Loading...
Heliport-Construction of-Agreement VILLAGE OF OAK I F;0OK APPx ATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING Name of Owner Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation Telephone No. 887-3693 Address` ,, 2111 Enco Drive (McDonald's Plaza) City Oak Brook State Ill. Zip 60521 Beneficiary (ies) of Trust: ' �:a.-meN/A Telephone No. Address City State Zip 4 Name Telephone No. Address City State Zip If owner- is being represented by someone other than himself, please fill in the information below: Owners Representative: Name klichael J. Sise, Legal Counsel Telephone No. 887-3693 Address (sam) City State Zip General Location (or) Address of Property: Same as Above Legal ,Description of Property Lot 4 in Oak Brook Development Corpany's Commerce Plaza Subdivision Unit One, Being a Subdivision of Part of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 in Oak Brook Investment Corpany Assessment Plat No. 4 and part of Lot 1 and all of Lot 3 in Butler Company-M-1 Inc. Assessment Plat No. 1, all in the SE. h of Section 23, Township 39 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal '' ridian, in DuPage County, Illinois. State specific action requested and give reasons for same: (Refer to pertinent section of Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance G-60. ) - xf Special Use r X i Variation Fee: $13. Fee: $150.00 Fee: $150.00 Appeal_of Building Inspector's interpretation of the zoning ordinance. In the alternative, applicant requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a Special Use permit as provided in Section X(B) (2) (a) . (See the Addendum attached hereto for further information and explanation) Also, if Special Use Permit granted, Applicant requests variance of the provisions of X(B) (2) (a) , explained further in the Addendum. ALL APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROPER FEE, (15) COPIES OF A SCALE. DRAWIsG OF A RECENT SURVEY PREPARED BY A REGISTERED SURVEYOR AND SHOWING THE PROPERTY LINESe EXISTING BUILDINGS, LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND ANY BUILDINGS Oil ADJACENT PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 100 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. -`i" IS NECL SSARY THAT THIS INFORMATION BE RECEIVED BY THE FIRST OF THE MONTH FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF THE FOLLOWING MONTH. `�aI'L TO: Village Clerk FRAWTCHISE ITATT-Y TN'I'ERSTATE CORPORATIOTT Village of Oak Brook 1200 Cak Brook Road Oei'K B :ovKI, Illinois 60521 BY: (Signature o = Appy,!cant) �. Michael J. Sise,— Legal Counsel _ __ __ � �. a ,, �� � ` � . ' �,�+ �_� � _ a ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING I. APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S ORDER 1. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE: The existing use is an eight story office building. The principal tenant is McDonald's Corporation. The property encompasses 9.943 acres. A current certified survey showing the location of the existing office building is submitted herewith. The Applicant proposes to construct a helicopter land pad (heliport) on the roof of the north wing of the existing office building,. A plan of the proposed improvements with construction specifications and details is attached to this application and marked Exhibit A. The proposed heliport will be used only for the convenience of the employees and guests of McDonald's Corporation using the existing office building. The heliport will not be used for freight or commerical passenger service. 2. ACTION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEALED FROM: The Building Inspector of the Village of Oak Brook, Mr. Arthur Ehle, has ruled that the proposed use is not an accessory use to the existing use of the subject property and is, therefore, not a permitted use under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance; and that pursuant to Section X(B) (2) (a) of said ordinance, the Applicant must obtain a Special Use Permit frau the Village Board. 3. RELIEF SOUGHT: The applicant requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals rule that the Building Inspector's determination that the proposed use is not a permitted use was in error. Further, the Applicant requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals rule that the Applicant does not have to apply for a Special Use Permit. 4. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF SOUGHT: The subject property is located in the ORAL District. Offices are permitted uses in such districts. Section X(B) (1) (d) provides that accessory uses and structures are also permitted uses in the ORAL District. The accessory uses and structures described in this section include certain named activities and structures but do not limit accessory uses and structures to the named activities and structures. In fact, this section also allows similar facilities that are used. solely for operating, servicing or maintaining the activities and improvements with the district." The proposed heliport falls within this description since it will be used to service the activities conducted in the office building. That is, it will operate as a service .for employees working in the existing office by providing convenient and swift transportation service to local airports and other destinations in the general area of the office. In addition to the above, Section XIV(b) (2) contains a further definition of the term Accessory. The Applicants proposed use and structure meets exactly the terms of this definition: (a) It will be subordinate to and serve the existing use of the property. The main use of the property will continue to be the office use, but the heliport will provide a valuable service to the employees of P"cDonald's Corporation. -2- (b) It will be subordinate in area and extent of the existing office building. The heliport pad will only be 32' x 32' , less than 1/5 of the area of the North wing of the existing building. It will not be visible from the _ground and will not detract from the appearance of the existing building. (c) It will contribute to the comfort and convenience of the occupants of the existing office building by providing an efficient and swift method of transportation to surrounding areas. (d) It will be located on the same lot (on the roof) of the existing office building. Section X(B) (2.) (a) of the ordinance does provide that a. Heliport is a Special Use in the ORAL District. However, this section should only be applicable where a Heliport is the main or sole use of the subject property. There are many possible accessory uses which would not be permitted uses if they were the main or sole use of property in the ORAL District. Garages, utility structures and certain types of dwellings would not be permitted in the ORAL District, but when they are accessory uses or structures, they are permitted. Therefore, a heliport can be a permitted accessory use, even though it would be a special use if it were the sole or main use of property in the ORAL District. 5. ALTERNATIVE RELIEF SOUGHT: Applicant denies that its proposed use is a Special Use under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance; but, should the Board. hold that the Building Inspector's determination was not in error, the Applicant requests that the Plan Ccrnission and Zoning Poard of Appeals recommend to the Oak Brook Village Board that the AT be granted a Special Use Permit for its proposed use. Applicant asks that this request for alternative relief be heard and considered simultaneously with the appeal of the Building Inspector's ruling to prevent a delay of construction of the proposed improvements. 6. GROUNDS FOR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF: Section XIII(J) (5) (a)-(c) of the Oak Brook Zoning ordinance sets forth the standards that a Special Use must meet before it rnav be authorized by the Village Board. The Applicants proposed use meets all of the said standards. The proposed heliport will serve as a great convenience to employees of McDonald's Corporation using the existing office building. As mentioned in part 4, above, it will provide convenient, swift and efficient transportation to and. from local airports and could serve as an invaluable tool for real estate site selection in Northeastern Illinois. The heliport will be designed, located and operatedat the highest standards to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 71.11 applicable standards of the State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics will be ccmplied with in the construction an( operation of the heliport. All of the Federal Aviation Administration's standards will be ccmplied with in the operation of helicopters using the heliport. Only duly licensed personnel will be permitted to operate helicopters using the heliport. The construction of the heliport will be under the supervision of Tiritilli & Assoc. , Inc. , structural engineers, and all applicable provisions of the Oak Brook Building Code will be cc-plied with. -3- The proposed heliport will not create any objectionable elements which would cause any injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood. The landing pad will not be visible from the ground and. only barely visible from adjoining buildings. The lighting will be used- only sedonly briefly at night and will not glare onto adjoining property. No air pollution will be created, and noise levels will be well within generally acceptable levels. 7. A:DD:ITIONPL RELIEF SOUGHT - I.TRIATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION X(B) (2) (a) : If the alternative relief sought in paragraph five of this application is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Applicant also asks that the provisions of Section X(B) (2) (a) be varied to relieve the Applicant of the requirements that the touchdown space be enclosed by a fence and be not less than 100 feet in diameter. Applicant asks that the fence requirement be waived and that the touchdown area be permitted to be 32 feet in diameter, as shown on the plan submitted herewith as :exhibit F.. Applicant further requests that this application for a variance be heard and considered by the Zoning Board of appeals and the Village Board simultaneously with Applicant's appeal and request for a special use permit. 8. GROUNDS FOR PFLIEF SOUGHT: Section X(B) (2) (a) described heliports located on lots and is not directed at heliports located on the roof of buildings. Applicant's request is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance. The intent and purpose of requiring a fence and a touchdown area 100 feet in diameter is to protect persons in or near a touchdown area located on a vacant lot. Since the proposed heliport will be located on an existing building eight stories above the ground., access to the touchdown area will be controlled and limited to the extent that a fence and touchdown area 100 feet in diameter will not be necessary for safety purposes. In fact, a fence, depending on height and location, could be an obstruction if used in conjunction with the proposed heliport. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality since the heliport will be used as an accessory to the existing office building and will not be visible from the ground. The plight of the owner is due to the unique shape of the roof top landing area which was designed before a heliport was contemplated. Applicant is prepared to present testimony in support of this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the plan Coan_ission and Village Board. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant requests that Oak Brook Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Board consider this application, hold public hearings as required and grant the relief sought. APPLICANT: FRANCHISE RF,ALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION BY: Michael J. Sciissq,,�/ Legal Counsel STATE OF ILLINOIS ) SS: COUNTY OF COOK ) The foregoing statements are true and correct. Michael J. Sise Subscribed zmd sworn to before n e this 28th day of August, 1975. A� ro llc 4 Zssion expires 8/10/77 ' l VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING P,ECEIPT Name Of Applicant ((�� C-t 1 Received by: 57- / (Village Clerk) (date ,. ) ( ount) APPLICANT SHOULD BE PPPqr7,TM AT MEETINGS CHECKED: Board of T .M.rustees Meeting 7:30 P - Tuesday Publication Date DOINGS NEWSPAPER �U�--�, Thursday t/ Plan Commission Meeting 7:30 P.M. Monday Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 7:30 P.M. Tuesday &-A, L� Board of Trustees Meeting 7: 30 P.M. Tuesday �'c-fi, l�. 1�-I s Board of Trustees Meeting 7:30 P.M. (approval. of ordinance) Tuesday :� i AtUND.r.r,ENT TO APPLICATION FOR PUBISC HFARING The Applicant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, hereby amends its Application for an Appeal, Special Use Permit and Variation concerning cErtain real property commonly known as 2111 F= Drive (McDonald's Plaza) , as follows: 1) Amending Article 2: the Building Inspector has determined that the Applicant's building is located in the ORA 2 District and that a heliport would not be either a permitted use or special use under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance. 2) Amending Article 4: the subject property is located in the ORA 2 and ORA 1 zoning districts. The heliport will be constructed on the roof of the existing office building which is located in the ORA 2 District. All references to Section X(B) (1) (d) are hereby changed to refer to Section X(C) (1) (c) . Nothing stated herein should be construed as a withdrawal of the Applicant's appeal of the Building Inspector's interpretation that a heliport is not an accessory use in the ORA 2 or ORA 1 Districts. 3) The Applicant withdraws its request for alternative relief and additional relief, as stated in Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Application. 4) The Applicant makes the following request for alternative relief: A. The Applicant denies that its proposed use is not a permitted use under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance; but, should the Board hold that the Building Inspector's determination was not in error, the Applicant requests that the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals recommend to the Oak Brook Village Board, and the Village Board so act, that the text of Section X(C) (2) of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance be amended by the addition of a provision, similar to Section X(B) (2) (a) , allowing heliports (not for freight) to be special uses in the ORA 2 District. Applicant further requests that this provision not require that the touchdown area be enclosed by a fence or have a diameter of not less than thirty (30) feet when the heliport is located on the roof of a building. B. The proposed amendment as requested above makes due allowance for existing conditions, the conservation of property values, the direction of building development to the best advantage of the entire municipality and the uses to which the property is devoted at the present time. Further, the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare will not be effected. The subject property is located immediately adjacent to an ORA 1 District where heliports are allowed as special uses. 'Where is no reasonable basis for distinguishing between the districts with respect to use of property within the districts as a heliport, especially heliports located on the roofs of buildings. Thus, the elimination of the heliport use is arbitrary and capricious. Both Districts are intended to allow office, research and assembly uses, and a restriction against heliports in one district is not consistent or reasonable. The only major difference between the two districts is that buildings are restricted to 35 feet in height in the ORA 1 District, whereas buildings may be eight stories in height in the ORA 2 District. Heliports located on eight story buildings would, in fact, have fewer obstructions in their approach patterns and would, thus, be safer. -2- Since heliports can be developed in the adjoining ORA 1 District, there would be no effect upon the property values or character of the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. 5) If the alternative relief is granted., Applicant requests that the Plan Commission and Zoning Board ofAppeals recan¢r!end to the Oak Brook Village Board that the Applicant be granted a Special Use Permit for the proposed heliport use. Applicant requests that this request be heard and considered simultaneously with the Appeal and request for an Amendment to prevent a delay of construction of the proposed improvements. 6) As grounds for the request for a special use permit, Applicant realleges the statements contained in Article 6 of the Application. The Applicant is prepared to present testimony in support of this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Plan Commission and Village Board. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant requests that the Oak Brook Plan Ccmnission, Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Board consider this application, hold public hearings as required and grant the relief sought. A-PPLIM7T: FRANCHISE PEP.LTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION h. BY: Michael J. Sis I.egal Couns STATE OF ILLINOIS ) SS: COUNTY OF COOK ) The foregoing statements are true and correct. 4 B chael J. Sise Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of September, 1975. N ry - lic My C ssion expires 8/10/77 r Page 5 Minutes ofSeptember 9, 197 V OLD BUSINESS (Continued) H. Drake Oak Brook Hotel - Extension of Ord. 5-199 (See V, G) I . L . H. Metcoff (Greencase) Special Use The Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals had recommended denial of the request for a greenhouse in a residential area. Trustee Brown moved - seconded by Trustee Cerne . . . To deny the request for a Special Use. Roll Call Vote : Ayes : Trustees Baschen, Brown, Cerne, Congreve, Glaves , Philip and President Howell. Nayes : None So ordered. J. First Federal Savinas of Chicago - Variation ._- sign Zoning; Board of Appeals reviewed and recommended to approve the 2,10 sq. ft. sign at 2011 Spring Road. Trustee Brown moved - seconded by Trustee Philip. . . To approve 240 sq. ft. sign for First Federal Savings of. Chicago. Roll Call. Vote : Ayes : Trustee Brown Nayes : Trustees Baschen, Cerne, Congreve, Glaves, Philip and President Howell MOTION NOT CARRIED, VI NEW BUSINESS A. Authority to Bid - Hopper Box Salt Spreader Trustee Congreve moved - seconded by Trustee Philip. . . To advertise the bidding of a Hopper Box Salt Spreader for Unit 503, with bids to be opened at 10 : 00 a.m. on September 26, 1975 . Voice vote - all in favor. So ordered. B. Butler Co. /Christ Church- Special Use ZoningVariations President Howell referred this to the Plan Commission meeting of September 15, 1975 and to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of October 7, 1975 . FCC- Franchise Realty (McDonald' s Corp. ) - Appeal/Variation President Howell referred this to the Plan Commission meeting of September 15 , 1975 and to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of October 7, 1975 . D. (Not on the agenda) - Westmont Public Hearing - Healy Property $ Jack Douglass Chevrolet . Discussion was held relative to proposals for development of the Healy property at 35th and Cass Avenue , and for Jack Douglass Chevrolet at Rt. 83 between 35th Street and Ogden Avenue. Trustee Cerne moved - seconded by- Trustee Baschen. . . That the Village Manager be directed to write a letter to the Village of Westmont requesting they defer any action on nronnsai ,; ivl %i1C L11iUll. V—loped property ad i acent.. to the IT-J -11-age of ba The letter should also state that any plans with access tolRt . 083 are inconsistent with proposals for said road to he a 1-i7p,itea access highway. �e1.1 Cal ? �v, T, STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMEN-T OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS In the matter of the application of ) McDonald ' s Corporation for approval ) of a Restricted Landing Area-Heliport' ) located in Oak Brook , Illinois ) NOTICE Said Order shall further provide for the issuance of a certificate of approval of said restricted landing area-heliport after sufficient completion thereof as proposed by the application to meet all minimum requirements of the Division for the operation of a restricted landing area and shall further provide for the nullification of said order if the order- is not acted upon and a certificate issued within ope (1) year from the effective date thereof. All persons notified herein may , prior to the entry of said order, file objections to or comments on the subject matter of said order and after the entry of said order may make a r:ritten request for a hearing as to the validity or reasonableness of said order within fifteen (15) days after the service thereof. Guy Wood, DIRECI R DIVISION OF AER©\'AUTICS DATED: September 11 , 1975 STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS In the matter of the application of ) McDonald' s Corporation for approval ) .of a Restricted Landing Area-Heliport ) located in Oak Brook, Illinois ) NOTICE TO: McDonald' s Corporation , 2111 Enco Drive, Oak Brook , Illinois 60521 , Attn: Michael J. Sise , Manager, Real Estate/Legal Department Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, 2111 Enco Drive , Oak Brook, .Illinois 60521 Simone Corporation, Commerce Drive ; Oak Brook , I1.1 . 60521 Oak Brook Bank , 2021 Spring Road, Oak Brook, Ill . 60521 Illinois Tollway, Midwest &' 22nd Street , Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 , Attn : Robert Betz Illinois Bell Telephone Company, 225 111. Randolph Street, H.Q. 26B, Chicago , Illinois 60606, Attn: R. R. Soden , Staff Engineer - Liaison & Right of Way Village of Oak Brook Zoning Board of Appeals , Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 County Clerk of DuPage County, Wheaton, Illinois 60187 George P. Grote , Chief, Airports District Office-Chicago , FAA - Great Lakes Region , 2300 East Devon Avenue , Des Plaines , Illinois 60018 Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, 901 West 22nd Street, Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Commonwealth Edison Company, P. 0. Box 767 , Chicago , Illinois 60690 , Attn: ' Peter F. Guck, Public Affairs Ronald VV. Houska, Chief, Bureau of Programming, Department of Transportation, 2300 So . Dirksen Parkway, Springfield, Illinois 62764 Please take notice that on or after October 1 , 1975 , the Division of Aeronautics intends to enter an Order pursuant to Section 60 of the Illinois Aeronautics Act approving the appli- cation of McDonald' s Corporation for a restricted landing area- heliport located in Oak Brook, in Lot 4 in Oak Brook Development Company' s Commerce Plaza Subdivision Unit 1 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 , Township 39 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof, recorded July 12 , 1965 as Document #R68-30335 , in DuPage County, Illinois and commonly known as 2111 Enco Drive , Oak Brook, Illinois . PAGE -1- VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN CODIMISSION File : Date of Meeting Sept. 15, 1975 _ Applicant: FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP. (McDonald' s Office Bldg. ) Address : City, State : Tel. No . Prior Hearing: Yes [x ] No Relief Sought: Preliminary Plat Final Plat Rezoning x Special Use x Other Text Amendment (zoning .Ordinanee) Decision: x Recommended Approval Recommended Denial Continued Withdrawn Other Member Scott moved to recommend to the Village Board to amend -"'lotion: the Ordinance to add a Clause (0 to the special uses in zonesand thatran d se Realty Interstate Corp. be granted a special use under the amended Ordinance. Seconded Ayes : ayes : 1; and 2 abstaining. MEMBERS : � ABSENT PRESENT YES NO ABSTAIN x Chairman Barton John Bo:i-man f Robert Listec :i B. Jack Noyes v x Barbara Reynolds x x Harold Scott x x Carle Wunderlich x Recommendation of Staff: Date : Referred to Date : Respectfully yours , Chairman, Plan Commission Date: page 10 of _ 13 Pages September 15, 1975 FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP. (McDonald Office Bldg. ) Appeal, .13pecial Use & Variation Mr. Michael J. Sise, the attorney for the McDonald' s Corporation stated that Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. Vas a subsidiary of ..eDonald' s Corporation. Mr. Sise introduced two witnesses : 'Jr.. August P. Tiritilli, structural engineer and Doug Hammond of Bell Helicopter. Mr. Sise explained that they had to change their application, which asked for this heliport to be an accessory use under the OR-A-2 District. Chief Ehle issued an interpretation that the :.request was a special use. Mr. Sise stated that his amended a:?plication requested an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to make a heliport a special use in the OR-A-2 District similar to the OR.-A-1 District. Mr. Sise stated that first of all he will be appealing the building inspector' s order or interpretation that a heliport is not an accessory use. He will argue this appeal before the Zoning Board on October 7, 1975• If the Zoning Board of Appeals does find that this is not an accessory use., then he is asking that the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals consider an application for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance making a heliport a special use in the OR-A-- 2 Zone and then also asking that a special use permit be granted for a heliport. Mr. Sise went over Exhibit A, which is the plat survey. He stated that the heliport will be located on the north wing of the McDonald' s building. It will be 32 X 32 feet. Mr. Sise pointed out that there is only one building which is within 100 feet of t`2eir property line. The building to the east is ap- proximately 70 feet from their building. Exhibit B is the working drawing for the construction of the heliport pad which will be discussed by Mr. Tiritilli. Exhibit C is the officiPl man of zoning districts in the area . Exhibit D is an aerial photograph which shoes that there are no obstructions to the flight path .of the helicopter. Exhibit E is a map of the Village of Oak Brook. Mr. Sise stated that there are no schools or hospitals within the one mile radius or residential area within one-half mile radius . Page 11 of 13 Pages September 15, 1975 Mr. Sise stated that the helicopter that the Corporation has purchased is a Bell Helicopter 206 series, turbo jet. It will be used as transportation by the executives of McDonalds to and from O' Hare and Palwe,ukee airports . This helicopter will also be used on an experimental basis for site selection in northeastern Illinois. Mr. Sise stated that the flying hours would be approximately 500 per year or 10 hours per week. The helicopter will not be stored on the building over night. All the maintenance will be done at either O' Hare or palwaukee airports . Mr. Sise presented a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinances which he stated was a modification of the heliport description which is in the Oak Brook Ordinance for ground heliports. This modification which takes into account roof top heliports will be added to Section X(C) (2) as (b) (Page 50 of Ordinance) . Mr. Sise stated that he does not feel that this proposed amendment conflicts with either the Zoning Ordinance or the Master Plan. Mr. Sise stated that they are also asking that a special use permit be granted also. Ar. Sise stated that the State of Illinois has approved their application. He stated that they have come out to the site and have also talked with the chief pilot for McDonald' s, Mr. AndrE!:s . fir. Tiritilli, a , structural engineer, stated that he has checked the drawings . He stated that the building that the helix: ort is to be erected was originallyto be designed 'for 4 more floors so the heliport would not be actually built on a roof but on a floor slab which has even less structural restraints . Mr. Tiritilli stated that there is no problem whatsoever as far as the structure is concerned. - He stated that the FAA requirements will be met fornroof-toper heliports. Mr. Tiritilli stated that the lights would be placed approximately 12 'eat C.bovY the rooi' level in what they call a mechanical Pent- house. en-house. Ile stated that they will have a telephone and fire extinguisher. There will be four anchors for this pad to secure it. There will be two tie-downs to position the helicopter. He stated that there will be a small waiting area and walk-way. They will provide hand rails for protective purposes . :Lt was pointed out that just the McDonald' s helicopter will use this facility, but could be used for emergency purposes. Page 12,)of 13 Pages September 15, 1975 Mr. Doug Hammond of Bell Helicopter stated that he was the regional sales manager and also a pilot. Mr. Hammond stated that the background noises from the Tollway will be louder than the helicopter. He stated that the flight patterns are designed to follow the Tollway. Mr. Hammond stated that this will be a five passenger helicopter which travhls about 135 miles an hour. He pointed out that it has the lowest internal and external noise signature. Mr. Wunderlich was concerned about the health and welfare of the people in the area. He stated that people have a tendancy to look up, Member Sett moved to recommend to the Village Board to amend the Ordinance to add a clause (b)in the .-special uses in 0I-A-2 zones and that Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. be granted a special use under the amended Ordinance. Motion seconded by Member 'Reynolds. Voice Vote : Ayes ; Noyes Reynolds Scott Nayes : Wunderlich abstained: Barton Listecki Motion carried. c A c _ VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS September 16 , 1975 654-2220 PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Re : Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation (McDonalds) Heliport At the regular meeting of the Plan Commission held on September 15, 1975 , the Plan Commission recommended that the application be approved. More specifically, the recommendations are that the zoning ordinance be amended by adding a clause b to Section X(C) (2) (at page 50) reading as follows : b., Heliport (not for freight) , public and private -- (i) located on lots not less than one acre in area and having a touchdown space which is enclosed by a fence and which is not less than 100 feet in diameter or (ii) located on the roof of a building having a touchdown area not less than 30 feet in diameter. The landing area shall, as a minimum, have 2 approach - departure paths -- with centerlines radiating from the center of the area forming an angle greater than 90 degrees -- which are not less than 75 feet in width and which are unobstructed above an imaginary plane extending from the edge of the landing area at an incline of one foot vertically to each 6 feet horizontally. and that a special use be granted tothe applicant for a heliport complying with the requirements of the ordinance as so amended. PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES September 16 , 1975 Page 2 Perhaps I should point out that the vote was 3 in favor, 1 against and 2 abstentions. Respectfullv ,subihitted, ,tic and A. Barton Chairman - Plan Commission lvg cc: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals MAHER, BIANUCCI, NEWMAN & SCHLAX, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 230 WEST MONROE STREET ROBERT A.MAHPIR CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 ALFRED P. BIANUCCI ALLAN J. NEWMAN TELEPHONE FRANCIS E.SCHLAX (312) 346-3762 ROBERT B.SPENCER DONALD W. FORESTER October 1, 1975 Riclard A. Barton, Chairman Brook Plan Commission Breakenridge Drive Oak Brook, IL 60521 mr ick: In re. APPlication of Franchise Reaity, Interstate Corp. pecial Use, Heliport It has come to my attention that the action taken by the Plan 1—L440cently relative to the subject matter was Commission one 'wherein three members present at the meeting in question voted aye, two abstained, and one member voted nay. -I' has also come to my attention that the Plan Commission has formally adopted certain rules of practice. Section VIII, 3. 04 of those rules, revised, apparently, .december 16, 1974, a copy of which hI es , requires the irmative vote of a majority of the members prentenclosefor formal action. The existence of this rule would dictate, therefore, that the action of lie Plan Commission with respect to this application failed to produce the : 1 arequlsite number of affirmative votes. I suggest that you consider taking that action necessary to correct the recorded action of the Plan Commission on thic- matter. Should you have any questions or desire to explore this matter further, please feet free to contact me at Your convenience. Sincerely, Alfred P. Bianucci A PB:lfJ Enclosure cc: '34r. Carmignant-- Z WAMW3V ,10:)UIAAIE3 ,S3 .C3TJ ,XAJH:) HAM WAS TA PY3MROTTA T:23qTP- 3ORMOM T83W OES aoaoa elOMlJJJ ,ODA3IH--) 91�HAM-A T543805R I3OUWAl9 A 035q-AJA 3"OH.93j3j V4AMW30 A- VAJJA SaTE-54E (SiF-i XAJHZ)2.3 al:)MARq Tq38Oq R3T235;09 .W aJAk4O(3 Cl 10 floil-G 12 flispq stil yd asAGI noiapal 1!)5f d -)dl of tilep-.3-iq sits btlov V xio 0. -t !��'Ivoo 0�21 P, a sid :1fjzdf nOVA1913.G yfry 0. noi?a1mmo," wi F, '111V nolloqe� lo -ff r I fioirivi Ic c 1 '16 )tov xollors I.SM-101 10 floiloz &(!I qriT ,.q -ifil oftf0iv! riotputim MOD ns, I -Ili; 10 Ol nn P.-m' �'IfllAst vibiauoq Lrox tgit Itf. 't '�) �Clzjq qfj beb-so-)91 no no,F 'almmo it �j 10 nolto !�,eb -To !