HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #039 Chris Riegel
Shestak, Joe
From:Chris Riegel <ciriegel@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 12, 2020 7:07 PM
To:Shestak, Joe
Subject:Ambleside Point Development - just say no
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links from
unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
I am writing to object to the current plans for the Ambleside Point Development just north of Saddle Creek. I wish to raise
a number of issues.
Most of these are related to the primary issue that the planned development is just too dense for the area. Nowhere in
West Carmel that I am aware of are the lots this limited in size. Comparing them to the adjoining lots of our neighborhood
on the plan they are in many cases incredibly small. While this might be appropriate for central Carmel it isn't appropriate
for this area.
As far as I know West Carmel already is overwhelmed with school age children - witness the recent move to build a new
elementary school on Clay Center Drive. Has any consideration been given to where the many children who would no
doubt be moving to these homes would go to school. I would guess that none of the plans for the Carmel Clay schools
are based on this dense a development in West Carmel.
I am also concerned by the relative lack of green space and common amenities. The distribution of parkland in the
Carmel city park system strongly suggests that while the center and eastern older parts of Carmel are adequately
provided with parkland and playgrounds, only West Park is on this side of US 31 and it is apparent to me that Carmel
deliberately made a decision that all of the neighborhoods here would be expected to put in their own amenities such as
pools and playgrounds. Given that there are none of these in the proposed plan shown in Current in Carmel this seems
wildly inadequate. In addition there is only one open green space shown, which with that many houses would appear to
be less than adequate.
Another concern I have is with drainage. Saddle Creek was hit with a major dredging bill a couple of years ago when one
of our ponds was filled up with dirt from that area. In addition, our ponds regularly fill and overflow along 141st street
during heavy rains and I end up with standing water in my backyard as well. This plan shows one added retention pond
plus apparently adding to one of ours. First of all this is almost certainly inadequate if you look at the number of retention
ponds in every other neighborhood around here, especially when you consider none of those neighborhoods have
removed anywhere near the percentage of the open land that could absorb water as this development has
taken. Second, it appears they plan to latch on to one of our retention ponds. My understanding is that the ponds are the
responsibility of the respective HOAs and I've seen nothing about how that shared responsibility would work out. I
suspect the developers intend to dump that on us. They need to have their own ponds under their control and at their
cost.
I also have questions about the road connections. While Megan drive is clearly designed to connect into future
development of that land, the proposed connection at Beaumont would appear to be taking land from Saddle Creek for
the use of others. As a part owner, by virtue of being in the HOA, of this land, I'm waiting to hear what sort of
compensatory payments for this land are being offered, I would suspect there would be none. I am also concerned about
the potential amount of traffic from that many homes trying to get south. The Beaumont drive entrance to Saddle Creek
would quickly become a highway. While most of the neighborhoods in West Carmel connect to one another, the
passages are generally made on slow windy suburban roads and most people only use them in an emergency so the
traffic is not a major issue. This route would clearly be the superior route for many people in the proposed development to
go south (and the majority of people in that development would presumably work to the south since that is where the jobs
are). Converting our entrance into a passage way for a development that would have more houses in that region than
Saddle Creek does seems completely unreasonable.
1
In conclusion, I believe that this plan should not be allowed, rather the area should be developed with less densely packed
housing and more open space, plus adequate drainage, and actual amenities.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christopher Riegel
14246 Autumn Woods Drive
Carmel IN 46074
2