Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission approves 225‑unit, 55+ apartment complex for Canyon Drive after hours of debate

Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission · February 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning and Zoning Commission approved PD‑326 to allow a 4‑story, 225‑unit age‑restricted (55+) apartment development with staff conditions including reduced parking (1.5 spaces per unit), four stories, and administrative flexibility on landscaping in an easement.

After a lengthy public hearing that drew neighbors, developers and planners, the Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission approved PD‑326, a plan for a 4‑story, 225‑unit, age‑restricted (55+) apartment development on about 9.9 acres at the northwest corner of Canyon Drive and North Coppell Road.

Planner Mary Perron Boswell summarized the proposal and conditions: the project requests a density of 22.7 units per acre, four stories (50 feet maximum), and a reduction in parking to approximately 1.5 spaces per unit (about 341 spaces total including guest spaces and covered stalls). Boswell noted the developer will coordinate with the electrical easement holder regarding landscaping in the Brazos transmission easement and staff wants tree mitigation updated to account for the drainage area.

Nick DeLuca of Journeyman Group presented amenities and operation plans, emphasizing long‑term ownership and on‑site management. He said the product is intended to serve legacy Coppell residents seeking to downsize and that management enforces parking and occupancy rules; project management staff will register vehicles and enforce guest limits. “We believe that this development perfectly aligns with the Coppell Vision 2040 plan,” DeLuca said in his presentation.

Several nearby residents objected, citing traffic, parking adequacy, shadowing and compatibility with adjacent single‑family homes. Commissioners questioned parking ratios and emergency access; staff and the applicant pointed to the traffic analysis that projected lower trip generation than nearby commercial uses and to comparable properties operating at similar parking ratios. After deliberation, a motion to approve PD‑326 subject to the conditions presented by staff carried on a roll call vote with all commissioners voting aye.