Loading...
Heliport Study - 1981 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -5- V: BUTTERFIELD OFFICE VENTURE - SPECIAL USE & VARIATIONS - HELIPORT: (Continued) 6. A study entitled "Sound Level Measurements, Heliport Landing Pad Permit Application, McDonald's Corporation, McDonald's Plaza, Oak Brook, Illinois," which study recorded sound levels at three locations neat McDonald's Plaza on October 6, 1975 during trial operations of their proposed Bell 206B helicopter. 7. A study entitled "Effect on Real Estate Adjacent to Helicopter Landing Areas" dated October 18, 1962. 8. 'A study entitled "Effect on Real Estate Adjacent to Helicopter Landing Areas" dated January 21, 1975 Mr. Lavery further explained that the purpose of this Heliport pad will be primarily to fly visiting officials from other countries in and out of the Chicago area either to Midway or O'Hare airports, as well as for the purpose of flying these same officials to various Waste Management operations in the Chicago area. Mr. Lavery proceeded to address himself to the standards by which Special Uses are reviewed as contained in Section XIII (J) (5) of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that there is a definite public convenience related to this Heliport pad in tines of emergency as well as the obvious convenience to the guests of Waste Management. Mr. Lavery further stated that the Heliport pad will be designed, located and operated such that public health, safety and welfare will be protected in that all regulations of the Division of Aeronautics as well as those of the FAA will be adhered to in the design and operation of this Heliport pad. Additionally, he stated that the installation of this Heliport pad would not cause substantial inuury to the value of other property in the neighborhood. With regard to standards relating to requests for Variation as contained in Section XIII (G) (4) of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Lavery stated that: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if the Variations are not granted. 2. That the requested Variations relating to the 100 foot diameter and fencing should be granted as those specific regulations more precisely relate to a ground-level Heliport pad. 3. That the requested Variations will not alter the essential nature of this ORA-1 Zoning District. In response to questioning by Member Savino, Mr. Lavery stated that the proposed Heliport pad would be used on a very infrequent basis, that being an average of four to five operations per month with an absolute maximum of thirty operations per month. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -5- March 3, 1981 C� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -6- March 2 Awl-, . G V. BUTTERFIELD OFFICE VENTURE - SPECIAL USE & VARIATIONS - HELIPORT: (Continued) The petitioner further stated that there is a substantial savings in travel time from either Midway or O'Hare airports in that the driving time to each of these o:ould be at least 20 minutes, whereas the flight time by helicopter would be approximately 7 minutes. Furthermore, he stated that as time is critical to the petitioner's foreign clients, they feel this is a hardship if the above Special Use and Variations are not granted by the Village, in that the timely review of Waste Management's Chicagoland operations can only be done by the air. Mr. Lavery stated that the petitioner is fully acceptable to the conditions as contained in the Agreement between the Village of Oak Brook and McDonald's Corporation which governs the use of their helicopter pad. In response to questioning by Member Crouch, Mr. Worley stated that the plans for this Heliport pad would restrict it entirely to touch-and-go operations. There would also be four major approach patterns to this pad, these being from the North, Northwest, East and Northeast. There would be no approaches made from the South, as it would be unsafe to do so as a result of the Commonwealth Edison power lines on that side of the property. Mr. Worley further 'stated that there had been no registered complaints .of noise concerning the operation of the Heliport pad at the Illinois Tall Highway Authority property since operation of this pad was begun in 1968. In response to questioning by Member Hodges, Mr. Worley stated that he did conduct an unofficial survey of noise levels in 1975 relating to take-offs and landings at the Toll Highway Authority as measured from Kingston Drive in the Brook Forest Subdivision. As this was only an unofficial survey, no actual decible readings were recorded; but Mr. Worley stated that the amount of noise generated from the helicopter take-offs and landings was roughly equivalent to the noise generated by traffic on the Tollway itself. Under further questioning by Member Hodges, Mr. Worley made the following statements: 1. That he cannot recall having ever flown over the Brook Forest Subdivision. 2. The type of helicopter being planned for this Heliport: is the Bell 206B Jet Ranger. 3. The next closest Heliport facility in this area which could possibly be used by Waste Management would be at the DuPage County Airport, which Mr. Norley estimated to be approximately 20-30 miles distant. When questioned by Member Hodges concerning the number of Heliports which could safely be placed along 22nd Street, Mr. Worley stated that a separation of approximately 500-700 feet would allow for safe operations of helicopters, although there would definitely be more noise associated with this increased density. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -6- March 3, 1981 ` ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -7- Mar V: BUTTERFIELD OFFICE VENTURE - SPECIAL USE & VARIATIONS - HELIPORT: (Continued) In response to Member Muschler, Mr. Worley stated that the landing paths to the North were chosen over potential paths to the South due to safety considerations as well as the fact that the development to the North is of a lesser density, and thereby would be less affected by noise. As there are acceptable approaches to and from the proposed landing pad to the East and West, Mr, Lavery stated that the applicant would be amenable -to limiting the .approach patterns to these Easterly and Westerly directions. Speaking for the applicant, Mr. Jacobs stated that Waste Management signed the lease for the Butterfield Office Venture building with the knowledge that a Special Use and a Variation would be required if a Heliport pad were to be constructed. It was .also Mr. Jacobs' contention that a "reasonable return",. . as stated as one of the conditions in the Zoning Ordinance, is lacking in a precise definition; and, therefore, it is difficult for any petitioner to justify this type of hardship to the Village. Mr. Jacobs further stated that it would be a .hardship to his company if he were not allowed to construct a Heliport pad on the building, and as such this would be restricting their maximum use of the facility. Chairman Baro.ii made the following observations concerning the above request: 1. That the requested Variation in height would be similar to a request for another story, 2. That the inability to fly in and out from this building doas not create a hardship, and, furthermore, that if this is considered a hardship i:t. would be no more than that experienced by any other building in the area and as such is not a unique hardship condition. Mr. Fowler, for the applicant, commented that the operations of Waste Manage- meet, Inc. are unique in that a large amount of their business is conducted with foreign countries, and thereby requires an efficient roans of transportation in order to conduct their business. Member Crouch questioned the applicant regarding the requested Variation to the 100 foot diameter requirement. Mr. Lavery stared that according to ]"AA regulations, the dimensions of the actual touch-down space would be 12 foot by 12 foot. There being no further questions by the Board members at this time, .Cha _rman Baroni inquired as to whetter there were any persons in the audience who were opposed to the requested Special Use and Variations. Chairman Baroni made note of the fact that an objection had been filed by the Western National Bank of Cicero, Trust #3434, which owns two parcels on the west side of Meyers Road and adjacent to the Northern Illinois Toll Highway. An oT),jection dated March 2, 1981 was also filed by the Ginger Creek Community Association. In u'. the audience, Mr. John Eichelberger, representing the Bethany Theological Seminary read and submitted a letter of protest to the requested use. Mr. ` 'ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL nutes -7- March 3, 1981 /V ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -8- March V: BUTTERFIELD OFFICE VENTURE - SPECIAL USE & VARIATIONS - HELIPORT: (Continued) Dick Kalseretta also expressed his opposition to the proposed Special Use and Variations. Mr. Kalseretta owns some condominiums in the Oak Brook Towers which is on the Northeast corner of Meyers and Butterfield Roads. The Chairman then inquired as to whether there were any persons in the audience who might be in favor of the petitioner. Karen Bushy of 14 Wyndam Court stated that she had no objections to the proposed Special Use or Variations relating to the construction of the Heliport pad at 3003 Butterfield Road. Mr. Lavery also submitted a letter from Ronald Spiegel stating no objection to the proposed use. Mr. Lavery offered a rebuttal to the above objections to his client's proposal in that:. 1. To his knowledge the membership of the Ginger Creek Association had not met or voted on his client's proposed use. 2. That the closest Seminary building is not 250 feet as stated in Mr. Eichelberger's letter, but rather is closer to 1/4 of a mile, in addition, the fact was noted that a path over the Seminary property would only be an alternate route. Therebeingno further discussion, a motion was made by Member Hodges, seconded by Member Savino that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend denial of the requested Special Use and Variations for a Heliport pad based on the following findings of facti 1. That no hardship or other extenuating circumstances which would separate this applicant from other commercial operations in the Village had been established by the petitioner. 2. That no evidence had been presented which would establish an essential need by the applicant for the Heliport in question. 3. That the Special use, if granted, you d have a definite adverse effect on nearby properties relative to noise and hazard considerations, as we11, as an erosion of the present s:--andards of .the Village oll_ Oak Brook.. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: (5) Members Crouch, Hodges, Muschler, Savino, Chairman Baroni Nays: (1) Member Fullan Absent: (1) Member McCormick MOTION CARRIED. . . . . . .. .. . . . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -8- March 3, 1981 taar+0 1; t VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 March 5, 1981 President & Board of Trustees 1200 Oaik Brook Road Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 RE: Proposed Special Use for a Heliport and Variations associated with the Heliport, 3003 Butterfield Road, Petition of Butter- field Office Venture Dear President and Board of Trustees. The Zoning Board of Appeals at its regular meeting of March 3, 1981, considered the petition of the Butterfield Office Venture for a Special. Use permit to construct a Heliport as provided in. Section X (B) (2) (a) as well as the following requested Variations to that section- 1. A Variation in building structure height which would allow the construction of the Heliport pad, this being a Variation of approximately 3 1/2 feet above the allowable structure height in the ORA-1 District. 2. A Variation from the requirem€.nt of installing a fence around the Heliport pad. 3. A Variation from the requirement that this pad be 100 feet in diameter in order that the pad may be constructed 60 foot square in dimension. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends to the Village Board of Trustees that the proposed Special Use for a Heliport and associated Variations be denied based on the following findings of fact: 1. That no hardship or other extenuating circumstances which would separate this applicant from other commercial operations in the Village have been established by the petitioner. March 5, 1981 Page 2 2. That no evidence had been presented which would establish an essential need by the applicant for the Heliport in question. 3. That the Special Use, if granted, would have a definite adverse affect on nearby properties relative to noise and hazard considerations as well as an erosion of the present standards of the Village of Oak Brook. This recommendation was made on a motion by Member Hodges, seconded by Member Savino and approved on a roll call vote of five (5) ayes, Members Crouch, Hodges, Muschler, Savino, Chairman Baroni; one (1) nay, Member Fullan; and (1) absent, Member McCormick. Sincerely, i Gene J. Baroni, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals GJB1'BFK/JK OA r v `v A c o .e qG, � C0um VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 March 13, 1981 Mr. Richard A. Barton, Chairman Plan Commission Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Re: Heliport Study Dear Mr. Barton: The Village Board at their regular meeting of March 10, 1981 indicated their desire to have the Plan Commission perform a study on the general subject area of Helicopters and Helicopter Pads within the Village of Oak Brook. This study should be all inclusive, including an analysis and projection of the Village's present and future needs as they relate to Helicopter usage. As a starting point the Village Board suggested the following possible courses of action which the Village might choose to take in this regard, which the Plan Commission should address in their study. 1. To make no changes in the present ordinance relating to Helicopters and Heliport Pads and to continue with our existing application and hearing procedure. 2. Some possible form of consolidation of the needs for Helicopters into one or a few Heliport facilities. 3. The total elimination of Helicopters and Heliport Pads from the the Village of Oak Brook. 