Hammond planning commission approves subdivision and development plan for Mercantile Plaza; Dollar Tree proposed

The Hammond Planning Commission on June 16 approved a one‑lot subdivision and a development plan for the Hammond Mercantile Plaza at the parcel identified in the filings as 3514/160 Ninth Street, clearing the way for demolition of a former bank and construction of a two‑unit commercial building intended to house a Dollar Tree and a yet‑unnamed drive‑through restaurant.

The approvals matter because the project requires modifications to zoning standards, recorded cross‑access and utility easements, and a later trip to the Board of Zoning Appeals for parking and a conditional use for the proposed drive‑through. City staff told the commission the subdivision and development plan meet the ordinances’ technical requirements provided the listed conditions are met.

Planning staff recommended approval of the subdivision, saying the plat complies with the city’s subdivision control ordinance and noting staff received no objections from reviewing agencies. "Staff's opinion is that the plat meets the requirements set forth in the subdivision control ordinance," a staff member told the commission and recommended preliminary and final approval subject to technical corrections and recordation of easement documents before the subdivision plat is recorded.

Petitioner attorney Jim Weezer told the commission the single lot is about 0.7 acres and that the development will replace a long‑vacant bank building. "We believe this will be a significant improvement to that area, to bring in a new business or actually two new businesses to generate the tax dollars that the businesses will generate," Weezer said. He also said the project team will record the required cross‑access and utility easements and provide copies to the city before recording the plat.

Staff and the petitioner explained the site sits inside a C‑2 Shopping Center zoning district, which allows the planning commission to approve reduced lot sizes and modified setbacks without a variance in some circumstances. However, staff said the project does not meet the ordinance parking requirement; the development requires 47 spaces and shows 25, leaving a deficit of 22 spaces. The staff report said that deficit and the proposed drive‑through will require separate approvals from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The commission approved the subdivision (case CP25‑05) by an 8‑0 roll call vote and then approved the development plan and the requested modifications to area, width and setback requirements (case CP25‑06) by an 8‑0 vote. Both approvals are conditioned on: final technical review and staff sign‑off of plans, recordation of the proposed easements prior to recording the subdivision plat, and obtaining any actions required from the Board of Zoning Appeals (including parking and conditional‑use approvals).

Commission discussion touched on site access and existing easements. Staff noted an existing cross‑access easement on the adjacent O’Reilly property created when that lot was subdivided; the proposed documents extend or modify property boundaries so internal circulation and the drive‑through will function. Weezer and the project engineer described multiple coordination calls with city staff to address traffic flow and loading areas.

The petitioner’s written estimate listed the project as a more than $2,500,000 investment. Weezer said his client has successfully placed similar Dollar Tree stores across the Midwest and believes this location will perform well; the restaurant tenant has not yet been identified.

The commission opened both items for public hearing; no members of the public testified. The staff report and the planning commission’s findings of fact were adopted as part of the approvals. The next steps for the developer are to record the easements, finalize technical plan corrections with city staff, and pursue required Board of Zoning Appeals approvals for parking and the drive‑through.

The actions taken were limited to the subdivision and development plan approvals and the adoption of staff findings; no incentives, abatements or other fiscal actions were requested or granted during the meeting.