5.0.
Planning & Zoning Commission
- Meeting Date:
- 10/14/2026
- From:
- Tiffany Antol, Zoning Code Manager
- Department:
- Planning & Development Services
Co-Submitter:
Information
TITLE:
Discussion regarding Resource Intensive Industrial land use (previously Data Centers) zoning requirements and zoning code regulations.
DESIRED OUTCOME:
Receive direction from the Commission regarding an amendment to the Flagstaff Zoning Code to address the regulation of Resource Intensive Industrial land uses.
Executive Summary:
Earlier this year, as part of a statewide survey of Arizona communities, staff evaluated how the Flagstaff Zoning Code would address data centers. The current code does not explicitly identify this land use. Staff identified a gap in the code that could allow data centers to be classified as Heavy General Industrial uses, a broad category that lacks tailored standards for addressing potential community impacts.
To address this gap, staff introduced a proposal to define “Data Center” in the Zoning Code. This definition included core infrastructure components such as servers, cooling systems, backup power, and fire suppression. The proposal required data centers to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Heavy Industrial (HI) and Heavy Industrial Open (HI-O) zones and prohibited them in the Light Industrial (LI) zone. Draft standards included site design requirements, equipment screening, noise limits, diesel generator specifications, and land-use compatibility guidelines.
On March 11, 2026, the Planning & Zoning Commission held a work session to review the draft Data Center Zoning Code Text Amendment. Commissioners requested staff evaluate two strategies:
On April 21, 2026, City staff provided the City Council with a comprehensive presentation addressing questions and concerns about data centers. Following the discussion, staff requested a continuance to refine the proposal and address the wide range of identified issues.
To address this gap, staff introduced a proposal to define “Data Center” in the Zoning Code. This definition included core infrastructure components such as servers, cooling systems, backup power, and fire suppression. The proposal required data centers to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Heavy Industrial (HI) and Heavy Industrial Open (HI-O) zones and prohibited them in the Light Industrial (LI) zone. Draft standards included site design requirements, equipment screening, noise limits, diesel generator specifications, and land-use compatibility guidelines.
On March 11, 2026, the Planning & Zoning Commission held a work session to review the draft Data Center Zoning Code Text Amendment. Commissioners requested staff evaluate two strategies:
- A CUP-based regulatory framework with associated design standards.
- A full prohibition on data center development within city limits.
On April 21, 2026, City staff provided the City Council with a comprehensive presentation addressing questions and concerns about data centers. Following the discussion, staff requested a continuance to refine the proposal and address the wide range of identified issues.
Information:
Staff is recommending a broader and more effective approach for regulating high-demand industrial land uses such as large-scale data centers. The proposed Resource Intensive Industrial (RII) land use framework directly addresses the core issues highlighted throughout the City’s review process, including significant demands on water, energy, noise management, air quality, emissions, and site design. By shifting from a standalone data center definition to an RII classification, the City can establish a category specifically intended for emerging high-demand industrial users, including data centers.
This approach avoids risks associated with overly narrow regulations or an outright ban, such as potential state-level preemption, and preserves stronger long-term local control over land uses that significantly impact public resources. It also prevents complications associated with amending multiple industrial zones or creating highly specialized use categories that may unintentionally affect other industrial operations.
The RII land use framework provides a consistent, impact-based regulatory structure that can accommodate future technologies or industries with similar resource demands. This approach offers clarity, regulatory durability, and a balanced means of protecting community resources while maintaining opportunities for economic development.
Staff recommends the following definition for Resource Intensive Industrial uses:
An industrial land use, including manufacturing, characterized by exceptionally high demands on utility and public service systems, including electric loads of 1 megawatt (MW) or more; water use exceeding 2,000 gallons per acre per day on average or 5,000 gallons per acre per day at peak; and wastewater discharge greater than 1,000 gallons per acre per day on average or 3,000 gallons per acre per day at peak. These uses typically rely on specialized infrastructure, operate continuously, and create significant, sustained pressures on electrical, water, wastewater, and communications networks. Activities in this category are defined by one or more of the following: intensive resource consumption; elevated carbon or heat emissions; specialized water or sewer needs; heightened emergency response or security requirements; hazardous material storage; and/or nuisance noise impacts.
To support this amendment, staff has prepared a Life, Health and Safety Analysis Report identifying the potential impacts of these land uses and a list of potential code provisions to evaluate how they address anticipated community concerns and life, health, and safety impacts.
Staff is seeking Commission feedback on the direction of the proposed zoning code text amendment, including the following questions:
Should RII be allowed only as a conditional use in any or all existing industrial zones?