4. Alternative courses of action which the Plan Commission may deem feasible. The Village Board has tabled action on the requested Heliport by Butterfield Office Venture until such time that the Plan Commission is able to furnish a recommendation on the above subject to the Village Board. Sincerely, Bruce F. Kapff Assistant to Village Manager BFK/ecs III. Heliport Study Although this item was originally scheduled to be number 7 on the agenda, Chairman Barton received concurrence from the Commission to consider the matter at this time. Following a discussion between Commission Members and Trustee Reynolds concerning the Village Board's reasoning behind requesting this study, an Ad .11oc Committee of the Plan Commission was appointed by Chairman Barton to perform the study and to report back at the next regularly scheduled Plan Commission Meeting in April. Members O'Brien, Bushy and Marcy will be members of this Ad Hoc Committee with Member Reece serving as the Chairman. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes -2- March 16, 1981 0 1 c 0 `2 F Cp. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 March 27, 1981 MEMO TO: Plan Commission FROM: Bruce F. Kapff, Assistant to Village Manager SUBJECT: Heliport Study Attached are a number of documents which are being provided for your review prior to the March 31 meeting of the Ad hoc Committee. Working back from this memo are the following documents: 1. A listing of the Zoning Districts which presently include a heliport as a Special Use, these being B-3, ORA-1 and ORA-3. 2. The Village standards as contained in the Zoning Ordinance relative to the control of noise and vibration as it might exist in any of the Village Zoning Districts. 3. Ordinance #S-367 which is the agreement which was reached between the Village of Oak Brook and McDonald's Corporation containing various conditions on the use of the McDonald's Heliport. This agreement was to extend for a period of one year during which time the operation of this heliport would be monitored by the Village. 4. Ordinance #S-392 which extended the above agreement indefinitely with the condition that McDonald's continue to adhere to all requirements as stated in the original agreement. 5. A memo from Village Manager Carmignani to the President and Board of Trustees dated August 16, 1976 which contains an analysis of rotor-craft accidents during the time period of 1973 and 1974. I have also contacted other municipalities in the Chicago area in order to elicit j:nformation concerning the operation of heliports in their jurisdictions as well as any ordinances which they might have governing such activities. This information will be forwarded to you as it becomes available. March 27, 1981 Page 2 From a technical standpoint, I have invited the following people to the March 31 meeting in order to answer any questions which the Ad hoc Committee members might have relative to noise, safety standards as well as helicopter operations in general: 1. Mike Reilag, a Safety Inspector with the FAA 2. Roy Cleveland, representing the Illinois Department of Aeronautics 3. John Worley, the Manager of the heliport operation which is adjacent to the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority's building in the Village of Oak Brook APPENDIX A—ZONING Sec. VIII (b) Dave-in establishments for permitted uses. --= APPENDIX A—ZONING Sec. X j (c) Churches—on lots not less than 4 acres in area. (d) Accessory uses and structures--including storage and service areas within the structures, garages for delivery trucks, central heating and air conditioning plants, and storage areas, yards, shops and similar facilities that are used solely for operating, servicing or maintaining the activities and improvements within the lot on which the accessory use is located. Accessory uses and structures shall also include dwellings occupied by i watchmen, janitors, maintenance and similar employees engaged upon the premises; but no dwellings shall be erected for any other purposes. (e) Electric distribution centers and substations. } (f) Gas:regulator stations. (2) Special Uses: ---�- (a) Heliports (not for freight), public and private—lo- cated 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. The landing area shall, as a minimum, have 2 approach-departure paths--with center lines radiating fi°orn 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 plvne extending from the edge of the landing area at an incline of one foot vertically to each 6 feet horizontally. (b) Public utility, governmental service and transpor- tation uses: (1) Bus turn-arounds and passenger shelters. (2) FIre and police stations. (3) Telephone exchanges, transmission buildings and equipment, and outdoor telephone booths and pedestals. t (4) Sewage and storm water lift stations. Supp. No. 1 931 i APPENDIX A—ZONING Sec. X (3) Special uses: (a) Not-for-profit, noncommercial performing and fine art's center. (b) Schools of music, fine arty, dance, theatre, and other arts. �---- (c) Private heliport wt i'or freight) (i)Loc! a:ed or, the ground having a touchdown space which is enclosed by a fence and whkh is not less than 100 feet in diameter; or (ii) Located o the roof of a building of four (4) stories or less having a touchdo%vi-i area not loss than 30 feet in diametet. rhe landing area ,,hall have two approach-departure paths over areas de- veloped nonresidentiaily with center lines radiating from the center of the area forming an angle greater than 90 degreosm-•which are kAot less than 75 feet in width a.Ad unobstruct- ed above: ars imaginary plane extending from the edge of the landing area at an incline of one foot vertically to each 6 feet horizontally. (d) Reserved. (4) Lot area: Not less than 70 acres w1 ch may be in more than single ownership but roust be tinder single control. (5) Floor area ratio: (a) Not to exceed 0.30 for permitted and accessarr? uses. (b) Not to exceed,0,0111 for special uses. (6) Open Space: (a) Not n-tore than 15% of the property shall be covered by buildings. `b) Not acss thaw 509c, of the property shall i:Ft open space as defined in subparagraph (1)(a) of this paragraph (D). Supp. No. 11 938.1 I F I l j APPENDIX A—ZONING Sec. X t (2) Prohibited Uses--explosives: No activities involving ,�,.Gti the storage, utilization, or manufacture of materials or products which decompose by detonation shall be zrt permitted, except such as are specifically licensed by the village. Such materials shall include, but shall not be confined to, all primary explosives such as lead azide, lead styphnate, fulminates and tetracene; all r high explosives such as TNT, RDX, HMX, PETN and pectic acid, propellants and components thereof such as nitrocellulose, black powder, boron hydrides, hydrazine and its derivatives; pyrotechnics and fireworks such as magnesium powder, potassium chlorate and potassium nitrate; blasting explosives such as dynamite and nitroglycerine; unstable organic compounds such `as acetylides, tetrazoles, perchloric acids; perchlorates, chlorates, hydrogen peroxide in concentrations greater than 35 percent; and nuclear fuels, fissionable materials, and products and reactor elements such as Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239. (3) Uses .Required to be Enclosed: All business, service, research, merchandise display, and manufacturing activities and operations shall be conducted wholly ' within completely enclosed buildings except off-street parking, off-street loading, and open sales lots and drive-in facilities. in districts where they are permit- ted. (4) Performance Standards: Any use established in the . ORA-1, ORA-2, or ORA-3 ,Office-Research-Assembly Districts shall be operated so as to comp y with the erforrnance standard re ulations prescribed in this ordinance, and no use lawfully established on the effective date of this ordinance shall be hereafter altered or modified so as to conflict with, or further conflict with, such performance standards. —� (a) Noise: Sound levels shall be measured with a sound level meter and associated octave band filter manufactured according to standards prescribed by the American Standards Associa- tion. Measurements shall be made 'using the flat Supp.No.5 925 Set:. X OAK BROOK CODE t network of the sound level meter. Impulsive type noises shall be subject to the performance standards prescribed in this ordinance, provided that such noises shall be capable of being accurately measured, [and] for the purpose [of] this ordinance, shall be those noises which cause rapid fluctuations of the needle of the sound level meter with a variation of no more than plus or minus two decibels. Noises incapable of being so measured, such as those of an irregular and intermittent nature, shall becontrolled so as not to become a nuisance to adjacent uses. At any point on or beyond the boundary line of the district designated below, the sound pressure level of any operation or plant (other than background noises produced by sources not under control of this ordinance, such as the operation of motor vehicles or other transportation facilities) shall not exceed the decibel limits in the table below: Octave Band Maximum permitted sound level in decibels Frequency Business in cycles Residence and ORA per second districts districts 20 to 75 72 77 - 75 to 150 67 72 150 to 300 59 64 300 to 600 52 57 600 to 1,200 46 51 1,200 to 2,400 40 45 2,400 to 4,800 34 39 Above 4,900 32 37 (b) Vibration: Any operation or activity which shall cause at any time and at any point beyond the boundaries of the lot, earthborne vibrations---other than background vibrations produced by some source not under control of this ordinance, such as Supp. No.5 926 I i I i APPENDIX A—ZONING Sec. X the operation of motor vehicles or other transpor- tation facilities—in excess of the limits set forth in Column I is prohibited. In addition, any operation or activity which shall cause at any time and at any point in a residence district earthborne vibrations in excess of the limits set forth in Column II is prohibited. Vibration shall be expressed as displacement in inches and shall be measured with a three-component measuring system approved by the Building Inspector. Frequency in I II cycles Displacement Displacement per second in inches in inches 0 to 10 .0008 .0004 10 to 20 .0005 .0002 20 to 30 .0002 .0001 G 30 to 40 .0002 .0001 40 and over .0001 .0001 { Impact vibrations which are discrete pulses that da not exceed 100 impulses per minute shall be permitted twice the displacements shown above in Columns I and IL (c) Smoke and Particulate Matter: (1) The emission of smoke or particulate matter in such manner or quantity as to be detrimen- tal to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall henceforth be unlawful. (2) For the purpose of grading the density or equivalent capacity of smoke, the Ringelmann Chart described in the Bureau of Mines Information Circular 6888 shall be employed. The emission of smoke or particulate matter of a density or equivalent greater than No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart is prohibited at all times except as otherwise provided hereinaf- ter. 927 VI. HELIPORT STUDY - STATUS REPORT Although a recommendation on this item has not yet been received from the Ad Hoc Committee, discussion ensued among Commission members concerning various :issues. Member Antoniou wanted to know if the Plan Commission as a whole would be opposed to the creation of one centralized heliport. He wished to express his support for such a plan if the following three conditions were met: 1. That a need for such a heliport had been established. 2. That a suitable site could be located which would be sufficiently separated from any residential areas.. 3. That this site would not become a regional facility which would attract an excessive amount of helicopter traffic. Trustee Reynolds clarified the purpose of the Plan Commission's study of heliports by stating that if the Plan Commission is in favor of a heliport, then such a recommendation should be forwarded to the Village Board, after which time the Board will proceed with a detailed study regarding possible sites. Other items of information which should be gathered prior to a further consideration of this matter include: 1. Reports concerning other municipal heliports located in other_ areas of the country, specifically. the East, West and South. 2. Any feasibility reports that the FAA might have concerning such other heliports. 3. Information from various rotorcraft associations including the Helicopter Association of America. 4. Any contacts which [Waste Management might have concerning heliports. Mr_ . John Sauerman of Crescent Lift Air, a commercial helicopter operation located :in Bellwood for the last 17 years, stated that he would be willing to run a municipal operation for the Village of Oak Brook should the Village choose that course of action. Acting Chairman Reece directed that this item be placed on the May Plan Commission meeting in conjunction with the above information, as well as the anticipated survey results from the Oak Brook Association of Commerce and Industry. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes -5- April 27,1981 JANUARY 1, 1578 Apdx. 1 ORDER 11-3 Each of said approach zones shall be trapezoidal, starting at a width of 200 feet and widening out to 1400 feet at a distance of 2400 feet from the take-off area or areas. In addition, every such heliport shall provide for approach and transitional slopes as shown in the attached drawing entitled "Approach Zones for Commercial Heliports." Curved approach and departure zones are also permissible provided that no curve shall commence within 300 feet of the approach or departure point, and such curve shall have a minimum radius of approximately 700 feet from the approach or departure point. C3) Facil�ities. All the requirements of Par. 39 shall apply to commercial heliports except aP r. 39 1. In lieu of sub-paragraph Par. 39 I., it is required every such heiipo�t�ia1T^—' indicate the direction of its approach zones by suitable markings and shall provide an adequate aircraft parking area, b. _Commercial Balloon Ports. The minimum requirements for the establishment, management, and operation of commercial balloon ports shall be in accordance with the standards and limitations shown in the follow°gig subparagraphs of Par. 40 b. and shall be designated as commercial balloon ports. (1) Commercial Balloon Port Physical Standards. The minimum diameter of the launch circle shall be at least 200 feet. (2) Minimum Departure Sly�. In order to be eligible for a Certificate of Approval under these rules, a commercial balloon ;port must initially have and contig t,e to provide a 200' clear circular surface with a 1:1 departure slope as measured from the nearest edge of the circle throughout its entire 360 degree circumference, except that all public utility lines, towers of all types, and inhabited buildings or dwellings must be cleared by at least 5:1 as measured from the nearest edge of the circle. (3) Facilities® Every commercial balloon port shall provide at least the following facilities: (a) Hangar or Office. (b) Wind direction and velocity indicator. (c) Fueling facilities. (d) Sanitary drinking water. (e) First-aid kit. (f) Sanitary toilet. (g) Adequate fire protection equipment. (h) Auto parking area fenced to prevent autos from entering. (i) Reasonably accessible telephone. (j) Adequate fencing. 