Please attend this meeting to discuss how the Tritt property can become a Park!

When: Wednesday, Oct 23, 6:30 PM - 7:30 PM

Where: East Cobb Library, Meeting Room, 4880 Lower Roswell Rd. Suite 510-B
Marietta, Georgia 30068 (in the Parkaire Landing Shopping Center, on the corner of Johnson Ferry Rd and Lower Roswell Rd).  Google Map

Please attend to be involved in the future of the Tritt property next to East Cobb Park!

FYI, we are still fighting the Isakson Living proposal.  They have withdrawn their rezoning application, but they are not going away, see this article.

At this meeting, we want to discuss options to obtain the Tritt property, and then transfer it to Cobb County for a new park, similar to how East Cobb Park was formed.  We also want to see if there is broad-based community support for this idea.  We (meaning the core members of Concerned Citizens East Cobb) cannot do this alone!  We need your help, and we are hoping to get a big turnout.

Here is some background on this issue, as well as a few ideas:

From the time we first heard of the Z-43 Isakson Living rezoning request, we have always maintained that the best use of the Tritt land is as green space.  Indeed, many people believed that the land was somehow promised as green space to the county; I was one of those.  We still believe the land should be preserved for future generations to enjoy.  That is why we want to form Friends for Tritt Park with the intention of raising funds to purchase the Tritt land.

The comments that people left when they signed the online petition against this rezoning are revealing.  Most people complained about traffic, but the second biggest concern was about green space in Cobb County.  Anything that happens to that property will result in more traffic.  However, a park results in a good kind of traffic.  No one lives at a park, so there is no rush hour traffic.  There may be some traffic on the weekends as people come to enjoy the park.  And, something will happen to that land, probably sooner than later.  It will either become a park, or it will be developed into something.

So, the question to ask is: Are you pro-park, or are you just anti-development?

The Tritt property is 53.7 acres of beautiful land in a prime location, which makes it a magnet to developers.  There will always be a developer looking to build their big project on that land.  The only way to stop the developers is buy the land ourselves.  This will require the help of the community.

We ask that no one try to contact Mrs. Tritt.  She is likely still under contract with Isakson Living (we have no idea when that contract may end, or the terms), and she is probably bound by a confidentiality agreement, and cannot talk about her land anyhow. 

Mrs. Tritt and her late husband Norris have kept the property in a natural state for 65 years, so we should all be grateful to her.  That is why we want to create a new park called the "Norris and Wylene Tritt Park" (Tritt Park for short) to honor the Tritts and their good stewardship over the years.

Mrs. Tritt is also a very smart lady.  She is a former real estate agent, so she has a good idea what her land is worth.  Despite what some people may believe, Mrs. Tritt was never going to outright donate her land to the county, nor should she have to.  She should be paid a fair market value for her land.  She has children and grandchildren, and she wants to leave them a good inheritance, just like any of us would.  We cannot fault her for that.

At the meeting, we can discuss forming a 501(c)3 organization, similar to Friends for the East Cobb Park, or Friends of Mabry Park.  A 501(c)3 is a non-profit tax exempt organization that can accept tax deductible donations.  We will set this up so it is totally transparent.

So, why doesn't the government pay for this?  Another big misconception is that Cobb County had a pile of cash to pay Mrs. Tritt when she was ready to sell.  That is not the case.  Cobb County is not able to purchase park land at this time.  We hope to get some government funds in the future or land grants (more below), but the idea that county, state or federal government will ride in and save the day is fantasy, unfortunately.

Here is the real deal, as we know it:  the County and Mrs. Tritt tried to negotiate a price for the land with the 2006 Park Bond.  That failed; we do not know all the reasons, and it is all "water under the bridge" anyhow.  Then the 2008 Park Bond fell though before any money was spent.  The economy went downhill, property tax revenue for the county declined, and no one wanted to talk about parks in tight times.  So, it has been many years since anyone from the county or the local community seriously talked to Mrs. Tritt about her land.  While many of us naively assumed the land was destined to become park land, Mrs. Tritt may have believed the county and the community had given up on her land.  It took a big scare (which isn't over yet) to wake us up, and see what we might lose.

We want to start the Friends for Tritt Park and raise funds to demonstrate to Mrs. Tritt our commitment to purchasing her land.  I am willing to donate, and I hope others in the community will as well.  There are websites that are like Kickstarter, but for causes, where we can raise money.  We are still investigating these sites.

To be honest, we do not know what our chances of success are, but if we don't try, our chances are zero.  As stated above, the land is likely still under contract, and Mrs. Tritt still likely bound by a confidentiality agreement.  We don't know the terms of any agreement, or when it might end.  While the land is under contract, no organization will help us, and that includes government, land trusts, or Friends for the East Cobb Park.  I don't think we should let that stop us from getting started.

We may fail to purchase the Tritt land, and in that case, any money raised will be split evenly between two other worthy park charities in East Cobb, the Friends for the East Cobb Park, and the Friends of Mabry Park.