-:MO!IROlJP '<fts "Ver' 5! Juc"i' jxf�ritavl '191-tsm, ifi w�ojqx�� c"+ ta'-x v t's '9M sf)sjflO,) q -100 -il I AL q be tjj- E[q.k VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 October 7, 1975 1 . Meeting called to order by Chairman Joseph H. Rush. Time 7 : 35 P.M. All members were present except Mr. Arthur Muschler. 2. Motion by Mr. Lavery - seconded by Mr. Skinner To. approve the minutes of September 2 , 1975 . All voted - YES. . . MOTION CARRIED. SUMMARY OF RECOIN1IENDATIONS: 3. - Clayton - Forest Glen-Zoning Amendment and Annexation RECOMMEND APPROVAL 4 . Mayslake Estates - Preliminary Plat NOT CONSIDERED 5. Mayslake Estates - Rezoning Application CONTINUED 6. Christ Church - Variation and Special Use APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 7. Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. (McDonald's Office Building) (I) APPEAL DENIED (2) SPECIAL USE RECOMMEND APPROVAL - (3) VARIATION RECOMMEND APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Fraser- seconded by Mr. Lavery To adjourn the meeting. Time 1 : 15 A.M. All voted - YES MO='SON CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, William R. Balling w rr i~ 9 G A 9� R fps VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS Oactober 7, 1975 654-2220 MEMO TO: A.H. Ehle, Building Commissioner SUBJECT: Axapeal - Section X,C. (c) (page 50) Proposed Amendment Section X,C, 2 - (Page 50) PETITIONER: Franchise Realty LOCATION: 2111 Enco Drive ZONING: ORA-2 REQUEST: To allow for a heliport (not for freight) on the roof of the McDonald' s building, and that the touch down area not be required to be enclosed by a fence. COMMENT: There is a specific provision in ORA-1 for heliports as a Special Use, Section X,B, 2 (page 48) , with no pro- visions for same in ORA-2. By definition, "Accessory" (page 79) could be interpreted to include a heliport on the roof of a building. The more restrictive regulation, or that which imposes the highest standards would govern. Respectfully submitted, Marianne Lak,osil VILLAGE OF OAC BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE OF HEARING: October 7 , 1975 APPLICANT: FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION ADDRESS- PRIOR HEARD,G: YES / / NO /X Date: October 7, 1975 RELIEF SOUGHT: A2IEN-D IE.NT l / APPEAL L x / SPECIAL USE / / VARIATION z__/ DECISION: RE=.2.4EVDED APPROVAL RECOl'_X"NDED DENIAL _X C0NTI`3UED WITHDRAWN OTHER Z_/ NWNIBERS ' PRESENT ABSENT YES (VOTE) NO ABSTAIN? Edward Fraser Motion X , X Virgil Fuller X X John Lavery 2nd X X Arthur Muschler X Allan Rovsd.on X f X W.K. Skinner X ! X Joseph Rush - Chairman X X Recommendation of, Plan CoTmnission: No Motion Date: 9/15/75 Referred to Plan Ccm_-mission: Date: X FULL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BY Du PAGE .COUNTY REPORTING SERVICE RECOINItiIEN7DATION: Mr. Fraser moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the petitioner's request for appeal of the Building Inspector's decision because the petitioner has not demonstrated that said decision was inappropriate. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS;.-`_ DATE OF HEARING: October 7, 19i APPLICr7VNT: FR:-'�NCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION ADDRESS: PRTOR HEARI`iG: Y L S / / NO Date: October 7, 1975 RELIEF SOUGHT: AI-I=:DtiL;',S4T APPEAL SPECIAL USE l X L VARIATION DECISION: REC032NIENDED APPROVAL /—X / RECO `_.BLENDED DENIAL / CONTINUED WITHDRAWN OTHER Z—/ MEMBERS ' PRESENT ABSENT YES (VOTE) NO ABSTAIN Edward Fraser Motion X X Virgil Fuller X X .John Lavery X X Arthur Muschler X Allan Rovs:ion X X S•7_K. Skinner 2nd X ' X Joseph Rush - Chai;=a-? X X Recommendation of Plan Co_mmi.ssion: _ No Motion Date: 9/15/75 Referred to Plan Co7—amt ssi on: N/A Date: N/A x FULL TR ITSCRIPT 0= PROCEEDINGS BY Du PAGECOLMi 7f REPORTING SERVICE RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Fraser moved that if the Village Board acts favorably on the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation for a text amendment to Sec. X, (C) 2, as part (b) of Ordinance G-60 as amended, then the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval to the Village Board of the applicant's request for Special Use for the attached arguments of :record. r PAGE 2C SPECIAL USE - F1N'D1,_ ,7S and PECOMIME\'DATIONS (Coriplete Section A, or Sections B and C Section D is optional) . In support of its recon*iendation of this Special Use, the Zoning Board of Appeals sets forth the following facts as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section XIII J-5, said findings of fact being based on the evidence pre- sented to the Board: A. 1101,011 11121111111, M qui B. The subject use is designed, located and proposed to be used to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the followin manner: The -heliport will be designed, located and operated at the highes standards to protect the public health, safety and welfare. All applicable .standards of the State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics will be complied with in the construction and opera ion o heli ort. All of the Federal Aviation Administration's standards will be complied with in the operation o e 'icopters using e e 1port. MY duly licensed personnel will be permitted to operate helicopters using the heliport.—The construction o e e ipor wi e un er ' C. The subject special iantt! IT o gage d p�cial use. will not cause subs an zap. injury Lo the value of other property in its vicinity because: The proposed heliport will not create any objectionable elements which would cause any injury to the value of other -property in the neighborhood. The landing pad will not be visible from the ground and only barely visible from a : oining buildings. The li htin will be used only briefly at night and will not glarel onto adjoining property. No air pollution willbe created, annoise eve s will be well within generally acceptable levels. B. Continued— of Tiritilli & Assoc. , Inc. ,. structural engineers, and all applicable provisions of the Oak Brook Building Code will be complied with. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATA. OF HEARING: October 7, 1975 APPLICANT: FRkNCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION ADDRESS: PRIOR HEARING: YES L__� NO ZX Date: October 7, 1975 RELIEF SOUGHT: AMF-%-4iENT /X / TEXT AMENDMENT APPEAL SPECIAL USE VARIATION Z—/ DECISION: REM.24ENDED APPROVAL RECO`-2MEINDED DENIAL CONTINUED :•7I i MRAVN OTHER Z—/ MEMBERS ° PRESENT ABSENT YES VOTE) NO ABSTAIN Edward Fraser Mot iX X Virgil Fuller X X John Lavery X X Arthur Muschler X Allan Rovsdon X X W-K. Skinner 2nd X X — Joseph Push - Cha;-.-ran X X Recorm-nerdation of Plan Commission: No Motion Date: 9/15/75 Referred to Plan Co=—j-ssion: NSA Dat_ - N/A * FULL TRANSCRIPT OF P?OCEEDINGS BY Du PAGE .COUNTY REPORTING SE?JICE RECONu�I TDAT!O : Mr. Fraser moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals recormend approval to the Village Board of a text amendment to Sec. X (C) 2 as part (b) , page 50 of the Oak Brook Ordinance G-60 as amended as follows: r c PROPOSED AbfENDMENT Add to Section X(C) (2) as part (b) (page 50 of Ordinance) : "b. Heliport (not for freight) , public and private -- (i) located on lots not less than one acre in area and having a touchdown space which is enclosed by a fence and which is not less than 100 feet in diameter or (ii) located on the roof of a building having a touchdown area not less than 30 feet in diameter. The landing area shall, as a minimum, have 2 approach - departure paths -- with centerlines radiating from the center of the area forming an angle greater than 90 degrees -- which are not less than 75 feet in width and which are unobstructed above an imaginary plane extending from the edge of the landing area at an incline of one foot vertically to each 6 feet horizontally." ^Z.— rrvi c.n PUENDMENT — FINDX\GS an,:-..RECO`,iJIE_N'DATIONS In support of its recommendation concerning this proposal for an Amendment of the . Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Oak Brook, the Zoning Board of Appeals has found the follo:ving facts: The subject r ,i The proposed amendment as requested above makes due allowance for existing conditions, _ the conservation of property values, the direction of building development to the best advantage of the entire municipality and the uses to which the property is devoted 'at the present time. Further, the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare will not be effected. The subject: property is located immediately adjacent to an ORA 1 District where heliports are allowed as special uses. There seems to be no basis for distinguishing between the districts ivith respect to use of pro pertywithin the districts as a heliport, especially heliports located on the roofs of buildings. Both Districts are inteijded to allow office, research and assembly uses. The maior difference between the Zvo districts is •that buildings are restricted to 35 feet in height in the OR Al District whereas buildings may be eight stories in height in the ORA 2 District. Heliports located on eight story buildings would, in fact, have fewer obstructions in their approach patterns and would, thus, be safer. Since heliports can be developed in the adjoining ORA 1 District, there would be no.____;--. effect upon the property valuesor character of the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. - - Page 9 Minutes of ZoningBoard of A eals PP October 7, 1975 7. Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation (McDonald's Office Building) Mr. Michael Sise of the McDonald's Corporation (Franchise Realty) assisted by Mr. Doug Haj-mond, Mr. August Tiritilli and Mr. Charles Cox presented testimony on behalf of the petitioner for his request. It is the petitioner's request that a Heliport Landing Pad be permitted to be constructed on the top of the McDonald's Plaza, by whatever the legal means of the Zoning Ordinance Mould provide. After a lengthy presentation by the petitioner Chairman Rush called for questions from the Board. Mr. Fuller expressed concern that the noise level of the helicopter directly next to the helicopter pad maybe intolerable. He used OSHA standards as an example. Mr. Cox and others replied that they did not anticipate that noise or vibrations would create a hardship for residents of McDonald's Plaza or others. Chairman Rush thein called.upon the audience for those speaking in favor of the petition. No one responded. Chairman Rush then asked for those speaking against the petitioner. No one responded. Mr. Fraser then expressed a concern over the size of the helicopter pad. Mr. Hammond stated that the Illinois Department of Aeronautics requires that take off and approach path must be without restrictions and free of obstructions. After some general discussions the following motions were made. (1) APPEAL Mr. Fraser moved - seconded by Mr. Lavery That the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the petitioner's request for appeal of the Building Inspector's decision because the petitioner has not demonstrated that said decision was inappropriate. Roll call vote: Ayes: Mr. Fraser, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Lavery, Mr. Roysdon, Mr. Skinner and Chairman Rush Nayes: None Absent: Mr. Muschler MOTION CARRIED. (2) SPECIAL USE Mr. Fraser moved - seconded by Mr. Skinner That if the Village Board acts favorably on the Zoning Board of Appeals reco:=endation for a text amendment to Sec. X, (C) 2, as part (b) of Ordinance G-60 as amended, then the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval to the Village Board of the aonli- cant's request for Special Use for the attached arguments of record. Roll call vote: Ayes: Mr. Fraser, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Lavery, Mr. Roysdon, Mr. Skinner and Chairman Rush Nayes: None Absent: Mr. Muschler MOTION CARRIED. Pape 10 MINUTES OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 7, 1975 7. Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation (McDonald's Office Building) (continued) (2) SPECIAL USE - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The subject use is designed, located and proposed to be used to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the following manner: The heliport will be designed, located and operated at the highest standards to protect the public health, safety and welfare. All applicable standards of the State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics will be complied with in the construction and operation of the heliport. All of the Federal Aviation Administration's standards will be complied with in the operation of helicopters using the heliport. Only duly licensed personnel will be permitted to operate helicopters using the heliport. The construction of the heliport will be under the supervision of Tiritilli & Assoc. , Inc. , structural engineers, and all applicable provisions of the Oak Brook Building Code will be complied with. The subject special use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in its vicinity because: The proposed heliport will not create any objectionable elements which would cause any injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood. The landing pad will not be visible from the ground and only barely visible from adjoining buildings. The lighting will be used only briefly at night and will not glare onto adjoining property. ' No air pollution will be created, and noise levels will be well within generally acceptable levels. (3) VARIATION Mr. Fraser moved - seconded by Mr. Skinner That the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval to the Village Board of a text amendment to Sec. X (C) 2 as part (b) , page 50 of the Oak Brook Ordinance G-60 as amended as follows: PROPOSED AMENDMENT Add to Section X(C) (2) as part (b) (page 50 of Ordinance) : "b. Heliport (not for freight) , public and private --(i) located on lots not less than one acre in area and having a touchdown space which is enclosed by a fence and which is not less than 100 feet in diameter or (ii) located on the roof of a building having a touchdown area not less than 30 feet in diameter. The landing area shall, as a minimu - have 2 approach - departure paths -- with centerlines radiating from the center of the area forming an angle greater than 90 degrees -- which are not less than 75 feet in width and which are unobstructed above an imaginary plane extending from the edge of the landing area at an incline of one foot vertically to each 6 feet horizontally." Poll Call Vote: Ayes: Mr. Fraser, Fuller, Lavery, Roysdon, Skinner and Chairman Rush Nayes: None Absent: Mr. Muschler MOTION CARRIED Amendment - Findings and Recommendations: In support of its recommendation concernir_g this proposal for an Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Oak Brook, the Zoning Board of Appeals has found the following facts: The subject amendment is recommended based upon the facts of record to wit: The proposed amendment as requested above makes due allowance for existing conditions, the conservation of property values, the direction of building develop- ment to the best advantage of the entire municipality and the uses to which the property is devoted at the present time. Further, the public health, safety, comfort, morals and-tee^ire will not be effected. `gage 11 MTx~JTILS OF ZONINC BOARD Of . ..L'EALS ictober 7, 1975 7. Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation (McDonald's Office Building) (Continl__d) The subject property is located immediately adjacent to an ORA 1 District v'--ere heliports are allowed as special uses. There seems to be no basis for dis- tinguishing; between the districts with respect to use of property within t=_ districts as a heliport, especially heliports located on the roofs of buil: ngs. Both Districts are intended to allow office, research and assembly uses. =:-e major difference between the two districts is that buildings are restrictec to 35 feet in height in the ORA 1 District, whereas buildings may be eight stc=ies in height in the ORA 2 District. Heliports located on eight story buildincY would, in fact, have fewer obstructions in their approach patterns and wou_:, thus, be safer. Since heliports can be developed in the adjoining ORA 1 District, there would be no effect upon the propety values or character of the neighborhood surrounc_ng the subject. property. William R. Balling 7 E THE SOUND OF HELICOPTER OPERATIONS C. R. Cox Bell Helicopter Company E Helicopter operations in and near munici- sounds is given in Figure 1. This chart palities introduce new and identifiable dramatizes the range of sound intensity sounds. People react differently to these covered by everyday sources. A very soft sounds depending on many factors--physical, whisper, for example, has a total intensity economic and psychological. Sound becomes of about 0.00000007. watt per square cen- noise when it is not wanted. For example, timeter (20 db) , while the intensity of the sound produced by a violin or trumpet average conversation at a distance of 3 is restful music to some, but can become feet is about 0.001 watt per square cen- ; an irritating disturbance to others. timeter (70 db). The sound intensity 20 Similarly, the sound generated by a heli- feet from a symphony orchestra may reach copter will be judged either acceptable or a maximum of 0.1 watt per square centimeter unacceptable for many complex reasons. (90 db) , and 300 feet from a large jet airliner during takeoff it can be almost Questions arise as to what the possible 1000 watts per square centimeter (130 db). noise problems associated with helicopter operations are. Are helicopters in fact In addition to its Level, the other noisier than other transportation vehicles? important property of sound is its fre- On what basis does one judge the accepta- quency. It is well-known that a high- bility of sounds? In the following para- frequency sound seems louder and is graphs these and related questions are generally more disturbing than one at a answered. The terminology and properties lower frequency, even though the decibel of sound are described. The reaction of level of each may be the same. The unit people to various sounds and the methods used to describe the frequency of sounds used to predict these reactions are dis- is the Hertz (Hz) , formerly referred to cussed. The characteristics and levels as cycles per second or cps. of the sound of current helicopter designs are presented. Using these levels and the The sensitivity and the frequency response prediction methods, comparisons are given of the human ear are illustrated in Figure of the sound of helicopters and that 2. Most people can hear sounds with generated by familiar surface transporta- frequencies from about 20 to almost 20,000 tion vehicles and fixed-wing aircraft. Hz. They can tolerate levels up to 110 to Additionally, a review is given of the 130 db before experiencing discomfort or major findings from recent sound surveys pain. Speech extends over a frequency near helicopter operations. range from about 100 to 5000 Hz and reaches levels from about 40 to 80 db. As indicated TERMINOLOGY AND PROPERTIES OF SOUND by the lower curve of the threshold of audibility, the sensitivity of the ear Sound is a vibration of air molecules, a varies with frequency. Consequently, a pressure wave. The human ear is con- sound with a level of zero db and a fre- structed to sense both the magnitude quency of 1000 Hz can just be heard, but (level) and the frequency of pressure a sound at a frequency of 50 Hz must have waves. The unit used to describe the a level of over 50 db to be heard. This level of sound pressure is the decibel variable-sensitivity characteristic of the (db). A change in sound pressure level ear must be taken into account in determin- of one decibel is the smallest change that ing how loud a sound seems to be and, can be detected by the human ear under eventually, how annoying it is. ideal listening conditions. The decibel scale differs from the more familiar linear REACTION OF PEOPLE TO SOUND scales used to raasure length, weight , and time. To correspond to the sensitivity of As was mentioned previously, people react the ear, it is nonlinear. If the energy differently to various sounds, much as or intensity of a source is doubled, the they react differently to other sensory ear perceives only a small increase in stimuli. There can be unpleasant sights f sound. It is this characteristic of the as well as unpleasant sounds: most people ear which enables it to hear sounds over are offended by the sight of an untidy ten thousand times as loud as the minimum house or a grimy factory in the view audible sound. afforded by their windows. For purely physical reasons, however, sound arouses A chart showing the sound pressure levels more complaints because almost inevitably. and the intensities of a number of common it spreads from its source to pollute 1 tX • jj1 ` I E • j. i i k people who are not concerned with it. It intrusiveness of sounds.3,4,5 This has been shown that of those who notice relationship is shown in Figure 3. Com- the sound of trucks delivering milk to paring the judgment scales, the results their homes, only about 10 per cent are of the three surveys are in general agree- annoyed by the noise; but, of those who ment, although the judgments in Los Angeles hear the barking of a neighbor's dog, were somewhat more critical than those in nearly 40 per cent express annoyance. It either London or Farnborough. In the appears that a sound which has no apparent remainder of this paper, the sound of reason for being is likely to occasion helicopters, as well as noise from other some complaints. sources, will be described in terms of perceived noise level and of these sub- The duration of a sound is a factor that jective scales. can disturb some people. Passing vehicles, such as cars, trucks, or buses, can SOUND OF THE HELICOPTER increase the noise level for short periods without having any marked effect upon the The unique sound of a helicopter is readily observer. This is true of helicopters. identifiable, even when its perceived level If the sound is prolonged, however, it may is below that of more common sources such become irritating. The passing of a long as automobiles, trucks, busses and trains. freight train is an example of how a sound This is due in part to the modulation pro- of Long duration can be disturbing. duced by the relatively slow-turning main rotor or rotors. This characteristic tends An unfamiliar sound will also attract to draw an observer's attention to the attention, and its novelty may have a sound, and it often influences the character disturbing effect on many people. For of his reaction to the presence of the instance, a new visitor' s initial reaction helicopter. As a helicopter performs the to the roar of the New York subway may be many flight operations (hover, takeoff, one of terror. After a time, however, he level flight, landing, etc. ) of which it assimilates the sound into his concept of is capable, its sound varies, often quite the normal environment of the city, and rapidly. This characteristic further he pays no more attention to it than to differentiates the sound of a helicopter the noise of other city traffic. from such nearly continuous sounds as that of the steady flow of traffic. In fact, Another feature of noise that commonly in this environment, it is considerably causes annoyance is variability. A sound more difficult to identify the noise of that is modulated in intensity or frequency large trucks with inadequate mufflers, is sometimes more annoying than is a simi even though they cause considerably more, lar steady sound. There is also some and more frequent, annoyance. Another evidence that people do not become accus- reason that the sound of a helicopter is tomed to such noise as quickly as they do readily identifiable is that it emanates to steady ones. For example, an emergency from the air rather than from ground Level vehicle's modulating siren can demand a as do most common sounds. person's attention from several blocks away. It is designed to do so. The trend of perceived noise levels for current piston- and turbine-powered heli- METHODS TO PREDICT SUBJECTIVE REACTION copters is given in Figure 4 as a function of gross weight (size).6 The levels are Although the measurement of human reactions for a distance of 250 feet during takeoff, to sound is a complex problem, some orderly landing, low-speed flyovers and hover. relations of the measurements recorded by instruments to the feelings people experi- As can be seen, turbine-powered helicopters ence when they are xposed to sound have are quieter than piston-powered helicopters been established.l, One such relation of comparable size. In addition the per- is called the perceived noise level and ceived noise levels of small turbine-powered is expressed in decibels as PNdb. It helicopters (3000 pounds gross weight) are takes into account the distribution of the about 20 PNdb lower than those of large frequencies that make up sound. Perceived helicopters (20,000 pounds gross weight). noise level is calculated from measurements of sound pressure levels and frequencies, COMPARISON OF THE SOUND OF VATa OUS and it correlates well with subjective FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION judgments of the noisiness or annoyance of various types of sound. It has become From the information presented thus far, a widely accepted means for describing it is possible to assess the inherent aircraft noise. acceptability of the sound of helicopters as compared with that of other forms of Extensive surveys in the United States and transportation. Figure 5 illustrates this England have directly related perceived comparison by showing perceived noise noise levels to subjective judgments as levels for automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, to the acceptability, annoyance and freight trains, a typical transport aircraft, 2 i i r 1 r r . r a• 1 and three Bell helicopters, at typical selected. They were considered representa- 'distances of the observer from each vehicle. tive of various environments that might be Maximum and minimum levels for various affected by normal helicopter operations operations of each vehicle are also indi- from a helistop or heliport. The sound cated. Subjective judgments of the noise levels of helicopters of various sizes were of familiar forms of transportation range measured inside and outside an elementary from "no annoyance" associated with the school, at a fire department repair shop, automobile, to "noticeable but acceptable" at a busy intersection, outside an apart- for the truck and motorcycle; to almost ment building, and at the helistop. The "unacceptable" for the freight train, to flight path and the distances to the points "annoying" or almost "intolerable" for the of measurement are shown in Figure 7. transport aircraft. The perceived noise levels of the three helicopters are well Except at the helistop itself, the sound below those of the transport aircraft and of the helicopters never seriously exceeded the freight train. In fact, the two the background noise. The maximum reading helicopters with the highest perceived outside the elementary school was comparable noise levels, the 47G and the 205A, are to that for rush-hour traffic at a busy generally no louder than a passing truck intersection; the minimum reading was or motorcycle. Thus their sounds would be comparable to that for light traffic. The "noticeable but acceptable. " levels measured inside the school were some 2 to 16 PNdb above the background noise; The sound of the Bell 206A JetRanger, which however, even the maximum reading was is the quietest of the three helicopters, compatible with intelligible speech at is only slightly higher than that of the normal levels. At all other locations, automobile. Thus, like that of the auto- the sound of the helicopters exceeded the mobile, the sound generated by the JetRanger background noise by a maximum of only 5 creates no annoyance. It will be notice- PNdb. Only the unique modulated sound of able above common street noise, however, the helicopter attracted the attention of because of its unique "attention-drawing" some observers. In some cases the back- character and its elevated sources. ground noise completely masked the sound of the helicopter. Another factor involved in assessing the acceptability of a sound is the level of At the helistop the sound of the helicopter the background noise at the observer. A may become intrusive and annoying. It is sound becomes distinguishable when its here that planners must give serious con- level equals or exceeds that of the mean sideration to the environment. They background noise. Background noise varies should take advantage, where possible, of considerably from area to area and is the reduction in sound afforded by distance, f` basically a function of the activity within terrain and barriers. Attention should be the area and the time of day. The range of given to the height of the building on background noise is given in Figure 6. which a helistop or heliport is located. Also shown is the variation with distance It should be above the adjacent structures of the perceived noise levels of five so as to reduce the sound through distance helicopters. From the figure, it can be and the shielding that the helistop building cetermined at what distance a helicopter provides. Routes, approaches and takeoffs -.-411 be heard above a given mean background- should be planned to avoid noise-sensitive Oise level. For example, in a downtown areas wherever possible. Vertical takeoffs commercial area, the Bell 206A JetRanger and landings are preferable. In all of would not be heard at distances greater these suggestions, it is understood that than about 400 feet. By contrast, larger the safety of operations must be considered. helicopters would be heard at greater distances. In the Manhattan study, ten representative sites were selected for the measurement of SOUND SURVEYS NEAR HELICOPTER OPERATIONS the sound of helicopters associated with four basic flight paths into and out of the In recent years several surveys have been New York Airways helistop on the Pan Am conducted to evaluate locations for heli- Building. At each site, measurements were ports and helistops in cities and to made simultaneously at two positions, usually appraise the effects of the sound of heli- one on the roof and one at street level. copters in normal operation. Surveys have At street level, the sound levels of the been conducted in Washington, D.C. by the helicopters were comparable to those of Federal Aviation Agency and the National street noise and sometimes the street noise Planning Commission; in Manhattan for masked the sound of the helicopter. At New York Airways , Inc. , and in and near the exposed rooftop positions, where few Los Angeles. people actually live or work, street noise is shielded by the roof and the parapet, In the Washington survey, seven measurement and the sound of a helicopter approaching points near a helicopter flight path were or departing within a few city blocks was 3 f a � S . 1 X '.sir:_.... i k- f 1 clearly identifiable above the noise. It REFERENCES was concluded that because the helicopter is identifiable by both sight and sound, 1. K. D. Kryter and K. S. Pearsons, "Some it can be expected to be the focal point Effects of Spectral Content and of some complaints, even though its sound Duration on Perceived Noise Level," would be judged acceptable by the "average" Journal of the Acoustical Society of person. By comparison, the frequently America, Vol. 35, No. 6, June 1963, noisier buses and trucks that make up so pp 86 883. much of a city's noise go unidentified because of their number, their variety of 2. K. D. Kryter and K. S. Pearsons, types, and the multiplicity of their "Judged Noisiness of a Band of owners. Random Noise Containing an Audible Pure Tone," Journal of the Acoustical In a recent test in the Los Angeles area, Society of America, Vol. 38, 1965, a Bell 206A JetRanger made trial flights pp 106-112. from a proposed helistop. A number of complaints had been previously voiced, 3. Analysis of Noise of Community and opposing the proposed location because of Airport Relationships Noise Abatement, the expected increase in noise. Acoustical Technical Report: Work Accomplishments, consultants were hired to measure the sound Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Report levels at a number of nearby rooftop and 1254, May 1964 through April 1965. street locations. They found that in most cases the street noise masked the sound of 4. A. C. McKennell and E. A. Hunt, Noise the helicopter. After the trial flights Annoyance in Central London, Survey were completed, the complaints stopped. made in 1961 for the Building Research It appears that the complainants had been . Station, S.S. 332, March 1966. overly apprehensive of the introduction of a new source of noise, but in actuality 5. Noise, Final Report Presented to the the sound of the JetRanger went almost Parl ament by the Lord President of unnoticed. the Council and Minister of Science, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS London, July 1963. It is difficult to determine quantitatively 6. D. E. Bishop, Helicopter Noise at what level and frequency a sound becomes Characteristics for Heliport Planning, a noise. People react differently to Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. , FAA noise stimuli. Surveys have shown that Technical Report ADS-40, March 1965. complainants are found at all levels of noise exposure. Approximately 10 per 7. J. L. Goddard and R. M. Marrazzo, cent of the adult population may complain Report on Helicopter Noise, Washington, at the lowest noise levels. On the other D.C. , tests conducted by the National hand, approximately 30 per cent may be Planning Commission and Federal unconcerned with the noise whatever its Aviation Agency, September 1961. level. With such a wide range of possible responses, it is not unusual to encounter 8. L. N. Miller and I. L. Vir, Noise a few complaints about any identifiable Study in Manhattan, New York City for sound source. the Evaluation 6T Dominant Noise Sources Including Helicopter Traffic, Because the helicopter is identifiable Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Report by both sight and sound, it can be expected No. 1610, August 1967. to draw some complaints, even though its sound would be judged acceptable by the majority of the people. By comparison the perceived noise levels at typical distances from airplanes, trains, and some trucks and motorcycles are higher than those at typical distances from operating helicopters. In fact, for the case of the Bell 206A JetRanger, the perceived noise level is comparable to that of an auto- mobile. Surveys show that when the novelty and the possible apprehensions of intracity heli- copter operations wear off, the helicopter is accepted. It attracts no more attention than other forms of modern transportation. 