41. RESPONSIBILITY OF CERTIFICATE HOLDER. The holder of a certificate of approval or his authorized agent of a commercial airport is authorized to enforce applicable State aeronautical laws and regulations. F, 25 ,.; Apdx. 1 JANUARY 1, 1978 i ORDER 11-3 f Figure 6-4 MONO-DIRECTIONAL AIRPORT MINIMUM COMMERCIAL AIRPORT STANDARDS HORIZONTAL SURFACE 11ORIZONTA L —— — / 50 HSTRIPSURFACE 5 � A / LANDING STRIP LENGTH / 100' MIN. I _ SECTION A- A i \ 3000` s / HORIZ_SURF4.CE $O, \ A / ZO.� 150` �� ` LANDING STRIP 3000' SECTION B-B i 1 BLDG. RESTRICTION LINE 5°42' �50' 100`MIN_ x LANDING STRIP 2400' MIN. LENGTH APPROACH B B 100` MIN. WIDTH 2O:1 j 50' FOR 3000` _ I t B.R.L. TRANSITION STARTS 7:1 50' FROM BLDG. BLDB. EDGE OF LANDING STRIP Figure 6-6 APPROACH ZONES FOR COMMERCIAL HELIPORTS Including Glide and Transition Slopes i .—�A �A 1400` 141EYJ` NJ 300, 300 t i t B B B B ( { jj RECTANGULAR AREA CIRCUL R AREA "A A 2: 4�S `'0� 1 5 �30d 300` L F 200' 2 O 300 SCC ---- L 2400 N 600' SECTION A-A 3 NO SCALE SECTION B-B NO SCALE 28 JANUARY 1, 1978 Apdx, 1 ORDER 11-3 CHAPTER 7 RESTRICTED LANDING AREAS 44. OPERATION WITHOUT CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL UNLAWFUL. It shall be unlawful for any municipality or other political subdivision, or officer or employee thereof, or for any person, company, or association of persons to use or operate any restricted landing area for which a certificate of approval has not been issued by the Department* provided, that no certificate of approval shall be required for the use or operation of a restricted landing area which was licensed by the Illinois Aeronautics Commission and in existence on or before July 1, 1945. [22.471 45. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL. Application for a certificate of approval of a restricted landing area shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department and shall be filed in triplicate in the offices of the Department in Springfield. 46. TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATES. Certificates sof approval of restricted landing areas shall be issued in the name of the applicant and r-nay be assigned or tranferred subject to the approval of the Department. Application for transfer of a certificate of approval of a restricted landing area shell be made on forms prescribed by the Department and shall be filed in the office of the Department in Springfield. 47. ALTERATION OR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING RESTRICTED LANDING AREA UNLAWFUL WITHOUT CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL. It shall be unlawful for any municipality or ether political subdivision or officer or employee thereof, or for any person to make any material alteration or extension of ars existing restricted landing area for which a certificate of approval has not been issued by the Department. Application for approval of an alteration or extension shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department and shall be filed in triplicate in the offices of the Department in Springfield.[22.471 ,u S,1"ANDARDS FOR iSGUING CERTIFICA-fLS OF APPROVAL. lig determining whether it shall issue a certificate of approval for any restricted landing area, or any alteration or ex- tension thereof, the Department shall take into consideration its proposed location, size and layout, the relationship of the proposed restricted landing area to the then current national airport plan, the then current Federal airways system, the then current State Airport Plan, and the then current State airways :system, whether there are safe areas available for ex- pansion purposes, whether the adjoining area is free from obstructions based on a proper glide ratio, the nature of the terrain, the nature of the uses to which any such proposed restricted landing area will be put, the possibilities for future development, and such other factors as, under the circumstances, it regards as having an important bearing thereon, and in accordance with the minimum standards hereafter prescribed. [22.481 49. LOCATIONI. A restricted landing area shall be located a sufficient distance from every existing commercial airport or restricted landing area to permit the safe operation of both at the same time without hazard from conflicting traffic patterns. The size of each such com- mercial airport or restricted landing area and its potential type and volume of use shall be considered. 50. LANDING AREA. A restricted landing area shall provide a landing area sufficient for a safe operation taking into consideration the type of aircraft proposed to be used and the skill of the pilots proposing to use the facility. In no case shall a proposed restricted landing area be approved unless it provides one or more landing strips or runways each of which shall be at least 1600' in length (15:1 approach slope) and at least 70' in width (4:1 transition slope), except that in the case of a restricted landing area to be used for rotary-wing aircraft the 1 dimensions and slopes shall be as otherwise provided herein. 29 Ex— H- Aprix. 1 JANUARY 1, 1978 ,a ORDER 11-3 a. Obstruction and Landing Strip Marking. The ends of an effective landing strip (based on a 15:1 approach slope over all utility lines, railroads, public roads, and inhabited dwellings) shall be clearly outlined. For the purpose of this paragraph, operating railroads shall be considered an obstruction of 25 feet over the top of the nearest rail and public roads an obstruction of 15 feet over the nearest edge of the road, with the exception of interstate highways which shall be considered an obstruction of 17 feet. b. Restricted Landing Areas for Non-Conventional Aircraft. The minimum requirements for the establishment, management or operation of restricted landing area-seaplane bases or landing facilities for seaplanes, amphibious planes, or non-conventional types of aircraft such as lighter- than-air aircraft, balloons, gliders or autogyros shall be such as the Division may prescribe with reference to each application for the establishment, management or operation thereof, in the light of all the conditions and circumstances which exist in connection therewith. 51. RESPONSIBILITY OF CERTIFICATE HOLDER. It shall be the responsibility of the holder of a restricted landing area certificate: a. To supervise or cause the supervision of all aeronautical activity in connection with and in conformity with the limitations herein prescribed for a restricted landing area. b. To maintain the landing area sous to permit a safe operation. c. To notify the Department by the most expeditious means of any condition existing on the restricted landing area or in connection therewith which might,affect its safe use and to further notify the Department when the reported condition has ceased to exist. d. To furnish the Deparment, upon request, with information concerning the aircraft using the field as an operating base and the nature and extent of aeronautical activity occurring at the field. > 52. RESTRICTIONS ON USE/Except as provided in paragraph 53, the following operations shall not be conducted on a resfricted landing area: carr in ofassen ers for hirerother than the car ging of_passengers for hire under a continu'nq bilateral contract or contracts,,s en - _N. - - ni sfruction, rental of anes,�as`r meets o�"exhifii#' n , Sate' ftrtt�ano oit br=advertising for any of the above. r: 'kw The carrying of passengers for hire in a continuous flight from and to any one given location other than a certificated commercial airport is expressly prohibited unless in accordance with paragraph 53b of the regulations. Flight from Public Roads is also expressly prohibited. 53. EXCEPTIONS. The Department may issue an order of approval for the following if a request is made at least fifteen (15) days before the intended operation or transaction and forms which shall thereupon be provided by the Department which have been properly completed prior to such operation or transaction: a. Student instruction, by approved flight school'operators, provided, that in the event the runways or larding strips are less than 2400' in effective length (15:1 clear approach slope) and a width of 70' (4:1 transition slope) but not less than 1900' in actual length, such landing area may be approved if the applicant demonstrates 2 to the satisfaction of the Department that the flight equipment to be used will take off within 501/o of the total landing strip length and clear all obstacles in the take-off path by 50' are eligible to apply. r (1) Advertising for students will be permitted provided all requirements of paragraph 53 and paragraph 53ashall have been met. 30 JANUARY 1, 1978 Apdx. 1 ORDER 11-3 'For the purpose of this regulation, in the case of a request for approval of conduct of flight instruction on or from a given restricted landing area or areas, an approved flight school operator shall be defined as any individual or organization who shall furnish satisfactory evidence to the Department that he operates a bona fide flight training operation from a commercial airport within the State of Illinois during the period of the waiver for conducting flight instruction on a restricted landing area or areas. The approved flight school operator shall be responsible for the utilization of properly certificated flight instructors and properly certificated and properly maintained aircraft. 2This entire demonstration will be based on normal operation of the aircraft to be used under average conditions of wind and temperature and an optimum air speed. b. The carrying of passengers for hire provided application is made by and the proposed operation is sponsored by and contracted for by a vocational association for the purpose of furthering investigation of a specific Vocational objective unconnected with aeronautics in which the association is at the time of application actively interested and engaged, and provided further that the landing area must meet the requirements as set out in paragraph 53a. If the area proposed for sur;h use is not already certificated as a Restricted Landing Area, the Department may, upon application being made on forms prescribed by the Department specifically for such purpose, issue a Temporary Certificate as a restricted landing area therefor. No landing or take- offs are permitted from any areas that do not meet the minimums for restricted landing areas or such area that is as necessitated or published by the aircraft manufacturer whichever is the greater. f c. Sale of petroleum products provided they are sold only to aircraft regularly based at the restricted landing area or, in the case of emergencies, to transient aircraft, and provided further M 5 that the gasoline so dispensed is stored in a fueling facility equipped with sumps and nozzle screens. The dispenser must have immediately available a water detecting paper, compound, salve or other rneans of detecting the presence of water. 54. ILLINOIS AERONAUTICAL CHART. No restricted landing area will be included by the Department unless the certificate holder thereof shall have made affirmative application for such inclusion to the Department, provided that any such application shall certify to the fact that the physical characteristics, location, and orientation thereof as the same shall have existed at the time of certification or as of the time the alteration or extension thereof shall have been approved by the Department remains and will remain unchanged unless and until any change thereof has been approved by the Department. �55. RESTRICTED LANDING AREA - HELIPORT. A restricted landing area utilized for the ' operation of rotary-wing aircraft shall be designated as a restricted landing area - heliport, and shall provide a touchdown area of sufficient dimensions to accommodate the operational I characteristics of the type and size of rotary-wing aircraft to be operated from said restricted landing area. A circular area having a minimum diameter of twice the diameter of the rotor system of any rotary-wing aircraft to be operated from said restricted landing area, and having as its center a point which is coincident to the center of the touchdown area, shall be free of all obstructions. Y � 31 r Apdx. 1 JANUARY 1, 1978 ORDER 11-3 56. RESTRICTED LANDING AREA - HELIPORT APPROACH ZONES. Every such restricted landing area utilized for the operation of rotary-wing aircraft shall provide at least two approach zones, which approach zones shall have an intersecting arc of not less than 90 degrees and shall have a glide slope not exceeding 5:1 in the case of aircraft of a weight of 3000 pounds or less and a glide slope not exceeding 8:1 in the case of aircraft having a weight of over 3000 pounds. Each such approach zone shall be at Least 1 00' wide with a 2:1 side slope. 57. CHAPTER 7 TO APPLY TO RESTRICTED LANDING AREA - HELIPORTS. All provisions and requirements of Chapter 7 shall apply to restricted landing area - heliports unless 6"t otherwise provided. a 58. RESTRICTED LANDING AREA - BALLOON PORTS. In order to be eligible for a certificate of approval under these rules, a restricted landing area-balloon port must have a clear circular area at least 100' in diameter with departure slopes of at least 1:1 throughout its 360 degree circumference as measured from the nearest edge of the circle, except that all public utility lines of all types, towers of all types, and inhabited buildings and dwellings shall be cleared by at least 5:1 as measured from the nearest edge of the circular area. a. Every restricted landing area-balloon port shall provide at least the following facilities: (1) Wind direction and velocity indicator. b. Chapter 7 to apply to Restricted Landing Area-Balloon Ports. All provisions and requirements ' of Chapter 7 shall apply to restricted landing area-balloon ports unless otherwise provided. 