• Friends for the East Cobb Park formed in 1998 to raise funds for what became East Cobb Park, next to the Tritt property.  They raised $900,000 and purchased the Bowles family land in 2001 as the first 13 acres of the park, and transferred the land to Cobb County.  The Friends work in partnership with the County Parks Department.  The Friends raise money for capital improvements to the park, and the Parks Department implements these improvement.  (NOTE: this is a CORRECTION to earlier information that stated the county just cut the grass; the county does much more, in partnership with the Friends.  Thanks to a member of the Friends for the East Cobb Park for this updated information.).
• Friends for Mabry Park formed in 2009 to develop the Mabry Farm (near the corner of Sandy Plains Rd and Wesley Chapel Rd in northeast Cobb County), which was purchased with the 2006 Park Bond.  The county is not using any of its funds to actually develop the park, including a driveway and parking area required before this park can open.  The Friends have a vision to develop Mabry Park into a beautiful passive-use park.
  

Once the Tritt land is no longer under contract, we can look to other organizations for help, and perhaps get matching dollars from government, businesses and land trusts.  We are open to all ideas, and anyone who has experience with fund raising, please volunteer! 

We can also press for a new park bond referendum in 2014.  (It is too late to get anything on the Nov 2013 ballot, and there are no county-wide elections in 2013 anyhow.  I have been told it would cost the county around $400,000 to hold a special election, and they would not go for that.)

The Friends for the East Cobb Park did an admirable and amazing job raising $900,000 to purchase East Cobb Park in 2001.  Be aware that the Tritt land will cost many times that amount, so we will need to be creative.

If we want the Tritt land, we will need to work for it, and pay for at least part of it ourselves.  I think we have nothing to lose, and much to gain, so let's go for it!

Here are some arguments you may hear against the idea of Tritt Park, and our answers:

1) Why should we spend money on a park, when police and firefighters are not adequately funded, and teachers must take furlough days? 

Answer:  The economy is improving, and things will get better for the public employees.  In the meantime, the developers are trying to get ahead of better times, by buying every last piece of land in East Cobb and developing it.  If we wait for better times to purchase park land, it will be too late.

2) Doesn't East Cobb already have enough park land? 

Answer:  If you are talking about sports fields, East Cobb has plenty, but we do not have many passive use parks, those with playgrounds and pavilions.  If you are talking about green space, there is not much, and most of that is the Chattahoochee National Park, which is not very centrally located.  That is why we would like to see most of the Tritt land remain undisturbed, with mostly just walking trails.  We would then have an amazing park complex -  Fullers Park for sports, East Cobb Park for playgrounds, and Tritt Park for green space.

3) How can you justify a new park adjacent to two existing parks?

Answer:  This a great benefit, not a minus!  The land just happens to be next to two existing parks (indeed, East Cobb Park was once part of the Tritt land).  As stated above, having three parks with different purposes in one complex will improve the quality of life, and make East Cobb a more attractive place to live.

4) Wouldn't a development increase the county tax base?

Answer:  Probably, but a new park could raise everyone's property value for a few miles around, and it would probably even out.  Also, a new development of any sort will likely bring increased rush hour traffic, and more strain on our public schools.

This is part of my series of posts on the history of the Tritt property.  I enjoy history and genealogy, and I hope others think this is interesting as well.  FYI, all this information is publicly available, either online or at the Cobb County Deed Office.  Believe me, the applicant for this rezoning has done their homework and studied the history of this land as well, if just to make sure there are no title problems.

The Tritt property is now 53.7 acres, but it was once 80 acres, all of Land Lots 965 and 966 in the 16th District of Cobb County.  When Norris Tritt, the late husband of the current owner, Wylene Tritt, inherited the land in 1948 from his aunt, Odessa Tritt Lassiter, it was still 80 acres.  By 1965, the Tritts had sold all the land west of Sewell Mill Creek (called Little Williow [Willeo] Creek in the 1869 map, above).  Norris sold some of his land to the Bowles family, who in turn sold their land to the Friends for East Cobb Park in 2001; this was the first 13 acres of the park.

Today, almost all of the land west of the creek that was sold by the Tritts is part of East Cobb Park, except for a 1.5 acre parcel that is part of Fullers Park, and a 6 acre parcel which was developed into the Manor Oaks subdivision.  So, of the 80 acres inherited by Norris Tritt in 1948, only 6 acres have ever been substantially developed.  That leaves 74 acres!  We hope to see the Tritt land remain undeveloped, as park or green space!

The history of the Tritt land goes back much further.  In 1832, Georgia held the Gold Lottery, to give away several thousand parcels of 40 acres each.  The Cherokees had recently been forced from the area (the Trail of Tears), and there was the belief that much of their former land had gold, including the present area of East Cobb.  There was so much demand for the gold land, that the state divided the area into 40 acre parcels (called Land Lots), rather than the usual 160 acre parcels.  I do not currently know who won Land Lots 965 & 966 in the 1832 lottery.  The Land Lot system is still used today to describe land in Cobb County.

Also, in 1832 Cobb County was formed from the former Cherokee land.  We don't know the earliest history of the current Tritt land, because the Union army burned the Cobb courthouse, along with most records, in 1864, during the Civil War.  However, we know from available tax lists that Jackson Delk (1814-1897) owned the land by at least 1864.

Jackson Delk was the brother of Emily Delk (1823-1891), who was the wife of William Tritt (1820-1906), and these were the great-grandparents of Norris Tritt; in fact, William Tritt and Emily Delk are the ancestors of all the Tritt family in Cobb County.  Jackson Delk owned the land until his death in 1897, and then it was inherited by his son John Delk, who moved to Texas and sold the land to his brother Robert Delk in 1907.  Robert Delk in turn sold the land to his first cousin David Tritt in 1916.  David Tritt sold the land in 1917 to his niece, Odessa Tritt Lassiter, who owned the land until her death in 1948.  