4 • r 1 5 'r FIGURE 2 SENSITIVITY AND FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF THE HUMAN EAR 140q t N f 'ia�t", :THRESHOLD OF DISCOMFORT AND 120 W m 100 U w .N J w U 80 ................ > .�.'. '::.:'.'...:'::::. ' W ............ -j W : SPEECH z Lu >- 60 N O LU cD N 0 40 Lu In 0 20 ' � TN 111DDLE C OLD 0 AUDIBILITY THRESHOLD F AU 1 FZEQUENCY FLANGE OF P-20 IANO KEYBOARD 20 50 100 500 1000 5000 20,000 FREQUENCY, HERTZ 6 r i E FIGURE 3 RELATION BETWEEN PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL AND SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS OF NOISE F SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS PERCEIVED ACCEPTABILITY ANNOYANCE INTRUSIVENESS t NOISE LEVEL, (INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SURVEY (OUTDOOR SURVEY MADE AT (OUTDOOR SURVEY MADE AT PN db MADE_ IN LOS ANGELES, 1964) LONDON AIRPORT, 1963) FARNBOROUGH, 1961) — 140 E. I t 130 VERY MUCH VERY ANNOYING 120 ANNOYING INDOORS --- MODERATE UNACCEPTABLE 110 INTRUSIVE OUTDOORS— INDOORS — LITTLE BARELY ACCEPTABLE 100 OUTDOORS— . INDOORS— ACCEPTABLE NOTICEABLE qp OUTDOORS— . INDOORS— OF NO � _CONCERN NOT AT ALL OUTDOORS 80 70 7 t E i€ t 1 FIGURE 1 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND INTENSITY OF COMMON SOUNDS 130 1000 --�- JET AIRLINER DURING TAKEOFF AT 300 FT. 120 AUTOMOBILE HORN AT 3 FT.--- 100 k, 110 RIVETER AT 10 FT, 10 s' 100 MOTORCYCLE AT 20 FT. 1.0 k: 90 - NOISY FACTORY - SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA AT 20 FT. 0.1 t< t, 80 ALARM CLOCK - WASHING MACHINE 0.01 70 AVERAGE CONVERSATION AT 3 FT. 0.001 60 0.0001 50 QUIET RESIDENTIAL AREA 0.00001 40 0.000001 1` QUIET OFFICE 0.0000001 20 VERY QUIET WHISPER - 0.00000001 10 0.000000001 0 THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY AT 1000 HZ -- 0,0000000001 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL SOUND INTENSITY IN DECIBELS IN WATTS PER SQ. CM. 5 t s e r jL FIGURE 4 TREND OF PERCEIVED NOISE LEVELS FOR VARIOUS SIZE HELICOPTERS 130 120 d _ BELL 47G �- 110 -- .— aw LU 100 i. LLJ r Lu GaQ , u 90 / J �0 BELL 205A CL KN 80 j BELL 206A 70 DATA ARE TAKEN AT 250 FEET DURING TAKEOFF, LANDING, FLYOVER AND HOMER 60 I i 1 i i i 1000 2000 4000 7000 10,000 20,000 40,000 HELICOPTER GROSS WEIGHT, LBS ' 8 r Eq 1 f FIGURE 5 COMPARISON OF THE SOUND OF THE HELICOPTER WITH NOISE PRODUCED BY SURFACE TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES AND FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL, PNdb 130 INTOLERABLE TURBOJET—TURBOFAN TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT 700 FEET 120 ANNOYING UNACCEPTABLE DIESEL FREIGHT TRAIN 50 FEET 110 �� - INTRUSIVE BELL 47G 250 FEET g� 13ELL 205A 100 250 FEET L NOTICEABLE TRUCK OR MOTORCYCLE h JIL BUT 50 FEET ACCEPTABLE k, 90 BELL 206A x. NO 250 FEET % ANNOYANCE ffel 80 AUTOMOBILE 50 FEET 70 9 _ � f r !i i I I s r J FIGURE 6 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE PERCEIVED NOISE LEVELS FOR COMMERCIAL HELICOPTERS WITH TYPICAL BACKGROUND NOISE LEVELS 120 T-] T VERTOL 107 SIKORSKY S-61 110 Z BELL 47G a 100 uiw ui BELL 205A ® 90 BJELL 20 ` wCL Lu 8 0 a DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL w AREAS WITH HEAVY TRAFFIC HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREAS70 I COMMERCIAL AREAS', ' (LIGHT TRAFFIC) ��� . p`• 60 URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREA (DAYTIME) QUIET SUBURBAN AREA (NIGHT) 50 100 200 400 700 1000 2000 4000 DISTANCE TO HELICOPTER, FEET 10 { a - t FIGURE 7 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FOR FAA AND NATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION SURVEY AT A WASHINGTON, D.C. HELISTOP APARTMENT BLDG. rh,Ol?OC� 5 cy 6 q�F 800' 2000' SITE HELISTOPI i < i �----- — 600' ;3 C0 REPAIR SLOP NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES -100'----�- TOUTSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1✓ Z OINS IDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL J,'���� OOUTSID'E FIRE/DEPT. REPAIR SHOP u 4O INSIDE FIRE DEPT. REPAIR SHOP ELEMENTARY 0 o 0 SCHOOL uI CL Y i CL BUSY INTERSECTION Q G)APARTMENT BUILDING NOTE: FLIGHT ALTITUDE OHELISTOP SITE 150'-200' EXCEPT AT SITE, WHERE IT IS 5'-10' 11 SOUND LEVEI, HELIPORT LANDING PAD PERMIT APPLICATION McDonald's Corporation, McDonald's Plaza, Oak Brook, Illinois Sound :Levels were measured at three locations near McDonald's Plaza on October 6, 1975 during trial operations of the Bell 206B helicopter. Purpose of the measurements was to ccmpare the sound of the helicopter with the background noise produced by other transportation vehicles. Measurements were made using a General Radio 1565-B Sound Level Meter (Serial #22,178) . The instrtumnt was calibrated, before and after the measurements, using a General Radio 1562-A Sound Level Calibrator (Serial #14185) . Accuracy of measurements was + 1 dB (decibels) . Both instruments are manufaci`ured according to standards prescribed by the American Standards Association. The thuree measurEment locations are identified below: L.)cation 1 - Boundary line of Business and ORA District due west of McDonald's Plaza Location 2 - Boundary line of Residential District (adjacent to Harger Road) due north of McDonald's Plaza Location 3 - Boundary line of Residential District (adjacent to Harger Road at bridge) due east of McDonald's Plaza The helicopter followed an east-west flight path. Landings and takeoffs were sirmlated from the roof of the north wing of McDonald's Plaza. "No-mal operating proceduires were used in order to sirmlate the actual conditions in so far as possible. Measured sound levels are listed in the table on page 2. Two measurement scales or units of measure are shown: dBA and dBC. The dBA scale is the A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level which approximates the human ear's sensitivity to sounds of different frequencies. The dBC scale is the: Over-all Sound Pressure Level which weighes all sound frequencies equally. -2- M ASCI= PEAK SOUND PRESSURE IEVELS dBA PEAK dBC PEAK LOCATION 1 Helicopter landing (1st pass) 71 - Helicopter landing (2nd pass) 71.5 - Helicopter landing (3rd pass) 72 82 Helicopter takeoff 72 - Helicopter hovering over pad 65 75 Background noise 60-63 - IIJCATION 2 Helicopter landing (1st pass) 65 - Helicc:�pter takeoff (1st pass) 65 - Helicopter landing (2nd pass) 64.5 - Helicopter takeoff (2nd pass) 67 - Helicopter landing and takeoff (3rd pass) 63 69 Autcmibiles passing by 70-72 78 Background noise 58-60 - IDMTION 3 Helicopter landing 71 A . - Helicopter takeoff 68 - Autcanc:)biles passing by 72-75 - Jet transport frcm O'Hare 72 - Trucks on nearby freeway 70 - Background noise 60-63 - In general, the operation of the helicopter produced less sound than that of other transpor-tation vehicles. Its sound exceeded the background noise briefly (10-12 seconds) by only 5 to 10 dBA. Prepared by: C. R. Cox Group Engineer, Acoustics Bell Helicopter Ccanpany J �I er PROFESSIONAL GROUND MAINTENANCE GRAND AWARD rr:5a tY�d.� to 1 0.1 Yov aa Ly GROUNDS MAINTENANCE MAGA ,INE �ttA PROFESSIONAL GROUNDS MANIAGEMEIJT SOCIETY PROFESSIONAL GROUNDS MARAGEMENT SOCIETY1Rn. GROLt�JDS M �TEi�AN�E P�{AGA: f r�E :� fir �nt ill* AS �T�vctrc� trt rcco�llz ti 1J tt � ,r*-sfc5� tJlZc1� ccc`Jnt��Ii4IIIT`rz 't' c�• .-+u�-�t►zl�.��1-(� tTTc-�c�°(,�t(Rl , _ . 11 ttztlt��ltccn:.' atlA czs an t;�Ctcm:5ton avul �' t 111CITT 0,140 �o pn11-cotz C.7i �itC ltTt�:t��1� J� �"�'(� ���:.t. V C'CTTd �tt�- � 1tT +11i "�S Z"IZ lei II"t�6�(� iL� 4i����.~-a"L��1`s � , •/� fJT` dtw' T7�CT(1I��.'1<<Zns O � � ;tt�,t I2.� ��Td�S•- p 1 j j r `tL�'7�C`.<'. 1 , /51 y � (i,•auxllJ !/ni,lli„ffiire Mrofjuf�lf!' llftlrmax. Pwrel 11 ✓t yv.) 1 PROPOSED Ai UMWN'T Add to Section X(C) (2) as part (b) (page 50 of Ordinance) : "b. Heliport (not for freight) , public and private -- (i) located on lots not less than one acre in area and having a touchdown space which is enclosed by a fence and which is not less than 100 feet in diameter or (ii) located on the roof of a building having a touchdown area not less than 30 feet in diameter. The landing area shall, as a minimum, have 2 approach - departure paths -- with centerlines radiating from the center of the area forming an angle greater than 90 degrees -- which are not less than 75 feet in width and which are unobstructed above an imaginary plane extending from the edge of the landing area at an incline of one foot vertically to each 6 feet horizontally." C/�,47 Page 4 Mines of Meeting Oct. �r 14, 1975 V. OLD BUSINESS (continued) F. Christ Church - Variation & Special Use (continued) (b) The Special Use will terminate at such time as the church rights to use the property for parking terminates, at which time the church will be required to restore the property to its original vacant state. (c) Church may permit parking facility to be used when needed for sports events being held at the International Sports Core only with advance notice to the Village and Police, and with parking and traffic control arrangements satisfactory to the Village. Due to another commitment, President Howell excused himself at 8:45 P.M. Trustee Cerne moved - seconded by Trustee Glaves. . . To appoint Trustee Brown as President Pro Tem for the remainder of the meeting. Roll call vote: Ayes: Trustee Cerne, Congreve, Glaves and Philip Nayes: None So ordered. Mr. Frank Novacek, adjoining property owner, voiced his objections. Attorney Dave Gooder, stated revised site plans would be submitted prior to the - adoption of the ordinance delineating the parking. Poll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Cerne, Congreve, Glaves, and Brown Nayes: Trustee Philip Absent: President Howell So ordered. G. Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation- Appeal , Special Use & Variation Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals had recommended approval to amend the ordinance to allow for Heliports in ORA-2 Districts. Zoning Board of Appeals further recommended approval of this request for a heliport on the roof of the McDonald's Building. Trustee Cerne moved To authorize the Village Attorney to prepare the required ordinance to add Heliports to ORA-2 Zoning District and to grant the Special Use as presented. For lack of a second. . . NOT CARRIED. Trustee Brown moved - seconded by Trustee Glaves. . . That the request of the petitioner be denied for the following reasons: 1) Safety and noise problems. 2) Not in keeping with character of surrounding area. Roll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Cerne, Congreve, Glaves and Brown Nayes: None Absent: President Howell So ordered. Trustee Cerne moved - seconded by Trustee Congreve. . . That the Zoning Board of Appeals hold a Public Hearing for the Special Use provision„ relative to Heliports, be removed from ORA-1 and B3 Zoning Districts. Roll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Cerne, Congreve, Glaves, Philip and Brown Nayes: None Absent: President Howell So ordered. H. P.eport on Census Trustee Philip commented on the Special Census of Population reflecting a 27% increase from 4,118 persons in 1970 to 5,240 persons. Increase Revenue allocation will be $11 ,422.00 for the Corporate Fund and ,$13,1116.00 for the MFT Fund annually. 101/1141/75 -4 (continued) I;_ GAK t � C Cou VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS October 16, 1975 654-2220 Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation 2111 Enco Drive Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Attention: Mr. Michael J. Sese Dear Mr,, Sese, At the board meeting of October 14, 1975, the village board considered your application for an amendment to the zoning ordinance to add a Heliport to ORA-2 and your petition for a Special Use for such a Heliport. A motion was made to deny both requests and the majority of the board voted to deny the requests. We thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and if we can be of any further service, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully yours, � 1 Ken eth G. Carm_1gnam---- Village Manager KGC/ls J// �(/ �/ " MAH ER, BIANUCCI, NEW MAN & SCHLAX, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 230 WEST MONROE STREET ROBERT A.MAHER CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 ALFRED P. BIANUCCI TELEPHONE ALLAN J. NEWMAN (312) 346-3762 FRANCIS E.SCHLAX ROBERT B.SPENCER DONALD W. FORESTER November 4, 1975 Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 Dear Ken: This letter may be somewhat premature; however, we must request your guidance. I refer to the request by Jerry Gorski of Lou Rathje's firm, on behalf of McDonald Corporation, for various ordinances, etc. , relating to the recent increase in water rates and the denial of the Corporate Authorities of McDonald's application for special use dealing with the heliport. Mr. Gorski made this request under date October 23. He is entitled to a response, and I would like your authorization to undertake representation of the Village in this matter, including communication with Mr. Gorski. You may be in a better position to respond to this letter after your meeting with the Association on the 5th. Best regards, S' � y, f Al e P. Bianucci APB:Ifj A G A C , VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS November 17, 1975 654-2220 MEMO TO: President & Board of Trustees Gentlemen, The Village of Oak Brook has been served with a Notice to Appear on the issue of the heliport on the McDonald's building. The village has been cited as being arbitrary and capricious in its judge- ment to deny the heliport in this particular instance. The village attorney must defend our position, and it has been suggested that we have an executive session before the December 9th board meeting. I have set up a 6: 30 P.M. Executive Session for the purpose of reviewing this matter with the village attorney. Respectf-lly yours, Kennet, l rmi gnani Village Manager KGC/ls cc: Attorney Bianucci CIRCUIT r.,',URT :SUMMONS — GENERAL COPY 73- 101 IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DU PAGE COUNTY, WHEATON, ILLINOIS ST CORPORATION, an TI-lizoisCorTx?ratjr>r, No. Plaintiffs V OF OAK a�I r Illinois a a i 3 Corporation, and ZONING f tho V'IL s _ OAK BROOF an Adriij�ijstrative Agency and Advisory Defendants Summons To each Defendant: You are summoned and required to file an answer in this case, or otherwise file your appearance in the Office of the Clerk of this Court within 30 days after service of this summons, not counting the day of service. IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT OR DECREE BY DEFAULT MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF ASKED IN THE COMPLAINT. To the Officer: This summons must be returned by the Officer or other person to whom it was given for service, with indorsement of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, this summons shall be returned so indorsed. This summons may not be served later than 30 days after its date. WITNESS: JOHN W. COCKRELL, Clerk of the Eighteenth COURT � Judicial Circuit, and the seal thereof, at Wheaton, /J U Illinois. Dated --- 'e`nt 3,- 1975------ SEAL JOHN W. COCKRELL ------JOHN-W.- CLERK of the EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Plaintiff's Attorne3y 203 E ,tt Liberty Drive 1. ...... . ......... ..... . . ....... ....I......... Street Address Ulheatont Illinois 60147 Town Date of Service,/ ® I --�-�-�• � 19----- —1I N -.. .. .....-........................................................... (To be inserted by officer on copy left with defendant or other Person.) Telephone Number CIRCUIT COURT SUMMONS — GENERAL COPY John W. Cockrell Clerk of the 18th Judicial Circuit DuPage County Box 707 Wheaton, Illinois 60187 SLR/hp 11/3/75 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) SS COUNTY OF DU PAGE ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DU PAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE ) CORPORITION, an Illinois ) Corporation, ) Plaintiff ) vs VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, an ) Illinois Municipal Corpora- ) tion, and the ZONING BOARD OF) APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK) BROOK, an Administrative ) Agency and Advisory Body ) thereof, ) Defendants ) C O M P L A I N T Now comes FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, by its attorneys , RATIIJE, WOODWARD , DYER & BURT, and complaining of the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, an Illinois municipal corporation, and the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, an administrative agency and advisory body thereof , alleges as follows : COUNT I 1. That at all times germane to the allegations contained herein, plaintiff was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, conducting its business from its offices located at 2111 Enco Drive, Oak Brook, Illinois. 2. That at all times germane to the allegations contained herein, the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK was a non-home rule municipal corporation organized and existing under and deriving all of its power and authority pursuant to the Statutes of the State of Illinois. w•.rr..«: -. wt.k 7.r+.+ww..e....<wurrw.s. .rem�w.ao •...•..t:.: ,...a•w�16 to ' �yr,, s, � .� . 4:` t .,� v-F.,. .. 3 . That at all times germane to the allegations contained herein, plaintiff was the owner of the property hereinafter described, said property being commonly known as 2111 Enco Drive, Oak Brook, Illinois, and entirely located within the corporate limits of the said municipality (the "Subject Property") : Lot 4 in Oak Brook Development Company' s Commerce Plaza Subdivision Unit One, being a Subdivision of part of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 in Oak Brook Investment Company Assessment Plat No. 4 and part of Lot 1 and all of Lot 3 in Butler Company-M-1 Inc. Assessment Plat No. 1, all in the Southeast quarter of Section 23, Town- ship 39 North, Range 11 , East of the Third Prin- cipal Meridian, in Du Page County, Illinois 4 . That at all times germane to the allegations contained herein, the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK was an administrative agency and advisory body duly constituted by the corporate authorities of the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK and authorized in Article XIII , Section E. 2 . (a) of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance to make certain administrative decisions with respect to the zoning ordinances ,of said munic- ipality. 5. That the westernmost 3 . 847 acres of the Subject Property is zoned. ORA-2 under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance. 6. That on or about August 14 , 1975 , plaintiff requested defendant' s Building Inspector to issue an opinion that a heliport is an accessory use to those uses permitted in the ORA-2 Zoning Classification under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance, a copy of which request is attached hereto as Ex- hibit A and made a part hereof. 7 . That on or about August 26 , 1975, the said Build- ing Inspector issued his opinion that a heliport was not an accessory use to the uses permitted in the ORA-2 Zoning Clas- sification of the defendant' s Zoning Ordinance, a copy of which opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof. - 2 - • 8 . That on or about August 28, 1975, plaintiff filed its appeal with the Village Clerk of the Village of Oak Brook, appealing the decision of the defendant' s Building Inspector , to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, the duly desig- nated :body for hearing such appeals, a copy of which applica- tion is attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof. 9 . That on October 7, 1975, the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS rendered its decision upholding the Building Inspector' s interpretation that heliports are not accessory uses to those uses permitted in the ORA-2 Zoning Classification of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance. A copy of said decision is attached hereto as Exhibit D and by this reference made a part hereof. 10. That the administrative decision heretofore incorporated herein affects the rights of the plaintiff and the plaintiff requests a judicial review under. the Administrative Review Act (Ch. 110 , Sec. 264 , et seq. , ll.Rev. Stat. , 1973 Ed. ) of the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision holding that a heliport is not an accessory use to the permitted uses specified in the ORA-2 Zoning Classification of the Zoning Ordinance of the de- fendant municipality. 11. That the administrative decision heretofore incorporated herein is not in accordance with law. 12. That plaintiff has exhausted all its administrative remedies. 13. That the defendant municipality, by and through its Zoning Board of Appeals , is hereby requested to file an answer consisting of the record of proceedings had before said ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS pertaining to the entry of the decision of which plaintiff hereby asks a judicial review. The follow- ing shall be filed by the administrative agency: 3 - f, (a) All transcripts of public hearings or meetings at which the question of the use of a heliport as an accessory use to the permitted uses in the ORA-2 zoning classification of the defendant municipality' s Zoning Ordinance was discussed. (b) All written minutes of any meeting of said administrative agency relating to discussions, findings or decisions made by said administrative agency regarding whether a heliport is an accessory use to the permitted uses in the zoning classifica- tion as aforesaid. (c) All written findings, whether prepared by the Building Inspector, Plan Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals pertaining to whether or not a heliport is an accessory use to the permitted uses in an ORA-2 Zoning District. (d) All staff reports or findings, whether in the form of reports or memoranda, prepared for the Plan Commission or the Zoning Board of Appeals, pertaining to whether or not a heliport is an accessory use to the permitted uses in the ORA-2 Zoning District. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays as follows : A. That the record be judicially reviewed and that the decision of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS of the Villaae of Oak Brook be reversed. B. That this Court specifically find that heliports are accessory uses to those uses permitted under the ORA-2 Zoning District of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance. C. That plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as it is entitled to under law. COUNT II 1-3. Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 3 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 3 of this Count II. 4. That pursuant to the power and authority conferred on it by the General , Assembly, the defendant, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, by and through its President and Board of Trustees, adopted Ordinance G-60 on 4 _ Eak, March 22, 1966 , effective July 8 , 1966 , entitled "Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance, " which Zoning Ordinance has been amended from time to time since the date of its adoption. 5. That the property legally described in paragraph 3 hereof (Subject Property) consists of approximately 9 . 943 acres; the westernmost 3. 847 acres is presently zoned ORA-2 under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance and is improved with an eight (8) story office building; that the balance of the Subject Prop- erty is presently zoned ORA-1 under the defendant' s Zoning Ordinance and is improved with a parking lot. 6. That the property immediately East of the Subject Property is presently zoned ORA-1 under defendant' s Zoning Ordinance; it is presently improved with one or more three-story office buildings. 7. That the property immediately North and West of the Subject Property is presently zoned ORA-2 under the defendant' s Zoning Ordinance and is presently improved with several three- story office buildings and a one-story Convenience Banking Center. 8 . That the property immediately South of the Subject Property is zoned ORA-2 up to the East-West Tollway, and ORA-1 South of said Tollway, said property presently being improved with one or more three-story office buildings; a heliport is presently in use on the property zoned ORA-1. 9 . That plaintiff is desirous of constructing a landing pad on the roof of its building to permit the use of the roof of said building as a heliport. 10. That the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance in Article XIV B. 64 . defines a heliport as follows : "64 . HELIPORT (NOT FOR FREIGHT) -- A lot or roof area of a structure which is used, or intended for the landing and take off of heli- copters, not for freight. " 11. That a heliport is permitted as a special use under the ORA-1 and B-3 Zoning Classifications of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance, but is not allowed either as a per- 5 - rs � � R 5 r.r 1_}y ry d,'•.�. t`'T' ''�'rS2�01+J'h '�, ..s�N';„e4,;Ad`�`��'�,,�'y..5�'� � ,,.�,`°w�a� .Y" A "�Y:l�i.F v ���+ ,�� mitted use or a special use in the ORA-2 Zoning Classification. 12. That the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance contains no standards specifically regulating the use of roofs as heliports. 13. That at least three (3) heliports are presently in use within the corporate limits of the defendant' s municipality. 14. That construction of a landing pad upon the roof of plaintiff ' s building for use as a heliport has received all necessary approvals from all appropriate state agencies , including the State of Illinois , Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E and made a part hereof. 15 . That plaintiff has complied with all applicable aviation standards and regulations governing the use of roofs as heliports, including the Division of Aeronautics, Department of Transportation, State of Illinois, which has authorized the use by plaintiff of its property for a Restricted Landing Area-- Heliport. 16. That on or about August 28 , 1975, plaintiff made application to the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, which applica- tion, as amended, requested the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK to amend its Zoning Ordinance so as to include heliports as special uses under the ORA-2 Zoning Classification of said municipality' s Zoning Ordinance, copies of which are attached hereto as Ex- hibits C and F. 17 . That on or about September 8 , 1975, the Plan Commission of the Village of Oak Brook considered the pro- posed amendment. 18 . That on or about September 15, 1975, the Plan Commission of the Village of Oak Brook recommended to the Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook that an amendment to 6 - s:_. the text of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance be adopted so as to permit heliports as special uses under the ORA-2 Zoning Classification. A copy of the Plan Commission' s recommendation is attached hereto as Exhibit G and by this reference made a part hereof. 19 . That a hearing was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK on or about the 7th day of October, 1975, at which hearing the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the adoption of the proposed amendment to the text of its Zoning Ordinance. 20. That on October 7 , 1975, the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS recommended to the Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook the adoption of an amendment to the text of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance, which proposed amendment would spec- ifically include heliports as a special use under the ORA-2 Zoning Classification of said Zoning Ordinance. The said recom- mended amendment was as follows: "PROPOSED AMENDMENT Add to Section X(C) (2) as part (b) (page 50 of Ordinance) : 'b. Heliport (not for freight) , public and private -- (i) located on lots not less than one acre in area and having a touchdown space which is enclosed by a fence and which is not less than 100 feet in diameter or (ii) located on the roof of a building having a touchdown area not less than 30 feet in diameter. The landing area shall, as a minimum, have 2 approach - departure paths -- with centerlines radiating ,from the center of the area forming an angle greater than 90 degrees -- which are not less than 75 feet in width and which are unobstructed above an imaginary plane extending from the edge of the landing area at an incline of one foot vertically to each 6 feet horizontally. '" A copy of which text is attached hereto as Exhibit H and made a part hereof. 21. That in said Exhibit H the Zoning Board of Appeals made specific findings respecting the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as follows: 7o- (a) The proposed amendment as requested above makes due allowance for existing conditions , the conservation of property values, the direction of building development to the best advantage of the entire municipality and the uses to which the prop- erty is devoted at the present time. Further, the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare will not be affected. (b) The Subject Property is located immediately adjacent to an ORA-1 District where heliports are allowed as special uses. There seems to be no basis for distinguishing between the districts with respect to use of property within the districts as a heliport, especially heliports located on the roofs of buildings. Both Districts are intended to allow office, research and assembly uses. The major difference between the two districts is that buildings are restricted to 35 feet in height in the ORA-1 District, whereas buildings may be eight stories in height in the ORA-2 District. Heliports located on eight story build- ings would , in fact, have fewer obstructions in their approach patterns and would, thus , be safer. (c) Since heliports can be developed in the adjoining ORA-1 District, there would be no effect upon the property values or character of the neighbor- hood surrounding the Subject Property. 22 . That on or about October 14 , 1975, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook denied the proposed amend- ment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for heliports in the ORA-2 Zoning Classification as a special use, a copy of which denial is attached hereto as Exhibit I and made a part hereof. 23. That the construction of landing pad on the roof of plaintiff ' s building, enabling the roof of said build- ing to be used as a heliport, would in all respects conform to the terms and provisions of the proposed amendment to the text of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance hereinafter incorporated herein, as well as all performance standards applicable to uses in ORA Distracts. 24 . That the action of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook in denying plaintiff' s request for an amendment to the text of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance so as to include heliports as special uses under the ORA-2 Zoning 8 - Classification of said Zoning Ordinance was and is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory for one or more of the following reasons: A. There are no substantial differences in the character, use, standards or restrictions in the ORA-1 and B-3 Zoning Classifications (whether or not heliports are permitted as special uses) and the ORA-2 Zoning Classification in the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance. B. That the action of the Board of Trustees of the VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK denies plaintiff the proper use and enjoyment of its property without due process of law. 25. That the plaintiff has exhausted all its ad- ministrative remedies. 26 . That the plaintiff states that with this pro- ceeding they are seeking a declaratory judgment in the case of actual controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, under Section 57 .1 of the Civil Practice Act and asks that the aid of this Court be granted in the determination of this controversy. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that: A. This Court declare and determine that the exclusion of heliports as special uses under the ORA-2 Zoning Classification of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance, while said Municipality includes heliports as special uses under the ORA-1 and B-3 Zoning Classifications of said Zoning Ordinance, is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory. B. This Court specifically find that the inclusion of heliports as special uses in the ORA-2 Zoning Classification of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance does not in any way adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Village of Oak Brook. C. That this Court declare and determine the rights of the parties hereto. 