We have confirmation from the developer that Isakson Living East Cobb's proposal includes 1,124,034 (1.124 million) square feet of air conditioned buildings, so not counting the parking decks.  WellStar's East Cobb Health Park current Phase 1 building plan under construction is 162,000 square feet (see below for Phase 2).  So it would take 6.94 WellStar developments to equal 1 Isakson Living East Cobb development in terms of square footage alone. 

We should note that in the course of researching the comparison square footage, we discovered a WellStar Phase 2 development, to add another 45,000 square foot building located next to the main building. The image of the proposed new building is found on page 25 of this WellStar document. We did not add this new building into the comparison calculations.

What we can do:

1. Sign the Online Petition.  The petition will be presented to the Commissioners at the May 6 and May 20 Board of Commissioners meetings.

2. Email the Commissioners to Protect the East Cobb Community from Overdevelopment.
 
3. Attend any Town Hall meetings in order to ask questions and raise concerns about the proposed development.  See the Calendar of Events and our Facebook Page for more details. The zoning case will be heard Tuesday, May 6 at 9:00 AM and Tuesday, May 20 at 9:00 AM in the Cobb County Government 100 Cherokee Street /2nd Floor/ BOC Meeting Room in Marietta Please plan to attend these meetings if possible because united we can make a difference!

Note the size of Mrs. Tritt's house, carport and barn shown on the newest Isakson Living proposal in comparison to the rest of the buildings.    If you zoom in and look at the word "courtyard" near building "F" you will see a small square with the word barn next to it and if you look at building "E" closely under the words "3 story" you will see the outline of her house and carport.  This gives you a very good idea of just how mammoth these structures are in comparison to her existing home, and also how disproportionate this development is in comparison to the surrounding area!  In addition, 31 new 'cottages' have been added to this proposal, and they are located outside of the ring road encircling the larger buildings.

The Isakson Living East Cobb proposal is the first development proposal ever in East Cobb to be designated a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) by the State of Georgia. *














This is part 5 of 10 arguments against the proposed Isakson Living East Cobb rezoning proposal.

Read the earlier arguments here:

• Very similar Isakson CCRC proposal defeated in Athens, Georgia 
• Would Isakson Living East Cobb be safe for its residents? 
• Could Isakson Living East Cobb expand in the future?
• Could Isakson Living East Cobb Cost Taxpayers?

The proposed Isakson Living East Cobb retirement community is a Development of Regional Impact, or DRI.  This is a Georgia state program for developments which could have an impact beyond the jurisdiction of their local government, in this case, Cobb County.  In the lifetime of the DRI program, there has never been a DRI in East Cobb; Isakson Living would be the first! (See Notes below).

A DRI is a development which could have a large impact on the region, meaning the metro Atlanta area.  Most of the DRIs in Cobb County have been in or near the county's six incorporated cities, or close to an interstate highway, or in the Town Center Mall or Cumberland Mall areas.

There are many categories of DRI developments - waste handling facilities, petroleum facilities, industrial, mixed use, housing, etc.  ("Mixed use" is a term for large developments which mix commercial, office space and residential - usually high density apartments or condos - in one site.)  Each category has thresholds which trigger the state to conduct a DRI review when exceeded.  Isakson Living East Cobb is in the housing category, and the threshold for a DRI review is 400 units.  Isakson Living's first proposal was nearly 2.5 times that threshold, and the latest proposal is still nearly double that threshold.

Not even the WellStar East Cobb Health Park, currently under construction, triggered a DRI review.  A healthcare facility has DRI thresholds of 300 beds or 375 peak hour vehicle trips.  WellStar East Cobb will have few beds, because it is primarily for doctors' offices and outpatient procedures.  Also, WellStar's traffic projections showed only 298 peak hour trips.

It is certainly remarkable that the Isakson Living East Cobb proposal, called East Cobb Retirement Community in its DRI application, is the first in 30 years to ever trigger a DRI or equivalent review in East Cobb.  This is the state of Georgia telling us that this project will have a huge impact!