Odessa was the widow of Henry Lassiter, and had no children, so in her will she gave her property to her nephews, Norris and James Tritt.  Norris Tritt received his aunt's 80 acres on Roswell Rd, while James Tritt, father of country music singer Travis Tritt, got 120 acres on Post Oak Tritt Rd, where the Lost Forest subdivision is located today.

So, the land has been in the Delk and Tritt families, who were closely related, for a very long time.  We would like to see the land become a new park called Tritt Park (or the Tritt Green Space Area of East Cobb Park) in honor of Norris and Wylene Tritt.

Isakson Living is currently trying to rezone the Tritt property next to East Cobb Park from R-20 to CCRC (Continuing Care Retirement Facility).  The CCRC zoning code is relatively new, approved in 2008, and this rezoning application will be the first to go before the Cobb Planning Commission.

We realize that pending zoning cases will not be affected by changes to the zoning code, but that all future zoning cases will.  It is very possible that Isakson Living may withdraw their current zoning application and try again in the future.  Should that happen, we would like to see the CCRC code changed to preclude the type of development that Isakson Living proposes.

As you probably all know, Isakson Living has requested a continuance until Nov 5 for their zoning hearing.  They say they are addressing the concerns of the community, especially about the density and building heights.  

Make no mistake - they are not doing anyone any favors.  Had they gone before the Planning Commission on Oct 1, they would have likely gotten a recommendation to deny (the Planning Commission cannot deny a zoning application, but can only make a recommendation for the Board of Commissioners zoning hearing, which occurs two weeks later).  If only a few people had opposed this, do you really think Isakson Living would be redesigning their plans to accommodate?  

What happened is that the Cobb Planning Commissioners and Board of Commissioners got hundreds, if not thousands, of emails and other communications from members of the East Cobb community.  The East Cobb Civic Association (representing about 9,000 homes in East Cobb) recommended that the zoning application be denied, and several HOAs have also come out against this development, including Indian Hills (1,600 homes), Independence Square (184 homes), Mitsy Forest (125 homes), Hidden Hollow and Glenside (both adjacent to to the proposed development), and Chelsea Park.  

(If your subdivision or civic organization in East Cobb would like to hear our side of this story, please contact us, using the Contact link at the top of this page).  

Over 1,500 people have signed petitions (including over 1,300 online).  (Remember that any resident of Cobb County over 18 can sign this petition, not just one signature per household, so ask your significant other or adult children to also sign).

And, over 500 people have "liked" our Facebook page.

So, we are in somewhat of a holding pattern while we wait for new plans from Isakson Living, which we believe will also be incompatible with the community of East Cobb.  If fact, when Isakson Living presented to the Mitsy Forest subdivision on Sep 3, I asked Andy Isakson if they could come down to a density of 5 units per acre (the maximum allowed for senior housing on Low Density Residential land, per Cobb County guidelines), and he said the economics did not work out.  The economics do not work out because of the extreme price they are paying for the land (contingent on getting the zoning they want), plus the huge cost of grading the land into flat terraces stepping down an enormous hill to the flood plain near the creek (the land rises 130 ft from the creek to the peak of the hill in a span of 1,600 ft).  In any case, this proposed community does not need to fit Isakson Living's financial balance sheet; it needs to fit the community of East Cobb.

There is also a significant possibility, if not a probability, that Isakson Living will ask for another continuance, possibly pushing back to the December 2013 or Feb 2014 zoning hearing (there are no zoning hearings in January).  We have yet to see anything of their new plans, and they have asked to reschedule some presentations to only 3 or 4 weeks from the Nov 5 zoning hearing.  They are basically scrambling, because they had no Plan B.

By asking for continuances, they are trying to do the following:

1. Salvage any hope of getting this proposed rezoning approved.
   
2. Split our resolve through some token concessions.
   
3. Wear down the community, by hoping that some people give up, particularly as the zoning hearings move into the holidays.
   

We ask that everyone stay resolved, vigilant and flexible!  Our East Cobb community depends upon it, as well as our individual property values!

We don't want to get too confident, either, because we believe that Isakson Living has some powerful supporters in East Cobb, who are willing to go against the will of the community.  The most powerful of these is WellStar, who is building a $80 million health park across the street from the proposed Isakson Living $200 million retirement community - why would they not want 1,200 seniors across the street?

Stay tuned, and we'll let you know about the revised plans as soon as we get them.  In the meantime, we will be posting some other interesting blog posts about this topic.  To paraphrase John Paul Jones, one of our nation's founding fathers, "We have not yet begun to fight!'

One last note, is that we heard from the beginning that this was a "done deal"; that Isakson Living would get what they wanted.  They may still succeed in getting some form of retirement community approved, but it will not be the 987 units they originally wanted.  So we have already succeeded in something.  When a great portion of the East Cobb community comes together, nothing is a done deal!

At various presentations, Isakson Living has compared the East Cobb Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) proposal (on the Tritt land next to East Cobb Park, rezoning application Z-43) to their Park Springs development in Stone Mountain.

