Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/08/24~; ~) ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California August 24, 1964 A REGULAR MEETING OF 'IHE ANAI-lEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION • - REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeti:~g of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 7:00 o'clock PaMo, a quorum being presente PBFSEM' - CHAIRMANs Mungall. - COMMISSIOPlERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Perry, Rowlanda ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allredo PRESENT - Planning Director: Richard Reese Zoning Coordinators Martin K:eidt Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs COMN~RCIAL-RHCREATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING AREA f~IGHT STANDARDS COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, tu consider establishment of height standards in the Commercial- Recreation Area bounded on the north by Vermont Street, on the i east by the Santa Ana Freeway, on the south by Orangewood Avenue, and on the west by Walnut Street> . ! Consideration of the height standards for the Commercial-Recreation Area was continued from ~ the meetings of July 8 and August 17, 1964, in order to allow the Planning Department time to prepare additional data, and for the Planning Commission to make a personal inspection ; of the key areas under considerationo i ~ i Chairman Mungall opened the hearing by asking that Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts quote from the State Code relative to the establishment of height standardso ~ Mr, Roberts then quoted State Code 650800, Subsection "B" as follows~ "Pursuant to the ~ provisions of this Chapter the legislative body,of any County or City may by ordinance regulate location, height, bulk, size and number of stories of structures, the sizes of yards, courts, and other open spaces, and the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure"o ^ Chairman Mungall then stated this provision of the State Code was the basis on which the Commission might establish a height standardi that the Commission had made an "on the spot" inspection of Disneyland, viewing 12 critical view areas to determine the potential of visual intrusion from outside of the berm area at these locations; and that Planning Ihrector Richard Reese would present colared slides of the various areas visited by the Commission, after which the Staff Report to the Commission would then be reviewedo Mr, Reese then reviewed the 13 areas reviewed by the Coir~nission on their field trip,. noting that the intent of the tour was to get a feeling for what various heights meant with relation- ship to the critical view areas within the park; the possibility of additional screening devices and the inspection of existing screening of the vaxious areas by the 20 to 25-foot dirt berm which was topped by landscaping 20 to 25 feet in height; and that the slides indi- cated the present height of the landscaping atop the berme ~ Mr, Reese further stated that the first slide taken from the administration area looking i southerly toward the public parkin9 area indicated the 140-foot utility tower approximately ! 1500 feet away, and to use these towers as a mind's eye gauge when viewing the slides as to ~ the height that high rise structures might appear behind the landscaped berm, and that the ; administration area was shown because its use was only an interim one and was projected for fvture expansion for recreational facilities. • I The following are the locations of the slides shown with commentary made by Mro Reeses Tour stop Noe 1 1< Administration Area looking southo The 140-foot utility towers were notedo I 2e Administration Area looking northeast over wardrobe building and moon trip buildingo ~' The 40-foot utility poles were noted as being clearly visible on Harbor Boulevard ~ beyond the landscaped bermo j - 2277-a - ~ . . . . . . . ~. ~ / - ---r.____.~.,__~_______.__ ------~---- ..__~,_~~_...~_~ / _:: --- , . , _ ._ _ _ ~-,. . ~ i ~-. :... _:.: . . - -- :. _ __. , .~ __.._.__. ~ ~ . _ M:NUTES, CI?Y PLAI~AIING COMMISSION~ August 24~ 1964 2277_b COi1A~RCIAL-RECREATION - (Continued) AREA HEICF~' STANDARDS Tour stoo No. 2 3. Administration Area looking south (from second stop)o The 140-foot towers were noted. 4a Sar~e as 3- looking southeas+,. 5e Same as 3- looking southeast over the Grand Canyon Diarama. Tour stoo Noe 3 6. Hub - looking east over Space Bar and Rocket Shipa 7o Tomorrowland - looking west over clock to Frontierlando It was noted that the views from the hub were intended io provide a window to the - various lands, whereas the various lands had been screened fx•om each other in such a manner as to maintain their individual characters. 8e Hub - looking southeast - south over Red Wagon. The 140-foot tower was notEde S., Hub - looking south over Main Street Railroad Stationo This was noted as one of the most critical areas viewed by the Commission since it was the location of the main entrance to the park and would be nearly impossible to increase the screening since it would require the planting of trees of immense proportions in the center of the pedestrian entrance, together with trees planted down the center of Main Street, thus destroying Main Streeto The wires between the 140-foot torrers were noted over the raiiroad station. lOe Hub - looking southwest over Pavillione llo Hub - looking northwest over Castle. ' 12. Hub - looking northeast over Castleo Tour ston No. 4 13e Hub - west side - looking northeast over Castleo Cables of the skyride were notedo Tour stoe Noo 5 14, Frontierland Rivershore - adjacent to Aunt Jemima - lookin9 northwest along the east side oi 'Iom Sawyer Isiand. The screened landscaping was again indicated here with a notation of the maximum heights which could be screened from pictures taken when the Sheraton Hotel was considerede 15. So~.e as 14 - looking northwest between southerly tip of Tom Sawyer Island and ~i Fowlers Harbora _. ! 16. Same as 14 - looking southwest over Frontierland Railroad Station and south of the Haunted Housee i It was noted that the New Orleans Square was being constructed here and would have ; a three-story facade with reworking of the landscaped bermo Tour stoo No. 6 17. Frontierland Rivershore - looking northwest over Tom Sawyer Island up the fiiuers of America. It ~ras noted inai ine pictures taken at the time ~he Sheraton Hotel was considered indicated this as one of the most critical views. ' ---~----._ __ -- _. . _ . . _ . . ' -- -,- - •-- - -- - - -~----,,. . _ _--~ ~ ~ ~:. __.__ . . . _ . ; ~ i • , • •~ _ . . ~ , `_~ ~ MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 24, 1964 ~ 1 2277-c ' COMMERCIAL-RECREATION - (Continued) AREA EIEIGHT STANDARDS Tour sto~ Noo 7 18o Zocalo Market Place - looking westerly over Fort Wilderness on Tom Sawyer Island. 19e Same as 18 - looking southwest over the Haunted House toward Disneyland Hotel. It was raoted that the New Orleans Square and additional berm landscaping, when completed, would completely screen the Disneyland Hotel - that this wa5 presently quite noticeable, especially at night. ~ Tour stoo No, 8 20, Fantasyland - between Tea Cup and Mr. Toad Ride - looking northeast over Canal Boat rideo It was noted that although this area of the park was the most carnival in appearance, there was still a sensitivity as to the compatibility of foreground to background within the area, and that i,t was completely screened from other lands. Tour stoo Noo 9 21. Area southwest of Midget Autopia - looking northeast over the motorboat ridee 22o Same as 20 - looking southwest along the Matterhorn over the Monsanto Housee The flagpole in the Main Street Flaza and the 140-foot utility towers in the parking lot were notedo Tour stoo Noo 10 23e Area between Submarine lake and Matterhorn - looking east over the Submarine 2ake. The 42-foot high utility poles on Harbor Boulevard were noted over the landscaped berm, and it was pointed out that the berm was near Harbor Boulevard, and it would not take a:ery high structure to be readily visible i'rom the park at this locat3on. 24o Same as 23 - looking southeast over Submarine lakee . 