Cobb County only sees a few DRI proposals a year.  There have been 4 DRI reviews in Cobb since the one for Isakson Living last June - 2 large warehouse/distribution centers in south Cobb (south of I-20), a large mixed use development off Barrett Parkway, and the new Braves stadium.  Again, the state is letting us know that Isakson Living East Cobb will be big!

Isakson Living's DRI review was approved by the state, and all approved DRI reviews have the phrase "in the best interest of the region and therefore of the state".  The region in this case is metro Atlanta.  A DRI review say nothing about whether a proposal is good for a particular locality; in fact, the local government still has the autonomy to accept of deny a proposal, regardless of the DRI review's outcome. 

What the phrase "in the best interest of the region and therefore of the state" means, is that we live in a big metro area, and within that region we need waste  handling facilities, petroleum facilities, high-density mixed use developments, baseball stadiums, and high-density retirement communities.  However, we should not build these things willy-nilly anywhere.  Cobb County has a Comprehensive Plan, and a Future Land Use Map which designate where we can expect different types of developments to go.  We also have zoning.  The Tritt property is Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map, meaning no more than 2.5 units (houses) per acre.  The Tritt property is also zoned R-20, meaning 20,000 square foot lots.

A Development of Regional Impact does not belong in suburban East Cobb!

* NOTES:
When we say Isakson Living will be the first DRI in East Cobb, it certainly depends upon one's definition of East Cobb.  The Wildwood Office Park, off Powers Ferry and Windy Hill Roads, was a DRI.  The map above, part of a larger map from the state, shows DRIs through 2003.  Unfortunately, there seems to be no map with DRIs since 2003, but the full list of DRIs lists all the DRIs for Cobb County.  It takes some research to use the list to locate all the DRIs in Cobb, since the locations given for many DRIs are vague, but it appears the nearest one to East Cobb is #2190, in the industrial area off Canton Rd. 

So, to qualify our statement, the suburban area of unincorporated East Cobb, north of Terrill Mill Rd, and east of Canton Rd, appears to have never had a DRI review prior to Isakson Living East Cobb.  Please feel free to correct us if we are wrong.

Note that Johnson Ferry Baptist Church is listed as a DRI for Cobb County in 2006, but that is not the church we all know in East Cobb, but rather a satellite church they built in the Acworth area.

Isakson Living spent 3 years appealing their property taxes on their Park Springs retirement community in Stone Mountain, GA, and another year trying to get DeKalb County to pay their legal costs.

This is part 4 of 10 arguments against the proposed Isakson Living East Cobb rezoning proposal.

Read the earlier arguments here:

• Very similar Isakson CCRC proposal defeated in Athens, Georgia 
• Would Isakson Living East Cobb be safe for its residents? 
• Could Isakson Living East Cobb expand in the future?

One of the ways Isakson Living has promoted their proposal for a huge retirement community on the Tritt property (next to East Cobb Park)  is by stating they would pay more than $1 million in taxes. 

However, in 2005, the year after their Park Springs retirement community in Stone Mountain, GA opened, Isakson-Barnhart (the old name for Isakson Living) appealed their property taxes for Park Springs.  The case went from August 2005 to November 2009, and eventually went to DeKalb County Superior Court.  Isakson-Barnhart won their appeal in November 2008, which, according to court documents, lowered the assessed value of Park Springs in 2005 from nearly $41 million to $25 million, and lowered the taxes for 2005 from $539,030 to $387,325, a savings of over $150,000.   

Then, Isakson-Barnhart entered a motion to have DeKalb County pay their legal costs of $474,000; this went on for another full year before Isakson-Barnhart's motion was finally dismissed in November 2009. 

The broad outlines of the case can be found online at the DeKalb County Online Judicial System website (case #05CV9893).   Note that Isakson-Barnhart had three different names for the Park Springs LLC during this case: 1) Stone Mountain CCRC; 2) Parkside at Stone Mountain; and finally 3) Park Springs, LLC.

Surely, this case cost DeKalb County taxpayers, not only in lost revenue from lower property taxes on the Park Springs retirement community, but also the costs of defending this case.  And, had Isakson Living been successful in their motion to have DeKalb County pay their legal fees, it would have cost the DeKalb County taxpayer even more.  Could the same thing happen in Cobb County?