Here are some facts about Park Springs:

• Opened in 2004, completed in 2007
• 54 acres (see Campus Map, note that due north is rotated several degrees)
• 474 units - 398 independent living units + 76 nursing/assisted living units
• 8.78 units per acre
• 92% occupied
• Neighbors: Stone Mountain Golf Course, commercial properties, abandoned runway, close to the Stone Mountain Tennis Center.  Nearest house is over 2,000 feet away.
• Google Map: click here

Here are some facts about Isakson Living's other CCRC development, Peachtree Hills Place in Atlanta:

Peachtree Hills Place (project stalled)

• 23 acres
• 258-300 units based on various accounts on the Internet
• 11.22 - 13.04 units per acre
• Planned in 2005
• Old apartment complex on site was cleared, then project stalled
• Currently empty lots with chain-link fence
• Defaulted on $26 million loan from Colonial Bank.
• Colonial Bank failed in 2009, assets sold by FDIC to BB&T
• BB&T currently suing the principals of Isakson Living for $30.5 million.
• Neighbors: mixed residential and commercial.   Post Peachtree Hills apartment complex is about 500 ft away, and Post Lindbergh apartment complex is about 1,500 feet away.
  
• Google Map: click here
• Sources:
• http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2011/07/14/stalled-peachtree-hills-place-project-worries-some-neighbors/
  
• http://atlanta.curbed.com/archives/2012/02/29/what-will-ever-become-of-peachtree-hills-place.php
  
• http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/blog/on_the_market/2011/07/bbt-suing-isakson-living-developers.html?page=all

Here are some facts about the East Cobb proposal:

East Cobb (proposed)

• 53.7 acres, 7 of which are floodplain
  
• 987 units - 837 independent living units + 150 nursing/assisted living units
  
• 21.13 units per acre (when, per LDR guidelines, floodplain is subtracted)
  
• Pending rezoning from current R-20 (2 houses per acre) to CCRC
  
• Neighbors: directly abutting 27 homes in the Hidden Hollow, Robinson Walk, Wyntegreen and Glenside subdivisions, plus East Cobb Park and Fullers Park.  Within 2,000 feet of at least 14 subdivisions and hundreds of homes.  Most of these 14 subdivisions have HOAs, which represent over 2,500 homes.
  
• Google Map: click here

So, in East Cobb the developers are proposing a CCRC with 2.4 times the density of their Park Springs location, which has basically nothing around it, and no houses within 2,000 feet.  

The East Cobb CCRC would also be at least 60% more dense than the Peachtree Hills Place location (when/if it is ever built), which is in an urban area with existing large apartment complexes (and is in fact replacing an old apartment complex), so the neighbors fully expect densities comparable to apartment buildings.

Why is Isakson Living planning on building their most dense community, by far, in the midst of hundred of homes in suburban East Cobb, which is overwhelming categorized Low Density Residential (maximum of 2.5 houses per acre)?

The Isakson Living East Cobb CCRC, as currently proposed, is opposed by the East Cobb Civic Association, the Indian Hills Civic Association, the Mitsy Forest HOA, the Hidden Hollow HOA, and the Glenside HOA.  We hope to get several more HOAs to oppose this development before the October 1 Cobb County Planning Commission Hearing.

Presbyterian Village CCRC in Austell, GA

Finally, let's compare the East Cobb CCRC proposal to a good CCRC, Presbyterian Village in Austell, GA.

• Non-profit, based partially on donations
  
• Seniors can stay, even if they outlive their funds
  
• 60 acres
  
• 282 units
  
• 4.7 units per acre
• Spacious grounds that complement the surrounding community
• Less than a mile from Cobb Hospital in Austell, which has an emergency room

The last point is important.  The CCRC zoning code in Cobb County states that close access to urgent care facilities (emergency rooms) is "preferred". Presbyterian Village is less than a mile from an urgent care hospital.  The shortest road distance from the proposed East Cobb CCRC to an urgent care facility is 7.4 miles to Kennestone Hospital in Marietta, through about 15 traffic lights.

I just signed the online petition against rezoning application Z-43, and I would like to share the comments I included with my signature:

We are not against retirement communities, but the scale of this proposal is off the charts. In fact, if this proposal were scaled back to about one fourth the number of units, and no more than 2 stories, I might even support it. If this land cannot become green space for all county residents to enjoy, I would rather see a VERY SCALED BACK version of this proposal on the Tritt property than a subdivision, since a subdivision developer will surely cut down more trees. However, I would rather see a subdivision than the Isakson Living proposal in its current state. At least subdivision homes would be built at a size and density comparable to the surrounding community.

This proposal would create INTENSE density (21 units per acre) and building size (over 1000 ft long by 5 stories, 75 ft tall) that are unprecedented for residential areas in East Cobb County. My first-grader would be a junior in high school before the construction is finished, according to the developer's 10 year build out plan, and I do not want to see 100+ ft tall cranes on my neighborhood skyline for years to come. Lastly, this would essentially be an apartment complex in all but name - the size, height, density, layout, and outward appearance all scream apartment complex. Add to that the fact that senior residents never own their units, but rather put up an entry fee of $180,000-500,000 (their "deposit"), and monthly fees from $1900-$3700 (their "rent"), that will rise in the future, and the apartment complex comparison is complete. We do not need Post East Cobb!

Please see http://www.cceastcobb.com/1/post/2013/08/some-new-allies-and-petition-talking-points.html

The following is an email sent to Isakson Living, LLC, with the Cobb County Planning Commissioners and Board of Commissioners copied:

30 Aug 2013

To: Isakson Living Communities, LLC

I received a letter on Tuesday, August 27th 2013, concerning the Z-43 rezoning application.  I would like to take exception with the last page of that letter, which shows a drawing of the proposed development at a stated scale of 1 inch to 100 feet.  This is wildly inaccurate and highly misleading.  The south property line is approximately 2,500 feet long, and would require 25 inches to render at the stated scale, yet, as included in the letter, it fits on a standard 8.5 x 11 inch piece of paper.