25. Same as 23 - looking southeast over Moon ridee Tour stoo Noe 11 2bo Area southwest oi the Submarine lake - looking northeast over the Submarine lake. 27. Same as 26. Tour stoo No° 12 28o Thimbledrome - looking northeast over Tomorrowland Autopiao 29o Thimbledrome - looking south over Air Ride. Tour stoo Noo i3 30a Pony Farm Pasture - looking north. 31e Pony Farm Pasture - looking northe 32e Pony Farm Pasture - l~~oking northe 33. Pony r~rm Pasture - looking northe 34. Pony Farm Pasture - looking northeast over Global Van Lines building. The above scenes were shown because this area represented a potential future expansion area for recreation facilities. The nature of the development for this area would be largely determined by the height standards. • i ~., _ _.--~-- ~ __ ------------_~_.__ , ' ^---•- ----- _ _~ . i ' ` ' ~---_ :::., _.. _ . . . . . _ . _: ~._ _,. - -. ~ ~_ ) ~ ~"y MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 24~ 1964 2277-d COMINFRCIAL-RECREATION - (Continued) AREA-I-lEIGHT STANDARDS Mro Reese then read the Staff Report in its entirety. The Commission indicated their desire that the Staff Report be entered into the Minutes in its entirety. STAFF REPORT RELATIVE TO TI~ CONSIDERATION OF AN~NDN~NTS TO THE COMMERCIAL~RECREATION AREA POLICY TO PROVIDE FOR hIEIGfiT STANDARD6 The key point to keep in mind when reviewing the height standards question is that the study is not concerned with the imposition of height limits on properties in the Commercial-Recreation area. It is concerned with the relaxing of those height limits which now exist in the area and which have existed since the incorporation of the area into the City of Anaheimo Since that time the majority of this area has been zoned R-A~ Residential Agriculture, which permits a maximum height of 2 1~2 stories~ or 35 feete Thus, on each applicant appear- ing before the Commission and Council has been the burden of proof that the proposed height in excess of 35 feet met either the conditions for the granting of a variance, or the conditions for the granting of a conditional use permita From 1954 to 1960, when the variance procedure was used to establis~ uses in the R-A area, the Commission and Council found in permitting heights in excess of 35 feet, that "the granting ef such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located"o Since 1960 the Commission and Council in granting conditional use permits for developments in excess of 35 feet, have determined the .. following= _ lo "That the traffic generated by the proposed use will ' not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area." 2e "That the size and shape of the site proposed for the • use is adequate to allow the full development of the. proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the parti- cular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general ~ welfareo" 30 "That the proposed use will not adversely affect the ad~oining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located." Thus, in all cases it has been determined by the City that the proposed height of structures in excess of 35 feet would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and devel~pment of the area in which the proposed structure is to be locatede In each case the burden of proof is upon the applicant and remains so todaya In 1954 when the Disneyland facility was constructed the maximum height limit in the area was 2 1~2 stories or 35 feet, and the maximum height limit in any zone in the City (C-2 and C-3) was six stories or 75 feet. The present peripheral landscaped berm surrounding the Disneyland park was designed and installed with these fects in mind and to date approximately $3 million dollars has been invested by Disneyland in peripheral and internal berms, the sole purpose of which is to screen out the outside world and to create an illusion of fantssy within tfie park's various lands. The q~aestion before the Commission at this time is to what extent may we relax the present height standards in the C-R area and not impair those investments made in good faith and in accord- ance with the existing zoning laws at the time of their construction, and to what extent these standards can be relaxed and still maintain the growth potential of the C-R, tourist and convention industry in Anaheim. t. ... .. .. _ . .. ; ~ . , r. ~ I -- . _.~_- ~_.__._~_.. {.-_. ' , -----------r-. . . _ _ ~ , _ -~ , @~!: . _ ~; :.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MIMJTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 24, 1964 22~~-e COMMBRCIAL-RECREATION - (Continued) AREA-IiEIGHT STANDARDS A review of past actions in the C-R area indicate the community's concern that new developments not adversely affect adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the areaa The first application for a high rise structure on the ~'danchester frontage road under CUP 124 resulted in a relaxing of the 35 fooi height limit to permit an overall height of structure and sign of 115 feeto This determination was made after field investigation and observation from various public assembly locations withio- ' Disneyland of a balloon tether.ed at the proposed height; as well as the ob- ~ servation of a row of Eucalyptus trees on the westerly boundary of the subject property, both of which permitted the envisioning of how a structure in the proposed location and at the pror~sed height might affect the "World of Fantasy" illusion within the parko The approval of this CUP by the Council on August 8, 1961, resulted in the informal policy related to the I relaxing of existi~~g height standards in the C-R areaa Following this on December 27, 1961, CUP 154 was approved for the Tower unit at the Disneyland Hotelo An ove;z:l ::~ight of 125 feet was permitted based~ on the previous determination of 115 feet plus 10 feet for the difference in ground elevation between the Manchester site and the subject property. On August 1, 1963, CUP 438 was approved for the Casualty Insurance Company office complex on the sa;ie Manchester frontage road site con- sidered under CUP 124o Although there was no exact height specified for this development, the Council retained the right of approval of precise plans and discussion was held relative to the previous 115 foot height permitted for the subject property under CUP 124e The preliminary plans submitted in conjunction with the appl~cati~n indicate a high rise structure in addition to the three story building and it is the developers present understanding that the 115 foot height would be permitted by the Council in the review of precise plans. On Wednesday, February 4, 1964, CUP 512 was approved for a high rise hotel north of Bzll Road. The exist-. ing height standards were relaxed to permit an overall height of 160 feet. This application was significant in that it was the first request for a height substantially greater than that previously contemplated for the C-R area - some 270 feeL~ Once again a field investigation was conducted by the City Council where balloons tAthered at both a 150 foot and 270 foot haight were observed from various public assembly points and critical . viewpoints within Disneyland. It was felt the final determination of 160 feet would not adversely affect the adjaining land usPS and the growth and development of the area :n which the h~te~ was proposed to be located. (One of the required CUP fin:iings)o This case also brought into focus • the critical nature of the problem of how to determine the extent to wltich height standards might be relaxed on all properties in the C-R area with- out impairing those existing investments which had been made in good~faith and in accordance with existing zoning lawsa On February 10, 1964, a letter was addressed to the City from Disney- land officials expressing their concern over the lack of objective criteria upon which to base their future capital investments and development plans. The City was asked to establish policy definitions related to height standards for the C••R area at the earliest possible date. On February 24, 1964, a meeting was held by City and Disneyland officials to discuss the nature of the criteria upon which a height stan- dards policy might be based. Disneyland officials volunteered the services of their engineering staff to provide the City with the necessary field work and analytical studies to define critical view angles and ares~ and to define those points outside the park at which structures would be visibleo The studies were to be based v2on both present berm and plant- ing heights and a pro,jected five year ;--'::`h which was considered to be a practical maximum growth for scree ~rposes. In May 1964, _:~ informal review ;~e engineering data by, Courtcil representatives anci City officials rr _: the quesi:ion of the economic considerations in :etablishing height :,_~ndards. Disneyland offfcials agreed to commission Economic Research Associates to nrovide an economic perspect~.ve for the height standards studyo ,pt ._~.._..