9 - D. That the plaintiff may have such other and further relief as may appear proper. COUNT III 1-18 . Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 of Count II as paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Count III. 19 . That on or about August 28 , 1975 , plaintiff made application to the Village of Oak Brook, which applica- tion, as amended, requested the Village of Oak Brook to grant plaintiff a special use permit for the purpose of allowing plaintiff to use the roof of the North Wing of its building as a heliport, copies of which are attached hereto as Ex- hibits C and F. 20. That on or about September 8 , 1975 , plaintiff appeared before the Plan Commission of the Village of Oak Brook and at that time caused evidence to be presented on behalf of its application. 21. That on or about September 15, 1975 , the Plan Commission of the Village of Oak Brook recommended that plain- tiff be granted a special use permit under the proposed amend- ment to the text of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance heretofore set forth herein in paragraph 20 of Count II. A copy of the Plan Commission recommendations has heretofore been incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 22. That a hearing was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Oak Brook on October 7, 1975, at which hearing the plaintiff_ caused evidence to be presented on behalf of its application. 23. That on or about October 7, 1975 , the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended to the Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook that plaintiff be granted a special use under the proposed amendment to the Oak Brook Zoning 10 � F^a,a �w��S" ��dr'+F+.v a r to h � ° �� '�"., 1°+n�,y'*,� ` 't - 'td"a a• a e� ,y, ,,p�' e r� .� n a Ordinance to permit plaintiff to construct and use the roof of the North Wing of its building as a heliport.. A copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals' recommendations and findings is attached hereto as Exhibit J and by this reference made a part hereof. 24 . That the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS made specific findings with respect to its recommendation to the Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook to permit plaintiff a special use for heliport on the roof of its building, said findings being as follows: (a) The subject use is designed, located and proposed to be used to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the following manner : The heliport will be designed, located and operated at the highest standards to protect the public health, safety and welfare. All applicable standards of the State of Illinois , Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics will be complied with in the construction and operation of the heliport. All of the Federal Aviation Administration' s standards will be complied with in the operation of helicopters using the heliport. Only duly licensed personnel will be permitted to operate helicopters using the heliport. The construction of the heliport will be under the supervision of TIRITILLI & ASSOCIATES, INC. , Structural Engineers , and all applic- able provisions of the OAK BROOK BUILDING CODE will be complied with. (b) The subject special use will not cause substan- tial injury to the value of other property in its vicinity because: The proposed heliport will not create any objectionable elements which would cause any injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood. The landing pad will not be visible from the ground and only barely visible from adjoining buildings. The lighting will be used only briefly at night and will not glare onto adjoining property. ado air pollution will be created, and noise levels will be well within generally acceptable levels. 25. That on or about October 14 , 1975, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook denied plaintiff ' s applica- tion for a special use permit under the proposed amendment to the text of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance thereby denying the plaintiff the right to use the roof of the North Ping of its building as a heliport, a copy of which denial is attached hereto as Exhibit I '' ' y ��`Sh`X�"", �'t'+?�'y J, t *'ek 26. That the action of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook in denying plaintiff ' s application for a special use permit seeking permission to use the roof of the North Wing of its building as a heliport was arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory for one or more of the following reasons: A. That the action of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook is not related to the public health, welfare or safety of the residents of said Village; is in deri- gation of the purpose and intent of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance and Section 11-13-1, et seq. , of Chapter 24 of the Illinois Revised Statutes (1973 Ed. ) . B. That said amended Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Oak Brook, as applied to the Subject Property, violates the Articles of the Constitution of the State of Illinois and the Articles of the Constitution of the United States which, in substance, forbid the passage of any laws depriving any person of property without due process of law; that by reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances alleged herein, as pertaining to the Subject Property, the plaintiff has been deprived and is deprived of the use of its property for the purposes of a. heliport on the roof of plaintiff ' s building. 27 . That the plaintiff has exhausted. all its ad- ministrative remedies. 28 . That the plaintiff states that with this pro- ceeding they are seeking a declaratory judgment in the case of actual controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, under Section 57 .1 of the Civil Practice Act and asks that the aid of this Court be granted in the determination of this controversy. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays : A. That the said amended Zoning Ordinance of the 12 - x*- ��� '� t ��� , ��"axy,'�'{,�,, �,n. rt^,,, „+ ` a�r�S°, ,n.43• `y +,��,:}��','t �'m.�... �'�� sir.. � x«' r � Village of Oak Brook is void, unconstitutional and ineffective as applied to the Subject Property insofar as the same prevents the plaintiff , its grantees , successors and assigns, from using the Subject Property for a heliport on the roof of its building. B. That this Court declare that the plaintiff has the right to erect, operate and maintain a landing pad for use as a heliport on the roof of the North Wing of the property above described. C. That this Court enter an Order requiring the defendant, its officers and agents, to issue all building and other permits necessary to permit the construction upon and use of the roof of plaintiff ' s building as a heliport. D. That the defendant, VILLAGE OF OAF: BROOK, its officers, agents and employees, be enjoined from maintaining or entertaining application in any court, contrary to the terms and provisions of such orders that may be entered by this Court in this proceeding. E. That this Court declare and determine the rights of the parties hereto. F. That this Court having declared and determined the rights of the parties, enjoin the defendant, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, from interfering with the plaintiff ' s rights to erect, operate and maintain a landing pad for use as a heliport on the roof of the North Wing of the property above described. G. That plaintiff have the costs of this action against any defense thereto, and that the plaintiff have such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION, Plaintiff Ey RATHJE WOODWARD DYER & BURT Attorneys for Plaintiff 203 East Liberty Drive 668-8500 Wheaton, Illinois 60187 "."'S'� M STATE OF ILLINOIS ) SS COUNTY OF DU PAGE ) being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states that he is the of the plaintiff , FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION, in the above-entitled cause; that he has read the above and foregoing Complaint by him subscribed as such that he knows the contents thereof and that the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of A.D. 1975. Notary Public .....,.:. _ .. .,�..:«..,...-•...u:r.:+.:i..•.wr...,c.:�rn a.x:,.; �"#�'�a°14��'�!"_ � # _ `<'• e fi a� f rL3x.x r. �� •. . � ysa # . s ry4 t y,'. t A , .4 .+. >��� t tPc b _ .._ AFS' tCATIUy FOR PVI)LIC 1JL•ARIF" !lame of Owner Franchise Realtv Interstate Corporation Telephone No. 887-3693 Address, . 2111 Enco Drive (McDonald's Plaza) City Oak Brook State Ill. Zip 60521 Beneficiary (ies) of Trust Name N/A Telephone No. Address City State Zip '-game Telephone No. Address City State Zip If owner is being represented by someone other than himself, please fill in the information below: Owners Representative: Name ichael J. Sise, Legal Counsel Telephone No. 887-3693 Address (same) City State Zip General Location '(or) Address of Property: Sarni as Above Legal - Description of Property Lot 4 in Oak Brook Development CorTany's CcnTnerce Plaza Subdivision Unit One, Being a Subdivision of Part of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 in Oak Brook Investment Cormany Assessment Plat No. 4 and part of Lot 1 and all of Lot 3 in Butler Con-pany-M-1 Inc. Assessment Plat No. 1, all in the SE. of Section 23, Township 39 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in DuPage County, Illinois. State specific action requested and give reasons for same: (Refer to pertinent section of Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance G-60. ) ' Zoninct Amendment _�7 Special Use Variation Fee: $150.00 Fee: $150.00 Fee: $150.00 Appeal-of Building Inspector's interpretation of the zoning ordinance. In the alternative, applicant requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a Special Use permit as provided in Section X(B) (2) (a) . (See the Addendum attached hereto for further information and explanation) Also, .if Special Use Permit granted, Applicant requests variance of the provisions of X(B) (2) (a) , explained further in the Addendum. a_TL APPLICATIONS MST BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROPER FEE, ( 15) COPIES OF A SCALE DRZ1WI1,14G OF A RECE'NT SURVEY PREPARED BY A REGISTERED SURVEYOR AND SHOWING THE PROPERTY LINES , EXISTIL�G BUILDINGS , LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IiND ANY BUILDINGS ON ADJACENT PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 100 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT TIHIS INFOP.MATION BE RECEIVED BY THE FIRST OF THE MONTH FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF THE FOLLOWING MONTH. uAIL TO: Village Clerk FRANCHISE REALTY IWIE_RSTATE CORPORATION Village of Oak Brook 1200 OGS: Bro-,k Road Oaf: Drook, Illinois 60521 BY: (Signature. ot, Appticant) NLichael J. Sisa Legal Counsel (312) FC7-2693 August 14 , 1.975 A`r. Arthur Fhle I,ui.ldincl Commissioner Village of Cak Brook 1200 Oak Brook road Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Re! Lot 4 in Oa;; Prook l%c=vele^rent Company' s Cor -orce Plaza rhdivision t nit 1 in ttee southeast ruart.er of Section 23, mncroship 39 Horth, rC ncfo 11 Fast of '--he Third T'ri.ncipal Neridian, <acccrdina .to the, slat thereof r.ecorciecl July 12 , 19CP as ?`ocur ent In F'uPacre County, Tllinois. C:onvetlance to Franchise P ealty Interstate Corporation Ceptembcr 2.3 , 1969. T'cDonalu' s Plaza Dear '1r. Fhle: ns was Oiscusscd during my recent visit to your office, I ,,7ould like your written opi.n.ion as to NP71;ether or not thr construction by r"ranchise Realty Interstate Corporation, the owner of the above referenced Property, of a helicopter landing paid on the roof of the office Yuilding now existing on the subject prorerty would he perrittc c? under_ the flak Brook Zoning Ordinance , or whether Franchisc e-.ould have to apply for a special use permit or variance before a construction permit can Le issued. You indicate(1 that you e:ouldnot require a complete construction Permit applicationto make this decision. It is our contention that the helicopter landing r,ac?, a Llan and description of i,7hich is attaches., would rye an accessory use and, therefore, permitted in the OPAL Pistrict. I realize that I;.eliports are listed as a Fpecial t.r,,c, .in this district, Fut I helinve the proper legal interpretation an(? construction of the ordinance vouid 1. e that a 1,r1 iport_ is a SJ�ecinl Use only if it is the sole an-.? principal use of the property. In the rre>ent situation, the hf, , i.port would 1'e only an accessory use, and, thus, permitted. I refer you to the definition of an accessory use in Section :AIV (b) (2) , page 79, of the ordinance. It seems clear that under this definition, the helicopter landing pad in question will he an accessory use for the following reasons �X l� X Letter to "'fir. I'hlo Pace 'Wo August lel , 197 (a) it will be subordinate to and serve the existing use of the property as an office Yuilclina. (b) It will r-,e subordinate in area and e-rtent of the- existing office building. (c) Tt will contribute to the comfort -1nO convenience of the occupants of the existing office buildina. (d) It will be located on the same lot (on the roof) of the existina office bui.ldina. For the above reasons, I t,rcre you to allow rranc}iise n(,alty Interstate Corr..oration to apply for a construction permit for the proposed inprovc-nents Without requiring that an application be made to tbo Zoning Porad of PpT.-eals for a Special Use Permit or Variance, Thank you for your cooperation. I have attached a copy of the FAA reclul.ations you requested. Sincerely yours, FrANCHIST PTAL`.i Y .T.t TIFTST11`E CORP ORATIoil; x;y Legal Counsel WS/man ad« �aE OAK Qir✓ o� a G p y. CQura VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 August 26, 1975 Michael J. Sise Legal Counsel Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation 2111 Enco Drive McDonald's Plaza Oak Brook, Ill. 60521 Dear Mr. Sise, In response to your letter of August 14, 1975, relative to construction of a helicopter landing pad on the roof of the McDonald Building, 1 am of the opinion that a Special Use ` would be required to permit this. we had referred th:Ls matter to the Village Attorney, Mr. Fred Bianucci, and he concurs with my decision. If you need any assistance in making application for the Special Use, please feel free to call. Sincerely yours, L LL- Arthur H. Ehle Building Commissioner a �� K ADDENDLM TO APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING I. APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECT'OR'S ORDER 1. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTI1`?G AND PROPOSED USE: The existing use is an eight story office building. The principal tenant is McDonald's Corporation. The property encompasses 9.943 acres. A current certified survey showing the location of the existing office building is submitted herewith. The Applicant proposes to construct a helicopter land pad (heliport) on the roof of the north wing of the existing office building. A plan of the proposed improvements with construction specifications and details is attached to this application and marked Fxhi.bit A. The proposed heliport will be used only for the convenience of the employees and guests of McDonald's Corporation using the existing office building. The helipor: will not be used for freight or camr_rical passenger service. 2. ACTIal OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEALED FROM: The Building Inspector of the Village of Oak Brook, Mr. Arthur Ehle, has ruled that the proposed use is not an accessory use to the existing use of the subject property and is, therefore, not a permitted use under the. 0ak Brook Zoning Ordinance; and that pursuant to Section X(B) (2) (a) of said ordinance, the Applicant must obtain a Special Use Permit frau the Village Board. 3. RELIEF SOUGHT: The applicant requests that the Zoning Bo6rd of Appeals rule that the Building Inspector's determination that the proposed use is not a permitted use was in error. Further, the Applicant requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals rule that the Applicant does not have to apply for a Special Use Permit. 4. GRUJNDS FOR RELIEF SOUGHT: The subject property is located in the OUAl District. Offices are permitted uses in such districts. Section X(B) (1) (d) provides that accessory uses and structures are also permitted uses in the ORAL District. The accessory uses and structures described in this section include certain named activities. and structures but do not limit accessory uses and structures to the named activities and structures. In fact, this section also allows ". . . similar facilities that are usedsolely for operating, servicing or maintaining the activities and improvements with the district." The proposed heliport falls within this description since it will be usec'A to service the activities co;.ducted in the office building. That is, it will operate as a service for employees working in the existing office by providing convenient and swift transportation serviL to local airports and other destinations in the general area of theoffice. In addition to the above, Section XlV(b) (2) contains a furtherdefinition of the term Accessory. The Applicants proposed use andstructure meets exactly the terms of this definition:-(a) It will be subordinate to and serve the existing use of tproperty. The main use of the property will continue to the office use, but the heliport will provide a valuable service to the Enployees of VcDonal.V s Corporation. -2- (b) It will be subordinate in area and extent of the existing office building. The heliport pad will only be 32' x 32' , less than �/5 of the area of the North wing of the existing building. It will not be visible frm the ground and will not detract from the appearance of the existing building. (c) It will contribute to the comfort and convenience of the occupants of the existing office buildinq by providing an Buie, efficient and swift method of transportation to surrounding areas. aeeeiak`� wua- ¢3' Gv,C,ahc ���(d) It will be located on the same lot (on the roof) of the existing office building. Section X(B) (7.) (a) of the ordinance does provide that a Heliport is a Special Use in the ORAL District. However, this section should "only be applicable where a Heliport is the main or sole use of the subject property. There are many possible accessory uses which would not be permitted uses if they were the main or sole use of property in the 0RA1 District. Garages, utility structures and certain types of dwellings would not he permitted in the ORAL District, but when they are accessory uses or structures, they are permitted. Therefore, a heliport can he a permitted accessory use, even though it would be a special use if it were the sole or main use of property in the ORA1 District. 5. ALT97NATIVE RELIEF SOUGHT: Applicant denies that its proposed use is a Special Use under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance; but, should the, Roard hold that the Building Inspector's determination was not in error, the Applicant requests that the Plan Commission and Toning Poard of Appeals recommend to the Oak Brook Villaae Pard that the Applicant he granted a Special Use Permit for its proposed use. Applicant asks that this request for alternative relief he heard and considered simultaneously with the appeal of the Building Inspector's ruling to prevent a delay of construction of the proposed improvements. 6. GROUMS FOR AL=A=-. RELIEF: Section VIII(J) (5) (a)-(c) of the Cak Brook Zoning ordinance sets forth the standards that a Special Use must meet before it may be authorized by the Village Board. The Applicants proposed use meets all of the said standards. The proposed heliport will serve as a great convenience to employees of McDonald's Corporation using the existing office building. As mentioned in part 4, above, it will provide convenient, swift and efficient transportation to and. from local airports and could serve as an invaluable tool for real estate site selection in Northeastern Illinois. The heliport will be designed, located and operated at the highest standards to protect the public health, safety and. welfare. All applicable stanclards of the State of Illinois, Departr\ent of Iransnortation, Division of %leronautics will be comoli ed. �.ith in the construction arcs operation of the heliport. All of the Federal Aviation Pdministration's standards will be camlied with in the operation of helicopters using the heliport.. Only duly licensed personnel will be perr+itted to operate helicopters using the heliport. The constriction of the heliport will be under the supervision of Tir.itilli & Assoc. , Inc. , structural engineers, and all applicable provisions of the Oak Fr_ook Building Code will be cmiplied with. -3- The proposed heliport will not create any objectionable elements which would cause any injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood., The landing pad will not be visible from the ground and only barely visible from adjoining buildings. The lighting will be used only briefly at night and will not glare onto adjoining property. No air pollution will be created, and noise levels will be well within generally acceptable levels. 7. ADDITIONAL RELIEF SOUGHT - 10RIATION OF THE PRCVISIONS OF SM7ION X(B) (2) (a) : If the alternative relief sought in paragraph five of this application is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Applicant also asks thc-it the provisions of Section X(B) (2) (a) be varied to relieve the Applicant: of the requirements that the touchdown space be enclosed by a fence and be not less than 100 feet in diameter. Applicant asks that the fence requirement be waived and that the touchdown area be permitted to be 32 feet in diameter, as shown on the plan sukxnitted herewith as Exhibit A. Applicant further requests that this application for a variance be heard and considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Board simult:an�ously with Applicant's appeal and request for a special use permit. 8. GROUNDS FOR Pr=EF SOUGHT: Section X(B) (2) (a) described heliports located on lots and is not directed at heliports located on the roof of buildings. Applicant's request is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance. The intent and purpose of requiring a fence and a touchdown area 100 feet in diameter is to protect persons in or near a touchdown area located on a vacant lot. Since the proposed heliport will be located on an existing building eight stories above the ground, access to the touchdown area will be controlled and limited to the extent that a fence and touchdown area 100 feet in diameter will not be necessary for safety purposes. In fact, a fence, alepending on height and location, could be an obstruction if used in conjunction with the proposed heliport. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality since the heliport will be used as an accessory to the existing office building and will not be visible from the ground. The plight of the owner is due to the unique shape of the roof top landing area which was designed before a heliport was contemplated. Applicant is prepared to present testimony in support of this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Plan Ccmnission and Village Board. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant requests that Oak Brook Plan Ccmnissi.on, Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Board consider this application, hold public hearings as required and grant the relief sought. APPLICANT: FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION Michael J. Sis Legal Counsel �� -4- STATE OF ILLINOIS ) SS: COUNTY OF COOK ) The foregoing statements are true and correct. 1 Michael J. Sise Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of August, 1975. o lic t'yPi ssion expires 8/10/77 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE OF HEARING: October 7, 1 APPLICANT: FRA'N'CHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION ADDRESS PRIOR HEART 0,G: YES Z=/ NO Z/ Date: October 7, 1975 RELIEF SOUGHT: AlI _`-DMEiNT z__ APPEAL X/ .SPECIAL USE � ' VARIATION DECISION: PECO-24ENDED APPROVAL RECO?4�DED DENIAL CONTINUED WI THDRA,N OTHER L- MEMBERS jPRESENT ABSENT YES VOTE) NO ABSTAIN Edward Fraser Motion X Virgil Fuller X John Lavery, 2nd X X Arthur Musc:hler X Allan Royston X X I.7.K. Skinner X X Jo s e-Dh Ru srt - Ch a i r:^an X X RecoT,mendat:ion of Plan Co_aaission: No Motion Dater 9/15/75 Rererred to Plan Co.��ission: Date: x r JLL TRAINSCRIPT 0= PROCEEDINGS BY Du PAGE .COUNT Z REPORTING SERVICE RECONi2MENDATIONT: iir. Fraser moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals r rm�end to-ttie oa denial j:4 petitioner's request for appeal of the Building Inspector' decision because the petitioner has not demonstrated that said decision was inappropriate. 1 /4�e/ �Jv' i, Xl= g e flit iV STATE OF ILLINOIS ' t' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION y DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS I hereby certify that the Order attached is a true and correct copy of the -original Order entered on the 2nd dY a of October , 19 75 by Guy Wood, - Director of the Division of Aeronautics , Department of Trans- portation of the State of Illinois , as said original Order appears in the files and records of the Department of Trans- portation, Division of Aeronautics of the State of Illinois . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the Seal of: the Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics of the State of Illinois , at the Office of said Department , Capital Airport, Springfield, Illinois , this 2nd day of October 1975 �x E STATE OF ILLINOIS ' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OFAERONAUTICS In the matter of the application of ) McDonal'd ' s Corporation for approval ) . .of a Restricted Landing Area-Heliport ) located in Oak Brook, Illinois ) ORDER On September 3 , 1975 ,' the McDonald '.s Corporation filed an application herein for approval of a restricted landing area- heliport located in Oak Brook , in Lot 4 in Cak Brook Development Company ' s Commerce Plaza Subdivision Unit 1 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 , Township 39 North , Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof ,- recorded July 12 , 1965 as Document #R68-30335 , in DuPage County, Illinois ; and commonly known as 2111 Enco Drive , Oak Brook , Illinois . After examination of said application and inspection of the site of said proposed restricted landing area-heliport , the Division on September 11 , 1975 , served notice on interested par- ties of its intention to enter an Order approving said application , pursuant to Section 60 of the Illinois Aeronautics Act . All objections to and comments on the subject matter of said order having been considered by the Division and the notice served as aforesaid . IT IS , THEREFORE , ORDERED BY THE DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS as follows : (1) That the above entitled application be, and it is hereby approved . (2) That a Certificate of Approval of said restricted landing area-heliport be issued to the said McDonald ' s Corporation after sufficient completion thereof as proposed by the application to comply with all minimum requirements of this Division for a restricted landing area-heliport . (3) That no operations from said restricted landing area- heliport are authorized by this Order until the Certificate of Approval has been issued hereunder. (4) That this Order shall become null and void unless acted upon and the construction authorized is com- pleted within one (1) year from the effective date STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS In the matter of the application of ) M-cDona,ld ' s Corporation for approval ) of a Restricted Landing Area-Heliport ) located in Oak Brook , Illinois ) ORDER hereof , unless the applicant shall have applied for, . and received from the Division an extension of time for completion for good cause shown . (5) That this Order shall take effect and become operative twenty '(20) days after the service thereof . (6) That the terms and provisions hereof are made ex- pressly contingent upon any changes , modifications or additions in the location , character and ori- entation of the utilities herein concerned , if any, as the same may affect the effective measurements of said restricted landing area-heliport , and as the same may be proposed by and under timely notice by the owners of such utilities submitted to and approved by the Division . Guy Wood , DIRECTOR DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS DATED : October 2 , 1975 i AtENEUE]T TO APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HFAPdTU The Applicant, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, hereby amends its Aq:,Dplication for an Appeal, Special Use Permit and Variation concerning certain real property commonly known as 2111 Fnco Drive (McDonald's Plaza) , as follows: 1) Amending Article 2: the Building Inspector has determined that the Applicant's building is located in the ORA 2 District and that a heliport would not be either a permitted use or special use under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance. 2) Amending Article 4: the subject property is located in the ORA 2 and ORA 1 zoning districts. The heliport will be constructed on the roof of the existing office building which is located in the ORA 2 District. All references to Section X(B) (1) (d) are hereby changed to refer to Section X(C) (1) (c) . Nothing stated herein should be construed as a withdrawal of the Applicant's appeal of the Building Inspector's interpretation that a heliport is not an accessory use in the ORA 2 or ORA 1 Districts. 3) The Applicant withdraws its request for alternative relief and additional relief, as stated in Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the -Application. 4) The Applicant makes the following request for alternative relief t A. The Applicant denies that its proposed use is not a permitted use under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance; but, should the Board hold that the Building Inspector's determination was not in error, the Applicant: requests that the Plan Ccmnission and Zoning Board of Appeals recommend to the Oak Brook Village Board, and the Villaqe Board so act, that the text of Section- X(C) (2) of the Oak Brook zoning Ordinance be mended by the addition of a provision, similar to Section X(B) (2) (a) , allowing heliports (not for freight) to be special uses in the ORA 2 District. Applicant further requests that this provision not require that the touchdown area be enclosed by a fence or have a diameter of not less than thirty (30) feet when the heliport is located on the roof of a building. , B. The proposed amendment as requested above makes due allowance for existing conditions, the conservation of property values, the direction of building development to the best advantage of the entire municipality and the uses to which the property is devoted at the present time. Further, the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare will not be effected. The subject property is located immediately adjacent to an ORA 1 District where heliports are allowed as special uses. There is no reasonable basis for distinguishing between the districts With respect to use of property within the districts as a heliport, especially heliports located on the roofs of buildings. Thus, the elimination of the heliport use is arbitrary and capricicas. Both Districts are intend,-,d to allow office, research and assembly uses, and a restriction attaint heliports in one district is not consistent or reasonable. The only major difference between the two districts is that buildings are restricted to 35 feet in height in the ORA 1 District, whereas buildings Imlay be eight stories in height in the ORA 2 District. Heliports located on eight story buildings would, in fact, have fewer obstructions in their approach pattens and would, thus, be safer. _2_ Since heliports can be developed in the adjoining ORA 1 District, there would be no effect upon the property values or character of the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. 5) If the alternative relief is granted, Applicant requests that the Plan Cc mission and Zoning Board of Appeals recap--end to the Oak Brook Village Board that the Applicant be granted a Special Use Permit for the proposed heliport use. Applicant requests that this request be heard and considered simultaneously with the Appeal and request for an Amendment to prevent a delay of construction of the proposed improvements. 6) As grounds for the request for a special use permit, Applicant real.leges the statements contained in Article 6 of the Application. The Applicant is prepared to present testimony in support of this application b:) the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Plan Cannission and Village Board. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant requests that the Oak Brook Plan CaTmission, Zoning Doard of Appeals and Village Board consider this application, hold public hearings as required and grant the relief sought. APPLICANT: FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION BY: Michael J. Sis Legal Couns STATE CF ILLINOIS ) SS: OCUNPY OF COCK ) The foregoing statements are true and correct. el J. Sise Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of September, 1975. 