I realize the drawing in the letter was taken from a much larger image and reduced more than 300% because I have studied this subject extensively, but how many recipients of this letter do you think understood that?  It makes the development appear several times smaller than it actually is.

I also understand the drawing is a "true copy" of what was filed with the county in the zoning application, so it was perhaps not permissible to alter the stated scale.  However, given the enormous discrepancy between the stated scale and the actual scale when reduced to fit on standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper, I feel that an explanatory note regarding the true scale of the drawing (somewhere between 300 to 400 feet per inch) should have been included with the letter.

Sincerely,

Robert E Burke

It appears that the Cobb County CCRC code was tailor-made for Isakson Living and the Tritt property:

• In 2008, Isakson Living helped write the very Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) code they now trying to rezone the Tritt property to.
  
• Also, in 2008, Isakson Living started talking to Mrs. Tritt about her land.  According to Isakson Living East Cobb's FAQ page, question: "Wasn’t the property supposed to become part of the East Cobb Park?", answer: "Mrs. Tritt has worked with Isakson Living for more than 5 years on the idea that one day her land might become a continuing care retirement community."
  
• The Tritt property is 13% floodplain (7 acres / 53.7 acres).  UPDATE 9/3/2013: The Isakson Living East Cobb FAQ page states that the floodplain is 7.49 acres, making the Tritt property 13.9% floodplain.
  
• The clause that states that the floodplain cannot be included in density calculations was deleted from the CCRC code, making it the only residential zoning in Cobb without that clause.  (The PDF is linked to from this page).
  

The Isakson Living Z-43 rezoning application contains some interesting math.

To calculate the number of units allowed at the current zoning of R-20, which allows 2 houses per acre, the 7 acres of floodplain was subtracted: 
2 * (53.7 - 7) =  93.4 (rounded down to 93 in the application).

But, to calculate the density (units per acre) for a CCRC, the 7 acres of floodplain was left in:
(837 + 150) / 53.7 = 18.37

Why is that?  Well, if the floodplain were subtracted, like it must be for every other residential zoning in Cobb, the density goes up:
(837 + 150) / (53.7 - 7) = 21.13

So, there is clearly an advantage to keeping the floodplain in the density calculation.

Now, it is a common practice for subject matter experts to help write laws and regulations:

And in the June 2008 draft of the Cobb CCRC code, the floodplain clause was deleted.  (See http://www.naylornetwork.com/GAH-nwl/assets/june08/cobbccrcdraft.pdf, p.6, right-hand column).  It read (before being deleted):

No floodplains and/or wetlands may be used in calculating the overall density of the development.

Then on June 24 2008, Kevin Isakson spoke before the Cobb Board of Commissioners right before they approved the CCRC zoning code.

Also, in 2008, Isakson Living started talking to Mrs. Tritt about her land:

So, who requested that the floodplain clause be struck from the CCRC code?  Was it the developer looking to buy a property with a significant amount of floodplain to develop a CCRC, and who was simultaneously helping write the CCRC code?

Isakson Living was trying to purchase the Tritt property back in 2008.  Of course in 2008, the economy tanked, and Isakson Living soon had other problems, like defaulting on a $26 million dollar loan.

This is just my opinion, but I think Isakson Living wanted to build just as massive and dense in 2008 as they do now, but there were two thresholds they were unwilling to cross, to avoid a major uproar.  One threshold was 1,000 units, so they planned on 987 (using the same psychology that makes people think $9.99 is such a better deal than $10.00).  The second threshold was a density of 20 units per acre, which is 4 to 8 times the density allowed in adjacent subdivisions and the Tritt property itself.  If they get to keep the floodplain in the density calculation, then they are under 20.  It appears to me the regulatory process was subverted when the CCRC code was created in 2008 to give Isakson Living a density below their target threshold.

FYI, the Isakson Living East Cobb FAQ page, question "How many units per acre?", answer: "15.6", conveniently both includes the floodplain acreage, and excludes the 150 healthcare units (837 / 53.7 = 15.59).   This disagrees with their zoning application (Z-43 2013) (p.4),  which puts the density at 18.37.

The Tritt propery is currently zoned R-20 and is in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Future Land Use category.  The zonings allowed in LDR are:

RR, R-80, R-40, R-30, R-20, R-15, RA-5, OSC
Source: http://comdev.cobbcountyga.gov/documents/CPA2013BookFINAL_compressed.pdf, p.5

CCRC is not included in this list, but the CCRC code states that a CCRC is allowed in the LDR category.

I checked every one of the zonings allowed in LDR, and they all have the clause:
"No floodplains, wetland areas or cemeteries may be used in calculating the overall density of the development."

The sole exception is CCRC.  Why is that?

The description of LDR states the following:

Any area of floodplain or wetlands shall be subtracted from the aggregate area of the site submitted for zoning or development prior to the calculation of residential density.
Source: http://portal.cobbcountyga.gov/images/documents/comm-dev/land-use/CommunityAgendaApproved_2.28.2012_compressed_000.pdf, p.70

Nowhere in the CCRC code does it say that it supersedes the LDR guidelines.  So, I believe the floodplain MUST come out of the Z-43 Isakson Living East Cobb density calculation, and the true density is 21.13 units per acre.

