DrStarlander
Well-Known Member
The restrictions are more onerous adjacent to residential. But, yes, there are indeed setbacks (including sky exposure plane requirements that could require an angled/stepped-back approach to structures depending on how tall they are), landscape screening (though tree heights do not need to necessarily match building heights), and specific aesthetic requirements of the structures (how they look).Isn't there some provision in the zoning changes for DisneylandForward that any tall building on the Harbor side has to be set back a bunch from Harbor and any building that butts up against Harbor must also be camouflaged by trees and such? I doubt you're getting 7-8 story tall trees or at least enough of them to camouflage those buildings you're suggesting. So this is probably a no go. Its probably why they also set the Avengers and Stark buildings back so far into the property rather than closer to Harbor.
For example, my understanding is that a structure can be, say, 75-feet high at the setback and then angle/step up one foot for every two feet away from the setback, so a 200-foot-wide show building (such as Cosmic Rewind) could reach 175 feet of height at the inside edge. (I think Mission Breakout is about 180 feet and I've seen Cosmic Rewind reported at 140 feet).
But my review of the resort specific plan does not reveal, in principle, any issues preventing the general placement/uses I describe (ignoring the simplicity/exact shapes in my drawing). I included a few screen caps as reference but here's the full doc so I'm very open to fact-finding on this topic if you see something: Disneyland Resort Specific Plan