0-,L'C,,� lic My sslon expires 8/10/77 PAGE -I- VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN CONDIISSION File : Date of Meeting Sept. 15, 1975 . applicant• FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP. (McDonald' s Office Bldg. ) Address :- City, State :_ Tel. No. Prior Hearing Yes [X] No Relief Sought: Preliminary Plat Final Plat Rezoning x Special Use x Other Text Amendment (Zoning .Ordiziance) Decision: x Recommended Approval - Recommended Denial Continued Withdrai�m Other Member Scott moved to recommend to the Village Board to amend Motion: Ordinance to add a Clause (.b) to the special uses in --per2 Zones and thatFranchise Realty Interstate Corp. be granted a special use under the amended Ordinance. Seconded Ayes : ; ayes : ; and 2 abstaining. ASE-NIBERS: ABSENT PRESENT YES NO ABSTAIN x Chairman Barton John Bo:.,-man Robert Listec :i B. Jack Noyes x Barbara Reynolds x x Harold Scott x x Carle Viunderlich x Recommendation of Staff: Date: Referred to Date : Respectfully )ours , �� Chairman, Plan Cor^.arlission I PLAN COMMISSION MEETING September 15,1975 Members Present Richard A. Barton, Chairman B. J. Noyes Carle Wunderlich Harold E. Scott Barbara Reynolds Robert E. Listecki Absent: John J. Bowman Also Present: Marianne Lakosil, Commissioners Aide Charles E. Littleton, Village Engineer William R. Balling, Assistant to Village Manager The meeting of the Oak Brook Plan Commission was held pursuant to a call on Monday evening, September 15, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the T. A. Mohlman Board Room. APPROVAL OF 143177JTES : August 18, 1975 - Regular Meeting September 8, 1975 - Special Meeting Member Noyes moved that the minutes be approved, with the correction of Member Noyes ' name in the- minutes of September 8, 1975; seconded by Member Wunderlich and unanimously carried. SUM14ARY OF ACTION TAKEN: Clayton - Variation & Zoning Amendment. (Moved to recommend approval to the Village Board with certain conditions) Mayslake - Preliminary Plat Mayslake - Rezoning (zoning amendment) . . . . . . . . (moved to recommend to Village Board that zoning for parcels A, B, and C be denied and also moved that the request for R-4 Special Use onthe entire parcel be denied) Christ Church - Variation &Special Use . . . . . . . (Moved to recommend to the Village Board that the Special Use request be granted) SUMMARY OF ACTION (Continued) Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. 04cDonald Office Bldg. ) - Appeal, Special Use & Variation . . . . . (Moved to recommend to the Village Board that the Zoning Ordinance be amended and that a special use be granted under the amended Ordinance.) Oak Brook Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . (Special meeting to beheld on October 13, 1975) ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Plan Commission., Member Listecki moved that the meeting be adjourned; seconded by Member Scott and unanimously carried, at the hour of 1 :20 P.M. Respectfull submitted, A�7 Mary ou Emory., Secretary�4....GG7`etary Dak Brook Plan Commission APPROVED: Richard A. Barton, Chairman FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP. (McDonald Office Bldg. ) Appeal, Special Use & Variation Mr. Michael J. Sise, the attorney for the McDonald's Corporation stated that Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. Vas a subsidiary of McDonald ' s Corporation. Mr. Sise introduced two witnesses : Mr. August P. Tiritilli, structural engineer and Doug Hammond of Bell Helicopter. Mr. Sise explained that they bad to change their application, which asked for this heliport to be an accessory use under the OR-A-2 District. Chief Ehle issued an interpretation that the request was a special use. Mr. Sise stated that his amended application requested an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to make a heliport a special use in the OR-A-2 District similar to the OR.-A-1 District. Mr. Sise stated that first of all he will be appealing the building inspector' s order or interpretation that a heliport is not an accessory use. He will argue this appeal before the Zoning Board on October 7, 1975 . If the Zoning Board of Appeals does find that this is not an accessory use, then he is asking that the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals consider an application for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance making a heliport a special use in the OR-A- 2 Zone and then also asking that a special use permit be granted for a heliport. Mr. Sise went over Exhibit A, which is the plat survey. He stated that the heliport will be loc.atdd on the north wing of the McDonald' s building. It will be 32 X 32 feet. Mr. Sise pointed out that there is only one building which is within 100 feet of their property line. The building to the east is ap- proximately 70 feet from their building. Exhibit B is the working drawing for the construction of the heliport pad which will be discussed by Mr'. Tiritilli. Exhibit C is the official map of zoning districts in the area. Exhibit D is an aerial photograph which shows that there are no obstructions to the flight path of the helicopter. Exhibit E is a map of the Village of Oak Brook. Mr. Sise stated that there are no schools or hospitals within the one mile radius or residential area within one-half mile radius . tY - S Mr. Sise stated that the helicopter that the Corporation has purchased is a Bell Helicopter 206 series, turbo jet. It will be used as transportation by the executives of McDonalds to and from O'Hare and Palwaukee airports . This helicopter will also be used on an , experimental basis for site selection in northeastern Illinois . Mr. Sise stated that the flying hours . would be approximately 500 per year or 10 hours per week. The helicopter will not be stored on the building- over night. All the maintenance will be done at either O'Hare or Palwaukee airports. Mr. Sise presented a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which he stated was a modification of the heliport description which is in the Oak Brook Ordinance for ground heliports. This modification which takes into account roof top heliports will be added to Section X(C) (2) as (b) (Page 50 of Ordinance) . Mr. Sise stated that he does not feel that this proposed amendment: conflicts with either the Zoning Ordinance or the Master Plan. Mr. Sise stated that they are also asking that a special use permit be granted also. Mr. Sise stated that the State of Illinois has approved their application. He stated that they have come out to the site and have also talked with the chief pilot for McDonald' s, Mr. Andres . Mr. Tiritilli, a - structural engineer, stated that he has checked the drawings . He stated that the building that the heliport is to be erected was originallyto .be designed for 4 more ' fl.00rs so the heliport would not be actually built on a roof but on a floor slab which has even less structural restraints . Mr. Tiritilli stated that there is no problem whatsoever as far as the structure is concerned. He stated that the FAA requirements will be met for"roof-top" heliports . Mr. Tiritilli stated that the lights would be placed approximately 12 feet above the roof level in what they call a mechanical pent house. Fie stated that they will have a telephone and fire extinguisher. There will be four anchors for this pad to secure it. There will be two tie-downs to position the helicopter. He stated that there will be a small waiting area and walk-way. They will. provide hand rails for protective purposes . It was pointed out that just the McDonald' s helicopter will use this facility, but could be used for emergency purposes. September i5"� k ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chairman stated that at the special meeting to be held on October 13, 1975 this matter will be discussed. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE OF HEARING: October 7, 19 APPLICANT: FR.MCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION ADDRESS: PRT_OR HEART`IG: YES NO ZX Date: October 7, 1975 RELIEF SOUGHT: AME.-NDMENT TEXT AMEN HENT 'APPEAL SPECIAL USE l / - VARIATION DECISION: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 1 RECO-NMENDED DENIAL / CONTINUED WITHDRAWN Ol HEP. IMEMBERS PRESENT ABSENT YES VOTE) NO ABSTAIN Edward Fraser M X X Virgil Fuller X X John Lavery X X Arthur Muschler X Allan Roysdon X X W.K. Skinner 2nd X X. . Joseph Rush - Cha-4 ---,man X ( X Recorn-nendation of Plan CoTL-,dssion: No Motion Date: 9/15/75 Referred tc Plan Com�?i ssion: N/A Date: Z/A * FULL TRANSCRIPT 0= PROCEEDINGS BY DuPAGE .COUN:'!� REPORTING SERVICE RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Fraser moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend . approval to the Village Board of a text amendment to Sec. X (C) 2 as part (b) , page 50 of the Oak- Brook Ordinance G-60 as amended as follows: 47, PROPOSED AMENDMENT Add to Section X(C) (2) as part (b) (page 50 of Ordinance): "b. Heliport (not for freight) , public and private -- (i) located on lots not less than one acre in area and having a touchdown space which is enclosed by a fence and which is not less than 100 feet in diameter or (ii) located on the roof of a building having a touchdown area not less than 30 feet in diameter. The landing area shall, as a minimum, have 2 approach - departure paths -- with centerlines radiating from the center of the area forming an angle greater than 90 degrees -- which are not less than 75 feet in width and which are unobstructed above an imaginary plane extending from the edge of the landing area at an incline of one foot vertically to each 6 feet horizontally." ' In support of its recommendation concerning this proposal for an Amendment -of -::he . Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Oak Brook, the Zoning Board of Appeals hRs found the following facts: The sub' - . ... acts of 7 _ C-� The proposed amendment as requested above makes due allowance for existing conditions, the conservation of property values, the direction of building development to the best advantage of the entire municipality and the uses to which the property is devoted *at the present time. Further, the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare will not be effected. The subject property is located immediately adjacent t� an ORA l District where heliports are allowed as special uses. There seems to be no basis for distinguishing between the districts with respect to use of property within the districts as a heliport, especially heliports located on the roofs of building-s. Both Districts a Q in ta,;dod +., allow office, research and assembly uses. The maior difference betreen the D,o districts is •that buildings are restricted to 35 feet in height intheOR AI District. 'whereas buildings may be eight stories in height in the ORA 2 District. Heliports located on eight story buildings would, in fact, have fewer obstructions in their approach patterns and would, thus, be safer. Since heliports can be developed in the adjoining ORA 1 District, there would be no effect upon the property values or character of the neighborhood surrounding the subiect property. - 00A v G A 1�. F COU VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROA D OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS October 16, 1975 654-2220 Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation 2111 Enco Drive Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Attention: Mr. Michael J. Sese Dear Mr. Sese, At the board meeting of October 14, 1975, the village board considered your application for an amendment to the zoning ordinance to add a Heliport to ORA-2 and your petition for a Special Use for such a Heliport. A motion was made to deny both requests and the majority of the board voted to deny the requests. We thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and if we can be of any further service, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully yours, C .a Ken eth G. Carm.ia KGC/1s Village Manager VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE OF HEARING: October 7, 1 APPLICANT: FRdNCHISE REALTY . INTERSTATE CORPORATION ADDRESS: PRIOR HEAR' NG. Y Is NO Date: October 7, 1975 RELIEF SOUGHT: NT L I 'APPEAL SPECIAL USE l Xf VARIATION Z—, DECISION: RECO-'24ETDED APPROVAL X RECO-M-,',=- DED DENIAL CO-,TL` TJED I I iHDRATANL OTHER L—/ MEMBERS PRESENT ABSENT YES (VOTE) NO ABSTAIN' I Edward Fraser Motion X X Virgil Fuller X X John Lavery X X Arthur Mus,chler X Allan Rovsidon X X 1.1_K. Skinner 2nd X � X - 1 Joseph Rus?� - Chairman X X Reco_rnmendarion of Plan Conmission:_ No Motion Date- 9/15/75 Referred-to Plan Co�-�dssion: N/A Date: N/A * FALL TPUI_ISCRIPT O_ PROCEEDINGS BY Du PAGE .COU` !Y REPORTING S.ERJICE RECOM.NIElDA_ION: Mr. Fraser moved that if the Village Board acts favorably on the Zoning Board of Appeals recorunendation for a text amendment to Sec. X, (C) 2, as part (b) of Ordinance G-60 as amended, then the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval to the Village Board of the applicant's request for Special Use for the attached argLunents of record. SPECIAL USE - FINMZ` GS and RECO1111dE\'DATIONS (Complete Section A, or Sections B and C - Section D is optional) . In support of its reconmendation of this Special Use, the Zoning. Board of Appeals sets forth the following facts as required by the Zoning .Ordinanct Section XIII J-5, said findings of fact being based on the evidence pre- sented to the Board: A. B. The subject - use is designed, located and proposed to be used to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the follolvin manner: The -heliport will be designed, located and operated at the highest standards to protect the public health, safety and welfare. - All applicable standards of the State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics will be complied with in t e construction and operation of the heliport. All of the Federal Aviation Administration's standards will be complied with in the operation of heli—copters using e e 1por . Only— duly licensed personnel will be permitted to operate helicopters using the eh-port. 1he construclionotthe,heliport wiII be under ' C. They subject special use ti=gill not cause subs�aon!tial b rtzjurs �obtj value of other property in its vicinity because: The proposed heliport will not create any objectionable elements which would cause any init, value of other -property in the neighborhood. The landing pad will not be visible from theground and only barely visible rom adjoining buildings. The lighting will be used only briefly at night and will not glare onto adjoining property. No air pollution will be created, an noise eve s Will be well within generally,acceptable levels. B. Continued— of Tiritilli & Assoc. , Inc: ,. structural engineers, and all applicable provisions of the Oak Brook Building Cqde will be complied with. Novembe,% 21, 1975 TO: Bonnie MHa nti.n e FROM: John Cc3►wanc. The 6ot&jwLiig cv-i(t b}u.ny you up to date ne, a)Lding the We have been in6o"ed that on Wednelsday the 27th we u-% neceive the Feden..at Aetonaut.ics Admi.niztnation'/s (FAA) atp}:,'novat'. We have -teceived State o' TU inois, Depvutment oz Tnans po tta-t i.o ii, Division o' Aen.onaut.ics apptovat 6ubject to 6inax tknpecti..on o' the r�',ad a6teA eokmtnuction has been eompZeted. This ins indicated on th.eiA onden dated 10/2/75, copy attached. In addition, the State o6 I U i.noi�s, Depar tment o Emeng enc y Sen.v i ceps (C.ivit De'eu e) hay in its po,5,s es�sion a tette t stating tiie inters o3 the paxti.es to enter into a .lease conditioned upon the avo,Uab-i,e.-i ty o6 a Hei,i.pott. The Depvr tment o6 Fmengeney Sen.vica wiU only use the Hetipon t dut.ing ci,vU. de jejvse and di sante t opm�tiokn. We 6eee the location o6 the Depahtment o Fmehgency Sehvi�ces to out o66.iee buiid.ing witt serve as a g-teat benen,i,t to the entire community. It is out since/test wish that this additi.oitczi bene;'lit to tete V-i.Uage wiU be good reason bon the Board o6 Tnu,stees to teconsideh the.i.t deniaZ 06 out zoning appUcation. i� JJC/bmh Attachments cc= M. See 0 FN5.50 STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS In the matter of the application of ) McDonald ' s Corporation for approval ) .of a Restricted Landing Area-Heliport ) located in Oak Brook , Illinois ) ORDER On September 3 , 1975 , the McDonald ' s Corporation filed an application. herein for approval of a restricted landing area- heliport located in Oak Brook, in Lot 4 in Oak Brook Development Company ' s Commerce Plaza Subdivision ?;nit 1 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23, Township 39 North , Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof , recorded July 12 , 1965 as Document ER68-30335 , in DuPage County , Illinois ; and commonly known as 2111 Enco Drive , Oak Brook, Illinois . After examination of said application and inspection of the site of said proposed restricted landing area-heliport , the Division or.. September 11 , 1975 , served notice on interested par- ties of its intention to enter an Order approving said application , pursuant to Section 60 of the Illinois Aeronautics Act . All objections to and comments on the subject matter of said order having been considered by the Division and the notice served as aforesaid . IT IS , THEREFORE , ORDERED BY THE DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS as follows : (1) That the above entitled application be , and it is hereby approved . (2 ) That a Certificate of Approval of said restricted landing area-heliport be issued to the said McDonald ' s Corporation after sufficient completion thereof as proposed by the application to comply with all minimum requirements of this Division for a, restricted landing area-heliport . (3) That no operations from said restricted landing area- heliport are authorized by this Order until the Certificate of Approval has been issued hereunder . (4) That this Order shall become null and void unless acted upon and the construction authorized is com- pleted within one (1) year from the effective date STATE OF ILLINOIS 1 �f 21 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A- DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS In the matter of the application of ) M-cDonald ' s Corporation for --approval ) of a Restricted Landing Area-Heliport ) located in Oak Brook, Illinois ) ORDER hereof , unless the applicant shall have applied for, and received from the Division an extension of time for completion for good cause shown. (5) That this Order shall take effect and become operative twenty '(20) days after the service thereof . (6) That the terms and provisions hereof are made ex- pressly contingent upon any changes , modifications or additions in the location , character and ori- entation of the utilities herein concerned, if any, as the same may affect the effective measurements of said restricted landing area-heliport , and as the same may be proposed by and under timely notice by the owners of such utilities submitted to and approved by the Division . Guy Wood , DIRECTOR DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS DATED : October 2 , 1975 a _ a STATE OF ILLINOIS1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS I hereby certify that the Order attached is a true and correct copy of the -original Order entered on the 2nd day of October 19 75 by Guy Wood, Director of the Division of Aeronautics , Department of Trans- portation of the State of Illinois , as said original Order appears in the files and records of the Department of Trans- portation, Division of Aeronautics of the State of Illinois . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the Seal of the Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics of the State of Illinois , at the Office of said Department, Capital Airport, Springfield, Illinois , this 2nd day of October 1975 o� ' A v v f G A F� ur r VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS November 21, 1975 654-2220 MEMO TO: Village President and Board of Trustees SUBJECT : Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation vs the Village of Oak Brook and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Oak Brook Gentlemen: On November 11, 1975 the Village was served by a circuit court summons as prepared by Rathje, Woodward, Dyer & Burt of Wheaton, Illinois . The complaint involves the actions of the Village with respect to the recent denial of the application for a Text Amend- ment, and Special Use , as filed by Franchise Realty Corporation for the development of a roof top helipad in an ORA-2 District. Mr. Bianuc:ci has advised the staff to release no information on this matter without receiving his approval to do so . In addition he has advised that no action should be taken by the Village at this time to amend our zoning ordinance relative to the elimination of heliports as a special use. He has also advised that the Village is scheduled to file an answer to the complaint on December 5 , 1975 . Respectfully submitted, ��;�;IUIlC1Jw1�• William R. Balling Assistant to the Village Manager WRB: ef LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIANUCCI 230 WEST MONROE STREET ALFRED P. BIANUCCI CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 OAK BROOK OFFICE. -- (312) 346-3762 BUTTERFIELD OFFICE PLAZA ROBERT B.SPENCER 2625 BUTTERFIELD ROAD DONALD W. FORESTER OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 (312) 325-1744 January 29, 1976 Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 In re: Status of Litigation Dear Ken: In keeping with my prior representations, the following is the status of the various matters in litigation in which I am involved on behalf of the Village of Oak Brook. 1. LaSalle National Bank vs. Oak Brook. As I advised you previously, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in this case. A hearing on our Motion was held approximately three weeks ago and we received a decision by the Court the day before yesterday to the effect that Count I of the Complaint was dismissed in accord with our Motion, but Count II of the Complaint was not. It is therefore incumbent upon us to prepare an Answer to the remaining Count, which we shall do within the next 28 days. I would expect that once we have filed our Answer to that Count II this case will proceed and probably be tried sometime the middle of 1976. Franchise Realty - Interstate Corporation vs. Oak Brook. This case is presently scheduled for trial the middle of March, 1976. The precise date has not yet been established, but I expect the same to be established this week. Once I receive definitive information from the court, I will advise you. 3. Antoniou vs. Oak Brook Utility Company. As I previously advised you, this case had been settled and the case was 9 `2 VVVV.rrrr VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 April 22, 1976 Mr. Earl Konrad Dept. of Transportation Federal Aviation Authority 2300 E. Devon Ave. Des Plaines, Ill. 60018 Dear Mr. Konrad, It is our understanding that there are a number of locations within the corporate limits of our municipality that are F.A.A. approved heliport landing areas. Because our zoning ordinance has certain requirements and restrict- ions for location, we are requesting that you forward, to us, the location of all approved F.A.A. heliports within the Village of Oak Brook. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Si cerely yours, o Ken'ieth C. Ca gn Village Manager cc: A.H. Ehle DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION GREAT LAKES REGION 2300 EAST DEVON AVENUE DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS 60018 �Qpl Av�gl ' Z a � v 2 O �NISTap�\ May 4, 1976 Mr. Kenneth C. Carmignani Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, :Illinois 60521 Dear Mr. Ca:rmignani: In response to your letter of April 22, 1976, in which you requested the locations of all FAA approved heliports within the Village of Oak Brook, the following is provided: 1. The J. W. Scott Helipad located at the Northeast corner of East-West Tollway and Midwest Road Intersection Manager: J. A. Worley, telephone 654-2200 2. Chicago Bridge and Iron Heliport located at 901 West 22nd Street, Oak Brook, :Illinois Manager: R. J. Naegelen, telephone 654-7000 3. McDonald's Plaza Heliport located on the McDonald Plaza Building, 2110 Enco Drive, Oak Brook, Illinois Manager: R. A. Andres, telephone 887-3368 If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, MARC E. LeWAND Chief, Flight Inspection and Procedures Staff, AGL-220 vii i-LAE7 OF `X BROCK .0v 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD ❑ IMMEDIATE REPLY REQUESTED f}AK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 (322) 654-2= NO REPLY NECESSARY TO USE WINDOW ENVELOPE FOR RETURNING MESSAGE TO SENDER 7O --_FOLD HERE SUBJECT ►► ► _.__..._..._.._.._.._.___._.._..__ .............. DATE DATE E SIGNED DATE.. SIGNED SENDER: RETAIN THIS COPY ''age 4 _,inutes of May 11 , 1976 V. OLD BUSINESS (continued) B. Chicago Bridge & Iren-Variation (continued) On May 4, 1976, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended a variation be granted to allow for a twenty-seven (27' ) feet addition to the south side of the non-conforming structure known as the Armour building, which would project into the 150' front yard requirement along Jorie Boulevard. Trustee Brown moved - seconded by Rush. . . Because the circumstances are unique and will not alter the character of the locality, that the variation as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals be approved and the attorney prepare the required ordinance. Poll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Brown, Cerne, Congreve, Glaves , Philip, Rush, and President Howell Nayes: None So ordered. Heliport: Both the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals rK ommended that no assumptions were to be made about the use of the heliport and no action was taken by the Board of Trustees. C. Lions International - Variation The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval at the meeting of May 4, 1976. Trustee Brown moved - seconded by Trustee Glaves. . . That the variation as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals be approved and that the attorney be directed to amend Ordinance S-316 to refer to the Site Plan dated March 31 , 1976, Joseph Legat, Architect. Roll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Brown, Cerne, Glaves, and Rush Nayes: Trustees Congreve, Philip, and President Howell . So ordered. D. Christ Church of Oak Brook - Variation Because of new material submitted, this was referred back to Zoning Board of Appeals. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Works Equipment Purchase - Wheel Alignment Equipment: Trustee Congreve moved - seconded by Trustee Rush. . . To approve the expenditure of $1 ,616.25 for the basic instrumentation to provide 4,,-heel alignment within the Public Works garage. Roll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Brown, Cerne, Congreve, Glaves , Philip, Rush, and President Howell Nayes: None So Ordered. Truck No action Tractor/blower Trustee Congreve moved - seconded by Trustee Philip. . . To authorize the advertising of bids for a Utility Tractor/Mlower with bids to be opened in the Board Room at 10:00 A.bi. on May 23, 1976. Roll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Brown, Cerne, Congreve, Glaves , Philip, Rush, and President Howell Nayes: none So Ordered. 5/11/76 -4- (continued) LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIANUCCI 230 WEST MONROE STREET ALFRED P. BIANUCCI CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 OAK BROOK OFFICE (312) 346-3762 BUTTERFIELD OFFICE PLAZA ROBERT B.SPENCER 2625 BUTTERFIELD ROAD DONALD W. FORESTER OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 (312) 325-1744 May 11, 1976 Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 Dear Ken: In re: Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation (McDonald's Corporation) vs. Village of Oak Brook Case No. 75-4880-G As you are aware, I have had several discussions with representatives of McDonald',s Corporation relative to the subject matter over the last ten days. In the course of these conversations I have determined and discussed a proposal dealing with restrictions on use of the rooftop heliport proposed by McDonald's. In this undertaking, my thought was that if I could obtain a very strict delineation of use and the scope thereof, some or all of the concerns of the Board of Trustees might be allayed and a basis for resolution of this controversy might be reached. The following, therefore, is an enumeration of the allowances and restrictions upon use of the rooftop heliport which would govern that use by McDonald's and to which they are prepared to agree. 1. The number of operations to and from the pad would be limited to not more than 30 per month. "Operations" include both landing and takeoffs. 2. The pad would be in use between the hours of 7:00 A. M. and 10:00 P. M. only. 3. Approach and departure paths would be limited so that there would be no operations over the shopping center. In essence, operations would be confined to easterly approaches and departures. Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani May 11, 1976 Page Two 4. Only a 206-B Jet Ranger-type helicopter or comparable model would be used. This model seats five persons, including the pilot. 