If Isakson Living appeals their property taxes in Cobb County, will they really pay that $1 million in property taxes?

Also, Isakson Living East Cobb will be built out over 10 years, since there is not enough demand now.  It will be 10 years or more before Isakson Living begins paying their full property taxes.  There are funny rules about property taxes for properties under construction - they generally don't pay full taxes until construction is complete - so the long build out and multiple phases of Isakson Living East Cobb mean it will be years, if ever, before Cobb County sees $1 million a year in property taxes from this proposed development.

While we would prefer the entire Tritt property as park land, if it were developed into a subdivision, it would be completely built and sold in two or three years maximum, and begin generating property tax immediately. 

If the Tritt property were to be rezoned R-15 (15,000 square foot lots), it could have a maximum of 97 houses, without any variances.  97 new houses, conservatively priced for East Cobb at $600,000 each, would generate over two-thirds of a million dollars.  (40% of $600,000, minus $10,000 homestead exemption, then divided by 1,000, then multiplied by 29.96 unincorporated Cobb millage rate).   In return for lost tax revenue of one-third of a million dollars, East Cobb residents would get a) far less traffic, and b) a development that does not look like a giant apartment complex.

We need everyone's help!  Please let the Cobb County Planning Commissioners and Board of Commissioners know that the Tritt property should be kept low density.  Please attend the May 6 and May 20 county meetings and stand up for your community. 
 

While Isakson Living's Park Springs retirement community in Stone Mountain was still under construction in 2004, the company went through zoning again to raise building heights to 4 stories.

This is part 3 of 10 arguments against the proposed Isakson Living East Cobb rezoning proposal.

Read the earlier arguments here:

• Very similar Isakson CCRC proposal defeated in Athens, Georgia 
• Would Isakson Living East Cobb be safe for its residents? 

Isakson Living and their partners at Erickson Living have not given any assurances that they will not expand the proposed Isakson Living East Cobb retirement community in the future.  This is important, since Isakson Living plans to build out the East Cobb facility for at least 10 years, or as market demand fluctuates, so possibly longer.  This gives plenty of opportunity for them go through zoning again to possibly raise building heights, increase building size (and thus decrease open space), or add more units.

Isakson Living did exactly this at their Park Springs retirement community in Stone Mountain, GA.  With construction underway in 2004, they went through DeKalb County zoning a second time to increase the height of some buildings to 4 stories (Read the zoning application here). 

Ten years is a long time, and Isakson Living's partner Erickson Living has the deep pockets to potentially push multiple modifications to the proposed East Cobb facility through Cobb County zoning.  Ten years gives time for the Board of Commissioners to change.  The developers may also believe that the long construction time will give area residents time to just "accept" high density in the middle of their low density neighborhood, so what's the harm in going through zoning again to ask for even larger and taller buildings, and even more density?

If Isakson Living is given an inch, they may try to take a mile.

Welcome to the second of our series of arguments against the proposed Isakson Living development on Roswell Road, next to East Cobb Park.  In case you missed it, here is the first argument: 

• Very similar Isakson CCRC proposal defeated in Athens, Georgia 
  

So far, all of Isakson Living's plans have shown buildings packed very closely together.  The latest plan shows several large buildings, but all are connected by fully enclosed, air-conditioned corridors, so it could be argued that they form one large contiguous building, built out over several years. 

There appear to be areas between buildings that are unreachable by emergency vehicles.  Seniors would be living in apartments facing these apparently inaccessible areas.  In some cases, it looks like the closest a fire truck could get is a hundred feet or more from the apartments.  We have been assured that all buildings will have fire sprinklers, but many other types of emergencies could happen, such as a tornado like the ones that crossed the Tritt property in March 2012 and June 2013.  With senior residents, it seems we should be taking even more precautions. 

Also, does the local fire station have the equipment to deal with an emergency at the proposed Isakson Living East Cobb?  If not, who will pay for this additional equipment, Isakson Living or the Cobb taxpayer? 

