Warrenville council directs ordinances for Cantera Point after heated public opposition

The Warrenville City Council voted to direct the city attorney to prepare ordinances to authorize the Cantera Point townhome development after a lengthy public comment period and council debate.

Dozens of residents turned out to oppose the proposal, citing density, traffic, parking, stormwater and compatibility with the Cantera master plan. "The proposed Cantera Point development with its high density layout and modern tonal design stands at stark contrast to the surrounding neighborhoods," said Robert Esch, a Warrenville resident, during public comment. Many speakers urged the council to retain the site's commercial zoning or reduce the proposal to about 56 units, a figure repeatedly raised by opponents.

The developer and city staff defended the proposal at the meeting. Amy Emery, Warrenville's community development director, said the application followed an extensive public review process and relied on professional studies: "They used a professional traffic firm that's done an analysis of other projects in our community and region," she said, adding staff and the plan commission reviewed findings before recommending approval. Caitlin Schuck, attorney for D.R. Horton, said the site has been marketed for commercial use for more than a decade with limited interest and that the revised plan reduced units from 102 to 91, added guest parking and increased landscaping and open space. She said the project is expected to generate about 644 daily trips and an estimated 18 students district‑wide.

Councilmembers debated whether the site should remain commercial, the accuracy and timing of traffic counts, and the degree of buffering between the proposed townhomes and adjacent single‑family houses. Alderman Agustinovich moved an amendment to send the proposal back to the plan commission with direction to conform to 6 units per acre (no more than 56 units); that amendment failed on a 3–5 roll call. The main motion to direct the city attorney to draft ordinances then passed on a separate roll call (ayes 5, nays 3). The city attorney was instructed to prepare ordinance language for final council consideration at a future meeting.

The council's action is procedural: directing the attorney to prepare ordinances does not itself rezone the property. If the ordinances return to the council for final approval, they will be considered under the formal ordinance adoption process. The council also discussed potential landscape buffering, stormwater management within Cantera's off‑site ponds, and opportunities to work with DuPage County on roadway improvements.

The public record for the meeting includes multiple petitions and resident testimony opposing the proposed plan, developer submissions about market viability, and staff analyses of traffic and school‑generation studies. The council indicated the ordinances are expected to appear on an upcoming agenda for final action.

Outcome and next steps: the council directed the city attorney to draft ordinances reflecting the plan‑commission‑recommended site plan; the ordinances will return to council for final approval (anticipated in October).