Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streets Context Sensitive Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission adopts context-sensitive street cross sections for selected Farragut corridors
Summary
The planning commission adopted Resolution PC-25-5 to add Appendix F to the subdivision regulations, allowing alternative, less-invasive street cross sections for certain collector and arterial corridors; residents urged more outreach on Evans Road.
Get email alerts on the Streets Context Sensitive Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Farragut Planning Commission on Sept. 25, 2025, adopted Resolution PC-25-5 to amend the town's subdivision regulations (Appendix B, Article 3, Streets) by adding Appendix F, which specifies context-sensitive street cross sections for a set of identified corridors.
The amendment does not change street classifications on the town's Major Road Plan, staff emphasized; rather, it provides alternative design cross sections the town and developers may use if a corridor is improved in the future. Staff described the change as a response to earlier work on Union Road and as an effort to allow less-grading, narrower lane widths in some locations so improvements can better preserve the town's rural character while still providing pedestrian and bicycle accommodations.
The resolution lists candidate streets for Appendix F, including Alan Kirby Road, Boring Road, Evans Road, Heron Road, North Campbell Station (north of the Overlook apartments) and Red Mill Lane. The proposed cross sections reduce lane widths in some cases (for example, showing 10- or 11-foot lanes in places where current subdivision standards call for 12- or 13-foot lanes), favor open-ditch drainage and call for a single shared-use path rather than a sidewalk on both sides in some corridors. Staff repeatedly stated that "none of them have road projects that are in the works at this time," and said the amendment is a guideline for future design rather than an authorization to start construction.
The public hearing drew several residents from Evans Road, Heron Road and nearby corridors. Daniel Head, an Evans Road resident, raised safety and property-impact concerns and said his property includes mature Leyland cypress trees that would be costly to move; he told the commission that moving the trees could cost on the order of "$150,000," and raised concerns about crosswalk placement at a crest where sight lines are limited. Several residents urged the commission to postpone action until staff holds a workshop specifically with Evans Road residents; Craig Wyberley (who identified his address as 12603 Evans Road) said town staff agreed to a residents' workshop and asked the commission to delay adoption or remove Evans Road from the appendix so the rest of the resolution could proceed. Jim Robertson, Mike Pyle and Chester Carbaugh were among other residents who spoke; Carbaugh, a construction industry resident, supported the context-sensitive approach.
Town staff and the mayor responded that no detailed designs exist and that right-of-way acquisition or property impacts would be addressed in later design phases if and when a project advances. Staff clarified that typical right-of-way acquisition practice is to negotiate with property owners and that eminent domain is only discussed in cases of impasse; the mayor and staff said the community can expect further outreach during later design stages. Commissioner Louise, who has worked on the Union Road design exception, argued against delaying adoption, saying, "The existing standards of 12 foot lanes, travel lanes, 40 mile per hour design speed, 5 feet of curb and gutter ... are absolutely unnecessary on the collectors being considered." She said adopting context-sensitive cross sections now avoids defaulting to a more invasive standard when a corridor is upgraded years from now.
After public comments and discussion, the commission moved, seconded and adopted Resolution PC-25-5 by voice vote; the chair stated the motion passed unanimously.
The amendment is procedural: it changes the subdivision regulation cross sections available for future projects but does not authorize or fund any immediate road construction. Staff indicated additional outreach and design-phase review would occur if any corridor advances toward construction.