-___'f_...~_.__..__..""._. "__'__'_~_..._.._..__.;~._-...~._._. ...""._".__...__,_._._.~ . __. 3Y7~:. ~ , . ~ ~ .. . _ .. . ..._.. . . 1 .. _.. __ . , . . ... ~ l ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 24~ 1964 2277-f CO.hM~RCIAL-RECREATION - (Continued) AREA t~IGHT STANDARDS June 5, 1964, a letter was received from Disneyland officials inform- ing the City that the engineering and economic data had been prepared as requested and was ready for reviewo June 30, 1964, an informal meeting of City Council, Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce, Visitors and Convention Bureau and Disneyland officials was held to review the engineering and economic data and to receive sugges-~ tions £rom any interested party for additional data or information which might be pertinent for discussion and considexation at the.public hearings. July 8, 1964, first public heari~g was held before the Planning Commissior,o Mr. Ettinger reviewed Disneyland's pro3ected development plans, Mro Wise reviewed the engineering studies and Mr. Harrison Price of ERA reviewed the economic studyo Property own2rs appeared both im support and opposition to the height standard question. Enaineerina Considerations The engineering study is intended to indicate those points at which high rise structures outside the peripheral berm would be visible from various points within the parke The first study (Exhibit 4) is based on the present berm height and height of plantingo The second study (Exhibit 5) indicates the increased height of screening based on a pro~ected five year growth of planting plus a substantial raworking of the easterly berm and screening to pull in the easterly height planes to more closely correspond to those on the north~ south and westo Each height plane line indicated on Exhibits 4 and 5 represents the connection of a series of points in the air at which high rise structures would be visible from critical view areas within the Disney- land parke When the Councii conducted their field studies and observed a balloon in the air at a proposed height they were in effect viewing a single point on the height plane line. Exhibits 4 and 5 indicate this type of information but on a 360° view basiso Thus we are able by viewing Exhibits 4 and 5 to represent all of the points at which a balloon or structure of any type would be visible from within the park in 1970 (five year growth)o The height numbers indicated on the lines are indicative of the number of feet above the plaza elevation, not necessarily the height of a structureo As an example, the plaza elevation is 135 feet above mean sea levele The 100 foot height plane line indicates the connection of those points in the air which are 235 feet above mean sea level. The actual height that a structure might be permitted at any point on the 100 foot height plane line would, therefore, be measured from the 235 foot point above mean sea level to the ground level of the subject propertye An example of what this means in structural height can be illus- trated by observing the actions on the Manchester property and the Cisneyland tower. The height point of 175 feet on the Manchester proper.ty and the height point of 125 feet on the Disneyland tower are at the same height above mean sea level but since there is a ten foot differential in ground elevation the Disneyland tower structure itself will be ten feet higher than the structure to be built on the Casualty Insurance propertya Exhibit 5, therefore, represents a graphic display of the extent ~ to which the Commission and Council might relax the existing 35 foot ~ height limit in the C-R area and still not adversely affe•~+. the visual ; illusion or "World of Fantasy" within the Disneyland park, at least as ~ the park is presently developede ,i Disnevland Co~,siderations Exhibits 2 and 3 indica•te the present and potential future develop- ment of Disneyland. Exhibit 2"Present Development" indicates those , areas utilized for (1) recreation areas available to the public, (2) serv3ce areas including administration and maintenance offices, ware- houses~ and employee parking, (3) public parking areas, and (4) undeveloped i I ~ ~ . i 1 _ i _-___ - _-~ , - - - -.,. ._- __. ._ .__ . ____ _...~__..~....~_....~.r..___.~___; ~ :. ~I , . . . . _ .._.._..._. ~ ~ ~ _ _ - i I ' . ~ \ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 24~ 1964 2277-g COMA~RCIAL-RECREATION •- (Continued) AREA HEIGEff STANDAfi~S holdingso The present recreation areas inc~ude most of the lands within the peripheral berm plus the miniature golf course and driving range north of Cerr?tos Avenueo Exhibit 3"Potential Future Development" ~ also indicates recreation, service, and parking areas. In addition~ potential expansion areas for recreational development are indicated for those areas presently within the berm now occupied by administrative offices and warehouse and maintenance facilitieso This area is referred to as the future "Edison Square" area. Potentiai recreation expansion areas outside the berm include the present Pony Farm and service areas north of Winston Road, the "Holidayland" area (previously utilized for large picnic and assembly groups and more recently utilized for the temporary storage of trees and landscape materials), the present employee parking lot on West Street and the approximately 40-acre ar~:a between West and Walnut Streets north of Cerritos Avenuee Disneyland officials have emphasized that the nature of the develop- ment which can take place within these expansion areas is directly dependent upon the degree to which a"World of Fantasy" and "visual illusion" can be attainede Thus the degree to which the existing hefght standards are relaxed in the C-R area will be one of the prime determinants of the types of uses which can be master planned for development in these areas. The existing 35 foot height limit would provide a maximum flexi- bility of design of these future developmentse On the other hand, no height limit might passibly preclude a"World of Fantasy" type recreation use altogether< The height plaaes illustrated on Exhibit 5 are based- solely upon the view areas existing within the present berm. Since no precise plans of development are available at this time~ it is impossible to project potential critical view areas in those expansion areas noxth of Winston and west of West Streeta Thus~ if the Exhibit 5 data were • adopted as the basis for relaxing existing height standards in the area, it would constitute a basic design factor for the Disneyland expansion areaso Although Disneyland officials h3ve expressed their concern over this factor, they have also expressed their desire to establish a positive and firm point of departure for design studies and tapital improvement planningo Until they have such a policy upon which to ba~e their projec- tions, they are unable to define either the opportur~ities or limitations for expansioo of facilitieso The Disneyland facility was designed and cnnstructed in accordance with zoning regulations in existence at the time. Approximately S3 million has been expended to eliminate the view of the outside world and to separate the vaiious Iands in order to create a carefully designed - psychological illusion through a"World of Fantasy"e For a decade now, the berms have served as a suitable means of achieving visual detachment from surrounding areasa The success and expansion of Disneyland~ however~ has been reflected in the devel~pment of satellite support and service ~. facilities around the perfphery of the park and land values have increased I, to the point where vertical development is becoming economi~ally feasible. •r j Thus the success of Disneyland and the resultant economic viteility of the commercial recreation areas has introduced a new factor~ unanticipated i~n 1954, into the question of visual detachment. This vertical development ! factor is unique in that it places the $3 million berm investment in jeopardy `• and constitutes an outside influence beyond the control of the investor since ~ there are both physical and economic limitations on their ability to acreen such structures from view. The visual impact of structures extending~above the height planes indicated on Exhibit 5 is dramatically illustra' ' by ': the photographs submitted by Disneyland in conjunction with khe ~ 3t;n- i Hotel and Angel Spire applications. The proposed structure:s ':~ave ,, en. super-imposed onto photographs so that their visual impac~ can be envisioned. (Please note that comments relative to the Spire are in~~?nded to illustrate ~ the height standards question only, a separate report will be pr.epared relative to CUP 606 for the September 14, 1954 Commission meeting.) It i,s quite obvious that the proposed structures would be highly visible fzam tha various lands which have been created within Disneyland. A 270 foot hotal would have been completely incongruous with the view across the Rivers af•• America, ov~r Tom Sawyers Island, and past the Mark Twain Sternwheeler ox Three Mast Schooner, The Qsychological illusion of Main Street witr its ~ gas lamps, horse draan street cars, sv'r~eys, and carefully designed illueion of a typical small American town ot the early 1900's wou)d be dramatically diminished by the introduction of a modern day space needle into the scene. ~ I I _,. --~. ._------ .__....__._._._..__._ .__----_.. .._ __ _- _ _ --~ ~ -.... ~ ~j ,_ __ .. .. .... ____~ , .. v ~ I • i ;,i :; '- ::, ~ ; ~ e.. MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 24~ 1964 COAM~RCIAL-RECREATION - (Continued) AREA NEIGHT STANDARDS 2277-h Exhibits 6, 7, 8~nd 9 dramatically illustrate that such a spire would visually dominate and substantially reduce present iilusionso Although the proposed site of the Spire is approximately 3700 feet distant from the southerly berm, Exhibits 6 and 7 indicate that the proposed 750 feet height and the required structural mass of the structure is such that it would still materially affect the illusion of Main Street, USA, The Disney organization appears to have created not only a success- ful economic development, but a development of cultural, histo~ical and work-of-art significance. The Commission should consider whether structures of various types which would be visible from within Disney- land would diminish the psychological reaction to and enjoyment of the imaginatively designed and ar.tfully executed re-creations of early America, and American folklore~ and whether the introduction of such structures would impair existing investment and deter future growth and development. Disneyland officials state that their existing investmerrts would be impaired, (certainly the $3 mill'ion in berms and screening would be) and that future growth and development of the Disneyland facility would be deterredo These would appear to be prime considerations fn answering certain basic questions: (1) to what extent may existing height standards in the Commercial-Recreation area be relaxed without impairing those invest- ments made in good faith and in accordance with the existing zoning laws at the time of their construction, and (2) to what extent may these standards be relaxed without adversely affecting adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the areao These questions are the heari. of the issue to be resolved by the Commission and Councilo Although it may appear to some that the height planes illustrated on Exhibit 5 favor the Disneyland development at the expense of peripheral properties, it must be remembered that there exists at this time a 35 foot height limit in the area, and that the height planes represent a relaxing of this existing standards in addition, the Disneyland facility is the prime basic economic generating force and the backbonc~ of the Commercial-Recreation, tourist and conven- tion industry in north.rn Orange County. The necessity of achieving some limitation on the ;•elaxation of height standards stems from the fact that the Disneyland facility is unique in the entire world, and that there is no other facility likely to be built in the C-R area which will be so dependent up~n a"Wc~rld of Fantasy" and visual illusion concept. Economic Considerations Following an indicatio:~ of concern on the part of inembers of the City Council as to the economic considerations relative to establishing ' height standards in the C~R area, Disneyland officials agreed to commiss4on i Economic Research Associates to prepare: an analysis and report for the Planning Commission and City Council> The report entitled "The Economic ' Impact of the Disneyland Recreation C~mplex on the City of Anaheim" i dated June 30~ 1964, was presented by Mr. Harrison Price~ President of ERA~ ~ at the July 8 Commission meetingo As the title implies, the report derives - ~ a measurement of the economic benefits accruing to the City of Anaheim due . i to the Bisneyland park and its satellite attractions and services. The ~ total area-wide impact is noted as being much larger than indicated in the ~ report since the report was concerned only with the effects dispersed withi.n the city limits of P.naheim. Highlights of the report are as fo%lows: (Please review entire nine page report for full significance of data) 1. The 1955 through 1964 economic impact on the City of Anaheim alone is approximately ?560 milliono 2. The present annual economic impact on the ~ity of Anaheim alone i~ slightly abave $60 roilli~a. 3. The Disneyland park, a commercial-recreation enterprise, con- stitutes a"basic generator" typ~~ use, i.e.~ a basic industry or importer of visitors and outside moneye (The Melodyland Theatre is presently the only other "basic gener.ator" type use in the C-R area. The remaining uses are classified as satellite or service facilities which cater to the needs of visitorsel .. _ _._._.__ ... __._.---._..._~__~__ .._~___--__.._~--- - _,,.....,~ ~.~.._ .~ ,Ii~RI , ~. . i . :..., ~ ,J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 24, 1964 22~~_i COMA~RCIAL-RECREATION - (Continued) AREA I~IGNT STANDARDS This class of er.terpr.ise generates an economic multiplier of 12 which is substantially greatQr than thai c; surrounding satellite uses or other types of industryo T'hus the analysis shows that the $46 roillion private investment in the park brought 12 times that amount of economic activity to the City of Anaheim in its first decade a- operation. It is also noted that it is the investment in the park, and not the peripheral invest- ments in hotels, motels, restaurants, etca, r~hich has generated the largest part of the 12 times multiplier mentioned aboveo A~proximately 80 to 85 percent of the total impact is derived directly from the park, the remainder ~ from satellite developments, The conclusion of the report is that from a community standpoint, the highest and best use of land in the C-R area is for the commercial- recreation or basic generator type developments which serve to draw visitors to the Anaheim areae The report concludes that the total economic effect is so large and so dispersed in the community that the primary bene- ficiary of the activity is the entire population. Under these circumstanees, public interest is served by enhancing and encouraging expansion of the basic recreation and economic generating developmentsa Expansion of this dynamic .. base directly profits