So DBA is weighted and it means it's um meant to match the like what basically human hearing sensitivities are. Then the DBC is a sound measurement that captures low frequency high energy sounds. It's meant to capture what we feel. So I don't really have an example of what DBC sounds like because it's what you're feeling, right?

But if you're using both triggers, you should understand that what what you will start to feel is still similar to what you're going to hear as well. So 60 dBA is what we're saying. They need to be limited to at the property line um during the day and that's normal conversation. That's what's happening here right now. Um and then 50 dBA at night is a refrigerator humming. So those are the equivalents. So that's what we have changed those parameters to.

Um next up uh we this provision in the is in green here because I've changed it since the addition that you've seen. And the reason why I changed it since the addition you saw is remember we talked last time I had to turn around that report really fast.

Well, I also had an opportunity to go to the water commission last week and so when that opportunity arose because currently our representative from the planning and zoning commission that sits on the water commission, they have resigned from the commission. So, we didn't have that representation.

So, uh, I was able to visit with the water commission, try to get some feedback on where they would like to have this conversation and more broadly to also see if they wanted to pursue standards for just large water users instead of trying to deal with this on a use byuse individual basis because today the issue is data center, tomorrow it's something else.

Um, and so if the goal is really are we are concerned about large water users, then that's something for the water commission to take up and pursue and apply in other city codes. So the zoning code itself doesn't actually regulate the use of water. There are other city code provisions that do and what gets applied to. For example, the provisions that require um the use of reclaimed water for golf courses that falls outside of the zoning code and inside other elements of the city code.

So that was part of that discussion. I do not believe that the water commission wants to take up that process at this time. Um what I was able to discuss with them, we talked a lot about whether or not we should do the closed loop system or other some other feature. So originally we did have this drafted with that closed loop system. Closed loop systems still rely on water. Um there's still a lot of water loss from evaporation.

So at the end of the day um the what I got from the water commission was the best route to go was mechanical cooling systems shall utilize air cooled heat rejection systems only the use of evaporative or water-based heat rejection systems including but not limited to cooling towers evaporative condensers adat I cannot say that word I'm sorry systems and water cooled chillers is prohibited so that eliminates the water use that is really the one of the biggest issues that you see being presented in the feedback.

Now, does that mean that they won't connect to water? Sure, they would be connected to water, but the the big water use would be prohibited in a data center in this location. Now, there is an offset of that um because what does air cooled mean? Air cooled means refrigeration. Air cooled means air conditioning. Air conditioning means energy. Air conditioning also means fans. It also means noise. So again, we do have those standards for the noise.

Um, we do have those standards for how noise feels and we can set those baselines on on the site if a if a data center should ever be proposed. So with that, um, we also added in, um, provisions for if decommissioning the use. Um, so if a data center were ever built and the use would be decommissioned, there are provisions for when it would need to happen and and parameters for how long and what has to happen to the site.

So what what else we changed was the in terms of the conditional use permit application requirements, we changed the baseline noise study to also include that low frequency noise. The biggest thing to being able to enforce noise provisions is to have that baseline study. Without it, it's really hard to say that something is exceeding the principles of what's going on in the area.

So, that baseline study would really help us if a data center were to be built to be able to enforce the requirements you saw previously. And then the the last change was based off of discussions with um the water commission and knowing that we're putting more of a need for energy in one of these locations. Uh we did change the language. It is harder than it was before. So previously this language was that renewable energy was preferred.

Now it's 100% renewable energy for all data center energy needs shall be used. um 100% renewable energy for all data center energy needs shall be used to the greatest extent feasible. It made sense in my head earlier, but essentially it's you shall unless there is some extreme situation where there maybe you can't get to the 100% or whatever the situation is. So it builds in some flexibility for there to be some consideration of what the grid has to offer.

Um, and of course the attainable methods include the on-site generation, the virtual power purchase agreements and purchasing racks. And excuse me, who would determine what the greatest extent feasible is? Well, we would need to work with our local energy providers. So, it's easy for us to have a conversation about wild water because we are the water service provider and we have that access, but we are not the local energy provider.

um you know, somebody would need to come in and make their argument and again that's why these would require review, public review through that conditional use permit. So that would be staff making a re recommendation. Um we have some pretty strong goals and policies already in place in regards to carbon neutrality. Um I think it would be hard for staff to make a recommendation if somebody says they just financially can't do it.

