Frankfort planning panel approves Burger King exterior remodel, defers final lighting sign‑off to staff

The Frankfort Plan Commission voted unanimously to approve a development plan to remodel the Burger King at 2201 East Wabash Street, approving building materials and most site changes while deferring final approval of lighting and photometric details to staff.

Liz Ditzel, the planning staff presenter, told commissioners the parcel exceeds the 20,000‑square‑foot threshold in UDO 403 and falls inside the East State Road 28 overlay, which requires plan commission review rather than an administrative approval. Ditzel said the proposal includes a façade remodel using Nichiha fiber‑cement panels, interior renovations, and changes to parking, lighting and drive‑thru lanes.

"If they meet the standards, they must be approved; if they do not, they must not be approved," Ditzel said, explaining staff’s ordinance‑by‑ordinance review. She reported that Frankfort Utilities, Frankfort Fire and the Street Department had no objections to the scope as submitted, and INDOT raised no concerns so long as work does not occur in its right‑of‑way.

Ditzel identified the remaining issues: a drain in the parking lot that appears to be sinking and must be repaired; lighting photometrics that still show non‑compliance to the north; and an exterior LED strip that the applicant may need to remove if it cannot meet the lighting ordinance. She described a staff proposal to approve the project now but continue the final development plan sign‑off to administrative review with conditions so staff can verify the last photometric and signage revisions.

Rachel Cutler of Curran Architecture, the applicant representative, described Nichiha fiber‑cement panels as a long‑used siding product that mimics wood and brick and offers durability. "These products have been up for over 10 years on Burger Kings and you wouldn't know it walking up to them," Cutler said.

On signage, Ditzel noted a UDO requirement that signage within 600 feet of a residential district not be primarily white. Staff and the applicant agreed conceptually to keep the freestanding sign unlit and use backlighting behind the letters (a halo effect) or make the white areas opaque at night so the sign complies with the lighting ordinance. Ditzel said the commission must state on the record whether it finds the presented materials satisfactory and whether the white border on the freestanding sign may remain lit or must be made opaque.

Commission discussion focused on whether to allow staff to perform the final compliance check administratively or require the item to return to the commission. Several commissioners expressed no strong objection to staff finishing the remaining, mostly technical items; a motion recorded on the floor authorized approval of all elements except the lighting plans, continued final development plan approval to administrative sign‑off by Liz Ditzel to verify photometric and signage revisions, and attached conditions 1–5, 7 and 8 from the staff report plus requirements that any non‑compliant LED strips be removed or brought into compliance and that all lighting be fully shielded.

The roll‑call vote passed unanimously: Mark Mills, Mike Nichols, Larry Moser, Joe Stevens, Isaac Chavez, Joseph Bookwalter and Chris Alba all voted yes. The commission also recorded a requirement that the applicant coordinate with the county surveyor to address the sinking drain and include any required repairs in construction plans.

The commission’s action approves the remodel concept and most plan elements now, while leaving the technical verification of photometric and signage compliance to staff so the applicant can avoid a further public hearing delay. If staff later finds the revised plans still fail to meet ordinance standards, the commission’s conditions require the applicant to either correct the plans or pursue the appropriate variance process (BZA) if a legal exception is sought.

The commission approved the motion and proceeded to the remainder of the agenda.