Planning commission tables 9-unit Veronica/Beaconsfield townhouse plan after parking, engineering and late-submission concerns

The Eastpointe City Planning Commission voted unanimously Nov. 6 to table a site-plan application for a proposed nine-unit townhouse development on the southwest corner of Veronica and Beaconsfield until its Dec. 4 meeting.

Planner (Mister Erbil) described the project as two, two-story buildings totaling nine townhouses (five units on the west building, four on the east), each roughly 1,240 square feet and oriented to front on Veronica. The application shows a shared mail kiosk, an enclosed area for rolling garbage containers, bike racks and landscaping; the applicant identified nine on-street parking spaces on Veronica in the revised plan submitted the morning of the meeting.

Resident Jennifer Nicholas asked whether the new Veronica/Beaconsfield units would be affordable and whether they would include on-site parking. “I was kind of trying to look at the map, the site plan…and it seems like it’s going to be a very tight fit,” said Jennifer Nicholas, Eastpointe resident. The applicant’s representative said the units are intended to be moderate-income and for sale, and that the project has a grant through the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) and supporting documentation from earlier planning staff. The applicant also said it is discussing financing and presales with Huntington Bank and North Star Bank and that it could reduce the project from nine to eight units if parking requires it.

Planning staff and several commissioners said they received revised drawings late (delivered the morning of the meeting), leaving insufficient time for the administration, the city engineer and the fire marshal to complete their reviews. Planning Director Mister Myers said parking is the major outstanding zoning item and that any modification to parking standards would require a noticed public hearing and specific affordability information to verify eligibility for reduced off-street requirements. “The planning commission has final authority over granting parking waivers,” Myers said, adding that the administration had not had time to confirm low/moderate-income pricing or to circulate the last-minute revisions to reviewers.

Commissioners and members of the public also raised geotechnical and safety questions. Commissioners noted a soils/borings report from McDowell & Associates that identified clay-bearing soils at the site and referenced recommendations about footings; one resident said clay conditions can cause shifting unless addressed in foundation design. The applicant said three soil borings were completed and that its civil engineer was working on footing responses.

Commissioners and staff emphasized that some items in the revised submission still required clarification: the number and placement of parking spaces (the revised set identifies nine parking spaces on Veronica), final elevations and exterior materials (residents asked whether vinyl siding would be used and requested renderings showing how the buildings would fit the brick character of neighboring homes), and documentation confirming the MSHDA grant and affordability/pricing thresholds. Commissioners also referenced unresolved fire-department access comments regarding on-street parking and end-of-street circulation.

Commissioner Sasek moved to table the application to permit the applicant to provide complete revisions and allow the administration and outside reviewers to examine them; the commission voted 5-0 to table the item to Dec. 4, 2025. The motion was recorded as moved by Commissioner Sasek and supported on the record. The commission asked the applicant to work with city staff and its civil engineer and to provide final renderings, full engineering responses (including footing plans tied to the soil borings), and documentation on affordability and parking calculations prior to the next hearing.

The commission stressed process and notice requirements: because the applicant seeks any parking flexibility, the commission noted that the matter must be publicly noticed again and that the administration needs sufficient lead time to distribute revised materials to the fire marshal and city engineers.

What remains unspecified: the final number of off-street spaces that will be required, final exterior materials for the buildings, and the precise affordability pricing and qualifying criteria the applicant will use; the applicant said those items were being finalized with its lenders and MSHDA contact.

The commission indicated it would expect a full, engineer-reviewed set of plans at least 15 days before the December hearing so that notice and technical review can occur.