59. WAIVERS, The Department may, in its discretion, waive strict compliance with any paragraph or subparagraphs of Chapter 7 of these regulations or connection with any particular application or Petition for a Waiver subject to the c( ditions hereinafter set forth. All Petitions for a Waiver shall be on forms prescribed by the Division of Aeronautics, shall be sworn to by the applicant and shall contain a clear concise statement of the facts together with a prayer that a certain regulation be waived. Requests for Waivers may also be incorporated into an application for a restricted landing area or for an extension or alteration of an existing restricted landing area. Waivers to permit student instruction may be issued by Order of the Division provided Notice of the Division's intent to issue such Waiver be given and an opportunity afforded to persons, municipalities, or any political subdivision affected thereby to request a public hearing as to the .. validity or reasonableness of said Order. Said notice and hearing shall be in.accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 60 of the Illinois Aeronautics Act pertaining to 'Order Without ` Prior Hearing." n> 32 8/221/77 AC150/5390-1B CILTTER 5. GROUND-LEVEL HELIPORT DESIGN 50. GENERAL. The need for adequate. heliport facilities is not limited to the centers of large cities. Public acceptance of the helicopter has encouraged heliport developments in suburban areas, in communities of quite moderate size, and in locations that are difficult to reach by other modes of transportation. 51. HELIPORT LAYOUT. The size, shape, and appurtenances of a heliport are determined by a number of interrelated factors, principal among them are the size .and nature of the proposed site; the size, number, and performance capabilities of the helicopters expected to use the � facility; the type and extent of services to be provided; and the , s location and height of buildings or other objects in the heliport area. The recormended minimal heliport facility consists of a takeoff and landing area., a peripheral area, and an approach-departure path. A large heliport. may have several takeoff an landing areas and approach-departure paths, separate parking positions, and extensive `" passenger and helicopter servicing far.,11ities. A takeoff and landing area may take any shape necessary to tit the site, but mosi heliports MK are are configured a.s squares, rectangles, or circles. Figures 5-1 through 5-3 illustrate the relationship of heliport surfaces. With fewf ,•, exceptions, heliport dimensions are expressed in units of helicopter length or rotor diameter. Pertinent dimensional information for typical helicopters is found in Appendix 2. Heliport dimensions are ,lig summarized in Appendix 1, � �R X 52. TAKEOFF AND LANDING AREA. For ground-level heliports, the length and f width or diameter of the takeoff and landing area is recommended to be at least 1.5 times the overall length of the largest helicopter expected - to use the facility. Under some design conditions (Figure 5-4) , the definable and designated takeoff and landing area may be physically incapable of supporting a helicopter and/or may be impossible or impractical to mark or light. ,K53. PERIPHERAL AREA. The peripheral area is intended as an obstacle-free safety area surrounding the takeoff and landing area. It is recommended that the peripheral area width be one-fourth of the overall length of the largest helicopter expected to use the facility, but not less than 10 feet (3 m) . A54. APPROACH-DEPARTURE PATHS. Approach-departure paths are selected to provide the best lines of flight to and from the takeoff and landing area considering prevailing winds; the location and heights of buildings or other objects in the area; .and the environmental considerations discussed in paragraph 47. It is desirable for a heliport to have two approach-departure paths separated by an arc of at least 90 degrees. * However, under some conditions, operations at heliports with one y approach-departure path may be conducted safely. Curved approach- Chap 5x ` Par 50 ee Page 39 � x _g. is •• t 3, a€ # - ��t 5„"OR tz y .,'.fir Myaapm� rim Uf _1C 150/7390-1B `%2/77 departure paths are permitted and may be necessary in some cases to provide a suitable obstruction-free path. The radius of the curve is dependent upon the performance capabilities of the helicopters using n the facility and the location and height of existing objects. Areas suitable for an emergency landing are desired along the approach- departure path unless the heliport is used exclusively by multiengined helicopters with proven capabilities to continue flight with one engine inoperative. } -'- 55. HELIPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES. The imaginary surfaces of subparagraphs b and c below represent idealized heliport design standards. They are not operationally limiting in cases where an onsite evaluation concludes that surfaces steeper than those recommended would not have an adverse effect upon the safety of a particular operation. However, any object which would exceed the published standards for defining heliport imaginary surfaces as described in Subpart C of FAR Part 77 is considered an obstruction to air navigation. These surfaces are described below and are depicted on Figures 5-1 through 5-4. When an aeronautical study concludes that the obstruction would have no adverse effect upon aeronautical operations, the object need not be removed or altered. Obstructions which are not removed or altered may require marking and lighting. (See paragraph 76.) a. Heliport Primark Surface, The area of the primary surface coincides � u in size and shape with the designated takeoff and landing area of. Ty`r a heliport. This surface is a horizontal plane at the elevation of the established heliport elevation. b. Heliport Approach Surface. The approach surface begins at each end of the heliport p primary surface withthe same width as the primary surface, and extends outward and upward for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet (1 220 m) where its width is 500 fee t (152 m) . The slope of the approach surface is 8 to 1 for civil heliports. c. Heliport Transitional Surfaces. These surfaces extend outward and upward from the lateral boundaries of the heliport primary surface and from the approach surfaces at a slope of 2 to 1 for a distance of 250 feet (76 m) measured horizontally from the centerline of � w the primary and approach surfaces. d. Heliport Instrument Procedure Surfaces. In addition to the surfaces ;y described above, heliports having g an approved instrument procedure shall conform to the criteria for helicopters set forth in FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Chap 5 Page 40 Par 54 . x 8/22/77 AC 150/5390-1B e. Aeronautical Studies. Aeronautical studies, which consider heli- copter operational capabilities, are conducted by the FAA whenever there is a need to determine the physical or electromagnetic effect of existing obstructions upon aeronautical operations or procedures. 'Requests for an FAA study may be initiated by anyone with a valid interest in matters including but not necessarily limited to the following: , (1) A change in an aeronautical procedure. (2) A proposal to construct or enlarge heliport facilities. ' (3) A request for technical assistance in the design and develop- ment of a heliport. `` (4) A determination as to whether an existing object should be altered, removed, marked, or lighted. (5) A determination as to whether existing marking and lighting can be reduced or removed without adversely affecting aviation . safety, or whether marking and lighting should be intensified „ or increased to more effectively make airmen aware of an object's presence. (6) A determination of an existing activity's electromagnetic effects upon a navigational aid. 7 (7) A recommendation to the Federal Communications Commission � concerning the -erection or dismantling of an antenna structure. ` 56. PAVED TAKEOFF AND LANDING AREAS. Paved takeoff and landing areas at ground--level heliports are usually developed to support heavier heli- copters or to accommodate greater traffic volumes. While it is desirableto pave the entire takeoff and landing area, there is nof � operational requirement to do so. When it is intended for the helicopter to touch down on a designated takeoff and landing area, a paved touch- down pad located in the center of the area, the size of either "a" or z "b". below, will suffice. ' a. Touchdown Pad, The recommended dimension of a touchdown pad is equal to the rotor diameter of the largest helicopter expected toY ,< operate from the facility. ' b, Minimum Touchdown Pad, At a heliport that has an extremely low level of activity or is subject to economic or aesthetic pressure, smaller paved areas may be used. ' Pad dimensions are based on : rectangular configurations. A circular pad having a diameter , equal to the longer side of the rectangular configuration set ; forth in (1) or (2) below is acceptable. Skid or float length should be substituted for wheelbase as appropriate. Chap 5 � x Par 55 Page 41 770 t e ll ,ra G �' 3%2j, �k .. AC i50/539.0-1B, %2/77 Public-Use Heliports. The minimal sized touchdown pad for a public-use heliport should have a length and width at least 2.0 times the wheelbase and tread, respectively, or a diameter T ' c of 2.0 times the wheelbase of the largest helicopter expected to use the facility. y (2) Private-Use or Personal-Use Heliports. The minimal sized ' -use or personal-use heliport touchdown pad for a private °~ should have a length and width at least 1.5 times the wheel- �` base and tread, respectively, or a diameter of 1.5 times the - 4 ~ wheelbase of the largest helicopter expected to use the facility. 57. PARKING AREAS. Requirements for physically separated helicopter parking areas will be based on operational needs. Each parking position, whether used for passenger boardings, helicopter servicing, or extended parking, is recommended to have a length and width or diameter equal to the overall length of the largest helicopter expected to use the a facility. A minimum clearance of 10 feet (3 m) is recommended between adjacent parking positions or between a parking position and a fence s or other object. ti 58n TAXIWAYS. Taxiways connect one operational area on a heliport with � 4 another° most ofte f, taxiways connect the takeoff and landing area with helicopter parking positions.. Helicopters with wheel undercarriages normally are taxied in ground contact. Helicopters with skid or float �. gear must hover taxi. The minimum recommended paved taxiway width is ._ 20 feet (6 m) . Paved taxiways are not required for hover taxiing. A lateral clearance of at least 10 feet (3 m) is recommended between the = ' blade tip of the taxiing helicopter and any building or object. 59: HELIPORT BUILDINGS. Heliports may require an administration or passenger service building, service and storage hangars, or maintenance buildings. , s-, The location and space requirements of heliport buildings will depend LL, upon the extent of current and projected operations. Chap 5 Page 42 Par 56 il1191R 62 - • .ice .. 8/22/77 AC 150/5390-1B CHAPTER 9. ELEVATED HELIPORT DESIGN ; .x 90. GENERAL. An elevated heliport, whether it be located on the roof of some building or parking structure or on a waterfront pier, presents : unique design problems. Developing structural design and construction j specifications I.-or elevated heliports requires the services of qualified K ` architects and engineers. This chapter it limited to covering, in r general terms, the basic design features that are peculiar to an4 ; " z elevated heliport. 91. SITING. When a suitable round-level site is unattainable, the f alternative may be the development of an elevated heliport. Elevated heliports are found in many cities. Mos, would be classified as private-use or personal-use facilities. `�.n elevated facility has two z advantages for the proponent of a private use or personal-use heliport.' -First, the facility provides more privacy and security than a ground- level site. Second, with the heliport at or above the level of most buildings in vicinity, there are fewer problems in providing and maintaining suitable approach-departure paths. (See Figure 9-1.) ... 9.2, CODE'S AND REGULATIONS, Local, state, and national safety codes pertaining to building construction, occupancy, ingress-egress, fixe safety, etc. , should be carefully reviewed to determine their impact on establishing and operating an elevated heliport. Early coordina- tion of a proposed elevated heliport facility with FAA, state, and local authorities is recommended to insure that no pertinent code or regulation is overlooked. fi 93. TAKEOFF AND LANDING AREA. The dimensions of the takeoff and landing area of an elevated heliport are keyed to the size of the helicopter expected to operate therefrom. To the extent that circumstancesQ,< y. permit, the recommended dimensions of the takeoff and landing area are identical to those of a ground-level facility. (Seepara rga h 52.) � The takeoff and landing area, together with the associated peripheral area, may require the entire roof area or only a part of it. Elevated takeoff and landing areas having a long axis should have that axis :r oriented in the direction of the prevailing winds. t4� a. Peripheral t.,reas. In some instances, it is neither possible nor ,." practical to provide the surface area required to permit they development of a takeoff and landing area and associated peripheral area. In some of these cases, it is reasonable to presume thata the natural open space surrounding an elevated heliport will suffice as an obstruction-free area and the peripheral area requirement may be eliminated. To take full advantage of ground .. effect, the dimensions of the minimal takeoff and landing area x ,ti should be 1.5 times the rotor diameter of the largest helicopter .M expected to operate therefrom. A surface smaller than this may subject using helicopters to operational restrictions. - �. f� S Chap 9 ff �x �1 �^171 M Par 90 ��^t Pa'(' c F `' � .�' ;• z � � Y 'n2 �-*�Y TF`� �`F�'„i; �k�" T7� xs �n �. keta' ✓,. .ts ��.���, �`�' �_ as.. .., .,�.,....,...w..a ,.a,rea�F' `S-t ki,,. �:: s i s ' AC 150/5390-iB z//22/ ' -- b. Load-bearing Surfaces. The entire rooftop surface designated as the takeoff and landing area, plus any helicopter parking positions, h should be designed to support the static and dynamic _loads imposed r by the largest helicopter expected to use the facility. Where a touchdown pad or parking position is to be provided, and it is impractical to structurally stress the entire takeoff and landing area, then an area of at least the size of (1) or (2) below should be provided. . - (1) Public-Use Heliports. A load-bearing area at least one rotor s " diameter in length and width, or a diameter of the largest helicopter expected to use the facility, is the minimum recommended. (2) Private-Use and Personal-Use Heliports. Aload-bearing area having a length and width at least 1.5 times the wheelbase and tread, respectively, or a diameter 1.5 times the wheelbase of the largest helicopter expected to use the facility, is y the minimum recommended. Skid or float length should be y substituted for wheelbase as appropriate. 