As we have said many times, the development does not need to be so dense. Significantly lowering the overall number of units means the buildings don't have to be packed so tightly together, and emergency vehicles can maneuver freely in the event of an emergency.  Don't our seniors deserve a safe community? 

We need everyone's help!  Please let the Cobb County Planning Commissioners and Board of Commissioners know that the Tritt property should be kept low density.  Please attend the May 6 and May 20 county meetings and stand up for your community.   

Welcome to the first of a series of 10 arguments against the proposed Isakson Living rezoning (case Z-2 2014) on the 53.7 acre Tritt property, next to East Cobb Park.  We should have a new argument every few days leading up to the May 6, 2014 Planning Commission Hearing for this case.

Before going into the first argument, we should note that today (April 5, 2014), the zoning signs went up in front of the Tritt property, to notify the public of the May 6 Planning Commission Hearing and the May 20 Board of Commissioners Meeting for this zoning case.  The signs went up on the very last day possible, even though the hearing dates have been known since January 3, 2014.  Certainly in keeping with the letter of the law, though maybe not the spirit.

*******************

We have heard that the Isakson Living proposal is a "done deal".  Of course, that was what we heard about the initial plan, and Isakson Living has revised that plan twice.  It is only a done deal if the East Cobb community allows it.

In 1999, Isakson-Barnhart Development (the old name for Isakson Living) proposed a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) in Athens, GA.  This was to be on 56 acres of low density residential land adjacent an elementary school and existing subdivisions.  The land was zoned for half-acre residential lots, just like the Tritt property.  Isakson-Barnhart proposed 456 units, including two 5-story buildings.  

• Residents wary of housing proposal, June 29, 1999      
  
• Residents condemn housing plan, June 30, 1999      
  
• Group ready for land battles, August 16, 1999 
  

In July 1999, the Clarke-Athens Planning Commission rejected the Isakson-Barnhart proposal.  The arguments against the proposal were much the same as ours against the current Isakson Living proposal - density, traffic, not fitting with the neighborhood, and deviation from the land use plan that designated the property low density residential; a deviation so great from the land use plan as to renders it meaningless - "a joke" as one Athens resident was quoted.  We concur. 

By the way, the newspaper articles on the Athens CCRC proposal by Isakson-Barnhart include traffic statistics that call into question the traffic study done by Isakson Living for the East Cobb CCRC proposal on the Tritt property.  We will have an article on traffic soon in which we will examine this. 

So, Isakson Living was defeated in Athens in 1999 for a proposal with fewer units on slightly more land!  We can also defeat this proposal, or at least get the developer to scale it back to an acceptable density.  It does not need to have so many units.  Isakson Living and their partners at Erickson Living can scale their proposal back to something reasonable, or they can go elsewhere. 

We need your help!  Please let the Cobb County Planning Commissioners and Board of Commissioners know that the Tritt property should be kept low density.  Please attend the May 6 and May 20 county meetings and stand up for your community.   

*******************


FYI, there is a zoning sign in front of another property a little further east along Roswell Road, before Robinson Rd, to rezone 1.5 acres from LRO (low-rise office) to O&I (Office & Institutional) for a climate-controlled self storage facility.  This is case Z-22 and will be heard the same day as Isakson Living.  

Info on Z-22 is here:
http://zoning.comdev.cobbcountyga.gov/2014-05/preliminary_zoning_analysis/05-2014_Preliminary_%20Zoning_%20Analysis.pdf (page 11).  

Note that Isakson Living's preliminary zoning was done months ago, and noted as "Continued."  We should expect final zoning analysis from the county for both cases in a couple weeks.

An interesting note from the Z-22 application: they justify rezoning the 1.5 acres away from low-rise office due to a lack of demand for office space along Roswell Rd, which counters Isakson Living 's assertion that the Tritt property could be developed as office buildings.

Is this coming to East Cobb?  The proposed pedestrian bridge over Church Street in Marietta to connect WellStar properties.  Could the same happen over Roswell Road to connect WellStar East Cobb Health Park with Isakson Living East Cobb?

