A total of 149 Concerned Citizens with bright T-shirts packed the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 6 to voice their concerns.  Thousands of emails and petition signatures to deny the Isakson Living proposal were acknowledged by the Planning Commission, and the 2,500 strong petition was formally presented.  

After 20 minutes of discussion from each side, in addition to a presentation by the traffic engineer who performed the traffic study, and several follow up questions to the applicant's lawyer, the Planning Commission voted to table the application for 90 days. The reasons for the decision to table was to address several further changes to the plan, including directives to:

- reduce the total number units to 500 or less, similar to Park Springs.

- cap the height at 2 stories, as stated in the CCRC code, or up to 3 stories.

- refine the traffic study to compare it to a development of 100 homes in an R-20 subdivision.  (200 homes was clarified as impossible for this property.)

- clarify the use and design of the cottages, especially from the Roswell Road view, where landscaping was cited as preferable.

- improve the size and scope of the landscaping buffer around the entire development.

The Planning Commission also specifically requested that the proposal be made available to the Planning Commission and the public at least two weeks prior to the next meeting, by the 15th of the preceding month.  The next meeting is now scheduled for Thursday, September 4, 2014, which is not on a Tuesday due to the Labor Day holiday. The May 20, 2014 meeting was cancelled.

Below is the PowerPoint slide presentation for the Planning Commission meeting:

Below is the text of the PowerPoint presentation.

Click here to view the WSBTV coverage of the meeting, and click here to read the Marietta Daily Journal article about it.

We will post more information as soon as it becomes available.

Traffic projections are supposed to conservative, meaning that if there are multiple legitimate techniques for calculating traffic, we take the one which shows the highest numbers.  We would not, for example, project traffic for an office complex proposal that assumes it is at partial occupancy.  We want to know the maximum amount of traffic possible.  Isakson Living's latest traffic projections were highly conservative in calculating the traffic for potential subdivisions, yet not conservative in  calculating the traffic for their Isakson Living East Cobb proposal.

To estimate traffic, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition was used.  This manual has a number of land use categories - single family homes, senior adult housing, etc. - with traffic multipliers and/or formulas for each.

However, to calculate the traffic for their proposed Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), Isakson Living chose land use categories which allow for unoccupied units, rather than the conservative approach of assuming the development will be fully occupied, and using the appropriate categories for fully occupied units.  This is like an office building developer conducting a traffic study which assumes that the offices will never be fully occupied.  And, that is just the beginning and the least of the problems with Isakson Living's traffic study.

The ITE manual has land use categories for CCRC, which is what Isakson Living's proposal is, yet they did not use the CCRC category.  We question why the CCRC category was not used.  ITE explicitly created this category for CCRCs, and conducted multiple traffic studies to come up with traffic multipliers.  If Isakson Living had used the CCRC category, it would have shown significantly more traffic, especially during the peak AM and PM rush hours.

Rather, Isakson Living broke down their proposal into its 3 constituent parts - Independent Living, Assisted Living and Nursing - and assigned an ITE category to each to estimate traffic.  87% of the units are Independent Living, and we question the choice of the ITE category for these units, something called a "Congregate Care Facility", which has very low traffic numbers, because vehicle ownership by the residents in that category is very low.  Isakson Living's initial traffic study quotes the ITE manual, which states "vehicle ownership levels were very low at congregate care facilities".  Would vehicle ownership be very low at Isakson Living East Cobb?  Lets look at the facts.

So, the Isakson Living traffic study is based on the premise that vehicle ownership is low among the residents, when in fact, it will likely be quite high.  This invalidates the traffic projections.

We disagree with the decision to not use the CCRC traffic category, and to split the CCRC into parts, but we especially disagree with the decision to use the "Congregate Care Facility" category, where the resident own few cars, to represent the independent living units.  A far more appropriate ITE category would be Senior Apartments, which is what these independent living units are.  The Senior Apartments category shows far more traffic for this proposal.

Isakson Living's 1999 proposal for a 456 unit CCRC in Athens, GA (which was defeated) was projected to generate 1,481 daily trips, according to the Athens media.  That is 3.25 daily trips per unit, as compared to just 2.04 daily trips for the Isakson Living East Cobb proposal.  Have seniors' driving habits changed that much in 15 years?  If anything, seniors are living longer, healthier lives, and driving for more of their lives.  The Athens traffic number appear to be much more realistic.

Isakson Living has continued to assert that a huge number of houses could be built on the Tritt property.  Isakson Living uses this huge number of houses, in conjunction with an unrealistic traffic study, to make their proposal for a high-density retirement community look favorable.  Lets look at the facts. 

The land is Low Density Residential (LDR) on Cobb County's Future Land Use map, and that is not going to change.  Changes to the Future Land Use map happen far less frequently than changes in zoning.  Low Density Residential means a density of no more than 2.5 units (houses) per acre.

The land is currently zoned R-20, meaning each lot has a minimum of 20,000 square feet.

The Tritt property is 53.7 acres, of which 7.5 acres is floodplain, leaving 46.2 acres not in the floodplain.  Floodplain and wetlands cannot be built on, and are not allowed in overall density calculations for a development. 

At the current zoning of R-20, a maximum of 80 houses could be built, since R-20 has a maximum average density of 1.75 houses per acre.  The R-15 zoning, which allows minimum lots sizes of 15,000 square feet, has a maximum average density of 2.1 houses per acre, meaning that a maximum of 97 houses could be built at R-15. 