94. APPROACH CLEARANCES, Elevated heliports have the same requirements F a for approach clearances as ajground-level heliport Csee paragraph55) . At an elevated facility, it is usually easier to secure unobstructed approach and transitional surfaces. This benefit alone may be quite a significant to privately owned heliports since approach and transitional surfaces usually- cannot be protected under the zoning powers oft community. In many instances, it will be difficult to prevent o struc- tions within the entire rooftop takeoff and landing area. Therefore, special consideration may have to be given to the presence of penthouses, air conditioning towers, exhaust stacks, antennas, etc. The FAA should be contacted early in the planning stages to undertake a study to determine' the effect of such objects upon aeronautical operations. Elevated heliports may also be subjected to turbulence.. Flight tests are recommended to ascertain the effect of different wind conditions on the safety of flight operations. 95. CONSTRUCTION-GENERAL. Elevated heliport takeoff and landing areas Fq� mak. present some special problems to the heliport designer who must consider the following: a. Construction Materials, All materials used in the construction of the heliport should be noncombustible or fire-retardant. Most 4 frequently used materials are portland cement concrete, asphaltic concrete, steel plates, or treated wood. Synthetic and resilient plastic coatings of different compositions have proven to possess excellent characteristics for operating surfaces. All surfaces should be textured to have nonskid properties or have a nonskid .5' coating applied. If night operations are contemplated, a light- colored surface is recommended to improve pilot depth perception. Treat the decking and supporting structure of a wood or metal load-distribution platform to make it weather resistant. A w, Chap 9 Par 93 Page 72 << t 8/22/77 AC 150/5390-1B b. Perimeter Protection. Safety nets, guard rails, or fences should meet requirements of local or state building codes. Guard rails or fences should not penetrate heliport primary-, ak,proaeh or transitional surfaces nor should the installation create an actual or perceived psychological obstacle to pilots using ethe_heliport.- A safety net, Figure 9-2, is recommended for touchdown pads raised above the level. of the roof. These nets should be located below, and not rise above, the plane of the heliport primary surface. A net width of at least 5 feet (1.5 m) is recommended. C. Surface Drainage. The takeoff and landing area should be designed with gutters that would isolate the runoff of any spilled liquids. It is essential that these .liquids be prevented from discharging into the bullding's drainage system. Local building codes should ' be reviewed to determine whether the proposed collection system complies with the applicable code pp provisions. d. Structural. ]"replications. The surface used for takeoffs ands landings on elevated heliports should be an integral part of the building's design whether it is incorporated as a. roof--level or platform facility. . The actual lauding surface should be constructer of Materials that will not yield under hard landings. However, the heliport designer may take advantage of any energy-absorbing properties inherent in roof-decking materials or structural- ' framing techniques. Helicopter static and dynamic loading calcula- tions are identical to those of paragraph 66. Design loads other 4 than those applied by the helicopter, such as snow, rainfall, $ _ wind, passengers and cargo, flight supporting equipment, additional weight of the heliport, etc. , should be calculated in accordance with applicable building codes. An analysis of this magnitude requires the professional services of a qualified architect or engineer. Proponents of elevated heliports should consider the probability of future operations by larger helicopters when designing the facility. 96. MARKING AND LIGHTING. The basic marking and lighting for an elevated heliport are identical to that of a comparable ground-level facility. a. Marking. An elevated heliport may be subject to an operational weight limitation. A red numeral on a white square (see paragraph 71d) is recommended to convey this information to the pilot of the approaching helicopter. A red circle around a red number is recommended tomark a rooftop landing facility intended solely to permit helicopter evacuation of building occupants in case of fire. The number indicates the helicopter gross weight the facility is capable of supporting. Figures 9-3 and 9-4 illustrate the recommended marking. 9 K Chap 9 Par 95 Page 73 s 4 .. z w f AC 150/5390-1E /�2�77 b. Lighting. Because an elevated heliport takeoff and landing surface is likely to be size-limited, perimeter lights may be installed zZ on supports extending beyond the edge of the touchdown pad. (See Figure 9-2.) Perimeter lights should be at or only slightly above the level of the touchdown pad. Under some conditions, a floodlighted touchdown pad with reflective markings may be acceptable as an alternative to perimeter lighting. Elevated heliport lighting plans should be discussed with the appropriate FAA Airports office. The recommended heliport beacon may be mounted on the same or on an adjacent building as conditions dictate. 97. FIRE PROTECTION. Requirements for elevated and rooftop heliport fire protection are contained in the National Fire Protection Association's Booklet Edition 418. These requirements are set out in Figure 8-1. When local fire codes are more restrictive, the local code shall prevail.. Personnel engaged in heliport operations should be instructed in the proper use of installed firefighting systems. The design, installation, and periodic performance testing of fire protection systems should be carried out by qualified persons. $" 98-99. RESERVED. E <A Y= F F 5 r ' Chap 9 '' Page 74 Par 96 W 4 I r 'S& # A G/22/77 AC 15'u 15390-1B ROOF SURFACE SAFETY NET R vex t ONE — EXIT TOUCHDOWN PAD BOUNDARY E. j a 71 14: tt ii I r7 4 & -FIR r i 1 EXIT NOTE: Platform heliports shall have two entry-exit points. The heliport T)erimeter lights and safety net should not project above the level of the touchdown pad. FIGURE 9-2, PLATFORM HELIPORT SHOWING LIGHTING AND SAFETY NET Chap 9 At, 150/5390-IB . c-"/22/"73` Aapendix I APPE". 1IX I S77M. RY OF REC0tPfE'1,MED DESIGN CRITLRIA APPENDIX 1. SUbt4ARY OF RECOIMNDED DESIGN CRITERIA _ HELIPORT CLASSIFICATION 4 v PUBLIC-USE PRN0 E-USE r ya PERSONAL-USE DES='. FEATURE MUNSION CO"MEI'T fir TAY_7n r & LANDIING AREA To preclude premature obsolescence, Length, width, diameter 1.5 x helicopter overall length consider the possibility of larger helicopters in the future. TCUC�7� PAD Elevated touchi n pads less than Length, width, diameter 1.0 x rotor diameter _.5 rotor a ame s in size may t subiect usin5 ? copters to oper- Minimum ground-level a onal pence t-` due to css of Length, diameter 2.0 x wheelbase 1.5 x wheelbase. roto doanwash _und effect. blit. Width 2.0 x tread i 1.5 x tread imally sized tr�,chdown pads are not . ' enc�ara - be a es n c a ?inimum elevated of econ ret c ssity• Length, diameter 1.0 rotor dia. 1.5 x wheelbase Tcuchdc r rads ess than one rotorf Width 1.0 rotor dia. 1.5 tread diameter in size should have addi- tional nonload-bearing area for dcwnwash ground effect. �w PFr_2=AREA '.n sbstacle-free area surroxndina "' Recommended width 1/4 helicopter overall length he take--f and _anditg area, Keep Minimum width 10 feet (3 m) the area c'_ear cf parked helicopters, �--x buildings fences, etc. a� TA.ICi-»AY - Paved taxiways are not required if Paved width Variable, 20-foot (6 m) minimum helicopters hover taxi. PAR TSG PGSITLOv Parking position should be beyond xi Length, width, diameter 1.0 x helicopter overall length the edge of the peripheral area. Parked helicopters should not ._ate the 2:1 transitional surface. r=:. Pki�°i",h7i3T GRADES Touchdown pad, taxiways, parking pcsftions 2.0 percent maximum ` 0=- GRADES A 10-foot (3 m) wide rapid runoff Turf shoulders, infield shoulder of 5 percent slope is per- area, etc. Variable, 1-1/2 to 3 percent mitted adjacent to all paved surfaces. t"' CLE00CES, ROTOR TIP TO OBJECT Consider possibility of larger heli- Taxiways, eli Taxiways, parking positions 10-foot (3 m) minimum copters in the future. HEL=COPTER PRl`f�;,�tY SURFACE Imaginary plane overlying the takeoff Length, width, diameter 1.5 x helicopter overall length and landing area. Area to be free of Elevation Elevation highest point takeoff & all obstacles. landing area. nd a HELICOPTER APPR^ACH SURFACE Protection for helicopter approaches Rumber of surfaces Two and departures. The surface should Angular separation 90' min., 180' preferred not be penetrated by any objects that ', Length 4,000 feet (1 220 m) are determined to be hazards to air Inner width 1.5 x helicopter overall length navigation. ` Outer width 500 feet (152 m) 1 Slope 8:1 W---COPTER TW SITTONAL SURFACE Surface should not be penetrated by Length Full length of approaches and objects. primary surfaces` Width 250 feet (76 m) measured from t approach & primary surface - `.F centerline. " Slope 2:1 Yah. 3 �jt NOTE: Above criteria does not apply to offshore helicopter facilities. Fx N- � . e ^^ Pave '� f } 1 �4 1 � o/L2177 AC 150/5390-1B - CHAPTER 3. HELIPORT CLASSIFICATIORi ` 30. GENERAL. The terms used to classify United States heliports are descriptive of the class of user allowed to conduct flight operations from the facility. Photographs of representative heliport types are included as Figures 3-1 through 3-9. fv tf 31. MILITARY HELIPORT. The term "military heliport" is applied to heliport ' facilities operated by one of the uniformed services. Military heli- LL eli , ports are developed in accordance with the design criteria of the '� mss . applicable service and generally prohibit nonmilitary usage. � .ftV, 32. FEDERAL HELIPORT. The term "Federal heliport" is applied to heliport : facilities operated by a nonmilitary agency or department of the ; United States Government. Most Federal heliports are operated by the Departments of Agriculture (DOA) and Interior (DOI) . DOA and DOI heliports are located in national forests or national parks and are used to carry out departmental responsibilities for land management and fire suppression activities. Generally, DOA and DOI heliports are restricted to departmental usage: . Ry 33". PUBLIC-USE HELIPORT. The term "public-use heliport" is applied to any heliport that is open to the general public and does not require prior permission of the owner to land. However, the extent of faciliA {' ties provided may limit operations to helicopters of a specific size or weight. A public-use heliport may be owned by a public agency, an �' individual, or a corporation so long as it is open for public use. Public-use heliports are listed in the Airman's Information Manual (AIM) and may be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. 34. PRIVATE-USE HELIPORT. The term "private-use heliport" is applied to BEd any heliport that restricts usage to the owner or to persons authorized by the owner. Most private-use heliports are owned by individuals, i � a companies, or corporations. However, heliport designated as " F g private- use„ may be owned by a public body. In this case, the private-use ` classification is applicable because the facility is restricted to a ” specific type of user, such as the police department, or because the owner requires prior permission to land. Hospital heliports are consideredT private-use facilities since operations are normally restricted � '. to medical-related activities. Private-use heliports are not listed ` a" in the AIM but may be depicted on aeronautical charts. 35. PERSONAL-USE HELIPORT. The term "personal-use heliport" is applied to any heliport that is used exclusively by the owner. Personal-use heliports are owned by individuals, companies, or corporations. Personal-use heliports are not listed in the ATM but may be depicted on aeronautical charts. Chap 3 Par 30 Pa;�,e 23 ��; CID R) t 6 _ LANDING - CONTACT MAX. STATIC DOWN- NO. N0. fi �.ANtrF`AC,T!',RER MODEL W. COMMON NAME A B C D E F GEAR C HI AREA WEIGHT WEIGHT WASH ME CRFFUE "d L, (FP.) (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) (FP.) CONFIG. (FT.) (FT.) (SQ..IN.) (LBS) (LBS) 'LBS SF ENG. PASS. (GAL) x c -,k'FATIALI" 315-H Cans 112.1 10.1 36.2 6.4 3.2 O Ifr.£1 7.M NA �e•.;U,� 2,V,0 4.,A 1=1';i itl� Ihil 31n-C aiouett.e ti 39.8 9.0 33+5 6.3 s 7.5 NA 4.17 i-Ts 1+4 14 3,650 1,825 9 c 319-8 Alovetta it7 42.1 9.8 35.1 6.3 T-1 : 8.5 NA 4,960 4.85 1-Ts 1+6 152 x 330-G Fume 59.6 16.9 49.2 lo.0 14.4 6.9 T-2 13.3 14,770 7.77 2-TS 2+18 410 tom+ M 4p t^✓` 341-C Gazelle 39,3 10.4 34.5 NA 8.9 2.3 S 6,.6 NA 3,9'll7 1,J°'S 4 2G 1-TS 1+11. 120 0 36o Dauphin 41,1 11.5 37.7 NA 10.0 T-4 23.7 6.5 NA 6.wo 5.53 1-'r.; 1.9 I7ri d < ' AilCUSTA/nTLANTIC A-109 Hirando 42.9. 10.9 36.1 6.6 7,0 2..3 T-1 11.6 7.5 NA 20 5,402 2,701 5.28 2-Ts 1+7 156 + BELL xE,troFTER 7-G-5n 43.6 9.3 38.0 5.8 9.5 3.0 9 t•5 ran 2.850 42, 2.63 -r 1F2 5•l H * 2;5-A-1 - 57.1 14.1 48.2 8.5 6.8 5.9 01 72.1 I.0 NA 9,500 4,75o 5.21 1-Ts 1114 220 2o6-B Tet Ranger 38.8 9.5 33.3 5.2 6.0 1.6 s 7.8 6.3 NA 3.acio i.600 3.67 1-VS 1,4 76 H 206-T, f,on Ranger 42_.4 11.,7 37.0 5.2 6.2 2.9 S 9.9 7,"( NA h >>ii 2,000 L; g g _ 3 ( l-Tv 1+5 ' t 212 Win 57.3 14.4 48.2 8.5 7.0 4.4 S 12.1 8,8 NA I1'200 5.600 6.07 2-Ts 1+14 � aM 3 L� 214-B Bi Lifter 60.2 13.5 50.0 9.6 9.4 ''- B. 3.7 S 12.1 f�.6 NA .16 000 8 000 8.15 1-T5 1+15 207 t vi ate BOEING VERTO?, BO-105-0 -- :�.£3 to.1 32.2 6.2 :...t „ ,,_ z 9.0 8.5 NA '�,:':i _,�3., 2-TS 1+4 1.54 Cx-47-234 -- 98.9 19.0 60.0 60.0 7.4 16.2 Q-2 22.5 11.2 78 �0 OUu 1 1 r 5.967 8.1 2-2's J+,=1 ],129 r� { 107-11 ' - 63.1 16.9 50.0 50.0 9.9 16.9 T-2 24.£i 12.9 1,3 25 ,_FIC,00 'socio 4.8 2-TS 3+25 350 179 -- 59.5 1G.c� 49.o ].o.2 8.0 6.4 T-3 15.3 8.8 15 11t.70o 7.030 9.9 2-TS +.0 4 t6 �+ Data not, provided. CJ:.1 Q-2 T-]. 'P-;' �_3 ,p_li ,P-i s s NA Dat+a „1. applicable. ® • • w • e T3 Turboshaft. engine.. • w e w F Fist.- engine. e w e w w (D H x" YC Turbrrharged piston engine. �� • • S o m e w = O <' b W a r- •n,�r oC n }, �T tea� x- Lir^ 1� � � " ,,;��s ,n �a 1 e a y n. ;.r{ . I ^a"" 9 r' �.: � � „,� ,3,. r iY'sr•,r.. :e �s 4 ,�""§i •F'; �"�� J t ,,, { s , Y u" - st 9 x"f 91d , �' a� 9 a. 1 � ma e ,:r.�j aw, ,d#• �'..,... , �•�..r;`�;+u . ?'.�.�' T" -i'a' __ ... p c • 3�+,z�. '4dw *xs'. J g,,. of • f -. x _=,.etsa - .., ,. ..�,..,. : _ e� _�,. . 4-% r. �,X 4 x�'d ,+=g. �;r n 's y, �•. � ,�,� ;N4 .1 r .FA n r '• ,'., ,,:•, rk�,},p x � �,R''*1r&` •){���. � ,�,. �' < '�.�'`: '�*r �, ` '§.+v ,�a- ` g: t 1 '°it Y , #1 �r"'J ;�, ..;. , - ;,..�•�'. ,.. .:. ,::'. �,-, -.., :b ;.5 .,r F. • A,. k.,. .. rek� g . ..- 4 ..., v.. .,v.., .. ...'. 