The Cobb County Zoning Codes are available online:

• Go to the Cobb Municipal Code Site.
  
• On the left side, click on Chapter 134 - ZONING
  
• On the right side, click on ARTICLE IV. - DISTRICT REGULATIONS
  
• You should see a long list of the zoning codes in Cobb.  CCRC (Sec. 134-202.1. CCRC continuing care retirement community district.) is the 18th one down, and you can click on it.  The other zoning codes mentioned above (R-20, R-15, etc.) are also on this page.
  

8/27/2013 - CORRECTIONS:  I have a number of corrections to this blog post following a conversation with a representative of Isakson Living.  Note that I refer to the independent living units as a single building, because they are all contiguous, with a number of courtyards in the center.  Isakson Living calls these 11 separate buildings.  Anyhow, the westernmost of the north facing "buildings" "steps down" the hill from the majority of the north facing "buildings", meaning its base is at a lower elevation.  Because of this, the retaining wall should not rise much above 15 ft around the overall development.  I had earlier thought that there was not a western step down, and thus the wall must rise to 28 ft or so; this is incorrect.  Also, I stated earlier the wall was 18 ft tall; this was due to the nearly illegible cross section drawings in the zoning application.  The representative told me that the wall is in fact 15 ft.

Despite these corrections, I maintain my assertion that this will be like an enormous castle on a hill.  Retaining walls 15 ft tall are proposed; these will be back-filled, and the land will then slope up to the base of the buildings.  So, the buildings will start at an elevation significantly higher than the existing topography, and then rise 5 stories up.  They will tower over the existing trees.

Here is a flood plain map of the site (from the FEMA web site):

Anyone who lives near here and saw the floods in 2009 know that the flood plain map above is the real deal.

Here is a map of the proposed development from promotional materials:

Note how the curves of the proposed development along the west side match the flood plain contours.

How does one build so close to the flood plain?  Retaining walls and back-fill.  

From the cross-sections on the zoning application, there is a retaining wall around a great deal of this development.  The cross section that shows the elevations from the north side of Roswell Rd to the present location of Mrs. Tritt's house shows a retaining wall 15 ft tall.  The house is at 960 ft elevation above sea level (the excellent Cobb County GIS maps can show topographical elevation contour lines).  The land falls as you go west to 920 ft elevation at the creek.  Anything below 926 ft is considered flood plain near Roswell Rd (this goes down to 923 ft downstream at the south end of the property).

The retaining walls appear to be at or very near the 930 ft contour line on the west side.  The retaining wall is about 140 ft from Roswell Rd, and as mentioned above, is 15 ft tall in front of the existing house, at an elevation of about 940 ft.  

The marketing materials note that the buildings are "stepped" to follow the natural contours.  Most of the continuous building facing Roswell Rd appears to be at a single elevation of about 971 ft (this is 11 ft above the elevation at the current house, and about 35 ft above the east-bound lanes of Roswell Rd).  A representative of Isakson Living told me that the westernmost part of the building is stepped down another level, so that the retaining wall will remain about 15 ft tall.  The 971 ft elevation of most of the north facing building is the elevation of the floor of the parking garage, which then has 4 stories of residential above.

(The building on the east side is indeed stepped up, since it is on the enormous hill there.  The land goes up to about 1045 ft elevation.  The building is somewhat down the hill, at a present elevation of 1015 ft.  That will be reduced to about 994 ft at the floor of the parking garage.  The 21 ft of removed earth will presumably be used to back-fill the retaining walls on the west end of the property).

I will have another post to go more into the cross sections in the zoning application to show the height of these buildings when you add in the retaining walls and the built up elevations.

The important point here is that there are retaining walls up to 15 ft tall around about half of the property, particularly at the west end near the creek, the land then slopes up from these retaining walls, and the 5-story buildings (including parking garage) start from that point.

This will look like an enormous castle on a hill.

The picture above shows the proposed Isakson Living development compared to two images of the Georgia Dome at the same scale.  The Georgia Dome is 745 ft by 606 ft.  So, the Isakson Living buildings would cover about the same area as two Georgia Domes.  

It should be noted that most of the area under the building and courtyards is a 1250-space parking garage.  Any trees in the courtyards are likely in big pots above the parking garage.

Each parking space is likely 20 ft by 8 ft, meaning the parking garage is at least 200,000 sq ft (8 x 20 x 1250).  This is nearly double the 102,000 square ft of floor space in the Georgia Dome.

For those interested, here is how I created the image.  The picture of Isakson Living comes from their promotional materials.  Using Google Maps, I compared their image to Google Map images of the area at the 500 ft to an inch scale, and found the Isakson image to be slightly larger.  By measuring the distance between the park entrance road and Providence Rd on both images, I found the Isakson Living image was 14% larger than the Google Map 500ft scale map.  So, I got the Georgia Dome on Google Maps at 500 ft to an inch, and enlarged it by 14% to match the scale of the Isakson Living image.  I rotated the Georgia Dome image 90 degrees, since it actually runs east-west.  

Mrs. Wylene Tritt has lived at the 53.7 acre Tritt property next to East Cobb Park since 1950.  She and her late husband, Norris Wilson Tritt,  raised three children there.  (She is the aunt of country music singer Travis Tritt.) 