5. Only the helicopter owned by McDonald's will be allowed use of the pad. 6. The pad will be used for passenger use only; will not be used for the receiving or shipping of freight; and there would be no storage of fuel or re- fueling of the helicopter at this pad, nor would there be any maintenance or storage of the helicopter at the pad, except for emergency purposes only. 7. Use of the helicopter would be limited to the private use by McDonald's Corporation, use by the Regional Civil Defense Authorities, and, upon request, the helicopter will be made available for use by the Village of Oak Brook. Of course, the restrictions on use enumerated above would be in addition to all restrictions imposed by other appropriate governmental agencies, in- cluding all ordinances and codes dealing with construction of the pad itself. In my judgment, this proposal warrants some serious consideration by the Board of Trustees, and in that regard, and in accordance with our prior conversa- tion, I have taken the liberty of distributing copies of this letter to President Howell and each member of the Board. I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience, and, of course, I stand prepared to meet with you and the Board to discuss the various aspects of this proposal and the status of the suit. The case has moved along rather quickly. Last Friday the Plaintiff delivered its responses to the Interrogatories and Notice to Produce Documents which we had served upon it approximately 40 days ago, and we are scheduled to take a series of depositions of various officers of Franchise Realty and McDonald's Corporation in June. Thereafter, I would expect the case to go to trial sometime in August or September, if not previously disposed of. Best regards. o S incer y, Alfred P Bianucci APB:lfj cc: President Howell Members of the Board of Trustees MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK FILE 5/12/76 TO: — — ----- -------_ DATE: — -- -- — — FRANCHISE REALTY RE: The village board at their Executive Session of May 11, 1976 considered the above subject. The position of the board is that the attorney should litigate the matter to have compliance with the ordinance. KGC KGC/ls .7 . VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS July 9, 1976 654-2220 MEMO TO: President & Board of Trustees SUBJECT: McDonald Request for Helipad Gentlemen, Fred Bianucci and I met with representatives of McDonald's, at their request, to attempt to find some common ground on which to resolve the heliport issue. The McDonald representatives reaffirmed their convictions, that the heliport request that they had made earlier and which was denied by the village board, had been made after careful investigation on their part related to the alternatives avail- able (ground vs. roof) and the operational and safety considerations applied. If the municipality applies the public safety and welfare criteria then the village should require that helipads be placed on the roofs in lieu of the ground. McDonald's position is that rooftop operations are safer and minimize the disruptive effects on other uses, particularly, in their physical environment. In reviewing with them the alternatives available to resolve the issue, they put forth two alternatives: 1. The village board reconsider the issue and grant them the special use to permit the operation of a heliport on the roof of the McDonald's building with restrictions to overcome any objections that the board might have. 2. The second alternative was to provide for a temporary operation of the heliport on the roof for a period of time and to establish standards with measureable criteria to test the operation. The standards and measureable criteria would have to be geared toward the objections of the municipality to the operation. Other alternatives were investigated such as the construction of a helipad in the parking area which is zoned ORA-1. McDonald representatives felt that this was not acceptable based on their evaluation of the safety aspects as between ground level and rooftop installation. We advised McDonalds that we would bring the matter back for review and direction by the village board. A conference was held Friday, July 9, and I felt that the matter was of sufficient importance for the board to review at an Executive Session on July 13th. If additional time is needed for direction, we can re- consider it at an executive session on July 27. Respectfull submitted, 0 Ke neth G. Carmignani KGC/ls Village Manager cc: Attorney Bianucci LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIANUCCI 230 WEST MONROE STREET ALFRED P. BIANUCCI CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 OAK BROOK OFFICE (312) 346-3762 BUTTERFIELD OFFICE PLAZA ROBERT B.SPENCER 2625 BUTTERFIELD ROAD DONALD W. FORE5TER OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 (312) 325-1744 July 12, 1976 Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 Dear Ken: In re: Franchise Realty vs. Village of Oak Brook No. 75-4880-G DuPage County Circuit Court I am pleased to advise that the Order dismissing the subject suit was entered by the Court on June 25, 1976. I enclose a copy of the form of Order for inclusion in the Village's files. Sincerely, A fred P. Bianucci APB:lfj Enclosure AD-116 EN THE EIGHTEEI`iTH N JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DU PAGE COUNTY, WHEATO , ILLINOIS FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, No. 75-4880-G V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, Defendants ORDER THIS CAUSE COMING ON FOR, HEARING on the motion of Plaintiff to dismiss the above-entitled cause, notice having been given, and both parties being present in open court by and through their respective attorneys, and the Court having read the Motion to Dismiss, having heard the statements of counsel and otherwise being fully advised in the premises; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled cause be and the same is hereby dismissed without prejudice and with the right of Plaintiff to reinstate the,same, urith the further stipulation, to which Defendants have agreed, that the Defendants will not in the event of such reinstatement interpose any defense which would, have the effect of foreclosing the Plaintiff from reinstating this cause under, the provisions of the Illinois Administrative Review Act, Chapter 110, Section 264, et seq. , Illinois Revised Statutes, solely because of the expiration of time allowed under the provisions of the said Illinois Administrative Review Act. AGREED: e A f ' Attorneys for Franchis_e Fealty Inter=tate Corporation, Plaintiff ttorney for the Village of Oak Arook, Defendant judge a� p; G,9 2 {num VILLAGE OF OAK BKOO 1200 OAK BROOK ROACH OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS July 15, 1976 654-2220 Rathje, Woodward, Dyer & Burt 203 East Liberty Drive Wheaton, Illinois 60187 Attention: Mr. J. Louis Rathje Subject: Franchise Realty Request- Helipad McDonald's Building Dear Mr. Rathje, The village board is reviewing the request by McDonald's of the helipad and the alternative solutions available to resolve the present issue. The board has been made aware of the conference that was held in my office on July 9th and will discuss this matter further. I would expect that sometime the last week of July, I will be in a position to respond to your requests and concerns. If I can be of any further service in the interim, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, Kenneth G. Carmignani Village Manager KGC/ls cc: Mr. :Michael Size • A � C VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS July 23, 1976 654-2220 MEMO TO: President & Board of Trustees SUBJECT: McDonald's Helipad Gentlemen, I have reviewed with Chief Ehle the safety considerations related to the proposed 'McDonald Building helipad. We reviewed all applicable standards and concluded the following: The National Fire Code prepared by the American Institute of .Architects applies to construction and protection and specifications for fuel dispensing and extinguishing systems for roof-top heliports. The classification for the McDonalds helipad is H-1 which is defined as "includes all heliports where the helicopter using the facilities carry less than six persons and has operational fuel loads of less than one hundred gallons (380 liters) ." McDonalds intends to meet and exceed all of the code requirements that were provided for both by the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Fire Code. According to the National Fire Code the standards apply especially to "roof top heliport construction from the viewpoint of possible fire ex- posure and to appropriate means for the protection of such a facility against damage should a fire occur. . . . ." "The load capabilities of the building, the roof and related structure con- ditions such as stairs, elevators, bulk heads, etc. and penthouse cooling towers must be considered in the construction of roof top heliports." In reviewing the standards and applying them to the construction it is our opinion that protection is adequately provided. Recognizing that we are intro- ducing an operation which does not now exist, we introduce the possibility of an accident occurring. The probability of that accident ever occurring is a function of: (1) the equipment itself (2) the maintenance of the equipment (3) pilot error (4) the use of the equipment 2 - July 23, 1976 Recognizing that there is a possibility of a failure, it is impossible to predict probability of occurences. The standards have been designed so that if that accident occurs we have afforded maximum safety to the people and the building. In the Federal Aviation publication dealing with heliport design site selection the following observation relative to location and physical layout states, "'Heliports may be located on the ground or on suitable structures on land or over water. Ground level sites usually are the least costly to prepare and normally provide the most convenient access for individuals using the heliport. In comparison, roof top or other elevated structures can reduce or eliminate land acquisition and frequently provide better flight access to the heliport." Operational Safety -- " A major safety consideration of a heliport lies in the availability of suitable approach - departure paths lead to and from the heliport. These paths should be over terrain which affords emergency landing areas in relation to the proposed altitude of the helicopter and its auto- rotative performance. . . . . .". In reviewing all of the evidence available to us, we could find no indication that roof top heliports were more safe or less safe than ground locations. I will be prepared to review with the board at the Executive Session any questions that might develop related to this particular issue. R spectfully yours, Ke eth G. Carmignani - KGC/ls Village Manager -4 A VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 MEMO TO: President & Board of Trustees N O T I C E O F M E E T I N G Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1976 Time: 6:45 P.M. Place: Upper Level Conference Room Type: Executive Session, closed meeting Agenda: Legal _ McDonald's Helipad f . LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIANUCCI 230 WEST MONROE STREET L R D P. BIANUCCI CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 OAK BROOK OFFICE (312) 346-3762 BUTTERFIELD OFFICE PLAZA OBERT B.SPENCER 2625 BUTTERFIELD ROAD , NAL RESTER OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 1 (312) 325-1744 l July 27, 1976 President ' and Members of the Board of Trustees Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 Gentlemen: In re: McDonald's Corporation Helipad The following is what I consider to be the Village's legal position in any future litigation instituted by McDonald's Corporation relative to the Village's refusal to allow the installation of a helipad on the roof of the McDonald's Building. As you are aware, the Complaint originally filed by McDonald's Corporation in this matter has been dismissed. I must assume that were such litigation to be reinstituted, the thrust of that ligitaion would take substantially the form as that embodied in the Complaint which was dismissed. That being the case, in my judgment, the strongest position which the Village has is that involving the validity of the zoning district classification imposed on the property in question and the regulations provided by ordinance for use in that classification. The argument is that pursuant to its Comprehensive Plan, the Village has established an ORA 2 District and likewise, pursuant to that Plan, has classified the property in question in this District. The regulations, by ordinance, governing use in that District prohibit the installation of helipads at either ground level or on rooftops. McDonald's therefore is subject to those regulations and is so prohibited. This is in my judgment a reasonably defensible.legal,position which the courts should sustain. This position is strengthened by the fact that McDonald's, faced with an option of application of either ORA 1 or ORA 2 regulations, selected ORA 2 because of its height require- ments. Therefore, having voluntarily selected the benefits, one can say that they must abide by the regulations imposed under that selected classification. The difficulties presented to the Village rest primarily on two grounds: (1) the fact that the responsible regulatory bodies; namely, the FAA and the Illinois July 27, 1976 Page Two Department of Aeronautics, both consider an installation of this type to be a fully acceptable one; and (2) the Village position that a rooftop pad is less safe than one at ground level is,according to the results of my investigation to date, weak. In addition to my review of certain technical literature, I have discussed the issue with two experienced persons, both of whom are of the opinion that absent unusual circumstances, such a rooftop pad can be installed and operated with safety and that the operation of such an installation could not be deemed less safe than one at: ground level. Consequently, a court could very well determine that at the present time under these circumstances the ordinance restriction is an unreasonable restriction on the property owner's right to use its property. What has been proposed at this point is consideration by the Village of the installation of a rooftop pad under agreed and controlled conditions. McDonald's is prepared to define quite specifically the scope of its proposed use of this pad. My letter to the Board of May 11, a copy of which is attached to this letter, sets forth some of the conditions to which McDonald's is prepared to adhere. The second alternative is that of establishing acceptable criterion upon which to test the operation, authorize a test operation, and then evaluate the results. The parties would agree to be bound by the test results. It has been suggested that the Village devise a set of such standards and that McDonald's do likewise. At that point, the McDonald's suggestions and the Village's suggestions would be distilled into one set of mutually acceptable standards, which would then be utilized in this test. It is my recommendation that this approach be undertaken. I stand prepared, of course, to respond to any questions you desire to pose. ry rs, 1 ianuc ci APB:lfj Enclosure cc: Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani w 1 U VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS August 6, 1976 654-2220 MEMO TO: President & Board of Trustees SUBJECT: Heliport Design and Accident Information Gentlemen, On July 30, 1976 staff contacted Mr. Wallace L. Stripling from the Great Lakes Region of the Federal Aviation Administration to obtain information about design criteria and helicopter accident data. He was able to provide the village with a Heliport Design Guide (AC 150/5390-1A) dated November 5, 1969. He also contacted the Washington office of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to obtain statistical information about helipcopter accidents. We anticipate receiving that information within the next few days. Respectfully yours, ® ° Kenneth G. Carmignani Village Manager KGC/ls BRIEFS . ME'NT R f INVOLVING R " 'L AVIATION _ 1973 F mamt d 7NAMNAL TRANSPORTATION ION SAFETY BOARD las inoto , D.C. 20594 iMBF? UMAMA 7 4 FORnMRD This report contains U. S. General Aviation Rotorcraft accident Briefs arranged in state and date. order. In addition, this publication includes several statisitcal 4 tables which tabulate and summarize selected accident information, such as type of it accident, phase of operation, injuries, cause/factors and pilot certificates. y In 1973, U. S. General Aviation Rotorcraft flew 1,157,900 hours and were involved in 277 accidents of which 28 were fatal, resulting in total and fatal accident rates per 100,000 hours of 23.92 and 2.4, respectively. In comparison, the entire General Aviation fleet incurred 49255 total accidents and 723 fatal accidents while flying 30,0118 000 hours giving it total and fatal accident rates per 100,000 hours of 14.2 and 2.�0, respectively. a The enclosed computer briefs are the reports of the National Transportation Safety Board and thereby subject to the limitations of 49 USC 1441(e) which states: i "(e) No part of any report or reports of the Board relating to any accident or the investigation thereof, shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in such report or reports." In reading these reports, it should be borne in mind that they are reproduced directly from coded records on ragnetic tape by electronic data processing equip- ment. Also, in reading the text, it must be borne in mind that computer language It is utilized, thus requiring a number of abbreviations due to spacing limitations. ! Caution should be exercised in reading the Briefs of Accidents, especially those containing abbreviations in phrases and sentences. Collisions between aircraft are treated as one accident. A coded analysis is done on each aircraft involved in a collision. This produces two aircraft acci- dent records per accident. Consequently, when compiling information on accidents involving collisions between aircraft, the number of accident records will exceed the number of accidents. ^the Briefs of Accidents contain the essential information which fulfill most requirements of persons using these reports. However, for those having a need for more detailed information, the original factual reports are on file in the Washington Office of the National Transportation Safety Board. Upon request, these reports will be reproduced commercially for a fee to cover reproduction and postage. The cost will be assessed per printed page, and photographs will be reproduced. Copies of material ordered will be mailed from the Washington business firm that holds the current contract for commercial reproduction of the Board's public files. Billing; is also direct to you by the same company. Orders for this material also involve a user service charge by the Safety Board for special services. This charge is in addition to the cost for commercial reproduction of material and will ba included in the bill from the commercial reproduction firm. Requests :Eor reproduction should be forwarded to the: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Public Inquiry Section Washington, D. C. 20594 `( PAC E I 4 FXPIANATORY NOTES Type of Accident; The type of accident relates to the circumstance; involved in the i accident. Briefly, it indicates what happened. Phase of Operation: The phase of operation relates to the particular segment of the flight or operation during which the circumstances of the accident occur. In-other"words,,,where in the flight the cIrc:umstarices took place. _ First and Second Type of Accident: Two separate types may be coded in any one accident. The selection of first and second type .is made in relation to the sequence of occurrence. In those occurrences wherein more than two types or circumstances are involved, the selection of types is made considering the circumstances which may be of the greatest value from the standpoint of safety study. In such cases the two types selected are coded as. first and second according to sequence of occurrence. A secondary type is not normally used when the occurrence is the inevitable result of a prior occurrence resulting in the loss of control. Generally this pertains to collisions with ground or objects. First and Second Phase of Operation; The phase of operation is directly related to the type of accident. When more than one type is coded for an accident, each type will have a corresponding phase. In other words, the first phase of operation will be that phase of flight in which the first type or circumstance occurred. In the event that the first and second type both occur in one operational phase, the same phase is coded twice. Cause and Related Factors: In determining the probable cause of an ar-rident, all facts, conditions and circumstances are considered. For statistical purposes, where two or more causes exist in an accident, each is recorded and no attempt is made to establish a primary cause. Therefore, in the Cause and Related Factor Table the figures shown in the columns dealing with. Cause will exceed the total number of accidents. The term Factor is used, in general, to reflect those elements of an accident whir.h further explain or supplement the probable cause(s). This provision was incorporated in the coding; system to increase its flexibility and to provide a means for collecting essential items of information which could not be readily categorized elsewhere in the system. PAGE II T INJURIES, ACCIDENTS ROTORCRAFT U. S. GENERAL AVIATION 1973 INJURIES ------------------------------------------------------------------- FATAL SERIOUS MINOR NONE UNKNOWN TOTAL ------ --------- ------- ------ --------- ------- PILOT 21 28 41 i89 279 COPILOT 3 5 8 , DUAL STUDENT 1 19 20 CHECK PILOT 2 2 FLIGHT ENGINEER NAVIGATOR CABIN ATTENDANT 1 1 EXTRA CREW 2 2 4 10 18 ' PASSENGERS 17 18 49 108 192 TOTAL 40 51 96 333 ABOARD 520 OTHER AIRCRAFT 1 1 OTHER GROUND 3 1 4 GRAND TOTAL 43 51 96 335 525 INVOLVES 277 TOTAL ACCIDENTS INVOLVES 28 FATAL ACCIDENTS INJURIES CARRIED OPPOSITE OTHER-AIRCRAFT ARE INJURIES OCCURRING IN AIRCRAFT THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS SUBJECT TABULATION, BUT WERE PART OF THE TOTAL INJURIES INVOLVED IN COLLISIONS BETWEEN AIRCRAFT. PAGE-IV F: < ANALYTIC TABLE FIRST TYPE OF ACCIDENT BY PILOT CERTIFICATE PILOT CERTIFICATE ♦ FIRST OQa Ptd �F RFS �FQ Q♦' �O�QO TYPE Of ACCIDENTSCJ QQ♦, "o p♦� e,P LOQ P♦Q\ OCZ��20�� ���l� RECORDS ACCIDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL DUAL 1 2 16 2 SOLO 21 21. . I CHECK I I 1 1 TRAINING 3 2 1 2 2 �? NONCOMMERCIAL A 6 PLEASURE 8 9 12 5 2 2 3R 3K PRACTICE 6 1 HUSINESS-- o' ,`�-a S,. s's. 7 7 CORPORATE/EXECUTIVE f 3 1 AERIAL SURVEY 4 4 1 COMPANY FLIGHT 2 I OTHER . I COMMERCIAL I I AERIAL APPLICATION 33 to 1 CROP CONTROL RELATED FLIGHT 16 1 3 44 44 I - EIRE CONTROL 2 2 21 21 FIRE CONTROL RELATED FLIGHT S 7 4 4 AERIAL MAPPING/PHOTOGRAPHY 5 I 7 7 AERIAL ADVERTISING 6 6 POWER AND PIPELINE PATROL 2 1 FISH SPOTTING 3 3 � AIR TAXI-PASSENGER OPERATIONS 23 6 2 ; 31 30 AIR TAXI-CARGO OPERATIONS 2 CONSTRUCTION WORK - 4 1 1 2 2 2 8 SCHEDULED PASSENGER SERVICE 8 SCHEDULED CARGO SERVICE INTRA-STATE CHARTER PASSE. l INTRA-STATE.CHARTER CARGO. MILITARY CONTRACT-PASSENGER MILITARY CONTRACT-CARGO b CHARTER CARGO-DOMESTIC 1 CHARTER Pa SSG-OOME57 IC 4 CHARTER-CARGO-INTERNATIONAL I CHARTER-PASSG-INTERNATIONAL I , OTHER 5 UNKNOWN/NOT REPORTED > PAGE V e 1 Y: ANALYTIC TABLE KIND OF FLYING BY PILOT CERTIFICATE PILOT CERTIFICATE - (' cqc KIND OF FLYING SQq- co P~� e, (01 Pte\ C�, RECORDS- ACCIDENTS M ISC E LL ANE HUS EXPERIMENTATION 1 I 1 TEST 2 3 1 1 7 7 DEMONSTRATION 1 1 2 2 FERRY - 5 1 4 - IO LO SEARCH AND RESCUE 5 > 5 AIR SHOW/AIR RACING PARACHUTE JUMP - PARACHUTE JUMP-AIR, SHOW TOWING GLIDERS SEEDING CLOUDS HUNTING 1 I 1 POLICE PATROL 2 4 4 - 10 - 16 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ADVISORY ALL OTHER PUBLIC FLYING 4 1 2 7 7 OTHER 1 1 UNKNOWN/NOT REPORTED 1 1 1 Ef E RECORDS 12 18 162 7 64 11 3 2 279 _ C ACCIDENTS 12 18 161 7 64 11 3 2. - 277 PAGF. VI { a a ANALYTIC TABLE FIRST PHASE OF OPERATION BY INJURY INDEX INJURY INDEX FIRST ,Ip 0 ?� OPERATIONAL PHASE �P 0� �\ �O RECORDS ACCIDENTS STATIC STARTING ENGINE/S 1 1 1 IDLING ENGINE/S 1 I 1 ENGINE RUNUP }}, �• IDLING ROTORS 1 2 PARKED-ENGINES NOT OPERATING, ti OTHER ti TAXI TO TAKEOFF 1 _ 1 1 FROM LANDING OTHER 1 1 r GROUND TAXI TO TAKEOFF GROUND TAXI FROM LANDING GROUND TAXI, OTHER AERIAL TAXI TO TAKEOFF 1 1 1 AERIAL TAXI TO/FROM LANDING 1 1 AERIAL TAXI,TAXI. OTHER 1 1 1 TAKEOFF,— RUN AKEOFF-.:»RUN INITIAL CLIMB 2 4 3 9 ik lA VERTICAL 1 2 6 11 20 20 R 1 ABORTED 1 e k ABORTED [¢. ABORTED I OTHER 2 2 1 INFLIGHT CLIMB TO CRUISE 2 2 2 6 6 1 NORMAL CRUISE - 6 3 10 24 43 43 DESCENDING I I 1 f HOLDING HOVERING _ 1 2 3 16 - 22 22 POWER-ON DESCENT 2 5 T 7 AUTOROTATIVE DESCENT 5 , 5. ACROBATICS BUZZING UMCONTROLLEO DESCENT 2 3 - 1 I PAGE IX � �t I � t ANALYTIC TABLE FIRST PHASE OF OPERATION BY INJURY INDEX _INJURY WDE_X } p OQ t ! FIRST 1y �� <� O� E s QP hF RECORDS ACCIDENTS OPERATIONAL PHASE +� i t EMERGENCY DESCENT I _ LOW PASS 1 1 5 7 T OTHER 4 1 5 6 - 16 16 EN ROUTE TO TREAT CROP 1 7. 6 P. EN POUTE TO RELCAOING AREA 1 1 L SURVEY FtELO/AREA 1 1 2 2 STARTING SWAT'1 RUN 3 3 o b SWATH RUN 5 3 -12 20 20 FLAREOUT FOR SWATH RUM 1 1, 2 2 � PULLUP FROM SWATH RUN 4 4 PROCEDURE TURNAROUND 2 1 6 9 CLEANUP SWATH I I 1 MANEUVER TO AVDID CRSTRUCTION I 1 1 RETURN TO STRIP LANDING- TRAFFIC PATTERN-CIRr-LING 1 1 2 2 FINAL APPROACH 2 2 INITIAL APPROACH . FINAL APPROACH + LEVEL OFF/TCUCHOC4N - 1 I 2 4 4 �6 - 1 1 i ROLL RDLL-ON/RUN 1 2. 3 3 4 POWFR-ON LA Y;D iY 1 4 12 1.7 17 ',' POWFR-OFF AVTO?OTATIVE LOG 3 15 I» 15 CO-AROU7.D 1 2 J 3 MISSED APPRCArH t OTHER L 1 1 3 '..:UNKNOWN/NOT R_P,- TED 1 1 1. RECORDS 26 31 5; 166 2r; ((4 ACCIDENTS 28 31 54 165 277 f S PACE % CCF it f k j is ro4� a r' �,n .,,�{r I,ILr ti , . ,:a ,• .,r. ,,�. g..,:,':':' ,r*;r,i4-,+ i't.,�:; � +t,last '�,) ..,}rP 1. ,:{,, ''t ya •:(I. , ,t.. wr , ;,�J ,. 1, tli•(e.bf .�rn{r.atao�, !',,, � �` 't i i:.'' . ,r t p' 1. .. tFs t a �i•'hl��+� ' ` 1w. Q4 BRIEFS OF ACCIDENTS y'!; r ---------------------------•---- -------- --------------- A„#r la2p, FILE DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES FLIGHT PILOT DATA r; 1r F S M/N PURPOSE bra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------"_---------------------- ---'_------------ fwCa 't 3-1897 7/13/73 PEORIA,ILL BELL 47G-5A CR— 0 0 1 NONCOMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL, AGE 43, 3600 {ALC TIME — 1140 N7984J PX— 1 1 1 PLEASURE/PERSONAL TRANSP TOTAL HOURS, 2500 IN DAMAGE—DESTROYED TYPE, NOT INSTRUMENT ;a 1 RATED. ' k> NAME OF AIRPORT — MT HAWLEY +gra DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION ¢( PEORIA,ILL LOCAL r({{, TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION r 7�,. 6Lav t HARD LANDING LANDING LEVEL OFF/TOUCHDOWN L �y 53 } GEAR COLLAPSED LANDING LEVEL OFF/TOUCHDOWN btn. PROBABLE CAUSES) " f� t PILOT IN COMMAND — IMPROPER OPERATION OF FLIGHT CONTROLS a xri,' PILOT IN COMMAND — FAILED TO MAINTAIN DIRECTIONAL CONTROL „fit 4 P'+ PILOT IN COMMAND — MISJUDGED SPEED AND ALTITUDE n )S PILOT IN COMMAND — IMPROPER COMPENSATION FOR WIND CONDITIONS REMARKS— LEFT SKID FOLDED ? 3-2609 8/4/73 ELDREDrILL BRANTLY B-2B CR— 0 0 1 COMMERCIAL AIRLINE TRANSPORT, AGE � AAtV � i TIME — 1500 N1122K PX— 0 0 0 ASSOC CROP CTL ACTIVITY 26, 6300 TOTAL HOURS, 215 �r Fk DAMAGE—SUBSTANTIAL IN TYPE, INSTRUMENT �Sy RATED. NAME OF AIRPORT — ELDRED {-• ` DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION t tiak� JACKSONVILLE,ILL ELDRED,ILL i h TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION ar aSf ia3t ENGINE FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION IN FLIGHT PROCEDURE TURNAROUND „ ROLL OVER LANDING POWER—OFF AUTOROTATIVE LANDING {rn. �r + PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND — MISMANAGEMENT OF FUEL MISCELLANEOUS.ACTS'CONDITIONS - FUEL EXHAUSTION 5+� PILOT IN COMMAND — FAILED TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE ROTOR R.P.M. FACTOR(S) �y ?H PILOT IN COMMAND - IMPROPER OPERATION OF FLIGHT CONTROLS @ ; -)� COMPLETE POWER LOSS — COMPLETE ENGINE FAILURE/FLAMEOUT-1 ENGINEt r fi �ia•i. EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES — FORCED LANDING OFF AIRPORT ON LAND +P� M14;� SPECIAL DATA � * t .- TOTAL HOURS IN CROP CONTROL — 0 KIND OF OPERATION — OTHER aI KIND OF CROP — CORN PILOT'S SEAT BELT — FASTENED—PROPERLY GLOVES — NOT USED GOGGLES — NOT USED k,yt CRASH HELMET — AVAIALABLE—NOT USED COCKPIT CRASHPAD — NOT INSTALLED CRASH BAR — NOT INSTALLED TANK/HOPPER—LOCATION — OTHER ;r r) r' TERRAIN—TYPE — LEVELrFLAT ELEVATION—AREA BEING TREATED—FEET — 250 r y't SWATH RUN—HOW FLOWN — CROSSWIND PROCEDURE TURNAROUND — SECOND 1/3 OF TURN i REMARKS— CORN POLLINATIONrPLT EST MAY HAVE FLOWN UP TO 5HRS.APRX 1/2 GAL FUEL ORA INED.UNUSABLE FUEL 1/2GAL. y , r~ n: t �6'V �µ�N 47• r. PAGE 53 Vn s � ...r. �u "r+•r ... *'�. r,:: ... n r.,,; _ ., .' � ---- ---...... ..-...:.+..-...:;..�..,:.. s...:.........w......w...,..w"..;w L.+.r...:++:,.�'..:.wr .._. fir � { ,..«+.:r,.c..•�+nn......s'%wr.++re.e•r+...r ;., •--r-;eis .,..._� .. •--r,�c-^ .... .. �_ ... ... .....w t .�.�+v;_.+m. ".ff:°i°i"uC,ewc;g,;?c:y'+.lp,•+L}P�2+ry'K. .... t ,n �+•,.mo•e••: ..mw:say.aern.+•+e��rwmre..w.�e.rrw,, nt ( �,{ t"�"'YT�RTJY•� �f fi •Y,�'c�A �.'''., 4ry �3� `(T^'iy '�4 1. 5.{,)'ie' y'.- lfi. � '1 t • �,: ., yr�.�y� '� �f M'�k . . ,, � .. ,,. ,.- � � ,ry ��'�, .fes:, ,. y.. .. .. r.°Y^Y",r%�M 1. ,e .:. r.. }. µy .r ., :.., .,r.,r. r ,. , „ .. ,. ..,. a ,..`: rr ',p•y ,,wt / •.l• .r4p1. ..� �.;.,•... ....�,, ..,.. .,. .�... ,.u. .,.... .,�-o.„, ..,.. wr i- ,. d ,.,.. .... � :.� i.,,.,. :.. , ., e.:..:r. i s4. � ")r 'i')r 1, �.. .:<..,: 1.. ,.r•...G. x. ..". r. ., , � yr, ..-. .,: r I,.rp�'V (, ,.�. I Y '.d, ?.Y �r'1''.. 4: +.w� 4r.';:c� A .t' .�i ,� ,.-' .d:Lr. ,., .. ..., r .y,_:.v.l .� .., r , J,f ,a h<�z ......., ,. .. � � � .. Y Y •� r 6 !h.'.! , : �°, ?� c,•a..:1, i r 'y'L. ..W ae- Y•t r.,r 'r �r - .; icy �r BRIEFS OF ACCIDENTS . —"' -----------.—.----------f--- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- k , j FILE DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES FLIGHT PILOT DATA F S M/N PURPOSE ------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'----------'-- 3-2100 8/6/73 GIBSON CITY,ILL BRANTLY B-2B CR— 0 0 1 MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL FL.INSTR. ¢ TIME 1205 N2253U PX— 0 0 1 POLICE PATROL AGE 33, 1900 TOTAL HOURS, DAMAGE—SUBSTANTIAL 1600 IN TYPE, NOT INSTRU— MENT RATED. DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION GIBSON CITY,ILL LOCAL rb TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION COLLIDED WITH CROP IN FLIGHT OTHER ROLL OVER IN FLIGHT OTHER I: { PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT — SETTLED WITH PWR INTO TALL CORN. f MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS — GROUND RESONANCE FACTOR(S) I" TERRAIN — HIGH OBSTRUCTIONS REMARKS— SEARCH FOR ESCAPED PRISONERS IN HEDGE ROWS. 3-1292 5/22/73 DE PAUW,IND HUGHES 2693 CR— 0 0 1 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL, FL.INSTR., h TIME — 1000 N9609F PX— 0 0 1 POWER/PIPELINE AGE 45, 4500 TOTAL HOURS, DAMAGE—SUBSTANTIAL ALL IN TYPE, NOT INSTRU— MENT RATED. DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION LAST ENROUTE STOP LOUISVILLE,KY LOUISVILLE,KY UNKNOWN/NOT REPORTED TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION ENGINE FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION IN FLIGHT NORMAL CRUISE COLLISION WITH GROUND/WATER CONTROLLED LANDING POWER—OFF•AUTOROTATIVE LANDING PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PERSONNEL — MAINTENANCE,SERVICING,INSPECTION IMPROPER MAINTENANCE (MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL) FACTOR(S) POWERPLANT — ENGINE CONTROLS—COCKPIT THROTTLE—POWER LEVER ASSEMBLIES PARTIAL POWER LOSS — PARTIAL LOSS OF POWER — 1 ENGINE EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES — FORCED LANDING OFF AIRPORT ON LAND REMARKS— THROTTL CTL TO FUEL ATTACH BOLT MISSING.INSP 3 OTR 300 ACFT,BOLTS ROTATED BY HAND COTTER KEYS WORN i PAGE 54 i r E 0 � T �= f` Al #' "T B RD OX WASH s a IGT , D.C. 20594 BR ' VOL E ?. kPj Cr F T �y bw U. S. GGPOEY-JERAL AVIATION _: ..., t T R--PORT NUMBF-R: NTSBANURA-75-15 UNI ED STATES GOV E RN N"110i"IT "0 ��---_� �r . _,.s@ .tlp�95ilI+,N1��^�a"x•TN6.N..ens•ss...r,.,.vwawt.+`y.w..wireww.wr.w.wxu.wrr.rr++.:u..+.e++.u.w.w.0 ___. BRIEFS OF ACCIDENTS ------------------------- FILE DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES FLIGHT PILOT DATA F S M/N PURPOSE 3-2584 8/20/74 HINSDALE,ILL BELL 47G5A CR- 0 0 1 NONCOMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL, AGE 26, 3993 TIME - 1630 N211C8 PX- 0 0 1 PLEASURE/PERSONAL TRANSP TOTAL HOURS, 300 IN TYPE, DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL NOT INSTRUMENT RATED. NAME OF AIRPORT - HTNSDALE DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION JOLIET,TLL HINSOALE,ILL TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION HARD LANDING LANDING ROLL-ON/RUN-ON ROLL OVER LANDING ROLL-ON/RUN-ON PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND - IMPROPER OPERATION OF FLIGHT CONTROLS PILOT IN COMMAND - MISJUDGED SPEED AND ALTITUDE PILOT IN COMMAND - IMPROPER RECOVERY FROM BOUNCED LANDING REMARKS- PLT NOTED HI DSCNT RATE DRG FLARE,MADE RUN-ON TYPE LOG. 3-2199 6/2/74 SHERIDAN,IND PHILLIPS PA1067 CR- 1 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE, AGE 48,270 TIME - 1710 N3017 PX- 0 0 0 TEST TOTAL HOURS, 4 IN TYPE, DAMAGE-DESTROYED NOT INSTRUMENT RATED. NAME OF AIRPORT- SHERIDAN DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION SHERIDAN,IND LOCAL TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION COLLISION WITH GROUND/WATER UNCONTROLLED TAKEOFF INITIAL CLIMB PROBABLE CAUSE(S) MISCELLANEOUS - UNDETERMINED REMARKS- ENG MCCULLOCH 4318A-LOSS OF CONTROL UNDETERMINED } 3-2195 8/9/74 GRIFFITH,IND BRANTLEY B-2A CR- 0 0 1 NONCOMMERCIAL PRIVATE, AGE 39, 235 TIME - 1426 N2156U PX- 0 1 0 PLEASURE/PERSONAL TRANSP TOTAL HOURS, ALL IN DAMAGE-MINOR TYPE, NOT INSTRUMENT RATED. NAME OF AIRPORT - GRIFFITH DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION LAST ENROUTE STOP UNKNOWN/NOT REPORTED GRIFFITH,IND UNKNOWN/NOT REPORTFD TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION PROPELLER/ROTOR ACCIDENT TO PERSON STATIC IDLING ROTORS PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND - INADEQUATE SUPERVISION OF FLIGHT PERSONNEL - MISCELLANEOttS-PERSONNEL PASSENGER REMARKS- PLT NOT AWARE PAX WOULD LEAVE HELICOPTER BFR SHUT-DWN.PAX STRUCK BY RETREATING ROTOR BLADE. PAGE 57 BRIEFS OF ACCIDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES FLIGHT PILOT DATA F 5 M/N PURPOSE ---- ------------ 3-2586 5/29/74 ATTERBURY,ILL BRANTLY B-2 CR- 0 0 1 COMMERCIAL AIR,I-L GHT INSTR., AGE TIME 1615 N5912X PX- 0 0 0 AERIAL APPLICATION 35. 2696 TOTAL HOUkS. 75 DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL IN TYPE, INSTRUMENT /q1 RATED. DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION ATTERBURY,ILL LOCAL TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION ENGINE FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION IN FLIGHT PROCEDURE TURNAROUND COLLISION WITH GROUND/WATER CONTROLLED IN FLIGHT PROCEDURE TURNAROUND PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND - INADEQUATE PREFLIGHT PREPARATION AND/OR PLANNING PILOT IN COMMAND - MISMANAGEMENT OF FUEL MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - FUEL EXHAUSTION FACTOR(S) TERRAIN - WET,SOFT GROUND COMPLETE POWER LOSS - COMPLETE ENGINE FAILURE/FLAMEOUT-1 ENGINE EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES - FORCED LANDING OFF AIRPORT ON LAND SPECIAL DATA TOTAL HOURS IN CROP CONTROL - 20 KIND OF OPERATION - SPRAYING CROPS KIND OF CROP - CORN TYPE OF CHEMICAL USED -LIQUID CHEMICAL-NONTOXIC PILOT'S SEAT BELT - FASTENED-PROPERLY GLOVES - NOT USED GOGGLES - NOT USED CRASH HELMET - AVAIALABLE-NOT USED COCKPIT CRASHPAD - NOT INSTALLED CRASH BAR - NOT INSTALLED TANK/HOPPER-LOCATION - BELLY TERRAIN-TYPE - LEVEL,FLAT ELEVATION-AREA BEING TREATED-FEET - 600 SWATH RUN-HOW FLOWN - UPWIND PROCEDURE TURNAROUND - SECOND 1/3 OF TURN 3-1986 6/25/74 WHEELING,ILL BRANTLY B2B CR- 0 0 2 INSTRUCTIONAL COMMERCIAL, AGE 30, 3077 TIME - 1450 N21730 PX- 0 0 0 DUAL TOTAL HOURS, 488 IN TYPE, DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL NOT INSTRUMENT RATED. NAME OF AIRPORT - PAL WAUKEE DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION WHEELTNG,ILL LOCAL TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION HARD LANDING LANDING POWER-OFF AUTOROTATTVE LANDING PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND - IMPROPER LEVEL OFF REMARKS- WIND GUSTING 18K. r PAGE 56 0000 BRIEFS OF ACCIDENTS --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES FLIGHT PILOT DATA F S M/N PURPOSE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-3790 8/12/74 ROBERTS,ID HILLER ACFT UH-12 CR- 0 0 1 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL. AGE 54, TIME - 0730 N3112G PX- 0 0 0 ASSOC :ROP CTL ACTIVITY 13700 TOTAL HOURS, 70 IN DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL TYPE, NOT INSTRUMENT RATED. DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION ROBERTS,ID LOCAL TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION COLLIDED WITH CROP TAKEOFF INITIAL CLIMB ROLL OVER LANDING ROLL-ON/RUN-ON PROBABLE CAUSE(S) ) PILOT IN COMMAND - SELECTED UNSUITABLE TERRAIN A MISCELLANEOUS - FOREIGN MATERIAL AFFECTING NORMAL OPERATIONS FACTGR(S) TERRAIN - HIGH VEGETATION TERRAIN - WET,SOFT GROUND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES - FORCED LANDING OFF AIRPORT ON LAND SUSPECTED MECHANICAL DISCREPANCY SPECIAL DATA TOTAL HOURS IN CROP CONTROL - 700 KIND OF OPERATION - SPRAYING CROPS KIND OF CROP - GRAIN FIELDS TYPE OF CHEMICAL USED - LIOUID CHEMICAL-NONTOXIC PILOT'S SEAT BELT - FASTENED-PROPERLY GLOVES - NOT USED CRASH HELMET - AVAILABLE-USED COCKPIT CRASHPAD - NOT INSTALLED CRASH BAR - NOT INSTALLED TERRAIN-TYPE - ROLLING ELEVATION-AREA BEING TREATED-FEET - 4800 SWATH RUN-HOW FLOWN - WIND CALM REMARKS- BOOM CABLE SNAGGED WHEAT IMMED AFTER TKOF.ATMTD ROLL-ON LDG.SKID STUCK IN SOFT GROUND. 