If houses were built at 2.5 houses per acre, which is the maximum density for Low Density Residential, that would yield 115 houses.  However, that would require some of the property to be zoned RA-5, and the rest R-15.  RA-5 represents a range of densities, from 2.5 to 5.0 units per acre, and is limited by code to 20 acres maximum.  We would vigorously oppose any RA-5 zoning, even partial, on the Tritt property.  All proposals for development on the Tritt property will be judged on their own merits, but RA-5 is a non-starter.

So, 115 houses is the maximum number of houses that could be built, since the property is Low Density Residential, but we would oppose this many houses, because it means a zoning more dense than R-15, which would allow a maximum of 97 houses.  The topography of the property, including steep areas, and several acres of floodplain and stream buffers which cannot be cleared, may mean that actually fewer than 97 houses could be built.

Isakson Living asserts that 200 houses could be built on the property, which represents a density of 4.33 houses per acre (200 divided by 46.2 acres).  This is a significantly higher density than any of the adjacent subdivisions, and would not be allowed on Low Density Residential land, which again has a maximum density of 2.5 houses per acre.

The Tritt property does adjoin two subdivisions for part of its east side which are on Medium Density Residential (MDR) land.  These two subdivisions have densities of 3.59 and 3.86 houses per acre, which is allowable in Medium Density Residential (up to 5.0 houses per acre).  These two subdivisions are both zoned RA-4, a zoning which is no longer used for new developments, and which allowed up to 4 houses per acre.  Comparing the Tritt property to these MDR subdivisions is comparing apples to oranges, since the Tritt property is LDR. 

The two LDR subdivisions that adjoin the Tritt property, Robinson Walk and Hidden Hollow, have densities of 2.10 and 1.77 houses per acre respectively.  The Independence Square subdivision, which is not directly adjacent the Tritt property, but is just to the north, across Roswell Road and behind a row of low-rise office buildings, has a density of 1.55 houses per acre.

The Tritt property can be compared to the adjacent and nearby LDR subdivisions, since the Tritt property itself is LDR.  The latest Isakson Living East Cobb proposal has 748 units, which means a density of 16.19 units per acre.  This is over 7 times as dense as the densest adjacent LDR subdivision, and over 4 times as dense as the densest adjacent subdivision (which is on MDR land).

Isakson Living's assertion that 200 houses could be built on the Tritt property is incorrect, because that represents a density of 4.33, which is in the Medium Density Residential range, and would require changing the property from LDR to MDR, and the chances of that happening are very low.  Under the current LDR land use, the property could have 115 houses maximum, and that would be contested because it represents a density greater than the R-15 zoning allows, and greater than all the LDR neighbors.  97 is the maximum number of houses that could be built if the zoning were changed to R-15, and we believe that is the maximum realistic number of houses on the property. 

The sale of the 53.7-acre Tritt property next to East Cobb Park will impact this community greatly no matter what, whether it becomes a new Park, an 80-home subdivision, or a 748-unit Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC).  The Tritt property is one of the last undeveloped green space areas in East Cobb, and so its sale will have an effect on this area for years to come.

"Green Jewels"
A park is the green jewel of any community, and county planners have an obligation to protect these green spaces for the enjoyment of all citizens. As an example, 100-acre Jim Miller Park has enough space for concerts and other events and doesn't have large buildings bordering it.  The 80-acre Roswell Area Park is a great community park, and no tall buildings of any sort border the park.  Even the 189-acre Piedmont Park located in Midtown Atlanta also has no large buildings next to it; all high-rise buildings are across the street.  Even in the 843-acre Central Park in New York City, all the high-rise buildings are located across the street, not directly next to it.  Development in and around most every park is limited by zoning so that the Parks remain a relaxing place for all community members to enjoy. 

The East Cobb community sacrificed and worked so hard to create the now 20-acre East Cobb Park, which first opened in 2003, and the stated goal of the County at that time was to acquire more land to expand East Cobb Park.  East Cobb Park is a special place to walk, jog or push a stroller; a neighborhood place to walk the dog, to meet friends, relax, and play; a cozy place to have a picnic, celebrate birthdays, and other fun events.  So the loss of the Tritt property green space for such a high-rise CCRC development would be devastating, but so would losing the current relaxing atmosphere of East Cobb Park if towering buildings were allowed to be built next to it. Communities need reasonable development, and that includes parks and green space for everyone to enjoy.

100 Year Flood Plain
Of the 53.7 acres of the Tritt Property, 15.7 acres is protected flood plain and stream buffers, and no developer can build on that part of the property.  In addition, about 3 acres of the property is too hilly to build on, so that leaves only 35 acres which could be built upon by any developer.   In other words, for any potential developer, at least 15.7 acres and more than 1/3 of the property, 18.7 acres, could be protected by donating it to East Cobb Park or putting it in a conservation easement. Above is an image of the 15.7 acres that is protected from development by any developer.

Therefore, many concerned citizens have asked Isakson Living to find another location  for their proposed CCRC, on land that has already been developed, rather than destroying the last remaining green space in East Cobb.  In other words, building on an already developed parcel of land that is under-utilized or not used any more at all and re-purposing it helps the community a lot more than developing the Tritt property, this last bit of green space right next to East Cobb Park, our community's "green jewel".