This approach avoids risks associated with overly narrow regulations or an outright ban, such as potential state-level preemption, and preserves stronger long-term local control over land uses that significantly impact public resources. It also prevents complications associated with amending multiple industrial zones or creating highly specialized use categories that may unintentionally affect other industrial operations.
The RII land use framework provides a consistent, impact-based regulatory structure that can accommodate future technologies or industries with similar resource demands. This approach offers clarity, regulatory durability, and a balanced means of protecting community resources while maintaining opportunities for economic development.
Staff recommends the following definition for Resource Intensive Industrial uses:
An industrial land use, including manufacturing, characterized by exceptionally high demands on utility and public service systems, including electric loads of 1 megawatt (MW) or more; water use exceeding 2,000 gallons per acre per day on average or 5,000 gallons per acre per day at peak; and wastewater discharge greater than 1,000 gallons per acre per day on average or 3,000 gallons per acre per day at peak. These uses typically rely on specialized infrastructure, operate continuously, and create significant, sustained pressures on electrical, water, wastewater, and communications networks. Activities in this category are defined by one or more of the following: intensive resource consumption; elevated carbon or heat emissions; specialized water or sewer needs; heightened emergency response or security requirements; hazardous material storage; and/or nuisance noise impacts.
To support this amendment, staff has prepared a Life, Health and Safety Analysis Report identifying the potential impacts of these land uses and a list of potential code provisions to evaluate how they address anticipated community concerns and life, health, and safety impacts.
Staff is seeking Commission feedback on the direction of the proposed zoning code text amendment, including the following questions:
- Does the Commission agree with taking a broader regulatory approach to resource-intensive industrial land uses?
- Where should the RII land use be allowed within the City of Flagstaff?
Should RII be permitted by right in any or all existing industrial zones?
Pros:
Predictable and straightforward for applicants.
Minimizes procedural delays and administrative burden.
Encourages economic development by reducing entitlement barriers.
Aligns with traditional expectations for industrial areas.
Encourages economic development by reducing entitlement barriers.
Aligns with traditional expectations for industrial areas.
Cons:
Reduced ability to ensure site-specific mitigation of high-impact uses.
Public may perceive this as too permissive given high resource demands.
Limits Council’s ability to review and condition projects on a case-by-case basis.
High-impact facilities may locate near sensitive areas without additional scrutiny.
Public may perceive this as too permissive given high resource demands.
Limits Council’s ability to review and condition projects on a case-by-case basis.
High-impact facilities may locate near sensitive areas without additional scrutiny.
Should RII be allowed only as a conditional use in any or all existing industrial zones?
Pros:
Allows case-by-case review and tailored mitigation measures.
Greater control over siting, design, and operational impacts.
Provides transparency through public hearings.
Balances flexibility for industry with community protections.
Greater control over siting, design, and operational impacts.
Provides transparency through public hearings.
Balances flexibility for industry with community protections.
Cons:
CUPs are only reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission unless appealed.
CUPs are not as discretionary as Zoning Map Amendments.
Findings for a CUP are less stringent and do not include conformance with the Regional Plan or community benefits.
CUPs are not as discretionary as Zoning Map Amendments.
Findings for a CUP are less stringent and do not include conformance with the Regional Plan or community benefits.
Should RII be allowed only within the Planned Community (PC) zone, requiring any proposed facility to obtain a rezoning?
Pros:
Provides maximum control over location, design, and performance standards.
Strongest tool for balancing community impacts and economic opportunity.
Provides transparency through public hearings.
Findings require conformance with the Regional Plan and an analysis of community benefits.
Strongest tool for balancing community impacts and economic opportunity.
Provides transparency through public hearings.
Findings require conformance with the Regional Plan and an analysis of community benefits.
Cons:
Rezoning process is lengthy and resource intensive for both applicants and staff.
Could discourage investment due to entitlement uncertainty.
May increase pressure on Council to negotiate complex development agreements.
Could discourage investment due to entitlement uncertainty.
May increase pressure on Council to negotiate complex development agreements.
- Should the proposed development standards be absolute, or should flexibility be provided at Council discretion?
Absolute Example:
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, adiabatic systems, and water-cooled chillers, is prohibited.
Flexible Example:
Mechanical cooling systems utilizing air-cooled heat rejection systems are preferred. The use of evaporative or water-based heat rejection systems may only be used when water efficiency methods are employed that significantly reduce the amount of water used for cooling as determined by the City Council.
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, adiabatic systems, and water-cooled chillers, is prohibited.
Flexible Example:
Mechanical cooling systems utilizing air-cooled heat rejection systems are preferred. The use of evaporative or water-based heat rejection systems may only be used when water efficiency methods are employed that significantly reduce the amount of water used for cooling as determined by the City Council.