Um, in those set of circumstances, it there are some state statutes that do make it very hard for us to absolutely require renewable energy and that's the unfortunate place of where we live and we talked about state exemptions or pre-exemptions earlier on and that is something that we do have to live within is the state of Arizona sometimes sets caps or parameters on what we can legally require. Uh so these other areas of red are just streamlined language.

The water sewer impact analysis becomes a little bit less important in these instances because we would not be using water for the mechanical systems. But if there's water use affiliated with the data center for some other component, we would still want to make sure that that that we're considering that. And again, same with the waste water. We would just want to make sure that any waste water that's discharged back into our system is meeting our code requirements.

Um so that takes us to proposal number two. It's a much simpler proposal. Uh we still change the definitions. Uh so data center is the same definition as you'll see in proposal one with some additional language. Oh, oops. To make it very clear, data center as a primary use are not permitted in the city of Flagstaff. So, it says it right there in the definition. Data centers that are ancillary again would still be permitted.

So, the problem is is when you do this and you put it in the def there's no other place to put it now, but in the definitions is the unfortunate thing. Definitions are not a great tool for regulating land use. But we don't have choice. Uh the other options we have are to just clarify those land uses that are broad-based in general.

So the heavy industrial general, the light industrial general, I would put it in the public facility or public services land use and then in the research and development land use just to cover all of our bases that none of those include data center. So that is that is the sum total of proposal number two. And with that, um, we that is the review and synopsis. I did go ahead and, um, attach all of the emails we had received prior to the the last.

And of course, uh, 16 more just came in right now because I I I think it's fun to wait till the last minute so that nobody can actually read your comments, which is unfortunate. Um, but I would tell you of the what I've read, the vast majority are not supportive of data centers. Um, I there was one that was shockingly not in supportive of either proposal one or proposal two. So, uh, that was really interesting. Uh, but I have all of these emails. That is the sum synopsis.

It's generally water and energy um, being the primary reasons of why we don't want to allow data centers. I don't think it's currently understood by the vast majority of those emails at data centers are currently permitted in the city of Flagstaff. With that said, we do have to make required findings for the zoning code text amendment. Uh the first is that the proposed amendment is consistent with and conforms to the objectives and policies of the general plan and any applicable specific plan.

Um so obviously, you know, the big first policy is achieving carbon neutrality. Uh we're trying to address that in proposal number one with the closest we can get to requiring renewable energy. Um so you'll see that in the regulations. That's where that standard is coming from. Then um goal, we have a goal about maintaining areas of natural quiet and reduce noise pollution.

So the interesting part of this again is that conversation that I talked about that if loud where do land where do loud land uses work? Where do they go if not in the heavy industrial zone? And so I don't while this policy is looking to control noise pollution at the and the amendment is attempting to address those issues. Um there are still land uses that create a lot of noise and will potentially create a lot of noise even outside of data centers.

So you have to evaluate that and it's not the expectation that the goal applies to every place in the city of Flagstaff because then we just couldn't accommodate certain industries. um that we satisfy current and future human water demands and the needs of the natural environment through sustainable and renewable water resources and strategic conservation measures. So we would be dramatically reducing the water usage of data centers. Um and we just wouldn't see it if they were aircooled systems.

Um more and more you know the large developers of data centers are making the promises to move I know go Google is making the promise to move to all air cooled by 2027. So more and more folks are moving towards this um particular area. Flagstaff is just really in a unique sort of situation in terms of where water is concerned. And when you look at the codes regulating data centers in the valley, what you'll see in those codes is they're they'll keep this hard line um of you can't use our water.

Well, they can trade water back and forth between their municipalities. So, there's a differential and they have a lot more private companies and different water resources. Those things don't hold true for Flagstaff. um the aircooled mechanical system seems to be the best avenue for addressing the fact that we just don't have the resources to serve those larger facilities should they come in. Um the uh next one uh so we have continuing goals about increasing energy efficiency.

Again the text amendment is written to try to address energy efficiency to the best degree. um and expand production and use of renewable energy uh design and develop all projects to be contextually sensitive. So there are requirements for the buildings to meet our architectural design standards.

um to meet our site planning design standards where typically industrial uses are not required to um establish heavy industrial areas that provide for the manufacturing of goods, flexible space and intermodal facilities that are well-maintained, attractive and compatible with adjoining non-industrial uses. So that's what proposal number one is trying to do. And then the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.

So the amendment provisions are not anticipated to be detrimental to public interest. So they're meant to offset the concerns in terms of water and energy. Um again, this would not be this would not be permitted to be a heavy water use industry in Flagstaff. So whether you go with proposal one or proposal two, um the same applies. So, uh, next up, the in amendment is internally consistent with applicable provisions of the zoning code.