We all appreciate how Mrs. Tritt has cared for the land over the years.

The land is bounded on the west by Sewell Mill Creek, which makes a nearly 90 degree curve west before turning south again.  The land is in two parcels, the first more-or-less rectangular, and containing about 40 acres where Mrs. Tritt's house sits, and the other shaped like a backwards capital "L", bounded by the creek.  7 acres of the land lies in the flood plain.

There are two smaller creeks that run across the land into Sewell Mill Creek.  The first is visible from Roswell Rd, and has been lined with stones.  There is a larger creek arising in the Hidden Hollow subdivision to the south of the Tritt property, and flowing through the woods into Sewell Mill Creek near the back of East Cobb Park.

There is a sewer easement on the Tritt property, running along the east side of the creek, with raised concrete manholes every 100 to 150 ft.  There is also a permanent easement to connect East Cobb and Fullers Park - when you cross the bridge at East Cobb Park, and follow the trail to Fullers Park, you are on Mrs. Tritt's land for a couple hundred feet.

The adjoining properties are, going counter-clockwise, East Cobb Park, Fullers Park, Hidden Hollow subdivision, Robinson Walk subdivision, Wyntergreen subdivision, and Glenside subdivision.  Across Roswell Rd, there are some low-rise office buildings, a day care on the corner of Providence Rd., and the Wellstar development.

2006 and 2008 Park Bonds

In 2006, and again in 2008, Cobb County voters approved a $40 million park bond each year to allow the county to borrow money and buy park land.  You can read about it here.  In both rounds, a handful of properties in the county were considered "top tier" land that the county should try to acquire, and the Tritt property was one of these top tier properties in both rounds.  Unfortunately, it was the only top tier property that was not purchased by the county in both rounds.

Update 8/26/2013 (thanks to John Fabbrini for this info): In 2008, Cobb County voters approved a $40 million park bond to allow the county to borrow money and buy park land. However, no park land was purchased from the 2008 Park Bond and no money was ever borrowed by Cobb County. The Board did not believe, that with the tax base falling, it could repay the 2008 Park Bond with the funding source approved by the voters and the Board was not going to raise property taxes to repay the bond.

There may have been several reasons why the Tritt property was not purchased for park land:

• The $40 million in each round was fought over between all areas of the county, including the incorporated cities.
• Mrs. Tritt may have wanted more for her land than the county was willing or able to pay.
  
• It was difficult to justify purchasing the Tritt land for park, when it adjoined two existing parks, East Cobb and Fullers.

Certainly, Mrs. Tritt has always maintained that she would like to see her land become a park.

Isakson Living

Earlier this year, Mrs. Tritt signed a contract with Isakson Living to sell her land, contingent on Isakson Living getting their re-zoning application approved.  In other words, the deal falls apart if Isakson Living fails to get the re-zoning approved.  

Future?

If the Isakson Living re-zoning application is denied, they may try to design something smaller and less dense (which would have a better chance of getting approved), and possibly renegotiate with Mrs. Tritt.

The land belongs to Mrs. Tritt, and she can sell it to whomever she pleases.  The land is in the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use category, which limits the possible ways it can be rezoned.  For example, it cannot be rezoned commercial, or office building.  It is is currently zoned R-20, which means no more than 2 homes per acre can be built.  However, LDR allows for rezoning to R-15 (3 houses per acre) or RA-5 (5 units per acre, including the possibility of duplexes).

The recent trend among subdivision developers is to build very large homes on very small lots.  I am told this is the only way they can make money in a tough economy.  Of course, big houses on small lots require clear-cutting the trees.

Options?

Many residents of East Cobb have an emotional attachment to the Tritt property.  Many were led to believe it would one day be part of East Cobb Park. I think the property is beautiful.  It is great to see such a large patch of woods in the middle of the suburbs.  

The county does not have the money to buy the land, nor do they have the authority to do so.  That would require Cobb County voters to approve another park bond referendum; that may be feasible now that the economy is improving.  Another possibility is a group of private citizens pooling their money to buy the land.  All of this depends upon Mrs. Tritt being willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.

The land could also be divided, with some going to development, and some to the park.

This is just my opinion, but if Isakson Living could donate a significant part of the land to the park, and build a MUCH smaller retirement community (no more than 2 stories over parking, and with no more than 5 units per acre), it might be the best possible option.

Abstract

The Isakson Living East Cobb zoning application (Z-43) proposes a density of 21 units per acre (the density stated on the zoning application is incorrect, as explained below), which is more than four times the 5 units per acre allowed for senior living housing in the Low Density Residential land use (LDR) category, which is how this land is currently categorized.   Even if this land were in the High Density Residential (HDR) category, which it is not, only 12 units per acre would be allowed!   

This would be an extreme zoning variance, in total violation of the Cobb County zoning code.  If this application were approved, it would destroy the suburban, small community feel of this area of East Cobb.  The application should be denied on this point alone.  

Details

The property for the proposed Isakson Living development at 3540 Roswell Road is next to East Cobb Park.  It is currently zoned R-20, meaning that a maximum of two homes per acre can be built.  Isakson Living has submitted zoning application Z-43 to have the property rezoned to CCRC, or Continuing Care Retirement Community, and in a Low Density Residential category, only 5 units per acre of senior living housing are allowed.  That would mean this CCRC could only have 233 units total, but 987 units are planned.  