6'.n a� ,• :.q, ;#:. Ers'n�� .F�' xW': �. ;:_ E.t+Yyr.,3` ,„.•,,.� '1 d ,?5:<..z,,,,t", a 4 ,.;:',�." z ',.r, .;«o„ r.?., .a .f.' t+"p� c4f. �. ,� r: .:�.. tY s .,.1 x.. P � '$ ww .45,,<, +r •...;- r„.,�a.�'.4� ,....,.,+•A: #.t 1'' k.���♦� s: ... .. r7s'� 'ywt�h � .,�, c. ,., 3, .rk:,. ..,. v' n-,::z.'✓%-: ,.s. "� -.:.: ,.A*., �c r+ ,, �. q's'.�, '+� .,.,>.,. ,,.. .,,uC; t. «,. x ..e,x �„ m "..ick.::.wk�.��,.,:� x,., _:. .,i.., z�:�#�', aS` r";s.�'� aa,�ak°;.� + _ •a„;.'o"e ,'i. r�>;: ':a v,5 f •y, 1.-{� 'l7,�..,.'P"pd r s ,,.5' 'r"'xJN' r.ti'P Y,k.W ,..: a` r..,w :$" a':.e# t y r "�"... 7 Y,<; fi, :,'+a' +•9t5 k;,u . , ,: ..,....;xwx. �';�. ,t #' �.,.,:"1 "Ct•�p.=:5t,k• .'... ;.. :>rt .:,. ;, .,:"� 1.�€'" ¢ �t n';rv''a�+�'`�'r .;:r;€a$c' •rr7'�g i, p '�,,rz..p tu.b• > 1 ..� F �" � w q'i' v ° h 'fig �''�'=1: � ._r�'xv �,.r Y'^'�,..d.., ait a.,3r. i„ x3c ., marakrk• D �,, rte.. ( �,`tY D Skid n N C P, v F A I1 - C,-__._-..---- it 1AND INC CONTAM MAX. IA'I'1C n GN- N'. 1"'. MANO A(I'..IGbiR I�nllNI 11)". NAME R (' U I�. I�' t,h(Ai 0 If AR6Ja WIC ICII'1' WE 1..1111' d,1"'I TYPE P; I! ooNWIC. (PP.) (PT.) (I-N.) (.B�.IN.) (I,H I}. (Ili,') It,i'1+) I1,,_•. IA SIAL) 1"A Y I. L:' ! 2-li _ '�.' , C.• i.! 1."i 1 _; a t,.'i LA 1.67n t.i.i t••I I_I' ti: ;i .0 "1,5 tl, � .. .3•(p 'I'_3 (,.2 f>.t4 1't 2.')00 a(( ISV"P`2taM i'-;'8A «';k1 tAtark 39.0 9.0 j;'.��- 4.'i r,•O 3.l .-, t3.0 'i•3 NA . . 2.150 } F-llfl( fkx" Grk 39.0 9-u 32.« 7 0.0 3.l B.(, 3 NA ? !"I' +2' ,2W 1,11)(1 22.'!3 p FA MCH1LD FH-11,ir1 - 4.1.5 9.3 35.3 o.c? G.5 2.3 S 7.9 7•.2 NA 2,750 1.375 2.80 1-TS 1+4 68 tt HILLER UH-12-1.-4 Hiller 40.7 20.1 • �' ��'+ '': f 35,4 . 5.5 10.0 3.3 S 8.3 7.5 NA 3.100 1,550 3.3 1-P 1+3 If6 I.F11-12E/E-4 Hiller 40.7 10.9 35.4 5.5 t0.8 4.0 S 8.3 7.5 NA 2,E'00 1;400 2.9 1-P 1+3 G !rICHEs 269-A! Hughes 300 28.9 8.2 25.3 3-P6.6 2.t} 8.2 6.5 NA 1,670 835 3.32 t-P 1+1-? 30 VY)-C Hughes 300C 30,8 8.7 26.6 4.3 7.0 2.6 S 8.2 6.5 NA 2,050 1,025 3.63 1-P 1+2 30 �1y "} 369Hs (std) Hughes 500C 30.3 8.2 26.3 4.3 7.0 2,4 S 8.1 6.8 NA 2,550 1,275 4.70 1-TS 1+4 64 369HS (Ext) H'-ighes 500C 30,3 8.8 26.3 4.3 7.6 2.4 S 8.1 6.8 NA 4.70 1-TS 1+4 64 M' 369-D phighes 500D 30,5 8.9 26,4 4.6 7.0 2.7 S 7.4 6.8 NA 3,0:v 1.,500 5.4;1 1-TS 1+1i r 1 KAMAV IfH-43F Huskie - 47.-0 19.3 47.0 14A 7.2 2.3 Q-1 8.1 8.3 NA 9,150 2.04 1-TS l+ll 350 Ri • ROTORWAY -- Scorpion Too 27.6 7.3 24.0 3.6 6.5 3.1 S 7.5 5.1 NA 1,200 600 2.25 1-P 1+1 • Data not provided. Kamen has side-by- -i. . Q-2 T-1 T-2 T-3 -+ T-5 NA Data not applicable. side rotors for ,e w ,� ® ® '^,� e V a TS Turboshaft engine. oper. width 51.5' ® o o c P Piston engine. FT Wrbochrirgred piston engine. , rQ Cr w i F I e. B z .- _ 94Ir, ' fANDING CONTACT MAX. STATIC DOWN- N0. NO. t MANUFACTURER MODEL NO. CO wx NAME A B C D E F GEAR G it I AREA WEIGHT WEIGHT WASH TIM CRLW 1'U111 i (PIT (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) CONFIG. (n (FT.) (IN.) (SQ.1N.) (LBS) (LBS) LBS/SF) ENG. PASS. (GAL) a s srhoRslx S-55-T -- 62.2 15.3 53.0 8.8 8.2 6.5 Q-1 10.5 11.0 NA 40 7,200 2,100 3.3 1-TS 2+10 185 w S-58-T -- 65.8 15.9 56.o 9.5 11.4 6.4 T-4 28.3 14.0 NA 13,000 5,750 5.3 2-TS 2+16 283 1 n; s-61 N!, - 73.0 18.6 62.0 1o.6 12.3 8.3 T-5 23.5 14.0 13. 54 19,000 8,115 6.3 2-Ts 3+2is 410 5-62 -- 62.3 16.0 53.0 8.8 9.2 7.3 T-4 17.8 12.2 NA 54 7,900 3,480 3.6 1-TS 2 12 5-64. ;kycrane 88.5 25.4 72.3 Ax 13.2 9.3 T-1 24.4 1.9.8 NA 42,000 17,700 10.3 2-TS 3+1 880 ? s-65-C _ 88.2 24.9 72.3 16.o 10.3 8.8 T-2 27-0 13.0 117 77 42,000 14,700 10.3 2-TS 3+44 63o rt, r >-'76 -- 57.5 14.5 44.0 ts. h 9.o NA a'•" 0 5.8 6.5 R'-1 16. 9,700 3,425 6.4 2-TS 2+12 'r6 s s-78-C - 64.8 16.8 53.7 11.0 7.5 ;.5 T-4 28.9 9•0 NA 73 20.000 8,700 8.9 2-TS 2+?,) 463 x. y t d a�. r Data 21 provided. „ 1 i,. ASR All : ,.� NA S Data :r t applicable. Q. o R-2 T ` se T-3 �, T-4 T-� P t1l p] T Turboshafl engine. g a o �' 1 Piston engine. s o o m m >C Vl IT 7%�rbocharged piston engine. • ' WOi t 3 ..r. VN zR � t..„�wi.1�'41 ,,..k� �r`�x 14 � ,cr1 '7; .S�y '.>1"'s � Or,•` r P, moi' 'rvp TM �� Q C �§' •;�:' , r x,... u ti< e dy s ����p� r .c' #:. i �S:'t�#rx�p' �ti`' ( � �_N, �'' �.�w��`�e,. att'�4,-. <'" 3 ��vnv .s�.� �• .d �� �., ��!; ., � `,; ,.�Ji. ., xv 5 ,.y<.. .. ;:'t... r, ��`'�., 4 A, Y, � u�'i�s'�" x `- `',+11 F '" '"t.T�Wit`.' J,s `''!'• °>��. �;wi- z i �.. iy,..,P..:, D 4 ss ✓1 kY.. n b.. yW'.,� .. f✓ kC', "'Y" W :} r;t f�P` Q, W }?'1. ,?>•i"'d '�':': �`-,Y?,§� ' 9 �Y wl:�:. A34,;:•..'`'�, .f ,�2 4k v"_++�' .� � �?,p Fri" ,v ' � � - L'.-� ds a, ,? ,.#..'�. N .?-�' - ..,'�: �,>K „ ;•: tj u",_ h 1�' c. ,*, s' .L..'" i r rl ., -=� .>�;"",' �s1 h''S�,re, r�.., t o. "'tS `i,,.; �. .,.r .�: :a� �,,�''�� "',�,� ;"t4'°``� .' �y':��. c,a �,�,sa� t,�;�. _r`••.� !'><,. .. •A .� a" - ,>• .',ems.. " {bOQ z <� (D (D .--_,_._.,.w,__ .._ Skid F 13 11 D ill All-- I ._.C A 1._. �...oa � o WUNG CONTACT MAX. :;TATIC D')WN- NO. No. MANUFACTRRtR MODEL N0. COMMON NAME A 13 - C D E F (SEAR G If 1. ARES WEIGIrl' WEI(;II'1 WA III, TYPI•' CREW I�111?L (M) (M) (M). (M) (M) (M) CONFIG. (M) (M) (CM) (CMS) (KG) (I<G) (KC/M`�) ENG. 1'A:;;. (1.) AEROSPATIALE 315-B Leah 12.9 3.1. 11.0- 3..9 1.0 S 3.3 2.4 NA 1 950 975 24.12 1-TS 1+4 55_,. - 318-C Alouette II 12.1 2,7 10,2 1.9 S 2.3 NA 1 656 828 20,36 1-TS 1+4 564 319-B Alouette III 12.8 3.0 11.0 1.9 T-1 2.6 NA- 2 250 23.68 1-TS 1+6 553 330-G Puma 18.2 5.1 15.0 3.0 4.4 2.1 T-2 4.1 6.700 37.94 2-TS 2+18 2 256 341-0 Gazelle 12.0 3.2 10.5 NA 2.7 0.7 S 2.0 NA . I IW 20.80 I=rS 1.4 4511 360 Dauphin 13.4 3.5 11.5 NA 3.0 T-4 7.2 2.0 NA 2 799 27.00 1-75 1.9 644 AUGUSTA/ATLANTIC A-109 Hiro 13.1 3.3 11.0 2.0 2.1 0.7 T-1 3.5 2.3 NA 129 2 450 1 225 25.78 2-TS 1+7 59t B$LL HELICOPTER 47-G-5A -- 13.3 2.8 11.6 1.8 2.9 0.9 S 3.0 2.3 NA 1 293 646 12.84 I-P 1+2 215 j 205-A-1 -- 17.4 4.0 14.7 2.6 ^.i 1.8 3.7 2.7 NA 4 309 2 155 5.44 =r^ 1414 ' 206-B Jet Ranger 11.8 2,9 10.1 1.6 1.8 0.5 6 2.4 1.9 NA 1 452 7,6 17.92 t=D3 Lt1( 2o6-L Long Ranger 12.9 3.6 11.3 1.6 1.9 0.9 B 3,0 2.3 NA :1 8111 907 18.16 1-TS 1+6 371 212 Nin 17.5 4.4 14.7 2.6 2.1 1.3 3 3.7 2.7 NA 5 080 2 540 29.73 2-TS 1+14 Oy3 J� 214-B Big Lifter 18.3 4.1 ' 15.2 2.9 2.9 1,1 s 3.7 2.6 NA 7 258 3 629 39.79 1-TS 1+•15 7'4 + °a BOEING VERTOL BO-105-0 -- l .✓; 3.1 9.8 1.9 2.7 1.9 B 2.6 NA 2 3W 1 1.',u i'•."i 2=15 1+4 CH-47-234 -- 30.2 5,7 18.3 16,3 2.3 4.9 Q-2 6.9 3.4 503 22 680 7 243 39.55 2-TS 3+44 4 274 107-II -- 25.3 5.2 15.2 15.2 3.0 5.2- T-2 7.6 3.9 32 161 10 030 3 190 23.44 2-TS 3+25 1 325 t 179 -- 18.1 5.1 14.9 3,1 2.4 2.0 T-3 4.7 2.7 38 529 8 482 3 189 48.34 2-79 2+ 1 1 840 Data not S Q-1 j Cy-2 T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 provided, NA Data not applicable. R Rte+ • ° � � k° a a r • • a 'PS Turboshaft engine. • r e • $ P Piston engine. • • • $ • e o \ .:. .; PT Turbocharged piston engine. N + (r') ` I( fi -G---►� B E E Ij I ICD _. LANDING CONTACT MAX STATIC DOWN- NO. Nti. i MANUFACTURER MODEL NO. COMMON NAME A B C D E F GEAR G H I AREA WEIGHT WEIGHT WAS}I TYPE CREW FUEL C (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) CONFIG. (M) (M) (CM) (CM2) (KG) (KG) (KGIM`') ENG. PASS. (L) . STa;r"14 T-IrYt+"as E-2-B 8.5 2.1 7.2 1.3 2.1 0.9 S 1.7 NA 758 379 18.44 1-1 117 305 --. 10.0 2.4 8.7 1.3 2.5 1.2 m-3 2.1 2.1 16 1 315 438 22.70 1-r h 163 ENSTFOM F-28A/280 Shark - 11.9 2.7 9.8 1.4 1.8 0.9 - S 2.4 2.2 NA 9T5 488 13.04 1-P 1+2 114 ` F-28C/280C Shark 11.9 2.7 9.8 1.4 1.8 0.9 3 2.4 2.2 NA 998 499 13.33 1-P 1+2 151 3 r ' FAIRCHILD FH-1100 - 12.7 2.8 10.8 1.8 2.0 0-T S' 2.4 2.2 NA 1 247 624 13.67 1-Ts 1+4 257 z' HILLER UH-12-L-4 Hiller 12.4 3.1 10.8 1.7 3.1 I 1.0 2.5 2.3 NA 1 4o6 703 .16.11 1-P 1,3 174 UH-12E/E-4 Hiller 12.4 3.3 10.8 1.7 3.3 1.2 S 2.5 2'•3 NA 1.270 635 14.16 1-P 1.3 174 F.'=M,S 269-A/D Hughes 300 8.8 2.5 7.7 1.2 2.0 0.8 S 2 / .5 2.0 NA 758 373 16.21 1-P 1+1 114 269-C Hughes 300C 9.4 2.7 8.2 -1.3 2.1 0.8 S 2.5 2.0 NA 930 465 17.73 1-P 1+2 114 369Hs (Std Hughes 5000 9.2 2.5 8.0 1.3 2.1 0.7 S 2.5 2.1 NA 1 158 579 22.95 1-TS 1+4 242 y 369HS (Ext Hughes 5000 9.2 2.5 8,0 1.3 2.1 0.7 S 2.5 2.1 7,A 22.95 1-Ts 1+4 242 . �' 369-D Hughes 500D 9.3 2.7 8.1 1.4 2.1 0.8 S 2.2 2.1 NA- 1 362 686 26.76 1-TS 1+4 .242 KAM N HH-43F Huskie 14.3 5.9 14.3 NA 2.2 0.7 Q-1 2.5 1.8 NA 4 150 12.89 1-TS 1+11 1 325 air i ROTORWAY -- Scorpion Too 8.4 2.2 7.3 1.1 2.0 o.9 S 2.3 1.6 NA 544 272 10.99 1-P Irl 38 �d n • Data not provided. Kamen has aide-by-side S G,-1 qe2 T_I T-2 • T-3 T-4 T-5 ,.7 V'i r ~`; NA Data not applicable. rotors for oper. d • ® • • • • $ Q' TS Turboahaft engine. width 5.4 M t P Piston engine. �.�� o e o m o c • o • $ W' vPT Turbocharged piston engine.00 N O t � ` w x'r in•sw s-.,., .w.. ...._. ,. ,,... ._ .. ,:.,: ,.. 9;C... xr",.. x�„• i .� „_.r".. �.�' ,-..: _:r.. r� .; �}� "'",�.Y�r.:; x n� ^ 6 t, i F'��,,.,. a+t ��,�- ;a .p�=,K i tY i roe r� 3 ;f }"a r a ,y'Y, . s s �_ yc adrilYs� b JQ 1D �-J W l rnc sxia Q r•� s I W B E I D E 111 O Float Q- t a LANDING CONTACT MAX. STATIC DOWN- NO. NO. a � MU,T7,'APT170E MODEL NO. COMMON NAME A B C D E F GEAR G H I AREA WEIGHT WEIGHT WASH TYPE CREW FUEL r (M) (M) (M) (M) '(M) (M) CONFt.G. (M) (M) (CM) (CM2) (KG) (KG) (KG/M2). ENC. PASS. (L) i SIKORSKY S-55-T. -- 1910 4,.7 16.2 2.3 2.5 2.0 k-1. 3.2 3.4 NA 253 3 265 953 16.25 1-TS 2+10 703 ,sss .,;_58_T - 20.1 1+.9 17.1 2.9 3.5 2.0 T-4 8.6 4.3 NA 589•/ . 2608 25.83 2-TS 2+16 1 071 S-61 N/L -- 22.3 5.7 18.9 3.2 3.7 2.5 T-5 7.2 4.3 33 348 8 618 3 631 30.76 2-TS 3+28 1 552 ; -62 - 9.O 1,,g 16.6' 7 �.f'4 ? 2 P-4 5.ti 3.7 NA 34Ft 3 583 1 579 17.58 =1"N' 21 12 -u4 Slwerane 27.0 7.7 22.0 4.9 4.0 2.8 T-1 7.4 6.o NA 19 050 8 029 50.29 2-YU 3ri 3 33i s-65-c - 26.9 7.6 22.0 4.9 3.1 2.7 T-2 8.2 4.o 43 494 19 050 6 668 50.29 2-TS 3+44 2 3F5 x S-76 -- 17.5 4.4 13.4 2.4 1.3 2.0 T-1 5.0 2.4 NA 136 4 400 1554 31.15 2-TS 2+12 1 o45 . ;;-78-C -- 19.8 5.1 16.4 3.11 2.3 2.0 T-1# 8.8 2.7 NA 471 9 072 3 946 113.45 2-TS 214x) 1 Tia G k. v ;41 y • 8 0,-1 Q-2 T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 Data not provided. s NA Data not applicable. a '''' $ s o $ • • o } �1.,��' TS Turboshaft engine. i - o o • • P Piston engine. ,co `. PP IMarbocbrtrgad piston engine. +y Y< .y 8/,22/x._ AC 1:50/5390-1B b. Land-Use Zoning. Zoning ordinances should be written to perr.'_t heliports as an accepted land use in areas identified for Indus- trial, commercial, manufacturing, or agricultural uses and in any area that is unzoned. Some heliports, especially those without support facilities, could be a permitted use in certain residentially £ � . zoned areas. Language that permits occasional or infrequent ; helicopter landings at a site that is not a formally designated heliport should be encouraged. p� c. Height Restriction Zoning. The desire for clear approach-departure paths is an important consideration in selecting a heliport site. 11ten state-enabling legislation permits, communities are encouraged x to protect heliport approach and departure paths by enacting height restriction zoning. Advisory Circular 150/5190-4, A. .?odel Zoning Ordinance to I.i.mit Height of Objects Around Airports, contains general guidance for preparing an ordinance restrict -- the height of objects around a heliport. 47. ENVIRONMENTAL &NM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. The establishment of a � heliport may have an impact on the community in terms of noise, exhaust emissions, public safety, ground traffic, aesthetics, and attitude. When. Federal aid is used, an environmental impact assessment . report is required to assist the Federal agency in making the environ- mental decision. A similar report may be required by state or local .. authorities. ' fi a. Noise. The impact of helicopter engine and rotor sounds upon populated areas is an important consideration in selecting a heliport site. Since helicopter sounds are greatest directly beneath the takeoff and landing paths, these paths should he located over sparsely populated areas; over areas that have an already high level of background sounds; or over areas that would :F be expected to have a high tolerance level to helicopter sounds.; Improvements resulting from ongoing research activities to reduce c the sounds generated by engines and rotors will be incorporated im. future helicopters as quickly as economic and technological x conditions permit. a b. Exhaust Emissions. Relatively few civil-use heliports have sufficient flight operations for exhaust emissions to be considered ' a significant problem. Research on aircraft fuels and engines to reduce pollutant levels will also be applicable to helicopters. ' C. Public Safety. Heliport sites and approach-departure paths should be selected to avoid areas of public concentration. The approach- departure paths should also be free, and capable of being maintained d free, of objects that interfere with helicopter movement to and from the heliport. £ yt�+v Chap 4 Par 45 Pa e 33 Ali is � ~ ARTICLES V , VI , VIII , XII -A XIV and XVI ORDINANCE 140 . 2353 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING ORDINANCE AS AMENDED WHEREAS , on i"ay 22 , 1980 , a notice of public hearing with respect to the question of amending Article V , VI , VIII , XII -A , XIV and XVI of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance was duly published in the Glenview Announce- ments , a newspaper of general circulation in the Village of Glenview, a home rule municipality ; and WHEREAS , a public hearing was held by the Plan Commission of the Village of Glenview , pursuant to Article XIV , Section 14 . 9 of the Glen- view Zoning Ordinance , in the Village Hall in the Village of Glenview , on June 10, 1980, at the hour of 8 : 00 p . m. , pursuant to the provisions of the aforesaid published notice , and all persons who desired to be heard were heard , and an opportunity was given to all persons who desired to make objections thereto ; and WHEREAS , the Plan Commission of the Village of Glenview, subse- quent to said public hearing , recommended that the following amendments be made to the Glenview Zoning Ordinance ; and WHEREAS , the corporate authorities of the Village of Glenview having considered these matters , find it in the public interest to so amend the Glenview Zoning Ordinance . NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Glenview , Cook County, Illinois , that Section 1 : Articles V , VI , VIII , XII -A, XIV and XVI of Chapter 24 of the Co&e of the Village of Glenview, Illinois , be and the same 1 is hereby amended as follows : Article V , Section 5 . 4 "H-1 Hospital and Medical District Regulations ; " Add a new subsection 5 . 4D to hereafter read as follows : 5 . 4D Conditional Uses . In addition to uses permitted under Section 5 . 