Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee sends Farrell Drive storage project back for restudy over massing and RV‑screening concerns
Summary
The ARC requested revised materials, tree‑placement and renderings showing 52 RV spaces for a proposed 92,400 sq ft self‑storage facility on North Farrell Drive, citing concerns about building proportions and the visual impact of RVs behind a 6‑foot wall.
The Palm Springs Architectural Review Committee on May 18 sent a proposed self‑storage project on North Farrell Drive back for restudy after members voiced concerns about the building’s proportions, façade treatments and the visibility of dozens of RVs parked behind the perimeter wall.
Planning staff reviewed Case AR2026‑0010, describing a 92,400‑square‑foot storage building with 52 ancillary RV spaces on 4.2 acres at 900 North Farrell Drive. Staff presented Planning Commission recommendations that the applicant reconsider colors, materials and certain plant choices (replace ficus hedge with lower‑water alternatives and consider 36‑inch box trees in place of 24‑inch boxes to provide quicker canopy screening).
Applicant representative Eric Foss (Legacy Built Investments and Development) showed revised, simplified elevations intended to reduce ornament and said the orange “roll‑up door” elements on corner pop‑outs are nonfunctional display elements commonly used to signal storage use. He told the committee that the design team planned to move away from corrugated metal and to increase canopy trees to screen parked RVs.
Committee members raised several recurring concerns: the upper parapet and corner pop‑outs read as visually “top heavy” in the presented renderings; the decorative door facades felt like a low‑effort signal of use rather than a durable architectural solution; and a six‑foot wall with rows of RVs averaging 10–15 feet in height could produce an awkward, highly visible condition along Farrell Drive if the landscape screening did not mature quickly. Members asked for specific, prescriptive changes: at least one rendering without the ficus hedge, renderings that show the RVs parked with proposed landscape in place, an exploration of removing one of the corner pop‑outs or reducing their visual prominence, and illustrative options that include required solar PV coverage (Title 24) if applicable.
After discussion the committee made a motion to restudy the application and enumerated direction for staff and applicant, including increased canopy trees closer to the sidewalk, additional renderings showing parked RVs and the landscape plan without ficus, and alternatives that reduce the perceived top‑heaviness of the façade. The motion passed on roll call.
Staff flagged that lighting and signage will return as separate applications and noted that any required solar PV (estimated by the applicant at about 15% of roof area under current Title 24 rules) will need to be incorporated in a future submittal.