3-1913 5/1/74 SPRINGFIELD,ILL HILLER ACFT IJH-12A CR- 0 0 1 MISCELLANEOUS AIRLINE TRANSPORT, AGE TIME - 0852 N7636B PX- 0 0 0 TEST 51, 21000 TOTAL HOURS, 8 DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL IN TYPE. INSTRUMENT RATED. NAME OF AIRPORT - CAPITAL DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION SPRINGFIELD,ILL LOCAL 1 TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION 1 u HARD LANDIKG LANDING LEVEL OFF/TOUCHDOWN PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND - ATTEMPTED OPERATION BEYOND EXPERIENCE/ABILITY LEVEL PILOT IN COMMAND - MISJUDGED SPEED AND ALTITUDE FACTOR(S) PERSONNEL - MAINTENANCE,SERVICING,INSPECTION IMPROPER MAINTENANCE (OWNER PERSONNEL) ROTORCRAFT '- ROTOR ASSEMBLIES BLADE TRIM TABS Y� PILOT IN COMMAND - CALK OF FAMILIARITY WITH AIRCRAFT ' EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES - PRECAUTIONARY LANDING, ON AIRPORT AIRFRAME BUFFET REMARKS- NOT ROTORCRAFT RATED.ADJUSTED BLADE TkIM TAB IMPROPERLY.STRUCK TAIL ON EXPEDITED LDG.M/R HIT TAIL. yr µ'" PAGE 55 ANALYTIC TABLE FIRST PHASE OF OPERATION BY INJURY INDEX INJURY INDEX Jy � FIRST p �O O OPERATIONAL PHASE Fp c��� RECORDS ACCIDENTS 3 t ' IINCONTROLLFD DFSCES'T 4 i 5 5 j EMERfiENCY DESCFMT _ LOW PASS 3 1 4 4 OTHER R 1 1 11 21 21 FN RUI/TE TO TREAT CROP 3 5 3 EN.ROUTE TO RELOADING AREA I I 1 SIIRVFV FIELD/ARFA 1 1 t STARTINf SWATH RUN 1 3 4 4 SWATH RIIN 1 4 2 15 22 22 FLARFOUT FOR S!4ATH kl;N PIIU_UP FROM SWATH RUN 1 t } PROCEDURE TURNAROUND 1 2 7 3 13 13 CLEANUP SWATH GL. MANEUVFR TO AVOID OBSTRUCTION 1 1 I - `.• i RETURN T(1 STRIP 1 u LIlRiOl Nf, �a-- z �c TRAFFIC PATTERN-CIRCLING, 3 q 3 Y s< FINAL APPROACH (VFRI 5 5to _1D ` r;. INITIAL APPROACH \ ` J tL v G FINAL APPROAC. (IFRI r e LEVEL OFF/TO.)!'HOU WN 1 7 it ROLL (FIXED W146) ]. 1 - v� ROLL-ON/RUN-w! (ROTOkCRAFTI2 3 3 l Pf'WER-UN LAS:r.t;G IROTnRCR.AFTI 2 5 11 lq 1R i f POWER-OFF AUTI IITATIIYF LOG 2 1 9 I1 II f,O-6R OI1r,U (VFR 1 3 3 3 . IkISSED APPROACH (IFRI . a OTHERd 1 1 5 7 7 UNKNOWN/NUT R-PORTED 1 ! i RECORDS 47 30 53 155 2" ACCID_=NTS - - 47 3O 53 155 P3j f f 1 1 PAGF X i L ; s i ANALYTIC TABLE p FIRST PHASE OF OPERATION BY INJURY INDEX .w `S INJURY INDEX I . Jyq. 1 FIRST yP� 0 \�]O ��' - OPERATIONAL PHASE tP S' lr a� RECORDS ACCIDENTS STATIC �. f STARTING ENG(NF/S a )AILING ENGINE/S ,��� { ENGINE R11NOP 1$p IDLING ROTORS 1 5 1 7 k`- f, q PAKKED—ENGINES NOT OPERATING 1 1 I S OTHER t t I TAXI TO TAKEOFF FROM LANDING s OTHER - GROUr1D TAXI TO TAKEOFF GROUND TAXI FROM LANDING _ f,ROtl`ID TAXI. OTHER p AERIAL TAXI TO TAKEOFF i AFRIAL TAXI TO/FROM LANDING 1 1 AERIAL TAXI. OTHER r I 1 I } TAKFnFF RUN 1 1 7 4 1 AL CLIxa_ 4 3 4 13 VFPTICAL 4 5 16 .5 R"V41:r (RnTORCRAFT/VTOL—STOL I i T AeiR'FD IFI XFD—WING) ~. At.ORTFn (RnTORCRAFT/VTOL) 2 r. 2 4 -)''.TSfr I,mT�IRCRAPT/STOLI I -ll�- Trl CR(rl Sc AL CRI)ISF 12 5 6 22sr 45 4^ S' TI I1 �CEraT IROTORCRAFT) 1 t 1 3 9 r,3T(c .c SC ENT I t T c� PAGE IX I��t . 3 t, s 1 ANALYTIC TABLE KIND OF FLYING BY PILOT CERTIFICATE PILOT CERTIFICATE SSS � v 54 Q AV- KIND P o�� s� a�,p o�� KIND OF FLYING `� Q L P Q G P O RECORDS ACCIDENTS n Tv+!u 7 2 2 UNKNnWN/NOT REPORTED FIRST' MISCELLANEnUS TYPE OF AC ESPFRIMFNTATION TEST 2 3 1 6 6 GRCRINn-W DEMONSTRATION - 1 2 3 3 ORA GGEU A FERRY 7 2 9 9 WHF.LS-1; .SEARCH ANO RESCUE 1 1 1 wHE-IS-Tr• AIR SHOW/AIR RACING y GEAt COLI PARACHUTE JUMP - $. GEAR RFT: PAk ACHITE JUMP-AIR SHOO S HARD LA-,' TOWING f•LIDERS - i nos} nVE' SEFOING CLOUOS POLL nVF' HUNTING 2 2 2 OV ER SHO(f.. POLICF PATROL 6 4 IO In UNDERSH!� HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ADVISORY 1 I I COU IST.' ALL OTHER PUBLIC FLYING 2 2 1 5 S ROT IN OTHER... 1 I I On E. AI'RR UNKNOWN/NOT REPORTEn BOTH ON C(ILLISIY CO"�T R OL I RECORDS 15 21 152 7 1 70 14 4 1 215 ONCONTR .ACCIDENTS 15 21 152 7 1 70 14 4 1 = i. f COLL Itfr' Y 41:RE S6:, FLELTl Rtt%WAY F AIRPn,- � enl2Mal° CRnP qq FLAGMA' 6 01 tCHE. S40W3 A: PARKEE, DIRT r PAGE VI i t ANALYTIC TABLE KIND OF FLYING BY PILOT CERTIFICATE I PILOT CERTIFICATE e KIND OF FLYING 5 Q L P Q (, P C RECORDS ACCIDENTS Ie1S TR uCTl rine)_ l 1 16 2 2n 2n DUAL 3 3 COLI) 2 1 i CHECK 4 TRAI':INC. 1 1 2 a PLEASURP 11 9 9 1 - 2 1 1 1 34 34 13 13 PRACTICF 1 2 3 1 4 2 ,.. 3 ROSINESS.. -1.'. 6 k. ,. GOR P`.)R A7E/ErECs1TI VE R 1 4 9 2 1 1 4 4 AERIAL SORVcY COMP-N'Y FLUS T OTHER Cn)­-RCIAL AERIAL APPLICATION 3n 1 13 1 4S 45 17 1 3 1 22 22 CROP CIM"TROL RELATED FLIGHT FIRE CO�rTRi1L FIt= ClNT't()L RELATFn FLIGHT 3 1 4 4 9 A ti.,- MAPP P'.G/PHOTnGRAPHY 4 4 1 9 LORI auvS-TISING 1 y 3i Pna ER An,n IPELINF PATROL FIS- SP:;TT!V3. al,t TAxi-P�SSFn�GFR OPFRATIONS 19 7 2 AIR TAXI-CL?GO nPERATInNS 4 Tn in rr [gt•5TRt1CT2C'+ 'WORK R 1 1 SC1-=7ULED PASSENGER SFRVICE SCM=FIOLFP (7ARfn SERVICE _ INTZA-STATE C.ARTFR PASSG. 1 I 1 rcr jl,T4A-ST!,T% LHARTFR CARGO. :^iii TARY C'NTRACT-PASSFn1GFR -I!IT:=Y _ TRACT-CAR60 CHA+i=� a -GUraE ST tC I 2 3 3 3 3 C r.A.TEti SS`,-IMIIFSTIC 3 C-. T=R- .,--I T E u.%A 711)NAL T. Cm's R TSR-SASS r-I`',T ERNAT I OVAL PAGE V 01 a- INJURIFS, ACCIDENTS ROTORCRAFT U. S. GENERAL AVIATION 1974 INJURIES --- --- ------------- FATAL SERIOUS MINOR NONE UNKNOWN TOTAL PILOT 37 27 47 174 ---285 COPILOT 2 1 7 10 DUAL STUDENT 3 1 2 14 20 CHECK PILOT FLIGHT ENGINEER NAVIGATOR CABIN ATTENDANT EXTRA CREW 2 1 3 9 15 PASSENGERS 23 18 33 122 196 TOTAL 67 47 86 32.6 ABOARD 526 OTHER AIRCRAFT 3 1 5 9 OTHER GROUND 2 4 5 11 GRAND TOTAL 72 52 91 331 546 INVOLVES 285 TOTAL ACCIDENTS INVOLVES 47 FATAL ACCIDENTS INJURIES CARRIED OPPOSITE OTHER-AIRCRAFT ARF INJURIES OCCURRING IN AIRCRAFT THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS SUBJECT TABULATION, BUT WERE PART OF THE TOTAL INJURIES INVOLVED IN COLLISIONS BETWEEN AIRCRAFT. PAGE-IV z 0 2 T ^m D •T• T F m O 7 7 T c � z m ? o m I'" _ � S A � z 3 S L ,p„ - N n P Cl •- R .. T 4 O TT_ in EXPIANATORX NOTES Type of Accident- The type of accident relates to the circumstances involved in the accident. Briefly, it indicates what happened. Phase of Operation: The phase of operation relates to the particular segment of the flight or operation during which the circumstances of the accident occur. In other words, where in the flight the circumstances took place. AEP A; AV First and Second Type of Accident: A; Two separate types may be ended in any one accident. The selection A, of first and second type is made in relation to the sequence of A occurrence. AS ASS In those occurrences wherein more than two types or circumstances COW'-' are involved the selection of t s CORP, types is made considering the CR_ circumstances which may be of the greatest value from the standpoint CTR t of safety study. In such cases the two types selected are coded as CTR C first and second according to sequence of occurrence. CTR CTR A secondary type is not normally used when the occurrence is the LAST MAPP- inevitable result of a prior occurrence resulting in the loss of MIL I control. Generally this pertains to collisions with ground or MIL C objects. MILL" MIL" MIL First and Second Phase of Operation; M1 The phase of operation is directly related to the type of accident. NR, When more than one type is coded for an accident, each type will NS have a corresponding phase. In other words the first NS phase of NS/ operation will be that phase of flight in which the first type or NS/C' circumstance occurred. In the event that the first and second type NS/C ' both occur in one operational phase, the same phase is coded twice. NS/C' i OT- PARA, Cause and Related Factors: PRIVv In determining the probable cause of an accident, all facts, conditions PX- and circumstances are considered. For statistical purposes, where RADA' SCHE,, two or more causes exist in an accident, each is recorded and no attempt SCHLa is made to establish a primary cause. Therefore, in the Cause and SC HEI Related Factor Table, the figures shown in the columns dealing with SCH4; Cause will exceed the total number of accidents. The term Factor is SC HEI used, in general, to reflect those elements of an accident which further SCHEN explain or supplement the probable cause(s) . This provision was S-I incorporated in the coding; system to increase its flexibility and to CNK/ provide a means for collecting essential items of information which could not be readily categorized elsewhere in the system. t PAGE II �r FOREWORD t�y This report contains U.S. General Aviation Rotorcraft accident Briefs arranged in state and date order. In addition, this publication includes several statistical tables which tabulate and summarize selected accident information, such as type of accident, phase of operation, injuries, cause/factors and pilot certificates. In 1974, U.S. General Aviation Rotorcraft flew 1,431,600 hours and were involved in 285 accidents of which 47 were fatal, resulting in total and fatal accident rates " per 100,000 hours of 19.90 and 3.28, respectively. In comparison, the entire General Aviation fleet incurred 4,423 total accidents and 729 fatal accidents while flying 32,474,600 hours giving it total and fatal accident rates per 100,000 hours of 13.6 w " and 2.24, respectively. * F,. s The enclosed computer briefs are the reports of the National Transportation Safety Board and thereby subject to the limitations of 49 USC 1441(e) which states: "(e) No part of any report or reports of the Board relating to any accident or the investigation thereof, shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in such report or reports." f'= In reading these reports, it should be borne in mind that they are reproduced directly from coded records on magnetic tape by electronic data processing equip- ment. Also, in reading the text, it must be borne in mind that computer language } is utilized, thus requiring a number of abbreviations due to spacing limitations. Caution should be exercised in reading the Briefs of Accidents, especially those containing abbreviations in phrases and sentences. Collisions between aircraft are treated as one accident. A coded analysis is done on each aircraft involved in a collision. This produces two aircraft acci- dent records per accident. Consequently, when compiling information on accidents W � involving collisions between aircraft, the number of accident records will exceed the number of accidents. The Briefs of Accidents contain the. essential information which fulfill most = requirements of persons using these reports. However, for those having a need for more detailed information, the original factual reports are on file in the Washington Office of the National Transportation Safety Board. Upon request, these reports will be reproduced commercially for a fee to cover reproduction and postage. The cost will be assessed per printed page, and photographs will be reproduced. k Copies of material ordered will be mailed from the Washington business firm that holds the current contract for commercial reproduction of the Board's public files. Billing is also direct to you by the same company. Orders for this material also involve a user service charge by the Safety Board for special services. This charge is in addition to the cost for commercial repro- duction of material and will be included in the bill from the commercial reproduction firma z Requests for reproduction should be forwarded to the: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Public Inquiry Section 'fit Washington, D.0 C. 20594 e `" PAGE I 45-727 W:kU'!fV ---- -- -- --a«` t 4-4 f - _ ----} k i -f A 9 C VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS August 12, 1976 654-2220 TO: Ken Carmignani SUBJECT: Heliport Information Ken, Supplementing the material already received, Mr. Wally Stripling of the Federal Aviation Administration, Great Lake Division, provided me with the following information: In the State of Illinois, there is a total of 123 licensed heliports. Of this number 9 are rooftop helipads. They are: 1. Carbondale, Illinois Dr. 's Memorial Hospital 2. Chicago, Illinois Chicago Fire Academy 3. Bloomington, Illinois A private firm 4. Franklin Park, Illinois Motorola Company 5. Joliet, Illinois Silver Cross Hospital 6. Peoria, Illinois Clico, Inc. 7. Peoria, Illinois Peoria Journal Star 8. Rosemont, Illinois Flying Carpet (This facility is not operative at this time) 9. Skokie, Illinois International Mineral and Chemical Company Mr. Stripling also advised me that a National Pilots Association has been applying pressure to hospitals to install rooftop helipads. The primary reasons for this, is a matter of safety, because it separates the airships from traffic and ped.istrians and there is not as many approach and departure problems when rooftop pads are used. Sincerely. William R. Balling Assistant to the WRB:bb Village Manager ss � a _s � ae n. C VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS August 16, 1976 654-2220 MEMO TO: President & Board of Trustees SUBJECT: Accident Information relative to Rotorcraft Operation Gentlemen, At the Executive Session of July 27th, the staff was asked to make an investi- gation relative to statistical information regarding accidents in the operation of rotorcraft. Bill Balling made contact with the Federal Aviation Administra- tion, Great Lakes Division (specifically Mr. Wally Stripling) . Information was provided by the FAA and also the National Transportation Safety Board, Washing- ton, D. C. Copies of the Briefs of Accidents Involving Rotorcraft for 1973 and 1974 are being provided for your review. The documents are quite lengthy and I have copied only those sections which I felt were pertinent to the discussion, however, additional. information will be available at the Executive Session of August 24th, 1970. In addition, I have tried to summarize the rotorcraft accident information as it relates to general aviation and the increases from 1973 to 1974. I might add that 1974 is the most recent information since the 1975 statistical information has not yet been provided or printed. In reviewing all of the accidents listed in the report, and you might note that I have attached detailed copies of the Accident Briefs for the State of Illinois, we could find no accidents involving helipads on buildings. All accidents that were listed in both years related to on-ground operation. I have also attached a copy of a memo from Bill Balling to me relative to the number of heliports licensed in Illinois and the number of rooftop helipads licensed :in Illinois. The nine which are licensed in Illinois are listed in- dividually, and it is interesting to note that they represent about 72% of all licensed heliports in the State. We were unable to get any statistical information relative to licensed heliports throughout the United States and the percentage of heliports on buildings. Also, Mr. Stripling's comment to Bill Balling relative to the movement on the part of the 2 - 8/16/76 National Pilot's Association was listed for your review and consideration. I will have all of the material available for your review at the Executive Session. If there is anyadditional information needed, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully yours, G. Carmignani illage Manager KGC/ls attachements 004 G O A 7 V VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 MEMO TO: President & Board of Trustees N O T I C E O F M E E T I N G Date: Tuesday, August 24, 1976 Time: 6:45 P.M. Place: Upper Level Conference Room Type: Executive Session, closed meeting Agenda: Personnel & Legal -- Personnel Matters within Fire Department (Revise Personnel Rules & Regulations) Accident Information re Helipads 8/26/76 MEMO TO FILE RE: McDonald's Helipad At an Executive Session of 8/24/76, the village board considered the McDonald request for temporary operation of a Helipad. The village board, by moticn of Trustee Rush, seconded by Trustee Congreve. . . agreed to develop an agreement to permit McDonald's to install a Helipad on the top of the building for a one year period of evaluation. The trial evaluation would be based on evaluating the operation based on the conditions listed in McDonald's letter and the safety considerations of the operation. At the end of the one year trial period, the village board will determine final action. All present voted in favor of this resolution: Ayes: Trustees Brown, Congreve Philip Rush President Howell Nays: None Absent: Trustees Cerne & Glaves M2-480 A Q - _ 8 o O ALIT- Cp 1.Qt_LLS _ Q � e�✓M S S . -: 0 . o x CN ✓ w o fl e� I P Pt o CP . o m N v W I ,T i i `�____.. ---�-t-------- -- i - _ { _, -- - ---+r-------- -- _ --r- __------------ --� _---- � --------`--- ----`----- _ F i --� __ � __. __ ; : ; , ; , E � : i JOHN S.WOODWARDf , THJE WOODWARD, DYER & BURT WILLIAM O.RATHJE (\ �� ROBERT E.DYER 11; ATTORNEYS AT LAW HENRY J.BURT,JR. 203 EAST LIBERTY DRIVE TELEPHONE JAMES M.HUCH,JR. ,, ^ 668-8500 S.LOUIS RATHJE '`V�J' AREA CODE 312 PETER A. WHEATON, ILLINOIS 60187 ((( u GERALD M..GORORSKI MIS K R.TERENCE HALINA September 20 , 1976 41 HENRY S.STILLWELL \ Mr. Alfred Bianucci, Attorney at Law 230 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 Dear Fred: Enclosed herewith is a copy of the Agreement by and between the Village of Oak Brook, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation and the McDonald' s Cor- poration. Yours very truly, '.ATH E WOODWARD DYE & BURT S. Louis Rathje SLR/hp Encl. cc : Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 cc : Mr. Alfred Bianucci 2625 Butterfield Road Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIANUCCI 230 WEST MONROE STREET ALFRED P. BIANUCCI CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 OAK BROOK OFFICE (312) 346-3762 BUTTERFIELD OFFICE PLAZA ROBERT B.SPENCER 2625 BUTTERFIELD ROAD DONALD W. FORESTER OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 (3 12) 325-1744 October 20, 1976 Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brood:, IL 60521 Re: Ordinance Authorizing Execution of McDonald's Agreement Dear Ken: Enclosed herewith is an original and two copies of an ordinance authorizing execution of the McDonald's Agreement. Please note that an originally executed copy of the agreement should be attached to the original ordinance as Exhibit A and photo copies thereof attached to all copies of the ordinance. I have attached an unexecuted copy of the agreement merely for illustrative purposes. Ver truly yours, Alfr Bianucci APB/cml Enclosures v G A 7 C VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS October 22, 1976 654-2220 MEMO TO: President & Board of Trustees SUBJECT: McDonald's Helipad Gentlemen, Attached please find is a copy of an Agreement and the Ordinance authoriz- ing the execution of the agreement for a permit to permit Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation and McDonald's Corporation to construct a heliport on the roof of the McDonald's building to allow for experiment and evalu- ation of the effect of said heliport and its operations on the Village of Oak Brook and its environs. The Agreement encompasses all of the stipulations previously discussed by the village board. It has been placed on the board agenda for the board meeting of October 26, 1976. I have been advised by McDonald's Corporation that an executed Agreement will be presented at that board meeting for consideration by the Village of Oak Brook.. Res ectfully submitted, 0 Ken th G. Carmignani Village Manager KGC/ls att. ORDINANCE NO. r AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTA'T'E CORPORATION, McDONALD'S CORPORATION AND THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, DU PAGE AND COOK COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. 'WHEREAS, a certain Agreement between the Village of Oak Brook, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois, and Franchise Realty Interstate Corpor- ation, an Illinois corporation, and McDonald's Corporation, a Delaware corporation has been presented to, read, and considered by the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Oak Brook; and. WHEREAS, said Corporate Authorities agree to permit the installation and use of a heliport on an experimental and trial basis subject to all the terms and conditions of said Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Oak Brook deem the passage of this Ordinance to be in the best interest and in further- ance of the general welfare of the Village of Oak Brook. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois, that: SECTION 1: The provisions of the preamble hereinabove set forth are hereby restated herein as though herein fully set forth. SECTION 2: 'The President of the Village of Oak Brook is hereby authorized, empowered and directed for and on behalf of the Village of Oak Brook to execute that certain Agreement between the Village of Oak Brook, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, an Illinois corporation, and McDonald's Corporation, a Delaware corpor- ation, in the form presented to, read, and considered by the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Oak Brook, a copy of which Agreement is attached to this Ordinance, as Exhibit A hereof, and by this reference is incorporated herein as though herein fully set forth. SECTION 3: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to the execution of said Agreement, affix the Village Seal thereto, and to certify the passage of this Ordinance, all as otherwise provided by the ordinances of the Village of Oak Brook and the laws of the State of Illinois. SECTION 4: All ordinances, rules and regulations of the Village of Oak Brook which are in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed solely to the extent of the conflict. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such determination shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion of this Ordinance. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as provided by law. This Ordinance shall be published in pamphlet form. PASSED and APPROVED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook this (�~ day of - 1,x 1976. �' .s✓' �j� Fir£� .r" President ATTEST: 1 ' Village Clerk AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Filed in the Office of the Village Clerk and published in pamphlet form by the authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Brook this day ofc � 1976. Village Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM 44 . : A 11MU Village Attorney -2- A G R E E M E N T 9 THIS AGREE.IENT made and entered into this . day of vo�Gt" �, 1976, by and between the VILLAGE OF OAS: BROOK, an Illinois Municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "OAK BROOK.") , FRAIJCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "FRANCHISE" ) and McDONALD' S CORPORATION, a Delaware Cor- poration (hereinafter referred to as "McDONALD' s" ) ; y1 I T N E S S E T H : IHEREAS, FRANCHISE is the owner of property here- inafter described, said property being commonly known as 2111 I-lcDonald' s Plaza, Oak Brook, Illinois, and legally described as: Lot 4 in Oak Brook -Development Company' s Commerce Plaza Subdivision Unit One, being a Subdivision of part of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 in Oak Brook Investment Company Assessment Plat No. 4 and part of Lot l and all of Lot 3 in .Butler Company-M-1 Inc. Assessment Plat No. 1, all in the Southeast quarter of Section 23, Town- ship 39 North, Range 11, East of the Third Prin- cipal Meridian, in Du Page County, Illinois (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "SUBJECT REALTY") ; and WHEREAS, the SUBJECT REALTY consists of approximately 9 . 943 acres, the Westernmost 3. 847 acres of- which are presently zoned ORA-=2 under the Zoning Ordinance of the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, and is improved with an eight story office building hereinafter referred to as "Building" ; and WHEREAS, OAK BROOK, after investigations prepared by Oak Brook' s staff and upon further information received from other sources, have agreed to permit the installation of a GC1� heliport on the roof of the Building, on an experimental and trial basis , subject to and in accordance whiz the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the execution of this Agreement will pe=rmit FRANCHISE to construct a heliport on the roof of the Building to allow for experiments and evaluation of the effect of said heliport and the operation of helicopters from said heliport on the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK and its environs ; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows : 1. SUBMISSION OF PLANS : Within thirty (30) days from the execution of this Agreement FRANCITISE shall deliver to OAK BROOK the plans and specifications for the installation and construction of a heliport, which plans and specifications shall comply with all rules, regulations and codes of OAK BROOK and all other pertinent State and Federal agencies, as they relate to said heliport. All State and Federal agency consents and approvals necessary for this installation will be delivered to the VILLAGE prior to installation and construction of said heliport. 2. OAK BROOK APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTIOIT OF HELIPORT: Within thirty (30) days of the approval by OAS: BROOD of plans and specifications submitted in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 above, OAK BROOK agrees to issue a permit for the construction and operation of a heliport on the roof of the Building on the SUBJECT REALTY, in accordance with 'the provisions of this Agreement. 3. CONSTRUCTION : FRANCHISE shall cause: the: con- struct-ion of said heliport as soon as ;practicable after 2 authorization by OAK BROOK and the issuance of a permit for the installation, construction and operation of said heliport. 4 . USE RESTRICTIONS : After construction of said heliport FRANCHISE and McDONALD' s agree to operate, maintain and utilize the same in conformance to and with all applicable and pertinent Federal, State and Municipal rules , regulations, laws and ordinances, and to limit the use of said heliport as follows : (a) That said heliport will be in use between the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. and 10 : 00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. The facility can be used on Sunday provided the Village is advised seventy-two (72) hours in advance, and said use does not exceed one (1) such use per month. (b) The number of operations to and from the heliport will be limited to an average of thirty (30) operations per month. Over a period of twelve (12) months the number of operations will be voluntarily limited to 360. In the event in any one month there occur more than thirty (30) such operations, then the number of operations for the next subsequent month will be reduced by a commensurate number as the number of flights in the preceding month exceeds thirty (30) . The term "operation" shall mean a take-off and a landing. (c) McDONALD' s will limit their approach and departure patterns so that there will be no opera- tions over the Shopping Center. All such patterns . shall be from the East and over the Tollway, except where wind patterns prohibit the same; provided that no such patterns shall occur over the Shopping Center or the ORA Development located South and West of the SUBJECT REALTY. (d) Only helicopters owned by McDONALD' s will be allowed to use the heliport. (e) McDONALD' s will limit the type of helicopter to a 206-B Jet Ranger which seats five (5) passengers or a comparable type of helicopter. (f) The helicopter will be used for the private use of. McDONALD' S, a regional Civil Defense Program, and will be made available to the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. (g) MCDONALD' S shall not permit refueling, routine maintenance, storage of helicopter (except for emer- gency purposes only) , will not use the heliport for receiving or shipping of freight, and will not permit any on-site fuel storage. 3 5. EXAMI`IATION: After construction of said heliport OAK BROOK, its agents, officers and employees , during reason- able business hours, shall have access to the heliport and any and all information reasonably requested relative to the installation and operation of said. heliport. Said information is to be furnished for the purpose of determining the effect of the heliport and its use on the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK and its environs. 6. TIME LITMI`I'ATIONS: The heliport constructed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be in operation for a period of one, year commencing on �. 1 ,7 1976, and ending on W21 . The VILLAGE at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of said term, shall evaluate said heliport and its use as to its impact on the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, its citizens and its environs, and shall .in its sole, exclusive and reasonable discretion determine if said helipad and its use is one which the VILLAGE deems per- missible, in which event the VILLAGE shall undertake those actions which :ittdeems necessary and advisable to enact such other and additional ordinances, rules and regulations to authorize and allow such heliport installations, and to govern their use and operations. In the event OAS; BROOK deems such use to be one which is not permissible, then, upon notice thereof in Writing by OAK BROOK, McDONTALD' s and FRANCHISE shall immediately cease such use and operation. 7 . INDEMNIFICATION: FRANCHISE and McDONALD ' s, for and in consideration of this Agreement, hereby indemnify and hold the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, its officers, agents and employe?es, harmless from any loss, cost, expense or liability .resulting from the installation, operation and use of the heliport in accordance: with the terms of this Agreement. FRA1.7CI:ISE' and McDOri_ALD ' s will maintain appropriate and sufficient insurance coverage relative to the, installation and use of said heliport:, limits to be not less than $ ��C6rd ?[J . C } r PAIS zc,.660,®oa . Oa 4fYeess The VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK shall be nKmed as an additional party insured under such insurance coverage. IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties have hereto set their hands and seals on the date and year first above written. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK By ATTEST: FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION By ATTEST Gtl. 4. sathe r/a nd - V,G� 7'rL5/deh� 4! �!Mob r Green pa McDONALD' S CORPORATION f BY ATTEST: e` - 5 - V1 . OLD BUW11ESS D, Report of:Activities (continued} Adminl's-ration L. Communication continued) Organizational Flow Chart reflecting the distribution of authorized positions was presented, Finance & Capital Program to analyze insurance has been initiated .by DuPage Mayors & rlanagers Conference with a Risk Management Survey. Manager Carmignani was directed to solicit proposals for consultants to review the village insurance program. 1977/78 Budget Objective to maintain the present high level of municipal services , utilizing the presently authorized level of overall personnel and the present level of physical facilities, at an increase of total cost not to exceed the anticipated increase of revenue. - Proposal for acquisition of the Sports Core to be refined for public input. Public Safety Paramedical Services being investigated and will be reviewed on November 8, 1976 at 6 P.M. prior to committee-of-the whole meeting. Public Works - Review of preliminary wellhouse #6 site plan, floor plan and materials to be used. Alternatives are to be prepared for review of cormittee-of- the-whole meeting of November 8, 1976. Tral"f is James J. Benes presented the phases and planning areas of the Route 83 Study. Representative of the 111 . Dept. of Transportation was present and available for comment. Zoning and Planning Annexation of York Park Forest Preserve was deferred to meeting of November 9, 1976. DuPage County Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and recommendations made by the Plan Commission. Trustee Brown moved - seconded by Trustee Cerne. . . To notify DuPage County Plan Commission of the modifications as expressed by the Plan Commission and request they make these modifications to their plans. Roll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Brown, Cerne, Congreve, Glaves, Philip, Rush, and President Howell Nays: None So ordered, Absent: None An agreement had been prepared, along with the proposed ordinance to permit Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation & McDonald's Corp. to construct a heliport on the roof of the McDonald's building to allow for experiment and evaluation of the effect of said heliport and its operations on the village and its environs. Trustee Brown moved - seconded by Trustee Rush. . . To approve Ordinance No. S367 and waive reading of same. 1<oll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Brown, Cerne, Congreve, Philip, Rush, and President Howell Nays: Trustee Glaves ASc ordered, bsent: None Subdivision Gateway Signs was referred to committee-of-the-s,hol e meeting o ;!o'✓ember 8, 19/6. r LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIANUCCI 230 WEST MONROE STREET ALFRED P. BIANJCCI CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 OAK BROOK OFFICE (312) 346-3762 - BUTTERFIELD OFFICE PLAZA ROBERT B.SPENCER 2625 BUTTERFIELD ROAD DONALD W. FORESTER OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 (312) 325-1744 October 27, 1976 Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 In re: Status of Litigation Dear Ken: I am pleased to provide you with the following status report covering various matters in litigation in which I am involved on behalf of the Village of Oak Brook. 