4A , a heliport may be permitted as a con- ditional use in this H-1 Hospital and Medical District subject to bulk regulations in this H-1 District , all applicable standards , and to any and all conditions or restrictions upon the construction, location and operation of a conditional use as may be recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals under authority granted the said Zoning Board of Appeals in Section 14 . 10 subject to action by the Board of Trustees as specified in Sub-section 14 . 10F of this Article XIV of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance . Article VI , Section 6 . 1 I-1 Limited Commercial District Regu- lations ; " Add a new subsection 6 . 1D to hereafter read as follows : �- 6 . 1D Conditional Uses . In addition to uses permitted v under Section 6 . 1 , a heliport may be , permitted as a con- ditional use in this I-1 Limited Commercial District sub- ject to bulk regulations in this I- 1 District , all appli - cable standards , and to any and all conditions or re- strictions upon the construction , location and operation of a conditional use as may be recommended by the Zoninq Board of Appeals under authority granted the said Zoning Board of Appeals in Section 14 . 10 subject to action by the Board of Trustees as specified in Sub- section 14 . 10F of this Article XIV of the Glenview Zoninq Ordinance . C74 JE-It--b/E W ,XH. ` Article VIII "Accessory Uses and Home Occupations " , Section 8 . 3 ( 11 ) " Specific Examples ; " Amend the fourth sentence after the word "aircraft" , to hereafter read as follows : . . . except permitted by a conditional use . . . Article XII -A " Performance Standards " , Section 12A . 4 "Noise ; " Add a new subsection ( 5) to hereafter read as follows : ( 5 ) Heliport permitted as a conditional use . Article XIV "Administration ; " Section 14 . 10A "Classes of Condi - tional Uses ; " Add a new subsection ( 5) to hereafter read as follows : ( 5) Heliport will be permitted in H-1 Hospital and Medical District and I - 1 Limited Commercial District only as a condi - tional use being not normally compatible with or having a unique , special or unusual impact upon the use , enjoyment or value of neighboring property . Heliports are prohibited in all other districts . Article XIV "Administration" , Section 14 . 10D " Standards ; " Add the new subsections to hereafter read as follows : _rte i;6) Heliports shall also meet the followinq standards : (a ) The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study to determine the effect of the proposed heliport , helipad , helistop on the safe and efficient use of the naviqable airspace by aircraft and find no objection to the proposed heliport , helipad or helistop . (b) The layout and design of heliport , helipad , helistop , includinq approach and departure path , shall conform to the published Safety Rules and Regulations of the Division of Aeronautics , State of Illinois , Depart- ment of Transportation governing "Restricted Landing Areas - Heliport , " as then currently adopted. Any approval for a heliport , helipad , helistop granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be given initially on a tentative basis only : final approval to be granted only upon evidence that said Division of Aeronautics has issued an Order authorizing the applicant to proceed with construction of the heliport , helipad , helistop in accordance with plans approved by it ; provided , however , that any waiver of such Rules and Regulations granted by said Division shall be subject to approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals . ' No permit for the construction of a heliport , helipad , helistop shall be given until such an Order has been issued by said Division . (c) No portion of a touchdown area shall be closer than 250 feet to a residential lot line . ---- (d ) Hours of operation in the I-1 zone district shall be from 8 : 00 a . m. to 6 : 00 p .m. , Mlonday thru Friday unless otherwise further restricted in the conditional use permit . .•- (e ) The location , nature and height of security fences , berms and other security and noise attenuation struc- tures shall be required so as to minimize impact and to maximize safety on adjacent and nearby land and buildings , consistent with the safe use of the heliport. ..— ( f ) Use of the heliport shall fully , and at all times comply -with any specific requirements of the FAA or IDOT , stipulated to and in the Certificate of Approval or Operation issued to the user of the heliport by such agencies . Article XIV "Admit14n10GSection hereafte0r read"Conditional followses ; " add a new subs ection -- �, 14 . 10G Failure to comply with conditions . Failure to abide by any and all terms of the conditional use will btcause revokefor thethe coBditdio�alTrustees wellln i astanyate a hearing to applicable business licenses . Article XVI " Definitions" Add in correct alphabetical order the following definitions : _-----� Helicopter : Any rotary wing aircraft which depends principally for its support and motion in the air upon the lift generated by one or more power-driven rotors , rotating on a substantially vertical axis . ---� Heliport , Helipad , Helistop : Any area of land , water or structural surface which is designed , used or intended to be used for the landing and take-off of helicopters , and any appur- tenant areas which are designed , used or in- tended to be used for a heliport , helipad , or helistop building or other facilities which have received a Certificate of Approval from the Division of Aeronautics , State of Illinois Department of Transportation , or any area designed , used or intended to be used by any helicopter which has received a Certificate of Registration as a Special Purpose Aircraft" from said Division of Aeronautics . Section '2 : Every section and provision fothis ordinaf this nce shall be separable , ind the invalidity of any portion ance shall not affect the validity of any other portion of this ordinance. Section 3 : This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. PASSED this 6th day of October , 1980 AYES : —4 NAYS : 2 ABSENT: 1 APPROVED by me this 6th day of October 1980 • Tho as E. Smith , President of the Village of Glenview, Cook County, Illinois . ATTESTED and FILED in my office the 6th_ day of October91 1980, and published as`provided by law in book or pamphlet formthe 9th day of _ October___ 980 . ��. �— LCL c' 3arb� ra Schr�olze , Clerk to the Village of Glenviek-r , Cook County , Illinois . Published in Far-phlet Form by Authority and Order of the President and �cillage of Glenview , Cook County , I7iinois , Foard of Trustees of the �_ mer 9 , 1 OU0 . ,. .- _.... _. .. ....veru....—.w.p...raaru.__..r.d......u..eue.,.�r.»......W.....+a... _ .:...wu....:....v. ...-.r..aY - �' �K PP IVATC . . . An accesso!-Y bui lJ;nS for the parking sr,r.T or; 4 .eco t au to�:.�bilcs, (Cor:tinued) or tc-.:oorary storage of not ::orc t,i a _uo (2) an'! ; iicrcin no --r.ore than one sp:_cc is renteu to persons not resi c:nt on the promises.- GR_A7::1 STREET . . . The elevation of the center of a street in front of the ccntr_r of a building as established by the Village Engineer . GROSS FLOOR AREA . For purposes of determining the number of-required off- street parking spaces," the gross floor area of the building shall be its total floor�.ca-ilside exterior walls exclusive of boiler rooms, stair wells, elevator shads and such other areas as r:ay be devoted to similar Mechanical equipment. .---4b, HELICOPTER . . . Any rotocraft which depends principally for its support and motion in the air upon the lift generated by one or more poe:cr-drivca rotors, rotating on a substantially vertical axis. ._..-, HELIPORT . . . Any area of land or mater or structural surface w1lich is used or intended to be used for the landing and take-off of helicopters, and any appur- tenant areas which are used or intended to be used for heliport buildings and other heliport facilities. LOADI\G SPACE . An off-street space on the same lot with a building, or group of buildings, for temporary parking of a commercial vehicle whileloa Tin and unloading passengers, merchandise or materials. 7 LOT . . . A parcel of land occupied or intended for occupancy by amain building together with its accessory building, the open spaces and parking spaces re- quired by this ordinance, and having adequate access to' a public street. LOT AREA . The total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot. LOT, CORNER . . . A lot abutting upon two (2) streets at their intersection or abuttin- a curved street at the end of a block, the street lines of which (or, in the case of a curved street, the tangents thereto) have an angle of intersoc tion of not more than one hundred thirty-five (1.35) degrees measured on the lot side. If a corner lot abutting a curved street at the end of a block docs not have the point of street curvature occurring along its frontage, the angle of intersection shall be determined from tangents drawn at points i:here the street line intersects the side lot lines. LOT, INTERIOR . . . A lot other than a corner lot . LOT DEPTH . . . The horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines, measured along the median betwecn the tr7o side lot lines. LOT LINES The lines hounding a lot as defined herein. LOT LINE, FRONT .. . A lot line xAiich is along a street line. LOT LINE, REAR . . . That lot line or lot lines mnst di st-lnt- fLuin and parallel, front lot line, e_ccept that in the case of a or r.:ost nearly parallel, to the corner lot there shall be no rear lot line. U S71 f 1. i.T121C'f5 31 13 . Electrical distri'_)uticni centers ane'_ sub-stations, SLCTTON 43 . 1301 gas regulating centers, a ii,� un�icrground (Continued) holder stations. 14. Veterinary hospital, provided that any area used to house or exer- cise animals shall be enclosed wholly within a building or within an area fenced and screened from view on all sides regardless of its distance from street lines. B. Any uses customarily incident to any of the above uses and accessory buildings cinen located on the same lot. C. Temporary buildings and uses for construction purposes when approved as provided for in "R-1" Districts. D. Name plates and signs. E. Automobile parking space and loading space. CONDITIONAL USES: The following may also be permitted if their SECTION 43. 1302-�- location and plan: of development are approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Such development plan, two copies of which shall_ be submitted with an application for a conditional use, shall indicate, whenever appropriate, on-site parking and loading facilities, vehicular and pedestrian access, means for the protection of abutting properties, and such other information as may be deened necessary by the Board to depict the develop- ment features of the lot. A. Governmental and public utility buildings, structures and uses. ..—.� B. Privatelheliports provided the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The layout and design of a private heliport, including approach and departure zones, shall conform to the published Safety Rules and Regulations of the Department of Aeronautics, State of Illinois, governing "Restricted Landing Areas - Heliport," as then currently adopted. Any approval for a private heliport granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be given initially on a tentative basis only; final approval to be granted only upon evidence that said De- partment of Aeronautics has issued an Order authorizing the appli- cant. to proceed with construction of the heliport in accordance xiith plans approved by it; provided, however, that any waiver of such Pules and Regulations granted by said Department shall be sub- ject: to approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No permit for the construction of a heliport shall be given until such an Order has been issued by said Department. 2. The heliport shall be in conjunction ijith and accessory to the principal use .permitted. 3. No portion of a touchdown area shall be closer than two hundred and fifty (250) feet to a residential lot line. 32 . The glide and transitional slopes for all re SECTION I.-, '2 quired approach zon^s, up to and includin- an (Continued) elevation of forty (10-0) feet above the elevation of the touchdo%rn area, skull ire met 17ithin the property limits of the lot on which the principal use is located, e:ccept that street or railroad rights-of-May may be included in such portion of the approach zones provided that the required glide slope clears a street right-of-way by at least fifteen (15) feet, or a railroad right-of-play by at least twenty-five (25) feet. 5. The touchdown area shall be contained within an area enclosed by a fence not less than three (3) feet in height, and appropriately posted. BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT: Same as specified for "R-4" Districts. SECTION 43 .1303 LOT AREA REQUIRED: No minimum lot area is specified, but SECTION 43.1304 buildings shall not cover more than fifty (50) per cent of the lot. FRONT YARD REQUIRED: Each lot shall have a front yard of not SECTION 43 .1305 less than twenty (20) feet and such front yard requirements shall be met on both street frontages of corner lots. No vehicular parking or loading space, nor any outside operations, shall be per- mitted in a required front yard. SIDE YARD REQUIRED: Each lot shall have two side yards. SECTION 43.1305 Neither side yard shall be less than ten (10) feet. REAP. YARD REQUIRED: Each lot shall have a rear yard of not SECTION 43.1307 less than ten (10) feet. VP a 0 A F NOUN 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, 1976. 