Please make plans to attend the Planning Commission Zoning Hearing on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, at 9 AM, at 100 Cherokee St 2nd Floor BOC Room Marietta GA 30090, and the Board of Commissioners Zoning Hearing on Tuesday, May 20, 2014, at 9 AM, same location.  We need a lot of people there to support the East Cobb quality of life, and oppose urban, high-density development in low-density neighborhoods, like the proposed Isakson Living East Cobb (zoning case Z-2 2014).  This is far from a "done deal!"

On Jan 31, 2014, representatives of East Cobb Civic Association (ECCA) and Concerned Citizens East Cobb (CCEC) met with Isakson Living and Erickson Living to discuss their plans.  We were told there would be further revisions.  After 6 weeks of waiting for revised plans, the third Isakson Living plan is more of the same - huge buildings and very high density in terms of living units per acre.  To be sure, we asked that they lower the density by having some cottage-style living units, as opposed to earlier proposals, which were all apartment-style.  What they changed was less than 5% of the independent living units converted to cottages, lowering the density to 17.1 units per acre, while all the surrounding neighborhoods are less than 4 units per aces, and the vast majority are less than 2.5 units per acre.

We all wonder why the Isakson Living proposal is touted as needing to be this large?  The common refrain is that the only way to make it profitable to the owners and affordable to the residents is by making it incredibly dense.  However, consider Isakson Living's Park Springs community in Stone Mountain, Georgia, which consists of 473 units on 54 acres, or 8.8 units per acre.  Is Park Springs too low density to be affordable to its residents, or profitable to its owners?  Why does Isakson Living and their "partners" at Erickson Living want nearly twice the density of Park Springs in East Cobb?  Any reasonable person can clearly see that it doesn’t need to be built this densely.

Another Isakson Living argument is that there is a huge need for this kind of senior living community.  There are 10 senior living facilities in a 5-mile radius of the Tritt property, in addition to a Residential Senior Living community that was recently approved on Piedmont Road.   One property cannot satisfy the needs of all of Cobb County.  If Wal-Mart said their market research indicated the need for a 5-story store on the Tritt property, would they not be laughed out of the zoning office?  And, let's never lose sight of the fact that this proposal would be expensive for the residents, and thus serve the needs of a very small fraction of Cobb's seniors.

What about the impact of this Isakson Living development on schools?  Sure, Isakson Living would be age restricted to those over 62, but where are those people coming from?  If a significant number are coming from the local community, who will buy their homes when they move into this retirement community?  Young families with kids.  Those kids will certainly impact our schools.  You cannot add hundreds of living units of any sort to an area and not impact schools.  And, if there will not be that many local seniors moving into the proposed community, then why all the fuss from the friends and family of the developer?

What about the enormous amount of tax revenue that the Isakson Living proposal would supposedly generate when and if it is ever completed in 10 years or longer?  While we would prefer a park on the Tritt property, a subdivision would be built and sold in a couple years, and generate tax revenue immediately.  And if the traffic and congestion goes up, property values for nearby homeowners will decrease, and existing homeowner tax revenue will be lost.

Lastly, what about Isakson Livings offer of 9.5 acres to Cobb County to expand East Cobb Park, in exchange for damaging our neighborhood and quality of life?  Understand that Sewell Mill Creek has a 100 foot stream buffer that cannot be built in.  There is also the 7.5 acres of  floodplain, much of which overlaps the stream buffer.  Lastly, there is a section that is very steep, going down to the creek from Fullers Park.  The land is all either impossible or impractical to build on.  The land comes with a built-in "trail" in the form of the 20 foot wide sewer easement, which the county keeps cleared, and which has a tall concrete silo manhole cover every 100 feet or so.  While any park land is welcome, this is no loss to Isakson Living.  More than 25% of the Tritt property is stream buffer or floodplain, and could not be developed by anyone.  Again, we would all love to have more park land, but we won't sell out our community for a narrow strip of floodplain.

Please help us oppose this unreasonable proposal and protect East Cobb from this development.  Write or call the county commissioners, and please plan to attend the Planning Commission Zoning Hearing on May 6th!  Email the commissioners directly from here.

