Base district · multifamily · City of Mesa AZ
Residential Multiple Dwelling 5; the workhorse small-multifamily district. Mini-Storage is not a listed use. Middle Housing is NOT permitted in RM
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
Not listed in the district use table; the table preamble states 'Use classifications not listed are prohibited'
Permitted by right
Permitted by right. Note 13: not permitted where the property is subject to the AOA 1 Overflight Area. Note 16: permitted with a Council Use Permit where subject to the AOA 2 Overflight Area. A project with three or more units or more than two units per lot triggers Development Plan Review (11-69-2(A))
Not allowed
Not listed for this district. Note that in the commercial districts the row is absent entirely, unlike Mini-Storage which is listed with explicit values
Not allowed
Expressly prohibited in the RM column. Counter-intuitive: the multiple-dwelling districts cannot use the Middle Housing pathway, they use Multiple Residence instead
Allowed, but only with a discretionary approval
DERIVED. Mesa does allow micro-commercial inside residential districts, but only by Special Use Permit and only where the site is coterminous with the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street: offices capped at under 2,000 sf aggregate GFA (note 10), and retail, restaurants and personal services capped at under 1,500 sf with no drive-thru or pick-up window (note 11). Section 11-31-9 governs. This is not a mixed-use entitlement in the ordinary sense
Not allowed
Not available in this district
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 | 80% | site_coverage |
| Minimum lot area | 6,000 sf | min_lot_area_sf |
| Minimum lot width | 60 ft | min_lot_width_ft |
| Minimum lot area per dwelling unit | 1,000 sf | min_lot_area_per_du_sf |
| Maximum density | 43 du / acre | max_du_per_acre_derived |
| Front setback | 20 ft | setback_front_ft |
| Street-side setback | 20 ft | setback_side_street_ft |
| Interior side setback | 10 ft | setback_side_interior_ft |
| Rear setback | 15 ft | setback_rear_ft |
Dimensional standards from MZO 11-5-2 / 11-5-5 (Table 11-5-5).
Standards notes. Front and street-facing side vary by street classification in the Mesa Transportation Plan: 6-lane arterial 30 ft, 4-lane arterial 20 ft, collector 25 ft, local 20 ft, freeway 30 ft. Value in setback_front_ft is the 4-lane arterial case. max_du_per_acre_derived is CODE-STATED (Maximum Density, dwelling units per net acre), not derived. Minimum lot width shown is for Multiple Residence; single residence detached/attached widths differ. Minimum lot depth 65 ft for attached single or multiple residence. Interior side and rear for 3 or more units per lot: single story 15 ft; multiple story an additional 10 ft per story. setback_side_interior_ft shown (10 ft) is the 2-units-per-lot case. Maximum building coverage 65%. Minimum open space 120 sf per unit. Additional setback applies adjacent to an RS district (11-5-5(B)(1)) and adjacent to a canal (11-5-5(B)(2))
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 →