the entire str~=m of economic activity in all of Maheim. The report also notes that there are values which accrue to the Ctty of Anaheim due to the Disneyland facility which are not measurable in dollar increments. Disneyland has helped Anaheim become the most important community focus in the County in many segments of economic Iifeo The sue- cess of the Melodyland Theatre and the support for the new convention facility would be dramatically diminished without Disneylando The City of Anaheim has also become known throughout the-United States and in distant parts of the world due to the unique attractiono Even in the Los Angeles metropoli.tan area, Anaheim is set apart from other Orange County communities due to its being a center of attractive hotels, motels and restaurantse In addition, there are residential and commercial properties outside of the recreatton industry which were undoubtedly built because of the recreation stimulus of the Disneyland complexo (Examples might include the Global Van Lines and Casualty Insurance Company developmentse) The report concludes that "the economic contribution thus made by Disneyland through the prestige it lends is not entiraly measurable, but it is clear that the park is the center - not only economically but psychologically - of a large portion of Anaheim's reputation and favorable image"e The ERA report substantiates that the continued expansion of the recreation industry in general, and the Disneyland facility specifically, are vital elements r,: t,he economic health of the community end are matters of public intereste Thus, the contention by Disneyland officials that high rise structures would substantially impair thsir existing investment and deter their future developments are matters of serious economic and community-wide can^erna Other Considerations In the consideration of a height standard amendment to the ccmme;•cial- recreation policy, provision should also be made for special type structures other than high rise office or hotel facilities. Such structures~ aithough exceeding the heigh;, planes illustrated on Exhibit 5, might not be visually incompatible with the variou~ foreground scenes within the park. Their visual compatibility could be due to the fact that they themselves are Commercial-Recreational in nature and in keeping with the theme of the foreground scene or they may be visually compatible due to the fact tha•t they are relatively inconspicuous due to their height, width and masse Examples of the above might include the followings (1) if a Fujiyama type mountain were recreated as a part of the Orient development at Ball and West, a snow cappea mountain woul~? tend to be a compatible background for the Ri~iexs of America area within the parkg (2) if a"Tomorrowland" type structure were recreated in the eastern portion of the C-R area in such a r.~a,iner that it were visible only from the "Tomorrowland" area within the pRx!~~ it w~uld tend to be a visuaily cornpatible background. ~ ~ F ~ f { t ~ ~ -n _.~ ~ ~-_---~ -__- - ---- _ _ _ _ --._ _.._... ._ _._ .._ .--: ._._ .._..----_ ---..____.. ~ ~._ ~..._. ~ • ', _ .. . . ~ ,~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 24~ 1964 CONJu~RCIAL-RECREATION - (Continued) AREA HEIGI-fl' STANDARDS In addition to these examples, t.~.:re may also be utilitarian or incidental siructures of a silhouette nature which although visible from the paxk would be visually inconspicuous to tt~e point of not posing a problema Examples of this might include flag pole: and 1.... ~~Y +~WCTC~ UGlll l,}i Nvaca w~ Another question which should be considered by the Commission in the review of height standards for the Commercial-Recreation area is that of the relationship of high rise structures to adjoining single- family residential areaso When the new R-3 zone was adopted in September 1959, the City provided for a one-story building or structural height limitation within 150 feet of single-family residential zones. Beyond the 150 foot point the R-3 zone permits a maximum 35 foot heighto The one- story height limitation within 150 feet of single-family homes has also served as an informal rule of thumb in the granting of CUP's for various types of useso The intent of this provision has been to provide a degree of privacy for residents of single-family arease The M-i, Light Ind~:strial Zone, adopted in February 1963, provides for a structural setback area wherever such a zone sides or rears upon any residential zoneo It provides for a setback equal to the height of the proposed structure, thus a 100 foot structure would require a 100 foot setbacko Although substantially less than the 150 foot one-story height limitation of R-3 zone, the M zone requirement reflects the fact that any intrusion of privacy from industrial type structures is primarily a matter of the height and mass of the structure rather than a matter of invasion of privacy by neighborso The C~-0, Commercial Office Zone adopted in August 1963, provides for a building and structural height limitation within 150 feet of any residential zone boundarye The height of a proposed building or struc- ture may not exceed one~half the distance from said structure to the residential zone boundaryo Thus a 100 foot structure would have to be 200 feet from the residential zone boundaryo The C-0 standard gives consideration both to the height and mass of the structure as well as the type of occupancy associated with office buildingse Special height limitations have been applied to various CUP applications and generally the setback has been greater where there is a problem of invasion of privacy than where it has simply been a matter of the bulk oz~ mass o£ the structure irtiposing on the view of single-family area residentsa In considering the extent to which present height standards in the commercial-recreation area might be relaxed and not impair the existing investments in adjacent residential areas, the Commission should take into account both the nature of the existing devclopment and the probable nature of the potential new developmento The nature of the existing development of concern here is that of single-family residencese The nature of the potential future high-rise development in the C-R area app,:ars at this time to be (1) structures of a C-R nature which would fall into the basic generator type categoryo This would include the Melodyland Theatre, Americarama Theatre, plus thosestructures which are an integral part of the Disneyland complex, (2) the satellite structures which are ancillary in nature in that they provide a service to visitors. A high rise hotel would be an example of such a struct~re, (3) high rise office buildings on the freeway frontage locatio~s as provided for in the C-R policyo E ~ ~ ---.-~-- I ~ ! ~ ~ : ~ F ! I i ` A question to be resolved by the Commission, therefore, is whether structures of the type described above might result in an invasion of privacy in adjoining residential areas and, if so, what limitations on the relaxation of the existing 35 foot height limit should be observeda The R-3 zone permits one-story height limit within 150 feet, but per- mits no more than a 35 foot height limit beyond 150 fe~to ThA M-1 permits a 1:1 relationship with no specitic height limito The assumption. here, however, is that an industrial structure is primarily a matter of bulk or mass and not observation by occupants. The C-0 zone provides for a 1:2 relationship and assumes that office structures woul~l include an invasion of privacy factoro As in the M-1 zone, there is no specific limitat.ion of height in ~he C-0 zone, the distance from the residential zone bound~ry being the only limiting factoro .___---_----.._ .._.__--. _ ............ ... _ .._. ----..:__ _ _ _ ____ _...