Base district · industrial · City of Mesa AZ
Heavy Industrial. Mini-Storage is a Council Use Permit use in PEP, LI and GI and is PROHIBITED in HI. Indoor Warehousing and Storage is permitted by right in all four
Every verdict below is the base-district answer read out of the ordinance of record, with the section that says so. A use with no row is shown as unknown rather than folded into “no”.
Not allowed
Expressly prohibited in Heavy Industrial. Counter-intuitive but unambiguous in the table: Mini-Storage reads CUP / CUP / CUP / em dash across PEP, LI, GI, HI. Indoor Warehousing and Storage IS permitted by right in HI, so a warehouse is fine and a self-storage facility is not
Allowed, but only with a discretionary approval
Cell reads 'P (3)' where note 3 is 'Use permitted with approval of an Adaptive Reuse Permit'. So multifamily in the employment districts is an existing-building conversion only, not ground-up. Chapter 81 on its face applies to 'an existing commercial, office, or mixed-use parcel', which sits awkwardly with an employment-zoned parcel - verify with Planning before relying on this
Permitted by right
Permitted by right in all four employment districts, including HI where Mini-Storage is prohibited. Definition (11-86-5): storage within an enclosed building of commercial goods prior to distribution and of industrial equipment, products and materials; includes cold storage, draying or freight, moving and storage, and warehouses; excludes Data Centers and hazardous chemical, mineral and explosive materials
Not allowed
Not listed in the district use table; the table preamble states 'Use classifications not listed are prohibited'
Not allowed
Live-Work Units are an em dash in the HI column
Allowed, but only with a discretionary approval
Council Use Permit. Outdoor storage rules differ by district: LI rear half of the lot only; GI not in front setbacks or in front of the primary buildings; HI anywhere on the lot (Table 11-30-7)
A blank cell means this dataset carries no number for that standard — read it as “go and look”, not as zero.
| Standard | Value | Field |
|---|---|---|
| Floor area ratio (FAR) | — | far |
| Maximum height | 50 ft | max_height_ft |
| Maximum site coverage | 90% | site_coverage |
| Minimum lot area | 43,560 sf | min_lot_area_sf |
| Minimum lot width | 100 ft | min_lot_width_ft |
| Minimum lot area per dwelling unit | — | min_lot_area_per_du_sf |
| Maximum density | — | max_du_per_acre_derived |
| Front setback | 15 ft | setback_front_ft |
| Street-side setback | 15 ft | setback_side_street_ft |
| Interior side setback | 15 ft | setback_side_interior_ft |
| Rear setback | 15 ft | setback_rear_ft |
Dimensional standards from MZO 11-7-2 / 11-7-3 (Table 11-7-3).
Standards notes. Front and street-facing side vary by street classification in the Mesa Transportation Plan: arterial 15 ft, collector 20 ft, local 20 ft, freeway 30 ft for buildings and 15 ft for parking structures/fields. Value in setback_front_ft is the arterial case. Minimum SITE area is stated in acres (1.0 acre) rather than square feet; the sq ft figure here is converted. Minimum lot depth 100 ft. Interior side and rear adjacent to AG, DR, RS, RSL or RM: 1 ft of setback per foot of building height, minimum 20 ft. Interior side and rear adjacent to another employment district: 15 ft (the value shown). Minimum separation between buildings on the same lot applies in PEP only (25/30/35 ft by height band); N/A in LI, GI and HI
No district in this dataset publishes a floor area ratio: intensity in this code is governed by lot coverage, height and — for residential — density or minimum lot area per dwelling unit. See the metro page for the provenance note on that.
Run the envelope this district allows, free, in about a minute — lot area, FAR or height, and the residual land value it supports.
The quick screen is free and needs no account. The sample study is the seven-page deliverable the Feasibility Desk produces.
base district only; overlay geometry not checked — an Airfield or Form-Based Code designation can flip answers
This is a base-district reading of the ordinance text, transcribed from the source below. It is not a Zoning Verification Letter, not a determination by the jurisdiction, not legal advice, and not a substitute for asking the planning department about a specific parcel. Overlays, recorded plan conditions, rezoning stipulations and parcel geometry are not checked here, and any one of them can change the answer on this page.
Verify locally before you spend money. Call the planning counter, pull the parcel's zoning-map designation and its case history, and confirm the section cited above still reads the way it reads here.
Full provenance, the source hashes and the known limitations for City of Mesa AZ →