CCRC Location and What a Real Compromise Would Look Like

click for larger image

Note that Isakson Living Park Springs in Stone Mountain is located next to a golf course, wooded acreage and convenient shopping. Few traffic problem exist due to the location.  (Same Google Map scale as below.)

click for larger image

Note the East Cobb location would be 2x as dense as Park Springs (above) yet this property is surrounded by thousands of homes, many schools, and a new 220,000 square foot WellStar Health Park, which bypassed proper zoning channels.  The large-scale Isakson Living CCRC of 835 units would severely impact traffic with an additional 3,000+ cars a day!  (Same Google Map scale as above.)

click for larger image

Here is a larger Google map of this area, and you can see the Tritt property and how traffic in these small neighborhoods would be affected by such a large-scale project.  The Tritt property is partially in the flood plain, has 3 creeks running along the hills, is the ideal location for a park for the community.

The Tritt property is one of the last big parcels of green spaces left in East Cobb.  This property was listed at the top of the Parks Bond 2006 and Parks Bond 2008. The East Cobb Community hopes to have the chance to purchase it as the new Tritt Park.

The friends and family of Isakson Living East Cobb have created a website and Facebook page.  This new online presence presents their perspective, and while we respect their opinions, we know we have strong counterarguments to all their points, which you can read here.  They certainly have a right to their opinions, as do we.

This is not a popularity contest, however, it is a rezoning proposal, and the people that matter most in any rezoning case are the adjacent neighbors and those in the nearby neighborhoods. By large majorities, we all opposed the first Isakson Living proposal and remain opposed to what we know of the second proposal.  It is too big and has far too many units for this part of East Cobb, and the apartment complex architecture does not fit in with the area.  We look forward to seeing more details of the second proposal, but still no specifics have been given since Isakson Living refiled in November.

Also, we should point out that most CCRCs in the United States have less than 300 units. We question why the developer wants nearly 3 times that amount in East Cobb, and also why they would plan twice the number of units as in their Park Springs, Stone Mountain location, even though the acreage is similar. Park Springs has 474 units on 54 acres, while Isakson Living East Cobb has planned for 845 units on 53.7 areas, and up to a full third of the property cannot be built on because it is either in the flood plain, stream buffers or too steep.  So IL East Cobb would be more than twice as dense as IL Park Springs.

Furthermore, there are many ways to build a CCRC, such as cottage style or apartment style. Park Springs has both cottages and apartments, but East Cobb would only have apartments.  We do not want an apartment-style CCRC in East Cobb, not only because it doesn’t fit in with the character of this area, but also because of the risks involved if the CCRC fails.  This is not an abstraction; due to the tough economy in 2008, the planned Isakson Living Peachtree Hills was not built and an empty lot still remains on those 23 acres in Buckhead.

In a true compromise, nobody gets everything they want, but everybody gets something they want. Hopefully, Isakson Living is willing to join with the people in this part of East Cobb in a meaningful compromise that benefits all involved.  Any compromise will involve far fewer units, and an architectural style that fits East Cobb.

It's a few months before the zoning hearings, and please help us stay the course by contacting the Commissioners at some point and let them know in your own words how important this area is to us and why we need to protect this area from overdevelopment.