The East Cobb community has been diligent and proactive in creating senior care communities at reasonable prices for seniors to age in place near family and friends.  Here is a map of 10 senior care communities just within a 5-mile radius of the Tritt property.  The many senior facilities in East Cobb are  examples of how developers worked within the existing land use and provided senior communities that fit within the East Cobb citizens have come to know and love. The Isakson Living East Cobb CCRC as planned is too large with 835 units, and it does not take into account the average retirees’ income. 

It is true that number of elderly in our community is growing, yet a very small percentage of them could receive care from the proposed Isakson Living CCRC due to affordability issues. The entrance fee based on information provided by Isakson Living is from $200,000 to more than $500,000.  Note that the entrance fee is only 90%, 50% or 0% refundable, unlike the cost of buying and then selling a house, where people generally receive more money than what they paid for it.  Monthly fees, which include rent and a stipend for food, range from $3,000 to $5,000 for couples, and that amount can increase with inflation.  Medical care is not included. 

As an example, for an average married couple, the entrance fee would be $350,000 and it would cost $48,000 a year for monthly fees, but those costs don’t include health care, a la carte fees or other items in a typical budget. Usually 25% of a budget is spent on housing, so that would mean the average retired couple would need around $192,000 per year to retire comfortably in this CCRC; over 10 years it would cost on average about $2,227,000 including the entrance fee.  Most retirees in Cobb County do not have that amount of income, and nationally the average median household income for seniors is $35,107 per year.  In other words this CCRC would not be an affordable option for the overwhelming majority of seniors.

Here we compare the traffic numbers for a potential subdivision, the questionable Isakson Living traffic study numbers, and some more realistic estimates of the real traffic impact of an Isakson Living CCRC.  Traffic engineers figure the amount of traffic a development would generate by using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, and we include a chart explaining all the numbers used in calculating the traffic impact.  Isakson Living used the absolute lowest category possible from the ITE manual, and this chart explains why other ITE categories would provide a more precise traffic prediction for this development.

It must be pointed out that Isakson Living's traffic study didn't use the ITE manual's "Continuing Care Retirement Community" or "senior housing attached" traffic numbers.  Rather, they used traffic numbers for "congregate care facility", and "units" rather than "occupied units", which of course use lower multipliers.  Still, even using their "congregate care facility" traffic numbers, the Isakson Living development would create more than twice the traffic of a reasonably sized subdivision would. 

Because of the unusually low number of assisted living units and nursing care units (11% combined) and the high number of independent care units (89%) in the latest Isakson Living CCRC proposal, it seems apparent that the proposed CCRC should be calculated as a "senior housing attached" (also known as senior apartments) development, and those ITE traffic numbers should be used.  Note that in using the "senior housing attached" Isakson Living's traffic impact of their first proposal would generate 3,289 car trips a day.  Why is 3,289 important?  Isakson Living was required to get a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) clearance from the state of Georgia, because the development's impact "is likely to have regional effects beyond the local government jurisdiction in which they are located." In particular, a DRI review was required because the proposal had more than 400 units in an established neighborhood (in fact, both proposals have had more than twice that number of units).  However, Isakson Living got an expedited DRI review because their traffic study showed fewer than 3,000 daily trips (DRI reviews for proposal with more than 3,000 daily trips take longer and are more thorough). The state of Georgia could have had the opportunity to conduct a more thorough review of the Isakson Living plans, had Isakson Living used the "senior housing attached" ITE traffic numbers.

We also wonder why Isakson Living didn't have an independent analysis of a real CCRC community for a more realistic traffic estimate.  Other potential CCRC developers often commission a study of an existing CCRC's traffic to anticipate and plan for a new CCRC's actual traffic impact, and these studies often find traffic is even higher than the ITE traffic numbers.  One example of this is used in the comparison chart. 

Note that the traffic impact for the 'alternative use traffic study' that Isakson Living asserted on page 34 of their first zoning proposal are all highly improbable if not impossible, and  the ITE multipliers used in the traffic analysis are incorrect.  At any rate, any commercial endeavor for the Tritt property would be contested and the zoning rules would be on the side of the surrounding residential neighborhoods based on the Cobb County future land use plan.