Orland Park residents press board to drop Elm Street extension over safety, traffic concerns

Dozens of residents told the Village of Orland Park that a proposed extension of Elm Street would worsen existing safety problems and that the village should remove the extension from the current road contract.

At a committee meeting, resident Heather said, “The problem was that the traffic study wasn't completed on Elm Street. It was only completed on 90 First Avenue,” and asked the village to delay or reconsider the extension until a current traffic study for Elm Street is produced or made available through FOIA.

The residents’ comments formed the nut graf: neighbors described existing cut‑through traffic and speeding on Elm Street, limited or missing sidewalks in the older part of town, and concerns about a proposed 90‑degree turn where the extension would meet a walking and bike path near power lines and railroad tracks.

Staff member Joel described the history behind the design: village engineering and development services began reviewing access and traffic when a developer expressed interest in parcels adjacent to the proposed extension. Joel told the board the extension was intended to improve connectivity and support emergency access, saying staff examined “fire, police, ambulance support services, garbage services” and that public works had proposed modifying the design last year to include the extension to “help support that development area as well as the flow and connectivity in the area.”

Trustees discussed tradeoffs between emergency access and neighborhood traffic. Trustee Healy said she has “never been for this extension and I'm still against it,” citing neighborhood traffic concerns. Trustee Katsenas moved to “direct staff to descope and remove the Elm Street extension from the contract.” Staff clarified that if the board directs removal, a formal contract amendment would be brought to the next meeting.

Staff also told residents the village expects future development of nearby parcels could require extending 90 Second Avenue southward by state law to provide roadway access to those parcels; staff said that extension would be the developer’s financial responsibility. That future connection, staff said, could eventually loop back to Elm Street, but the timing was “unknown.”

The record in the provided transcript shows the motion to descope the Elm Street extension was made; the transcript excerpt does not include a roll call or a final vote on that motion. The board and staff agreed that if the item is removed from the current contract, staff will return with a formal contract amendment at a subsequent meeting.

The board also recorded residents’ requests for a contemporary traffic study for Elm Street; several residents said they were awaiting FOIA responses to confirm which counts or analyses exist.