Huntley plan commission continues hearing on proposed 312-unit Huntley Crossings apartments over density, parking concerns

The Village of Huntley Plan Commission on April 8 continued the public hearing on Petition No. 24-04.02, a proposal by Woodstock Hotel, Inc. / Huntley Development LLC to build a 312-unit apartment complex on a 31-acre portion of the Huntley Crossings Resubdivision, after commissioners said the project’s density and parking layout need further revision.

Senior Planner Nick Arquette told the commission the parcel includes roughly 19 acres planned for residential use and would be rezoned in part from B-3 (PUD) to R-5 Multiple Family Residence. The preliminary plan calls for 12 residential buildings—eight two-story and four three-story—containing studio through three-bedroom units ranging from about 560 to 1,680 square feet. Staff said the net residential density would be about 16.17 units per acre, which exceeds the R-5 maximum in this case (14.40 units per acre, or 278 units). Anticipated monthly rents cited by staff ranged from $1,679 for a studio to $2,807 for a three-bedroom.

The petitioner’s team, represented by attorney Peter Bazos and developer Henry Patel, described the project as higher-end apartments with amenities that include a residents-only dog park, pickleball courts, community garden, resort-style pool and attached/detached garages with EV-ready capability. Bazos said the developer anticipates more than $72 million in total residential project cost and increased tax revenue for the village.

Consultants presented technical details and mitigation measures. Carl Peterson of Gary R. Weber Associates said the existing open space on the proposed plan is about 48 percent (rising to roughly 57 percent if the existing detention area is included). Manhard Consultants’ Cade Fontana summarized an HR Green traffic study that concluded the intersections surrounding the site are predicted to have capacity for the proposed residential use and that residential traffic would generate fewer trips than the commercially-entitled Home Depot plan previously approved for the site.

Nearby residents who spoke during public comment said they generally preferred the apartment concept to prior commercial proposals but raised specific concerns about privacy, the potential noise from an on-site dog park, loss of tree buffers along Powers Road, effects on wells and lighting. Barbara Drufke of Powers Road asked whether plantings would be installed along Powers Road and whether an existing ditch would be maintained; staff and consultants said plantings would be provided and that the development would connect to municipal water, which is drawn from deep wells and is unlikely to impact adjacent private wells. Margaret Knott asked whether a composite fence could be installed along the east property line; staff included a 6-foot composite fence adjacent to Lighthouse Academy as a recommended condition of approval.

Commissioners focused much of their discussion on density, parking and circulation. Commissioner Jeff Peterson said he supported the project concept but repeatedly said the number of buildings and the site’s density were too great as proposed and flagged circulation and traffic within the site as problematic. Commissioner Ron Hahn questioned parking stall width (staff confirmed 10-foot stalls), elevator access (three-story buildings will include elevators; two-story buildings will not) and EV-charging readiness (each garage will have an EV-ready option and the plan includes two exterior chargers per building). Commissioners also asked about roof drainage, fire protection, soundproofing and management of inoperable vehicles.

Senior Planner Arquette reviewed staff-recommended conditions that would apply if the commission forwards a positive recommendation, including full compliance with Village codes, adherence to Huntley Fire Protection District requirements, provision of permanent landscape irrigation, trash-enclosure access modifications, final engineering revisions, and compliance with Illinois drainage law and stormwater best practices.

After discussion the commission agreed it was not ready to vote. By motion, the Plan Commission continued Petition No. 24-04.02 to a special meeting on Monday, April 29, 2024 at 6:30 p.m.; the continuation motion carried 6-0-0. The commission also approved the March 11, 2024 meeting minutes earlier in the session (6-0-0). The commission adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Next procedural steps: the petitioner will return with revised materials addressing the commission’s density, parking and circulation concerns; the Plan Commission will reconsider the matter at its special meeting on April 29.