UBLIC HEARING: Director of Development ... - City of Glendale

Materials, Colors, Lighting, and Signs
• Materials and Colors - The materials and colors of the project (plaster finish with decorative reveals,
metal windows with stone sills, and clay tile rooQ match the existing campus architecture.
• Lighting- The proposal does not indicate specific light locations or fixtures. However, the proposal
indicates the intent to match light fixtures found on the existing campus.
• Signs- The proposal does not indicate specific locations for minor directional signs. As with the lighting,
the submission indicates an intent to match the existing campus sign program.
The exception is the large "DreamWorks" logo sign on the southeast elevation, facing the proposed
Flower I Fairmount realignment. This will be one of the primary entrances to the GC3 district and is an
appropriate location for signature signs. The proposed "DreamWorks" sign will be a simple and elegant
cut-metal sign mounted six inches from the facade similar to other identity signs on the campus. The
drawings do not indicate any lighting for this sign, although back lighting or some external spot fixtures
would be acceptable.
Open Space, Landscape and Public An
• Open Space - The new building has no dedicated open space other than the street side setbacks,
however, the DreamWor1c;s campus has agenerous central quad and courtyard.
• Landscape - As with the lighting and signs, the proposal indicates an intent to match existing landscape,
but does not provide a detailed landscape plan.
• Public Art - Only projects within the Downtown Specific Plan are required to include public art. The
proposal does not include a public art component.
Summary Comments and Recommendations
The proposal is consistent with the limited design standards established by both the San Fernando Road
Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the existing development agreement between the City and
OreamWorks. The proposal additionally utilizes the same materials, colors, and details as the existing
architecture on the DreamWorks Animation campus. It is an architecturally conservative extension of the
OreamWorks campus, and except for the fact that the proposal will be the tallest building on the campus,
there is no reason to otherwise think it will be appear incompatible with existing structures. As such, the
project is consistent with adopted design policies and standards, and could be approved as presented.
However, the building will have a prominent presence on Flower Street and consequently serve as the
"gateway" structure to the GC3 district Although the proposal clearty announces the studio's identity to
Flower Street with a billboard-sized "DreamWorks' sign, the design has nonetheless missed a significant
opportunity to create a memorable architectural icon. This iconography could be established with a more
dramatic and civic oriented architecture, perhaps incorporating a campanile-type tOVoJer (similar to the tower
inside the campus). Therefore it is recommended the design be modified to addresses these issues and
the public "gateway" status of the bUilding's location.
Page 3013