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?