____ _: ~.w;': ~ ~ 2277-] ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 24~ 1964 22~~-k COMN~RCIAL-RECREATION - (Continued) AREA HEIGHT STANDARDS If a relaxation of the height standard in the C-R area were to be based on precedent established in the M-1 and C-0 zones, consideration should be given to both the type of structure and type of occupancye Thus high rise structures, the occupancy of which was such that the outward view from the high rise structure was either minimal or non- existent might be permitted cioser io a residentiai area than a high rise structure the occupancy of which anticipates the enjoyment of a view of the surrounding areao The proposed tower office building on the Casualty Insurance Company site (115 feet) wili be a minimum of 400 feet from the multiple-family residential areas across the Santa Ana Freewayo The Sheraton Hotel -• tower (160 feet) will be approximately 500 feet from the single-family residential areas to the westo The Disneyland Hotel tower (125 feet) is approximately 650 feet from the multiple-family residential areas to the westa The proposed Angel Spire (750 feet) is approximately 600 feet distant from the single••family residential area to the southeasta As noted earlier, the key questions remain - to what extent may the City relax the existing 35 foot height standard in the C-R area and not impair those investments made in good faith and in accordance with the existing zoning laws at the time of their construction, and to what extent these standards can be relaxed and still maintain the growth potential of the commercial-recreation, tourist and convention industry in Anaheim in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nox to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the communityo The second set of slides were shown by Mro Reese with commentary relative to the location af the balloons flown at heights of 150 and 270 foet and spaces 400 feet apart to repre- sent ~he width of the Sheraton Hotel proposed northerly of Ball Roado These slides had been taken at the time the City Council had made a field inspection of the critical view areas in connection with the Sheraton Hotel petitiono Mro Reese pointed out the ballons and indicated the 150-foot and 270-foot heights on each slide and discussed the effect each would have on the visual illusions of the various foreground sceneso Mra Reese then stated tnat the slides were primarily shown to determine whether or not there has been a world of fantasy created within the park, whether or not a visual illusion has been created, and whether or not, if this were so, that structures at the various heights indiaated in the exhibits would be visible from illusion areas in Disneyland, and if visible, how critical the intrusion into these areas would it beo Mre Reese stressed that engineering data, economic reports and the visual presentation was an attempt to present alI the facts at public meetings and ta be as objective as possfble~ that the Commission and Council would review the data and the testimony offered by interestec~ persons in .reaching a decision on the establishment of height standards in the Commercial- Recreation Area< Chairman Mungall thanked Mre Reese for his presentation of the facts and asked for discussione { Mre Ron Karos, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that none of the slides indicated that the Commission might have taken a sky ride on their field tour, or climbed the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse or ridden the Monorail, because from those heights one could look out and see the Santa Ana Freeway, an entire view of Orange County from the treehouse, and anyplace where one was lifted from the ground level, it seemed obvious that if anyone had created visual intrusion, it was Disneylando Mro Karos further continued stating that it was his understanding that whEm anyone purchased property, they also bought the air rights for that propertys that it did not seem~proper that one group could arbitrarily seek from a civic body the prohibition of the use of these air rights; that this would prevent the landowners in the Commercial-Recreation Area from deriving the maximum profit from their land by such a prohibition, and that perhaps Disney- land should be paying for the air rights of these landowners if they did not destre visual intrusion from high rise structureso Commissioner Chavos stated that he felt Nire Karos had confused visual intrusion; tt~ t he had been on the Matterhorn ride, the treehouse, and the air ride, and although one did look at the outside world, one could not look into the back or front yards of private homes~ that ~ the v3.sua1 illusions received in Disneyland was something that could riot be seen elsewhere in the world~ that if one could visualize going through a jungle or a desert without seeing I i ~• E f 6 ~ . ~_ ~ ---__.__.----~--- __ _ _ _ _ __. _. __.. ~ i j . ~ I ~ \! MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 24, 1964 ~ 2277••! CUMI7ERCIAL-RF~REATION - (Continued) AREA HEIGHT STANDARDS any of the commercial structures or any modern development within that concept, this was the picture Disneyland was desirous of maintaining and was the basis for their request that height standards be establisheda He further presented two different aspects of visual intrusion, intrusion into a world of fantasy, and intrusion into the private lives of~ ~ single-family homeowners adjacent to the Commercial-Recreation Area. Commissioner G~uer then stated that the problem facing the Commission was did the City have the right to limit heights vf structures, and since Mr< Roberts had quoted from the State Code that this was the City's right, and since the City presently had a 35-foot height limitation established in the R-A Zone, of which the Commercial-Recreation Area was can- prised, the City must decide whether this height limitation shou2d be maintained or revis~d~ that height limits were imposed on multiple-family development limiting them to one story within 150 feet of an R-1 Zone; that any petitioner still had the conditia.~al use permit vehicle by which he could request a waiver of these height limits; that Nh~e Disney would not have spent three million dollars on the landscaped berm if he did not feel that he wou7,d have been protected from outside view~ and that the establishment of Disneyland had generated all the economic activity around the park such as motels, ho±els, and restaurants. Mro Karos stated his objection to height standards being established on visual intrusion{ that the Disney Corporation knew the area in which the park was located would be a growth area as indicated in the Staniord Research report; that this may have been the reason for locating where the park was; and that he felt there was an American way, that if anyone felt they needed protection from outside intrusion, they purchased sufficient '_and and built far enough away from outside invasion to insure this privacy, just as Mre Hurst h~d at San Simeona Commissicner Chavos stated that zoning Iaws were established originally to protect the privacy of one's home before laws were established for the orderly development of a com- munity, and that if one would assume that Disneyland or the baseball stadium did rtot exi~t, what would be the drawing power f~r people from all over the world visiting Anaheim? Ni~e Karos remarked that he did not wish to minimize the effect Disneyland had on the economic build-up in Anaheim, but he felt it was unfair for one parcel of 2and,after having been developed, to penalize the parcel of land immediately adjacent to the•developed parcel from realizing its highest potential in terms of value and development. Mro George 0'Brian, 1401 East Santa Ana Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that he felt Disneyland would not suffer from any visual intrusion such as the Angel Spire, but might actually compliment them; that when he visited Disneyland, he was too busy ~ook- ing at all the park had to offer to be concerned with the outside view from the park; that in his estimation, the Commercial-Recreation Area should be developed to its fullest extent as long as businesses and structures are not objectionable; that Harbor Boulevard, Ball Road and Katella Avenue are heavily traveled streets, and development of these areas would reduce the tax dollar of each citizeng that Disneyland was only a three to four-month operation, and it would be beneficial to the satellite developments if their facilities