53.7 acre property - 7 acres of flood plain = 46.7 usable acres x 5 units = 233 units 

(A representative of Isakson Living noted that 7 acres of the property is flood plain at the July 31st presentation to the East Cobb Civic Association.  This makes sense, as the property is bounded on the west by Sewell Mill Creek.  This 7 acres of flood plain was correctly used to calculate the number of units the "Present Zoning Would Allow" on the zoning application: 46.7 acres of non-flood plain * 2 units per acre = 93.4 units.)

The land is also in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Future Land Use (FLU) category.  See the 2012 Cobb County Future Land Use Report, p. 69-74, for a description of the LDR category:

So, for senior living housing, which certainly describes a CCRC, the LDR category allows 5 dwelling units per acre.  

Page 4 of the Isakson Living Zoning Application states that the Overall Density would be 18.37 units per acre.  They arrived at that figure by adding the 837 independent living units plus 150 health care units (987 total units), and dividing by the 53.7 acres of the property.

987 / 53.7 = 18.37

Note that the density of 18.37 units per acre listed on the Isakson Living East Cobb Z-43 zoning application is incorrect, because it fails to subtract the 7 acres of flood plain on the land.  The true density calculation for Isakson Living East Cobb proposal:

987 / (53.7 - 7) = 21.13

The Future Land Use Report states that for the LDR category, "Any area of floodplain or wetlands shall be subtracted from the aggregate area of the site submitted for zoning or development prior to the calculation of residential density."  7 acres of the land is flood plain.

So, when we subtract the 7 acres of flood plain, the true density is 21.13 dwelling units per acre.  This is over 4 times the density allowed for senior living housing in the LDR category.

The densest residential zoning in Cobb County is RM-16, which is residential multifamily that allows 16 units per acre (e.g., a large apartment complex or condominium building). This zoning is only allowed in a Regional Activity Center (RAC) Future Land Use.  There are only two RACs in Cobb County, Town Center Mall RAC for the area around that mall, and Cumberland Galleria RAC, for the area around Cumberland Mall (this RAC extends east of I-75 to include the area along Powers Ferry and Windy Hill Rds, south of Terrill Mill Rd).

The Regional Activity Center is the only Future Land Use in which a development the size and density of Isakson Living East Cobb proposal belongs.  The RAC is the only area that can absorb the density, height, and overall impact that Isakson Living East Cobb would bring.

If we consider "Suburban East Cobb" to be that area of unincorporated Cobb County east of I-75, and not including the two Regional Activity Centers around Town Center and Cumberland Malls, then Isakson Living East Cobb would be, by far, the densest residential development ever built in this area.  (The proposed building would also be the tallest, longest, and widest residential building in Suburban East Cobb.)  This in no way fits with the suburban feel of this area.  

See an earlier blog post on the population density of the proposed Isakson Living. 

Isakson Living will be gigantic, to say the very least.

From Roswell Rd, you will see a building 1292 feet long (nearly a quarter mile) by 70 ft tall, including the parking garage level, which faces Roswell.  From the south side, you will see a building 1460 (over a quarter mile) feet long and 70 feet tall.  From the east, it is 773 feet long (over an eighth mile).  

Also, we were told by Kevin Isakson that the front of the building facing Roswell would be 230 feet from the road and 60 ft in front of Mrs. Tritt's present house.  There are very few trees 60 ft in front of the house, and any planted trees will take decades to grow anywhere near 70 ft tall.  (Note that I measure 249 feet from Roswell Rd to the front building, which could mean I am very slightly off, about 8%, or that Mr. Isakson's measurement was actually from the right of way or the sidewalk.  Note that on the east side of the propery, the building is much closer to the road, about 202 ft.)

(Note that an earlier measurement I made had the south building at 1360 ft.  A more careful calculation has it at around 1460 ft.  In any case, it is only about 7% difference between 1360 and 1460, and they are both huge.  When I asked Kevin Isakson about the length of the building at the Aug 13th meeting at Fuller's Park, he said he did not know the figures off hand, but seemed to agree my figures were in the ball park.)

The image above comes from the Isakson Living zoning application.  The red lines and text are mine.  I researched on the Cobb County deed site, and found that the Tritt land is in two parcels, one with a south line length of 1040 ft, and the adjoining parcel with a south line length of 1420 feet, for a a total south line of 2460 feet.  Using that knowledge, I measured various points and used ratios to determine the lengths.

This will utterly dwarf the Wellstar development across Roswell Rd.  This will be the tallest, longest and widest residential building for miles in any direction.  

We were told by Kevin Isakson at the Aug 13th meeting that the buildings will be 70 feet tall on the parking garage side, and that the parking garage side will face Roswell.  In the surrounding subdivisions, the maximum height a house can be is 35 feet.  They continue to call the development "4 stories over parking".  The parking garage will extend under most of the buildings, and most of the courtyard areas, with a total of 1250 parking spaces.  These are just the parking spaces for residents.  There is an employee parking lot in the southeast corner of the plan.

I will be doing some more posts on the size of this development in comparison to some other well known buildings.

Update 08/15/2013 - I am temporarily taking down this blog post.  I was informed that there could be another interpretation of the CCRC code, and I want to take that into consideration.  I will be revisiting this topic, because I believe there is still a great deal of truth in my original post.

The population per acre of the proposed Isakson Living development will be nearly 3 times that of the surrounding subdivisions.  Does this really belong in an area of East Cobb zoned Low and Medium Density?