Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Streets Sidewalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Corinth council approves PD‑73 amendment allowing single decomposed‑granite trail in gated estate lots
Summary
After debate with planning staff and the developer, Corinth City Council approved a major amendment to PD‑73 on a 6.5‑acre estate‑lot subdistrict that keeps city street standards but permits a private decomposed‑granite trail of at least 6 feet instead of sidewalks on both sides.
Corinth City Council on Tuesday approved a major amendment to Plan Development 73 that modifies street and sidewalk requirements for Subdistrict C, the gated, estate‑lot portion of the mixed‑use PD covering roughly 6.5 acres.
The council voted unanimously to keep the PD’s required curb‑and‑gutter street standard in place but to allow the developer to install a private decomposed‑granite (DG) pedestrian pathway running the length of the gated streets, with a council‑set minimum width of 6 feet.
The amendment affects Subdistrict C of PD‑73, a larger 106‑acre mixed‑use development approved in December. Staff had recommended denying the change because the city’s street standards call for curb and gutter, two 15‑foot traffic lanes and 5‑foot concrete sidewalks on both sides of local streets. Planning Director Melissa Daley told council that curb and gutter and sidewalks provide maintenance, drainage, pavement protection and pedestrian connectivity and that “staff does recommend a denial of the requested amendment.”
The applicant asked to use a rural street section for the gated estate lots — bar ditches, no curb and no sidewalks — and to install a DG path in place of concrete sidewalks. Tristan Poor, the engineer representing the developer, said the gated portion is intended to have an “estate lot” or “country” character and noted that private gated communities typically maintain their own streets and amenities. He told council “the PD was defaulting to the standard street sections,” and that the developer prefers the rural aesthetic and private maintenance model.
Developer representative Michael Ingle said the project is meant to preserve mature trees and a country feel. “We do want the country look and feel of these estate lots,” he said, and said the developer would install the pathway up front rather than wait for individual builders to add sidewalk segments as lots sell.
Council members asked about maintenance, drainage and safety. Several members voiced concern that bar ditches and DG paths can move with slope and require frequent replenishment; others said estate‑lot homeowners and a homeowners association could sustain upkeep. One councilmember noted that curb and gutter concentrates drainage in the street and ties into the city system, making later failures a city concern.
Councilman Burke made the primary motion to approve the PD amendment while omitting the city sidewalk specification and allowing a decomposed‑granite pathway. Councilwoman Kelly Pickens seconded and later amended her second to require a minimum 6‑foot pathway width; that amendment passed unanimously. A roll call followed and council recorded the motion as adopted.
The approved change keeps the city’s street standard in place for the gated subdistrict’s pavement and drainage profile but allows the developer to provide a single private DG trail that can meander to protect mature trees. The DG trail will be privately owned and maintained by the gated community’s HOA; the council’s action omitted the standard requirement for 5‑foot sidewalks on both sides of the street within the gated portion.
The city packet included one letter of support and no letters of opposition; the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denial at its April meeting. Staff noted the PD had allowed steeper grades in this area (up to 12 percent) because of topography, which factored into the discussion about constructability and maintenance.
Council’s action was framed as a one‑time PD amendment for this subdistrict; future projects will still be governed by the city’s standard street section unless the council approves additional amendments.
Topics tied to the decision include private maintenance of infrastructure, preservation of mature trees, and how sidewalk/trail design affects drainage and long‑term city maintenance obligations.
Council did not take additional action on dedicated public ownership of streets in the gated area; the streets and the DG trail inside the gated portion will remain private per the developer’s access, drainage and utility easement approach.