could be used on a year-round basisy that in his estimation, high rise structures Nere not detrimental - he was originally from the East, and the skyscrapers of New York are something to behold and a thrill to a new visitor to that areag and that the Commission should give serious thought to imposing height standards and suggested that the existing height limitation be maintained for at least a few years to see what type of development might occur in the areao Mr Paul Wallach, representing a number of property owners in the Cortmiercial-Recreation Arc3, appeared before the Commission and stated that at no time had those clients of his proposing the Angel Spire discussed the visual intrusion; that all comments on that pro- posed development were given at the August 3rd hearing; that in the presentation of the slides, he felt that the adjectives used to describe Disneyland were always complimentar~C, but when referring to the Anoei Spire, a different connotation was made; that there seemed to be-visual intrusion within the park as noted on the slides, when one left one land for another; that the rides above gz•ound also indicated the amount of visual intrusion the park had; that in his estimation the presentation given by Mre Reese was not objective but was prejudicial~ that his firm was gathering considerable data to nresent at the September 14th hearing. of the Angel Spire, and he would suggest that the l:ommissian cantinue ~heir decision on the height standards in order that evidence they would present might give a different per.spective; that many of the property owners ir, the area have been F.~sitant to offer their property because of the h~ight limitations existing and possibly set at an a*bltrary heigtrt by these hearings; and that he urged the Commission •to keep the hearing open so ±h~~ evi- dence presented at the hearing on September 14th for the Angel Spire might also be 'aken in consi9erationo ._______------~--_ .. . --....__.. _ __ --- --------_.._...----- ----_ _ __.,: ~3.~ ~ ~t _ _ _~, i ~ i ~ ' • ~ ~j ~ ~ \ MINU:ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 24, 1964 22~~-m COMMERCIAL-RECREATION - (Conti.nued) AREA HEIGHT STANDARDS Mr, A~ Eidelson, 17981 Rommelle, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commissicn and stated that although he now lived in Santa Ana, he had formerly lived on Harbor Bou~evard for many y.ears; that about the time Garden Grove incorporated as a City, Lyle Mitchel, !':ar~nce Mauerhan and he had met with the chairman of the 'ounty Board of Supervisors to make sure- that their property would be incorporated within the City of Anaheim~ that on August 1£3, about twenty property owners met in his office, who owned 20-30 million dollars of real estata in the C~-R area; that all these property owners were trying to dEtermine what was expected of them~ that eight years ago he felt that with all the people coming to the city to visit Disneyland, what was needed in that area was a good trailer p?rk for pe•~Frle with. children, and campers, who could not afford $40 a day for motels; that two men en option had requested permission to establish a trailer park on his prcperty at Harbor Boulevard near Chapman and had been denied permission to operate a trailer park bec<a;~se the singla~ family homeowners had opposed it; that later two other men frorc~ Chatsworth h~d attem~~e~ to develop his property for multiple-family gax•den apartment ~yp:: de~•elopmer:t, but upon investigation these men withdrew any thought of this development, eviiently hivin.:• been discouraged by othersy that of the property owners, the Schlung lsrothers, the Ca~,sys, Mra Mahn, Ed Parnell, Clarence Mauerhan, Earl Zahl, Robert Croett, the Millers, the Eidelsons, and a representative of Leo Freeman, all want to be pez•mitted to use their property located in the Disneyland area to its highest ana best pr.itential and be free and.noT be hamst_ung by the City in this development; that he did not own the property on which the Spire was proposed, he had been asked for his property, but he had turned them down; and that if a trailer park, multiple-family development and the Angel Spire could not be put on their property, just how could they develop their property without facing the fact that there might be visual intrusiona Mrso Monica Lombardo, owner of the Royal Palm Motel at Harbor Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated she had come to Anaheim eleven years ago wheR it . was a small sleepy town~ that she begged to differ witn Mro Eidelson in his statement ttiat a family could not get accommodations under $40, because she o£fered facilities for six at $16S and that if everyone is opposed to Disneyland':. request for height standards, why•was• everyone trying to build on top of ito Mro Clyde Schlund, 18221 Peralta Hills Drive~ appeared before the Gommiss~on and stated that Disneyland used the air rights on their property with the Matterhorn being 160 feet high, and that the fireworks shown every night during the summ:r wpR~L up to 400 feeto Mr, Paul Schlund, 2036 South West Street, appeared before the Commission and szated that he owned property covering 20 acres at West Street and Orargewo~d Avenue~ ~hat all the property in that area represented a great poten'cial for fi!ture development in Ananeir~~ that.he-would rather see all development pertaining to the Commercial-Recreation Area develop in Anaheim rather than the neighboring towns~ and that t~.e would like to see~ the Commercial-Recreation Area developed to its greatest potential with the Conanis.'or. giving careful consideration to establishing height standards which might be a~detE~rrent i» the fu.tuxe. development of the areao Idr~...Clarence Mauerhan, 210 Nasaissus, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Cor~uniss:c~~ and stated that each petition should be presented to the City for consideration on its ~wn merits when the conditional use permit was filedy that the height standards which.migr,t be ss.tablished today might not be applicable five years from now, but the property owners. u~ould.be restricted by those height standards set today, and he urged that the present procedure of 35 feet in the R-A Zone with application by conditional use permit requesting a..waiver of this height limitation would best serve averyone in the area> Commissioner Chavos stated that Mro Disney was hoping to expand the park, and since he did not have any assurance that he would be protected, there was a possibility that fur~her expansion would be at a minimumo Commissioner Gauer then observed that of ~he many requests for high rise structures in the Commercial-Recreation Area, that only the Disneyland Hotel had been built. • Commissioner Camp stated that there seemed to be one tfiing that was beir.~ overlooked by ~ all the people - that the present height limitation was 35 feet, and if.there was to be a change, it would be up; that if standards were established and someone wanted to~go higher~ this could be done at the time the conditional use permit was filed and considered by the Commission, s~.ncE the right to petition for something was never denied anyone~ each request still had to be judged on its orin merits~ and if the Commission or City Council felt the '~ raquect for the height waiver was not objectionable L•his would be grantedo , ~17 _.. -.-_t-_ ------------__~_._.__.,__.__. . ~ __ _ ; ~ . ~ j" ~a~ e ~ . ~ ~ ?~~~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CGMMISSL"V. p~?qust 24, iy64 COM1IJt~¢RCIAL-RECREATIO:`: - (~;p!'1'Ci!IUf.~,i ) ARcA !-IEIGt,`'T STANCi~~tAS ~ 2277-n Coms~issioner :.havos si:atec{ thot if height standards were established, this wo~:ld give the property owners a bf,tt.