Um, I would tell you that proposal 2 is not as internally consistent with the zoning code because it is stating regulations and definitions and is not in the regulatory portion of the code. Our land use table does not list uses that are not permitted. Um, there is no other place to list that prohibition. There are no other uses that are specifically called out as being prohibited in the zoning code.

The recommendation staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission in accordance with the findings make a recommendation to the city council for approval of proposal number one of the zoning code text amendment for data centers. And with that, questions, comments suggestions? Thank you, Tiffany, for your presentation. Um, it was informative. I will ask if there's commissioners that have comments or questions. And I see Commissioner Norton. Thanks, Tiffany. Um, I have a couple questions.

I think the first one since you ended on that one of that note um that a data center is not permitted can only be in the definition and not in the the grid the the table. Um why couldn't it be put into the table and just uh you know not you know you have the little dash for anything that's not permitted. Why why can't it be there? Can you explain further? So then we would need to go through and do that for every you land use that's currently not permitted. I see.

And that be could become an unlimited number of things. I mean we would be probably updating the I would be here every minute of every day for every time a land use came in that we would have to figure out how to absorb. And again that's the problem right is because we have categories of land uses that are broad and general and accommodate many land uses. But what about since we are allowing the ancillary data centers on buildings, does that not become somewhat of a land use?

Does that not give it a reason to be listed? No. Um, it it has to be called out somewhere specifically. So, we do have an accessory use provision, but we don't call out specific land uses. The only place to put it would be under the definition itself. Okay. Thank you for that one. Um, is there any other industrial use that hums or runs all night long 247 that you can think of? I talking about noise. I mean, this is a different kind of noises, runs all the time.

I think there are industrial uses that operate probably all night long or on a 24-hour cycle. There there absolutely could be land uses. There is no stipulation on land uses. They have to operate under a certain set of hours under our zoning code. Okay. So like the rock crusher, I mean they don't have a time frame where they have to cease operation. They most likely need to meet the standard noise ordinance for the city of Flagstaff um and those provisions. So there are provisions for noise.

They do happen to be like 12 1:00 at night um is when you tend to get into those nuisance. So those provisions would always still apply, but there are very few land uses in the zoning code that have regulations or stipulations that say you have to stop at this particular hour or time. And do those have a certain decibel level like you know like I'm just using the rock crushing for example that so we don't have a threshold of when it's too loud and it's exceeding the noise ordinance.

That's correct because the noise ordinance that we have is a nuisancebased noise ordinance. Um, and again goes until late in the evening. So theoretically, let's say a center went in and it bothered somebody all night long, the humming, they could complain according to the noise ordinance. Would that would that they could absolutely file a police report with the police department because the noise the nuisance noise ordinance is found on the police code. Okay. Thank you.

And then um thank you for going into the detail about DBA and DBC. That's that's what I found in my homework too because I was not familiar with that. I wish I could give you an example of what DBC like a good example to equivalate the same with DBA. But I just I couldn't find a good way to extrapolate it. But the idea is is if you understand what the DBA is, it should give you a better understanding of what DBC is allowed. Yes.

What I what I read was sort of it was just a fuller lower sort of a a bass um sound. It filled out the sound range. Um and the fact that it was, you know, 70 instead of 60 at the DBA level, I mean that does mean 10 times greater. So I I was wondering like was there a certain metric that you used on what was the reasonable or an acceptable level of the DBC level? So I did do research on other codes.

I found a code in Florida that regulated data centers and that and that was the DBA that was the DBC they matched with that particular DBA. Um so not being a sound expert felt that that was the best realm I could go. I honestly I feel uncomfortable saying that an industrial use needs to have a sound level as low as normal office conversation. Um but the previous DBA we had was not acceptable.

So, um I had just read um just earlier this week um that an ASU uh researcher had discovered um that the downwind air temperature was a several degrees higher from a nearby nearby data center because of air cooling. So maybe we've solved one problem with water potentially, but there still is off-putting of heat. So I just wanted to to bring that up. Um, sure. And I I would expect in the valley that that would absolutely be a big issue, right?

So I don't think anybody wants their house to be I'm not sure that we're talking about putting the facility necessarily in proximity to, but it was it was, you know, a a couple neighborhoods down. It wasn't exactly adjacent. It was it was an interesting um Yes, there is absolutely an offset to air cooling is not a perfect is not a perfect answer.