1. LaSalle National Bank, as Trustee, vs. Oak Brook. This matter involves the Dr. Buyer property on Harger Road and his request for a variance to develop a barn on the property as a residence and dentist's office. Discovery is complete and the cause set for trial commencing November 8, 1976. Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation vs. Oak Brook, Concerns special use permit requested by McDonald's for installation of roof-top heliport. . Suit dismissed. Final resolution is imminent. Consideration of special Agreement pending before the Village Board. 3. Hayes vs. O'Malley, et al. This civil rights action stems from the assistance rendered to the Hinsdale Police Department on April 3, 1972. Discovery is complete. By our motion, Police Chief Albert G. Ceren, Jr, was dismissed as a party defendant on August 17, 1976. Our motion again requesting recon- sideration of a previous motion to dismiss defendants Mandel and Romani has been pending before Judge Kirkland since September 29th. Status call was set by the court for December 9, 1976. Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani October 27, 197.6 Page Two 4. Klein Construction vs. Oak Brook - Arbitration. Hearings before the American Arbitration Association have been concluded and an award has been entered in accordance with my previous communication with you. 5. Board of Trustees, Policeman's and Fireman's Pension Fund of the Village of Oak Brook vs. Illinois Depart- ment of Insurance, et al. This matter has been favorably resolved pursuant to the opinion of the appellate court entered on October 1, 1976, the details of which were previously transmitted to you. 6. Foster vs. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. The underlying complaint here was filed in July 1971; seeks relief under the State of Illinois Administrative Review Act; and brings into issue the methods used to compute the scores from the Sergeant's Promotional Examination given in November, 1968. During the Spring of 1975, plaintiff sought production of all per- sonal computational sheets used by members of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners in the grading process. Extensive briefs were thereafter submitted by the parties in support of and in opposition to the documentation sought. By order of the Court entered on May 20, 1976, the Village was directed to file the documents in issue. Compliance with that order was effected on July 13, 1976. 7. Chicago Title and Trust Company, et al. , vs. Oak Brook (First Federal Savings). Our Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in this case was granted. Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani October 27, 1976 Page Three 8. Drake-Oak Brook vs. Oak Brook. Relief sought in our Motion Attacking the Complaint was granted in part and denied in part on August 26, 1976. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was thereafter filed where- upon our Answer on behalf of the Village incorporated four affirmative defenses as part of the general denial to the allegations made. Plaintiff's Reply to that Answer was filed during the week of October 18, 1976. We are presently formulating discovery strategy. 9. Yorkfield Fire Protection District Matter re: Automatic Disconnection. Two separate suits filed on behalf of the District to prevent disconnection of two areas previously annexed to the Village. Our Motion to Intervene as a party Defendant was granted on September 16, 1976. Answers to each of the two peti- tions were subsequently filed on October 12, 1976. Discovery procedures will be undertaken on a timely basis. Additionally, we have already made preliminary contact with several experts relative to the presentation of our defense to these actions. I trust the contents of this letter are sufficiently explanative of the status of this litigation. Should you or a member of the Board require or desire further information with respect to any or all of these cases, please advise. Yours very truly, r �j AJre. P. Bianucci APB/cml t, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS October 28, 1976 654-2220 Mr. Michael Size McDonald's Corporation McDonald's Plaza Oak Brook„ Illinois 60521 Dear Mr. Size, At the board meeting of October 26, 1976, the village board passed the ordinance authorizing the execution of an Agreement with Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, McDonald's Corporation and the Village of Oak Brook to permit the installation and use of a Heliport on an experimental and trial basis subject to the conditions of the Agreement. The Agreement dated October 26, 1976 was also executed. I have transmitted a copy of the executed Agreement with a copy of the executed Ordinance to our attorney, Alfred P. Bianucci, who will deliver these documents to you. I would ask that you make the necessary arrangements with our Inspection Bureau relative to the review of the plans and issuance of a permit, and also establish with them a monitoring system for the one-year duration based on the pe;cformance criteria established in the Agreement. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, ''Ke neth'C. Carmignani Village Manager - KGC/ls att. cc: S. Louis Rathje Alfred P. Bianucci Inspection Bureau LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIANUCCI 230 WEST MONROE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 OAK BROOK OFFICE ALFRED P. BIANUCCI (312) 346-3762 BUTT ERFIELD OFFICE PLAZA 2625 BUTTERFIELD ROAD ROBERT B.SPENCER OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 DONALD W. FORESTER (312) 325-1744 IQ*1 November I fl, Michael J. Si6e, . I- al etate Depa rtrieut McDonald 's Corporation 4cDonald 's Plaza Oak Brook, IllixlOis 60521 Oak Brook/11cliport McDonald 's CorRoration Dear Mike: Luclosed you will find a fully executed under date October 26, 1976, copy of the agreement between the Vil- lage of Oak Brook, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, and hcDonald 'a Corporation relative, to t1te subject matter. I would appreciate your seeing, to it ttmt t4e appropriate officers of Franchise and McDonald 's initial the additions to paragraph six on page four and paragraph seven on page five . Once this is complete, please return tl'-.,ie copy of the agreement to me for transmittal to the Village. I have requested Ken Car migaaUi to effect t"'- sarAle initialling by appropriate officials of the Village, and forwarding of that executed copy of the agreement directly to you for your jile . I am also enclosing for your file a conformed copy of Ordinance No. ;3-367, adopted by the and of Tru tee U on October 26, 1976, authorizing exuIcution of the instant agreellaent. I would like to call to your attentioa, those items required under the agreement to be submitted to the Fill-6114 e before the Village issues a persit authorizing the installation and oont'ariplated use. Those requirements are ttiose set forth iu paragraph one of the agreement. paragrapb two of the save, and that required under paragraph seven, namely the delivery of evidence of appropriate and required inauimnoe coverage:, with the Village named as an additional party insured under that policy. In accord with Ken X019'10 WAJ 100UMAle .9 (j35; -g.JA T335; a 30SHOIA T22W OES )IGORB NAO a(:)aOa P-IOWIJJI OOA0JH,-3 ASAJq 0J.31-IF13TTUe JD:)UMAIE :7 035�,-AJA aAOq CJ:311913TTU8 2SaS Sa7E-a-PlE (SfE) 15808 210HUJI 0400518 AAO q3:)o3qR-a T57:?80R (SIF) R:3Te3FI0�l W OJAIA00 xOq! co � wlowlot) *toga Al r"Ah aw"U bvll� 111W Vol -Ttv '911 veftwlod $$I -31ql '001147,0q1OD elalal-elnI 'TNx-N'lfl X00 to .191-11sia tuetd" v,6j ot -wwjj,zjs"j 181'JqOlqq,f StAl 16.p j OS jotage Suo�i bluov I 81YO111MR 54� 9' 8"t)XASOGOM bne smaq no rieves dqu-188-xAq bris .11jol egag RC) x1a ld J _17 oil lllkfl;� A b9l'asups-f !�rvzd*' _10MAD tic: MISIDilio t4tllqt*q'qA Xd kfox aawt -1013 vGels W-0 1 . 9111 -1u l(d b.'3wlqObA WK "0 't4m) luxleal 'avel n -T-4fu0-1:W no ea0dir jJO-tl1A*-.tTft 1, 01 Ila- 0' 0211 1 (461 cmu bt3p-tnlqgv has p 11plinIgul io 4nQ dqA-A-04%aq al dlloll lob asodl 13 bwyllipowl tjmfj,-* bnS Wj* 3:0 0 W-* I If!amnn lAn011thbfl as &a bosso egsl (IV ed-+ ds1w at'A ifllw b-moDa al Michael J. is e, Lath. McDonald 's Corporation Page 2 Zarmigaanils letter to you ctober 26, 1 expe,2t that you will deal dir .,,Aly with the Village and its inspectiou depai-1,4aeut wila respect to the requirements under paragraphs one and two. I wo"Id appreciate, with respect to the vi ia6urauletv coverage as required tinnier para,-,--aph �sov4lcx, tAat you will wage available to wic tiie rertint-int lasiuraii,oe poIA-I%;y inr my nevi w. I have vi the Village that- 1.11t; pwidit in que*tioa not 6*-, i*6uked iintil such ahi all z%squirements under the have beeu yuu have auy questions or com-me.-ats, lea s-e do Ye,ry 1�' ruly yours, JS' a hanucri cc: Xr. Louis Rath-je Ur. iicauoth carni gnani Nul -lea oall A i0adolm wolisloq,OD WbInaolubt InqOq tat! ivoix" I 'A 1000ino to UOY Q3 v5sib, alKIC4MIQ roiln"qepi all bna Op4livv nos aliw XWO4114 VEW (11W =t MQUIPP%xq yahnu 001 Os ingaven MW njuj7pq0h all av lonqaO, dytw minjusmanx Floov I owl t". sac dqx%' zImq yabnv VaNkupol 80 ejulauva avuUmmoul W _nuaal- _ jr ;7r"Muc so, AT Q, ajdallava 9%mm MW UO V mao yaw0a SICTISA M baskvbp Au" I molven jN In4 vyviuq W0007LOSI: WO flint buVem! va ton 001jesup mi liulmq Wn" rad- rood evoo tmsmon"-p enj vabou axnamuskupav 150 a& own; mv many" a siallaw" AVC.'- 41MA STATE 0" ILLINOIS � k DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS p In the matter of the application of ) U7,(` McDonald's Corporation for approval ) v of a Restricted Landing Area-Heliport } located in Oak Brook, Illinois ) ORDER On October 2 , 1975 , the Division issued an Order ap- proving the application of McDonald's Corporation for a restricteu 1a.nding area-heliport located in Oak Brook, in Lot 4 in Oak Brook Development Company ' s Commerce Plaza Sub- division Unit 1 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 , Town- ship 39 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof, recorded July 12 , 1963 as Doc- ument 4R68-30335 , in DuPage County, Illinois; and commonly known as 2111 Enco Drive, Oak Brook, Illinois . Since that time the Division has received notice from the said McDonald' s Corporation that they have not been able to complete construction on said proposed restricted landing area-heliport because of delays in zoning approval , and they are requesting a twelve (12) months extension of time to com- plete the proposed construction. IT IS, THEREFORE , ORDERED BY THE DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS as follows : (1) That the Order of October 2 , 1975 be amended in the following respect: "That the words and figures two (2) be substi- tuted for the words and figures one (1) in Order. "___l__. Para- graph 41 of said O . " (2) That a Certificate of Approval of said Restricted Landing Area-Heliport be issued to said McDonald's Corporation after sufficient completion thereof as proposed by the application to comply with all minimum requirements of this Division for a Re- stricted Landing Area-Heliport. (3) That no operations from said restricted landing area- heliport are authorized by this Order until the Cer- tificate of Approval has been issued hereunder. Melvin L. Rosenbloom, DIRECTOR DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS DATED: November 10 , 1976 STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRIiNSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS I hereby certify that the Order attached is a true and correct copy of the original Order entered on the 10th day of _ November 1976 , by Melvin L. Rosenbloom, Director of the Division of Aeronautics , Department of Trans- portation of the State of Illinois , as said original Order appears in the files and records of the Department of Trans- portation , Division of aeronautics of the State of Illinois. IN WITNESS WHEREOF ,' I hereunto set my hand and affix the Seal of the Department of Transportation , Division of Aeronautics of the State of Illinois , at the office of said Department, Capital Airport, Springfield, Illinois, this 10th day of November 1976. n n ' r LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIANUCCI 230 WEST MONROE STREET ALFRED P. BIANUCCI CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 OAK BROOK OFFICE (312) 346-3762 BUTTERFIELD OFFICE PLAZA ROBERT B.SPENCER 2625 BUTTERFIELD ROAD DONALD W. FORESTER OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 (312) 325-1744 November 18, 1976 Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 , Dear Ken: Enclosed for the Village's permanent file is the original Agreement pertaining to the McDonald's Corporation Heliport, duly executed. V e. 'truly yours, � 1 J Alfred P. Bianucci APB:lfj Enclosure f ,t LAW OFFICES OF { \ 1Gs � ALFRED P. BIANUCCI LTD. .'` 230 WEST MONROE STREET ALFRED P. BIANUCCI `Y � CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 ROBERT B.SPENC BUTTERFIELD OFFICE PLAZA DONALD W. FOREST (312) 346-3762 OAK BROOK OFFICE 2625 BUTTERFIELD ROAD OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 V.,, (3 12) 325-1744 Q. December 23, 1976 Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 Dear Ken: In re: Franchise Realty Interstate Corper ation, et al. - Helipad Installation I transmit herewith Certificates of Insurance evidencing that McDonald's Corporation and Franchise Realty maintain the requisite amount of insurance with the Village of Oak Brook as an additional party insured as the same is required under the agreement between the Village and Franchise relative to the installation and use of the helipad. The Certificates are those pertaining to National Union Fire Insurance Policy No. SMP 1615610 indicating primary coverage of $1 Million and excess coverage USAIG Policy No. 360-61170 in the amount of $20, Million. Also included are letters from Frank B. Hall & Co. of Illinois indicating that the insurance coverage does pertain to the construction and use of the helipad and the use of the helicopter. I suggest that these certificates be maintained in the Village's permanent file dealing with the helipad. The provisions of Paragraph 7 dealing with insurance coverage have now been met, in my judgment, and if the other provisions of the agreement have likewise been met, appropriate permits can be issued. i Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani December 23, 1976 Page Two Should you have any question or comment, please do not hesitate to contact me. Since y, A red' P. Bianucci APB:lfj Enclosure; J s Frank B. Hall & Co. of Illinois 230 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 December 21 , 1976 Mr. Fred Biannucci Suite #2424 230 gest Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 Dear Mr. Biannucci, : MCDONALD'S CORPORATION AIRCRAFT HULL AND LIABILI'T'Y INSURANCE USAID POLICY # 360-61170 We wish. to confirm that the captioned policy is in force for the period Septbmber 28, 1976 to September 23 , 1979 and provides coverage on schedule owned or McDonald' s operated aircraft (including helicopters) for liability in an amount of at least $20, 000, 000 . This policy would include the operations of helicopters in or about the heliport located at One McDonald's Plaza, Oak Brook, Illinois. We have requested underwriters in New York to issue and forward to you directly a formal certificate of insurance including the various interests of the Village of Oak Brook, etc. You can expect its receipt early next week. In the meantime we trust you will find this letter sufficient for the completion of your file. Ve y tru yo rs, t J es L. Stone, CPCU E 'ecutive Vice President JLS/dw CC: Mr. Jerry R. Lane - McDonalds Corporation/Oak Brook Mr. Kenneth R. MacClelland - Frank B. Hall/New York Telephone (312) 641-1900 CEPTIFIC,ATE OF INSURANCE ISSUED Bi(.(TYPE FULL NAME OF INSURING COMPANY) This is to Certify,that policies in the name of TH IS CE RTI FICATE OF INSU RANCE NEITHE R r-McDonald ' s Corporation and AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY AMENDS, NAMEDEXTENDS OR ALTERS THE COVERAGE AFFORDED INSURED Franchise Realty Corporation and McDonald ' s Plaza BY ANY POLICY DESCRIBED HEREIN. ADDRESS Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 L- J are in force at the date hereof,as follows: POLICY LIMITS OF LIABILITY — KIND OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PERIOD BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE WORKMEN'S Eff. Provided by Workmen's COMPENSATION Exp. Compensation Law—State of NIL COMPREHENSIVE Eff. $ $ 000 Each occurrence GENERAL LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence $ 000 Aggregate $ 000 Aggregate $ MANUFACTURERS'AND Eff. $ $ 000 Each occurrence CONTRACTORS' LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence $ 000 Aggregate OWNERS', LANDLORDS' Eff. $ $ 000 Each occurrence &TENANTS' LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence $ 000 Aggregate CONTRACTUAL Eff. $ $ 000 Each occurrence LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence $ 000 Aggregate AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY i Owned Automobiles Eff. $ 000 Each person $ 000 Each occurrence ❑ Hired Automobiles Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence ❑ Non-Owned Automobiles i COMPREHENSIVE AUTO- Eff. $ 000 Each person $ 000 Each occurrence MOBILE LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence OTHER: Eff. 4-1-74 $20, 000 , 000 Combined Single Limit _ Umbrella FEC 4765125 Exp- 4-1-77 per occurrence and in the Aggregat Liability *Additional Insured.: Village of Oak Brook and Illinois Municipal Corporation of DuPage and Cook County Illinois as their respective interests may appear. In the event of cancellation of said policies or a reduction in the limits of liability,the company will endeavor to give written notice to the party to whom this certificate is issued,but failure to give such notice shall impose no obligation or liability upon the company. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO: NAMAND Village of Oak Brook 11/18/76 ADDRESS DATED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE I— H28514F(SINGLE) -- CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE '( / IS`;fUCD fly IT YIN. FULL VAMC OF INSUI+ING L( 1t4Y) f* t i This is to Certify, that policies in the name of THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE NEITHER AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY AMENDS, i NAMED r McDonald ' s Corporation and EXTENDS OR ALTERS THE COVERAGE AFFORDED 1 INSURED Franchise Realty Corporation and McDonald ' s Plaza BY ANY POLICY DESCRIBED HEREIN. ADDRESS Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 { L -� are in force at the date hereof,as follows: POLICY LIMITS OF LIABILITY — KIND OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBERPERI -- — .._-- - DAMAGE BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE WORKMEN'S Eff. Provided by Workmen's COMPENSATION Exp. Compensation Law-State of NIL + COMPREHENSIVE Eff. $ $ 000 Each occurrence ' GENERAL LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence S 000 Aggregate $ 000 Aggregate $ MANUFACTURERS' AND Eff. $ S 000 Each occurrence CONTRACTORS' LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence $ 000 Aggregate OWNERS', LANDLORDS' Eff. $ S 000 Each occurrence &TENANTS' LIABILITY Exp. $ ,000 Each occurrence $ 000 Art yregate CONTRACTUAL Eff. $ $ 000 Each occurrence LIABILITY —__ Exp, $ 000 Each occurrence $ 000 Aggregate AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ❑ Owned Automobiles Eff. $ 000 Each person $ 000 Each occurrence EJ Hired Automobiles Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence I ❑ Non-Owned Automobiles l _ COMPREHENSIVE AUTO- Eff. $ 000 Each person $ 000 Each occurrence MOBILE LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence OTHER: Eff. 4-1-74 $20, 000 , 000 Combined Single Limit _ Umbrella HEC 4765125 Exp- 4-1-77 per occurrence and in the Aggregat Liability *Additional Insured: Village of Oak Brook and Illinois Municipal Corporation of DuPage and Cook County Illinois as their respective interests may appear. In the event of cancellation of said policies or a reduction in the limits of liability, the company will endeavor to give written notice to the party to whom this certificate is issued,but failure to give such notice shall impose no obligation or liability upon tile company. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO: NAME Illinois Municipal Corporation of 11/18/76 _ _ AND _ ADDRESS Dupage DATED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE �- 1 ! N28514F(SINGLE) - - --- ------_ -----"— CERTI.FI£ATE OF INSURANCE ' ISSUED Bpi' (TYPE FULL NAME OFT INSURING COMPANY) This is to Certify,that policies in the name of THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE NEITHER AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY AMENDS, NAMEDMcDonald' s Corporation and EXTENDS OR ALTERS THE COVERAGE AFFORDED "andE ° Franchise Realty Corporation * BY ANY POLICY DESCRIBED HEREIN. ADDRESS McDonald ' s Plaza Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 are in force at the date hereof,as follows: POLICY LIMITS OF LIABILITY KIND OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PERIOD BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE WORKMEN'S Eff. Provided by Workmen's COMPENSATION Exp. Compensation Law—State of NIL COMPREHENSIVE Eff. $ $ 000 Each occurrence GENERAL LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence $ 000 Aggregate $ 000 Aggregate $ MANUFACTURERS'AND Eff. $ $ 000 Each occurrence CONTRACTORS' LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence $ 000 Aggregate OWNERS', LANDLORDS' Eff. $ $ 000 Each occurrence &TENANTS' LIABILITY Exp. $ ,000 Each occurrence $ 000 Aggregate CONTRACTUAL Eff. $ $ 000 Each occurrence LIABILITY Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence $ 000 Aggregate AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ❑ Owned Automobiles Eff. $ 000 Each person $ 000 Each occurrence ❑ Hired Automobiles Exp. $ 000 Each occurrence ❑ Non-Owned Automobiles i COMPREHENSIVE AUTO- Eff. $ 000 Each person $ 000 Each occurrence MOBILE LIABILITY Exp. $ ,000 Each occurrence OTHER: Eff. 4-1-74 $20, 000, 000 Combined Single Limit Umbrella H.EC 4765125 Exp.4-1-77 per occurrence and in the Aggregate_ — Liability *Additional Insured : Village of Oak Brook and Illinois Municipal Corporation of DuPage and Cook County Illinois as their respective interests may appear. In the event of cancellation of said policies or a reduction in the limits of liability,the company will endeavor to give written notice to the party to whom this certificate is issued,but failure to give such notice shall impose no obligation or liability upon the company. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO: NAME Cook County Illinois AND 11/18/7_6 ADDRESS DATE U HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE H285I4F(SINGLE) Frank B. Hall & Co. of Illinois 230 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 December 21, 1976 Mr. Fred Biannucci Suite #2424 230 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 Dear Mr. Biannucci: MCDONALD' S CORPORATION BUSINESS OPERATOR' S INSURANCE NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY #SMP 1615610 We wish to confirm that the certificate of insurance dated December 7, 1976 and forwarded to you by Mr. Jerry R. Lane with his letter of December 7, 1976 does cover liability arising out of the construction and ultimate operation of the heliport located at One McDonald' s Plaza, Oak Brook, Illinois. We trust this confirmation will be sufficient for the com- pletion of your files. V ry ruly yo rs, Jam s L. one, CPCU Ex utive Vice President LS/dw CC: Mr. Jerry R. Lane Insurance Manager Telephone (312) 641-1900 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE t ❑ AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. (]THE BIRMINGHAM FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA ❑THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL 04MGROUP 102 MAIDEN LANE, NEW YORK, N.Y. This is to certify that the insurance policies specified below have been issued by the AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY to the Insured named herein and that,subject to their provisions,exclusions and conditions, such policies afford the coverages indicated insofar as such coverages apply to the occupation or business of the Named Insured as stated. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE NEITHER AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY AMMENDS, EXTENDS OR ALTERS. THE COVERAGE (S) AFFORDED BY THE POLICY (IES) LISTED ON THIS CERTIFICATE. Name of Insured: McDonald's Corporation and Franchise Realty Corporation Address: One McDonald's Plaza, Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Occupation or Business: Restaurant Location of Operations: Type of Work Covered: Liability i I Coverages Policy Effective Expiration Limits of Liability Number Date Dote Workmen's Compensation Statutory -' g ' Bodily Injury Liability 1000000 a ' Other than Automobile each SMP 1615610 12/1/76 12/1/77 a , , °""'fenCe i I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aggregate PropertyDamage Liability 1 ®00 0®0 each Other than Automobile SMP 1615610 12/1/76 12/1/77 $' ''' ' ' '; occurrence i 1,000,000 j $. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aggregate 1 i Automobile Bodily Injuryeach Liability $. • , • , , • • • • • • , . • Person each occurrence Automobile Property Damage each Liability a. . . . . . . . occurrence i Additional Insured: Village of Oak Broo and Illinois Municipal Corporation o DuPage and Cook County, Illinois as their respective interests "Indicate in the space following the asterisk above the type or types of coverage afforded by the policy. may appear® This Certificate Issued To: � Name AMEJRICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY Village of Oak Brook Address lv'/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authorized Representative Date 12/7/76 6,•�=Y.t��'<-<-.r'-S.�',r'.r�=�1�►1:��'S''.�'�.'r'.��d�"�'�''1.c^��C�.',.�`r+� ".�''�''�.e�'.e.?�'.a',�'_L'�'��.;�>"_'�,..,"'.C^!c�'..E'�''..e',.r 6/76 21831 (, CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY [NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. a THE BIRMINGHAM FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA ❑THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL 01MGROUP 102 MAIDEN LANE, NEW YORK, N.Y. This is to certify that the in policies specified below have been issued by the AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY to the Insured named herein and that, subject to their provisions,exclusions and conditions, such policies afford the coverages indicated insofar as such coverages apply to the occupation or business of the Named Insured as stated. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE NEITHER AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY AMMENDS, EXTENDS OR ALTERS, THE COVERAGE (S) AFFORDED BY THE POLICY (IES) LISTED ON THIS CERTIFICATE. Name of Insured: McDonald's Corporation and Franchise Realty Corporation i Address: One McDonald's Plaza, Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Occupation or Business: Restaurant �II Location of Operations: j Type of Work Covered: Liability ] i 1 Coverages EPolicy Effective Expiration Limits of Liability 9 Number Date Date Workmen's Compensation Statutory lU, A �� 000 occ 1 � Bodily Injury Liability each Other than Automobile $ 1 . urrence SMP 1615610 12/1/76 12/1/77 'i $ 1,000,OOO aggregate i i Property Damage Liability 1 OO OOO each Other than Automobile $. . . 1999.7 . . . T. . . . . occurrence SMP 1615610 12/1/76 12/1/77 1,000,000 $. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aggregate Automobile Bodily Injury each � $. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . person Liability each $ occurrence Automobile Property Damage each Liability $. . . occurrence Additional Insured: Village of Oak Brook and Illinois Municipal Corporation of DuPage and Cook County, Illinois ag their respective interests 1' "Indicate in the space following the asterisk above the type or types of coverage afforded by the policy. may appear. This Certificate Issued To: ; Name AME"N HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY Illinois Municipal Corporation Address of DuPage Authorized Representative Date 12/7/76 21831 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 0 AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY L3TNATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. i THE BIRMINGHAM FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA ❑THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN i INTERNATIONAL 04MGROUP 102 MAIDEN LANE, NEW YORK, N.Y. This is to certify that the insurance policies specified below have been issued by the AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY to the Insured named herein and that,subject to their provisions,exclusions and conditions, such policies afford the coverages indicated insofar as such coverages apply to the occupation or business of the Named Insured as stated. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE NEITHER AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY AMMENDS, EXTENDS OR ALTERS. THE COVERAGE (S) AFFORDED BY THE POLICY (IES) LISTED ON THIS CERTIFICATE. Name of Insured: McDonald's Corporation and Franchise Realty Corporation Address: One McDonald's Plaza, Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Occupation or Business: Restaurant Location of Operations: �i Type of Work Covered: Liability ' 4� Polic Effective Ex iration Coverages Number Date pDate Limits of Liability 1 Workmen's Compensation Statutory ; Bodily Injury Liability a_ Other than Automobile each * SMP 1615610 12/1/76 12/1/77 a .1,000,00.0. . . , occurrence i� 1,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aggregate �I } Property Damage Liability 1,000,000 each ! Other than Automobile SMP 1615610 12/1/76 12/1/77 a' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . . • • • . occurrence i 1,000,000 I ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aggregate ! Automobile Bodily Injury each Liability $. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . person each $• occurrence Automobile Property Damage each Liability $. . . . . . . . . . . . . occurrence rAddtttariat trisurede Village of Oak Brook and Illinois Municipal Corporation of DuPage and Cook County, Illinois as their respective interests tl *Indicate in the space following the asterisk above the type or types of coverage afforded by the policy. may appear. if4 This Certificate Issued To: f Name AMER N HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY Cook County, Illinois 74;t7� _ Address (/ t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/7/76 Authorized Representative Date ---------- 21631 zteat _. ene LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIANUCCI, t LT D. 230 WEST MONROE STREET HICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 ALFRED P. BIANUCCI OAK BROOK OFFICE `- (312) 346-3762 BUTTERFIELD OFFICE PLAZA ROBERT B.SPENCER "`77YCC111 2625 BUTTERFIELD ROAD DONALD W. FORESTER OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 (312) 325-1744 s February 1, 1977 Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 Dear Ken: / In re: cDonald's Corporation, et al. , Insurance Certificate - Village of Oak Brook Enclosed is a revised Certificate of Insurance relative to the excess coverage dealing with the proposed heliport. The revision was made to include in the "named insured" Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation. This Certificate will replace the one dated December 21, 1976, and should be placed in the Village's file on the matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Alt V. ianucci APB:lfj Enclo sure CERTUMPTE OF insumn[E 401 Date JANUARY 25, 1977 This is to certify to VILLAGE OF OAKBROOK AND ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION whose address is DU PAGE AND COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS that RAY A. KROC, MC DONALD'S CORPORATION AND FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP. whose address is MC DONALD'S PLAZA, OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 is at this date insured, only as per policy numbers indicated below, at locations: ILLINOIS AND VARIOUS with one or more of the companies, Members of the USAIG: DESCRIPTIVE SCHEDULE LIMITS OF LIABILITY NOT LESS THAN: KIND OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER EXPIR. DATE EACH PERSON EACH ACCIDENT AIRCRAFT LIABILITY Public Liability Passenger Liability__ Property Damage__ _ _ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX —$ Single Limit (PL, PD, Pass.) 360-61170 _ 9/28/79_ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX $20,000,000.00 AIRPORT LIABILITY Bodily Injury — _$ �$ Property Damage _ _ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX —$ HANGARKEEPERS EACH AIRCRAFT LIABILITY WORKERS' COMP.-- _ EMPLOYER'S LIAB. _ AIRCRAFT HULL DEFINITION OF "INSURED" SHALL INCLUDE: VILLAGE OF OAKBROOK AND ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DU PAGE AND COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS AS THEIR RESPECTIVE INTEREST MAY APPEAR. The Aviation Managers of the USAIG (United States Aircraft Insurance Group) agree that in the event of cancelation of the policy(ies), they will endeavor to give the party to whom this Certificate is issued 30 days advance notice of such cancelation, but the Aviation Managers shall not be liable in any way for failure to give such notice. UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., Aviation Managers address: WI AM T. ,,,NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 by: F•108 REV.9/75