~sz• idea of the value o£ his land~ and the prospective purchaser woulr also know te •~hat heigi~~ l1e could build without question• Mr~ Karos '~hen stated tn~~t although Comnissioner Ca~~p's statement made se:nse, thE people who want t!: build highei• will be faced with the ~~iseial intrusion probl?m; and that the 9reatest limitation w~u).d be on those closest to Disnsylande Commis:•4or.er Ca~np si;a ied that +_hcse clo:ses! to Di.sr~eyland migh'. ~t•~m i.a be psnslized, i;ut the re'.ura ~n the ~o',.lars invest~d in ^.;ose proximity to Disneyland wii: be grea.ter, and heiqhi would not be a factor because =.umeone nith a fou:-story structure w:thin 300 feet of Dir;neyland coulcl command more recr~aational trade ~han a ten-story struc:ure one mile away, based on the fact that mar.y pe~~ole wanter? co be as close tr the center of attraction as possibieo Mra Mauert::zn i.nquired if the height sT.~nuards and rr•:;trictions wer~e imposed~ would these b~ tiad to tt~s exhibit on the wall since that seeme3 to be the oniy documen~ which ili:~s- trated thz liroi'cations being imposedo , Mr, Reese staced that the exhibit indicated nothing except the height at which a structure might be vi~ible from criiical areas within Disneyland~ that the height limit of the near- est line t~ Disneyland rzpresented 75 f.eet or about a six-story structure, and that it was his assuRption that t~;e ,.~~mmission evovld take all che ir.forw.~tion, both engineering and economic data, and ter.timony presented ~~t the hear;.ngs to arrive at +.heii recommendat:ons to the City Council .:x height standar~•,, a:~4 a policy would thsn iie est~iblished b~ ':he _ Council. Furt~tier, 1;o avoid the flying of balicons each tim~ a~,e~~itlor. was submitted to dete:cmine the visuai intrusion, it was r~aped by estabiis`ing height• sta:7dardsrinterpietations coul.d be rt~ ~:e withuut the necessity of t'i.eld trips and fly;.n9 bal~nons' and that the Com- missi.or would have t.o determine whether they desired a single oeight standard for the entire •are~a or ~ gr.aduaJ change in height standa:cds as the exhibi± indicated, and that the main' qu~as.tian hafore ti„ Commission and Council .as shou~d a height stanclard be established othPr than the exisi:ing 35 feeto Mxo.°2ese then stated that the Commerr,ial-Recreation Area basic policy related `c the s4~rort facilities such as hotels, motels and restaurants a~;d h`.gh rise buildin;s on the freeway frontage still stands and is not being considercd at th9.s time; that it will still be neces- sary to obtain a conditional use permit~ *hat what the Commissicn was attempting aco accomplish i was to give the p:roperty owners and developer,•s an idsa or "how high is high" when one is talkir.g about development in an area which is preseriily under a 35-foot height limitat~on, but whi:.h could be relaxed to permii. 75-fco~~ structvres without any apparent ob,jectionso In xesponse to questioning by hli~ 0'Braan; P~ro Reese stat=d that all the projections on the exhihits tork iato consideration *.tie existing barms, ~+evelo~snent in the park~ and the pro~~ j.cted yrowtt: of the landscaping i~ the next five years~ tha~ ihe ir.ix~sion into the pro~ected new area would 'ue assumed neglioible because if the n~ight sta~dards were e~ta.blished, +he encineering design for the new areas could el'_:ninate ar.y visual :~ntr.•~sion< 'rdr9 Ed C;ttinger, representing Disneyland, appeared before the Commiss~ion and st~ted Lhai: after listen:ng to all the testimony and reviewing all the studies by all three groure~ the Cityt the ].an~?ow.~?rs and Disneyland., that it seemed that a certain F~er~;pective had been• logt, that all i:hat his firm was attemptf~g to do was to bring tF:is issue into focus to hel~ his f;rm in planning and designin; of land uses for the future. He thought that the point Com- ~sssioner ~amp brouy:i, ou± was an excell-~nt one; that Disneyland would be far bettor off with the existing height limitation of ;5 feet, but in a very sincere desire to try to project their growth and economic po±ential in what they feel is a very unique attraction~ the firm :~:::s confronted with a business decision in a five t;~ ten-year rar~ge to what extent could the compan,y af{ord to invest in this area, and what assurance that the investment made would be a saund one. rn.response to Commission questioning relative to the New Orleans pro~ect, Mr. Eti:inger stai:e~ that when the ideas for the New Orleans project were first thought of three years - ago,..it.'.was esiimat:ed that 1.8 million dollars would be spent~ that about six months••ago ~nather look wa5 given, and it was estimated that 704 million dollars would be sper.t, and at.that time a good, hard look was given the project, but to date he cid not know the exac~ amount which raould be expended; and further, in response to a question by one of thc proFerty ownens, Lisney Er~terprises had the New Orleans pro,ject within the berm area and had speni: 47 million dol.lars on the d2veiopment of ~he park~ and that upon cumplete developn:ant of all of the future expansion areas, it was estimated thai: an add?tional amount at lsast equal to that would be: expended. TiiE FL:AkING WkS rLOSED. s~~: . ~~,~ --- -- r --.. -AJS ~ ~ ; ~ . ~ , _.. ___...._ . . - - • , ~ _ __ _ . . . . _. _ _ ..,.~.; ~ ~ , \ ~\ ~ MINUTES, CITY F~LANNING COMMISSION~ August 24~ 1964 227~-0 COMN~RCIAL-RECREATTON - (Continued) A&EA HEIGHT STANDARDS Commi_•sioner Perry stated that a great d.eal of evidence had been presented to the Commis- sion~ that this evidence should be assimilated and discussed in work sessions with the City Council before any decision should be rendered, and because of these implications, he moved that the decision on the height standards be continue•9 for an indefinite period. Commissioner Chavos was of the opinion that the Commission tiad had two hearings on the subject; that all the evidence had been presented and a decision should be made so that the property owners present would be able to determine the value of their property and what ccwld be canstructed on the propertye Cou~issioner Perry stated he felt that to render a decision without evaluating the evidence and consideration of the evidence at a work session and meeting with the Council would be doing a disservice to the City and the property owners, as well as Disneyland, and that the.evidence was of such magnitude that he was not in a position to render a decisiorr. Commissioner Camp stated he sympathized with the property owners in wanting a decision, but too muct~ evide;~ce was presented, and the Commission would have to assimilate all the eyidence and hold v,•ork sessions, as well as meet with the Councii, since any decision made would have a vex, teiling effect on the welfare of everyone concerned; that the property owners had been restricted with a 35-foot height limitation for some time~ and a little more delay would not appraciably affect them, and that he wanted to study all the evfdence presented before he could render a decision. . Commissioner Gauer stated that one of the property owners asked that the present height ' limit be-re~ained, another stated that the Commissicn should deliberat~ carefully befvre~ making any change and suggested waiting two years, th~t a third qroup was in favor of no height limitation, and that before he could render any .~ecision, ne wanted to study the evidence submitted; that he was not trying to protect anycne, b~~t Disneyland was one of ~ the wonders of the world; and that Disneyland had contributeu a~reat deal to the growth ; and.potent:al of the community~ and surely that was something to ~onsider when deciding what should be done for the balance of the development of that areae Mro Robrarts advised the Commission that it wuuld be well to continue the consider~tion to ~ i a da±e certaine Commis~io~~er Gauer seconded Commissioner Perry's earlier motiun, indicating that the he~ring .=_'~ould be reopened and continued i:o October 5, 1964~ at 7:00 o'clock P.Me, if Commiss:oner Perry concurred. The motion carried by a vote of four to twoe AD,-•OJRNAtEM - Thex:. b:;ing no further business to discuss, Commissior:er Gauer ~ o:fered a moti.on to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Chavos ~; se:onde,d the motiona MOTION CARRIED. ; The mecting adjo.irned at 10s20 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~,~i`(/vV ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Planning Commiesion { I 1 ~ ------- -_~__.._._.._....._.-.--.---.__._._..__~__,._____._____._._~__.___„~ .,,. . ~- _ _ ,.,...~ ~ , $'-..... _