Palm Springs committee approves revised In-N-Out design, but wants one more look before final sign-off

The Palm Springs Architectural Review Committee voted 5-0 on Monday to approve, with conditions, revised architectural plans for a new In-N-Out Burger restaurant at 1801 East Palm Canyon Drive in Smoke Tree Village, but only after adding a requirement that the applicant bring the design back for a sixth review before the project can move forward.

The vote came after an initial motion to approve the project failed 3-2 earlier in the same meeting, with committee members citing continued concerns about the building’s design.

Principal Planner Ken Lyon said state rules limited the committee to either approving or denying the application that night. Monday’s meeting marked the fifth review of a project that’s been in the works since 2024.

Though residents who spoke at the meeting raised concerns about vehicles idling and air quality, the owner of the property, Tracy Conrad, noted that the project had already been entitled by the Planning Commission a year ago, and the scope of Monday’s meeting was solely the building’s architecture and design.

Five members of the public spoke during the meeting, all raising concerns about the design. One resident, Chris Menrad, said, “If we have to allow more fast food restaurants to come into our town… then at least the building, the architecture, that we get in that exchange should be exceptional, not just different, but actually exceptional.”

Resident Tom Dolle criticized the proposed building’s design, saying, “Palm Springs has set itself apart from other desert cities by limiting the shapeless suburban sprawl of national chain stores and restaurants, building cookie-cutter brand statements that don’t relate to their environment.”

Dolle added, “Instead, we get a confused white elephant with curved corners and glass lock that belongs at Art Deco Miami. Some angled roofs and other details may wink at mid-century modernism, but just make it a confusing hot mess.”

After the first motion failed, one committee member called the dilemma, “a gun to the head,” another committee member said, “I feel very handcuffed and hamstrung by the process, and I’m just disappointed,” while a third said that an outright denial would be “a no-think clumsy action,” saying that if they denied and the developer’s appealed the decision, the committee would lose the chance to influence the design further.

Peter Kulmaticki, In-N-Out’s development manager, defended the design, telling the committee it was “an in-house building unlike any other and unique to Palm Springs,” adding that “you will not find this building in the In-N-Out portfolio.”

Committee members thought the proposed In‑N‑Out design feels out of sync with Palm Springs’ architectural character and with the adjoining Smoke Tree Village. Several committee members took issue with the mix of styles, featuring Art Deco‑like curved corners, glass block, bright white walls, and illuminated palm‑tree graphics.

The committee also raised practical design concerns. They pushed for much stronger landscape screening and berming to block headlight glare from the 40‑plus car drive‑through queue, more genuine shade trees for pedestrians and diners, and a less “bulky” treatment of secondary elements like the associate canopy and trash enclosure.

Kulmaticki told the committee he does not have final authority to accept every design change on the spot, saying he could not commit to every detail the committee wanted changed to items such as the tower corners, the keystone detail and the proposed tree species without taking them back to his company for review.

He said the current renderings represented “our last crack at this,” but that In-N-Out was “willing to make more adjustments and work.”

“I don’t know that we’re going to meet every single condition. I’m hopeful that we’ll meet a lot of them,” he said. “But a wholesale redesign? This is where it gets difficult.”

Following further discussion, the committee approved the project with an added condition requiring the applicant to return with a revised design reflecting the conditions discussed at the meeting before receiving final approval. Kulmaticki said he would take the committee’s feedback back to his company’s executive committee for review.

---