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 I]_linois, 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 7121 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 Rational 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. Respect ully yours, G. Carmignani illage Manager KGC f is attachemen:ts U0 oa c ' 9 �2 cF f U VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 N 0 T I C E OF M E E T I N G Ad Hoc Committee of the Plan Commission TO: Ad hoc Committee Members - Bushy Marcy O'Brien Reece DATE: Tuesday, March 31, 1981 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Village Commons, Samuel E. Dean Board Room AGENDA: Heliport Study cc: Plan Commission Zoning Board of Appeals Board of Trustees Manager Carmignani Asst. to Mgr. Kapff Engineer Durfey Chief Clark Chief Ceren Atty. Brechin Newspapers PLAN COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING March 31, 1981 I. This special meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Oak Brook Plan Commission was called to order at 7:38 P.M. in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Village Commons on Tuesday, March 31, 1981. Roll Call Present: Members Bushy Marcy O'Brien Absent: Committee Chairman Reece Others Present: Trustee Reynolds Assistant to Village Manager Kapff In the absence of Committee Chairman Reece, the three remaining members of the Ad Hoc Committee concurred in the appointment of Member Marcy as the Acting Chairman. II. HELIPORT STUDY As this was intended to be an informal study meeting, Acting Chairman Marcy requested that the members of the audience introduce themselves. Members of the audience present included: 1. Mike Reilage - Safety Inspector with the FAA, 2. Roy Cleveland - Representating the Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, 3. Jim Kramer - Representating Crescent Liftair, a commercial operation located in Bellwood, 4. Fred Bianucci - Representing the Oak Brook Association of Commerce and Industry (OBACI) , 5. Rodney Jacobs - Director of Real Estate for Waste Management, Inc. Acting Chairman Marcy questioned the members of the audience as to their general roles relating to the operation of heliports. Mr. Cleveland stated that the Division of Aeronautics performs the licensing of potential heliports, with their primary focus being on safety. Relating to safety, their general concerns are to avoid approach and departure paths from a heliport which might cross residential areas, churches, and other similar uses. As far as a minimum altitude at which helicopters are allowed to fly, there is no specific regulation although, in general, anyone flying l below 100 feet would be considered to be flying in a reckless manner and if witnesses were available to testify in court the Division of Aeronautics would `attempt prosecution of the pilot. The Division of Aeronautics would also be willing to assist the Village in choosing a safe site for the heliport pad in the event that the Village chose that course of action. AD HOC COMMITTEE. -1- March 31, 1981 II. HELIPORT STUDY (Continued) Mike Reilage stated that the FAA assists the Division of Aeronautics in the assessment of any potential heliport sites, although they do not formally issue a permit or license. The FAA instead performs the licensing of the helicopter pilot. Acting Chairman Marcy requested information on the standards which would relate to any required separation of a possible multiplicity of heliports. Mr. Reilage stated that their primary concern would be to maintain a safe degree of separation between neighboring flight paths. Furthermore, as the specific location of flight paths relating to any particular heliport also relates to surrounding obstructions to such flight paths there is no general rule of thumb or minimum separation required between heliports. It is also Mr. Reilage's personal opinion that one central heliport would lend itself to greater safety as opposed to a number of closely spaced heliports. In response to Member O'Brien, Mr. Reilage stated that the required two flight paths being a minimum of 90 degrees apart should be clear of obstructions for an 8:1 flight path for a distance of 4000 feet from the 'heliport and 500 feet in width. Elaborating on the subject of obstructions around a heliport, Mr. Reilage explained that the subject of aviation easements, from a zoning standpoint, should be included surrounding such heliports in order to protect them and their flight paths from future obstructions. In the case of a public heliport, future obstructions would not be a concern as in the FAA review process of the site the public entity would be advised of any possible encroachment on that air space. A privately run heliport, however, would not be automatically protected from such encroachments and as such would require protection through either the granting of aviation easements or some form of protection to be contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Member O'Brien expressed the opinion that the needs of the commercial sector of the community should be fathommed to determine their potential needs relating to helicopter transportation. Mr. Bianucci stated that the Oak Brook Association of Commerce and Industry is presently in the process of forming a committee which will in turn survey the business community as to their needs in this area. Member O'Brien expressed appreciation in the Association's willingness to perform such a study which might prove invaluable to the Village in their study of heliports. He further stated that as Oak Brook is a joint community, including both residential and commercial sectors, that both of their potential future needs and concerns should be included in this study by the Plan Commission. In response to questioning by Committee members, Mr. Jacobs related his assessment of the Village's study. When considering the convenience of proximity to a heliport, he sees this as an area of disagreement depending on who you talk to. Some would say that a heliport would only be worth the expense if it were located at their particular building. Others would say that a location anywhere within the Village limits would fill their needs. AD HOC COMMITTEE -2- March 31, 1981 II. HELIPORT STUDY (Continued) Mr. Jacobs further expressed the opinion that very few corporations and businesses within the Village would actually be interested in helicopter transportation. On the other hand, should the Village proceed to develop a municipal heliport, the mere fact of its existance might encourage a greater use of helicopters than might otherwise be expected. Member Bushy observed that the Village lacks any real control over helicopter operations once they are in the air. The limit of the Village control seems to be as it relates to heliport location and design as well as the restriction to certain designated take-off and landing flight paths. She further stated that as the residential area of Oak Brook contains a substantial number of corporate executives, that a Village heliport quite possibly could be utilized by the residential sector to a greater degree than by the commercial sector. In response to questioning by commission members, Mr. Kramer stated that corporate clients which utilize his helicopter service generally limit the distance of their trips to 200 miles in any one direction. This service is very popular with such clients, as they are able to conduct business at a remote site and return the same day. Mr. Kr.amer's estimate of the cost to such a client for this service is in the range of $2 to $3 per mile. Be further indicated that a great majority of towns in this area lack any specific regulations concerning the operation of helicopters if such use is limited to an occasional operation, although there are very stringent regulations which govern frequent operations. Mr. Cleveland stated that in his division's analysis of heliports, there are two pr=imary types: 1. A Restricted Landing Area Heliport - which would be restricted or limited to use by a defined number of helicopters. A Municipal Heliport would fall into this category. Use of a restricted heliport would be only through the specific prior authorization by the owner. In the IDOT publication - "Aviation Safety Rules and Regulations", Paragraph #52 - Restrictions On Use states that "except as provided in paragraph 53, the following operations shall not be conducted on a restricted landing area: carrying of passengers for hire other than the carrying of passengers for hire under a continuing bilateral contract or contracts; student instruction; rental of planes; air meets or exhibitions; sale of gasoline and oil; or advertising; for any of the above." 2. A Commercial Heliport - which would be open to use by any helicopters wishing to land, with the futher distinction that such helicopters could be utilized for taxi services. AD HOC COMMITTEE -3- March 31, 1981 II. HELIPORT STUDY (Continued) Mr. Cleveland further stated that should the Village develop a municipal heliport, then commercial operators such as Mr. Kramer's operation would not be able to use the facility on a "for-hire" basis. In order for the Village to accommodate such for-hire operations, their heliport would be required to provide on-site fire protection, toliet facilities, drinking water as well as storage for fuel and oil as is required of all Commercial heliports. As an example: If Waste Management, Inc. were to have a contract with a helicopter firm to provide periodic transportation, this operation would be allowed at a Private restricted municipal heliport. Only the so-called taxi or for-hire, services would be prohibited from such an operation, unless the above noted ancillary services were to be provided at the heliport. Member O'Brien suggested the possibility that the corporations in Oak Brook utilize one heliport which might be already located on a commercial building in the Village. Mr. Jacobs questioned this approach from the standpoint that the building providing said heliport would lose any degree of security and/or privacy as these roof-top heliports commonly are reached through the building's interior. Mr. Jacobs further stated that the Village of Oak Brook should carefully decide the course which it wishes to take in this matter. If the Village does not want heliports, then this specific Special Use should be taken out of the Zoning Ordinance;; that is, the Village cannot have a heliport listed as a Special Use in a Zoning District and also never intend to grant such a use. Mr. Jacobs stated that he sees three possible courses of action open to the Village on this issue: 1. To maintain heliports as a Special Use. 2. To encourage the business community to form a consortium which would then in turn provide for the commercial needs for a heliport. 3. The establishement of one centralized municipal heliport operation. Acting Chairman Marcy suggested that as the Ad Hoc Committee has only begun consideration of the subject area, that further meetings of this Committee should be held prior to the submission of a recommendation to the Plan Commission. There being no further discussion, Member Bushy moved, seconded by Member O'Brien to adjourn this meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee. Voice Vote. . . . . Motion carried Unanimously. . . . . The meeting was adjourned as of 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Bruce F. Kapff Assistant to Village Manager Approved AD HOC CO=TTEE -4- March 31, 1981 Accl DEO T" TYPES 1974 �3i 1 g78�3�9� .E-NGimF' FAILURE /MALP 78 - 2761. 9¢ ,tQS`Z COLLIS101-3 w/6Rt1D, UNcTL'D 30 /8 S.(. CO�isloa W/Gli2Es') POLE'S 279SyJ2o 30 f.` ROLL OVER, 21 7,47. '-O 4.3% 14ArzD L,aNfljtlU 1 tj /-7'Z 2+ 7.5'% COLLIS IOM t-/612,JD , c.T L'p 18 6.3 % 37 11-6Z CoLLtseor.J &/TrlFCS IS �3'Z /0 3./ -4 rt/v- -failure 13 4&l % 2S 7,p AIRF=RAME TAILU2F_ 60 F-L-T) PHASE of Fr164T CRUISE 4-57 /5.. 7 (03 /f7Z Ver'F�cn ( `fro 2S' 9.9 'z 3 / 9. 72 Sn►t►at,I Chm6 24 Pg % /(P S.o `Z' SWATH RUN IgG1 22 7.7 % 22 G.fz OTHE 9 21 ?.Vz 0 / 3.4 Z P1,12 OAJ LD6 /8 e.3 30 9.IIz P/,ye LDG �Aurv> !l y T!/2^f ,4,ev v�Ji� �i9G� — 13 4. I/o vo-,elAj f -74 - 2WS- -? � S7 �r 315 SPL - 47 79- 78 SFL 74 7 P �I hof 218 Zoo 12- 38 2- 1 ?Owev'Tlav-t 48 (7 20 4 S ROtorcra' t Systcros 3 ! 40 IC 4 2 ps(2sovtv)ei 3 2 39 2 13 4 Tevw.U;h 20 i 961 7 / 37 37 TELEPHONE 724-1700 1225 WAUKEGAN ROAD - GLENVIEW, ILLINOIS 60025 SUBJECT: HELIPORTS TO: Mr. Bruce Kapff DATE: April 2, 1981 Assistant Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road ATTENTION: Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 WE SEND YOU HEREWITH X UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA Ordinance No. 2353-Permitting Heliports as a conditional use. July 3, 1980 Survey of Zoning Ordinances October 3, 1980 Survey of Neighboring Communities August 21, 1980 Tribune Article, re: Wolf Point Heliport _FOR YOUR INFORMATION APPROVED AS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR REVIEW AND APPROVAL APPROVED AS NOTED FOR YOUR REVIEW AND COMMENTS RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS AS REQUESTED OTHER REMARKS: - .Ghz2 ; cc: Elizabe h A. Wilcox Village Planner T0 : c ' - FROM E . A . Wilcox SUBJECT : Case Plumber P-80- 16 Status of Kraft Inc . Heliport On June 16 , 1980 Kraft ) roc . , received a "Certificate of Approval " for a Restricted Landing Area Heliport from the Illinois Department of Transportation - Division of Aero- nautics . According to conversations with Mr . Eugene Utz , Bureau of Aviation Safety Chief , IDOT:,. the "Certificate of Approval " permits an unlimited number of helicopter landings , twenty- four hours a day , seven days a week at the Kraft heliport . All helicopter operations conducted at the Kraft heliport have been recommended (by both the FAA and [ DOT) to take place within the specific approach and departure route .areas of 450 clockwise to 1350 (northeast of southeast ) and/or 2200 clockwise to 2250 (southwest ) /using the touchdown pad of the landing area as the center of acompass . The existing heliport is located in the center of Kraft property to the south of the new office building presently under con- struction and east of the existing office building which faces Harlem Avenue. Survey of Zoning Ordinances regarding Heliports A review of Zoning ordinances from surrounding communities provides examples of the varying extent of heliport regulations . Zoning ordinances requested from the Northwest Municipal Con- ference relating to heliport regulations included those from Arlington Heights , Evanston , Hoffman Estates and Schaumburg . It is interesting to note that of the thirty NWMC member com- munities only four have zoning ordinances regulating and/or defining heliports ..-. Other zoning ordinances reviewed include those from St . Charles and Park Forest . A brief summary of how these zoning ordinances regulate heliports follows : (these ordinances are also enclosed herein for your further -review. ) i ' ) Village of Arlington Heights : An airport or aircraft landing area is specified in the definitions section of the Z . O . Also , an Airport heliport landing field or landing strip is permitted as a conditional use in any use district under the Special Use Article . 2) City of Evanston : An airport ( landing strip , heliport or helistop) is specified in the definitions section only. 3 ) Village of Hoffman Estates : An airport , heliport landing field or landing strip is permitted as a special use in any use district under the Special Use Article. 4) Village of Schaumburg : An airport , heliport landing field or landing strip is permitted. as a special use in M- Industrial Districts only under the Special Use Article. 5) City of St . Charles : An airport ( I'anding strip , heliport or helistop) is specified in the definitions section of the Z . O. Also private helipads are permitted as a special use in Residential Districts . The helipads are restricted to use for emergency or disaster medical transportation use . only. St . Charles also regulates aircraft landings in a separate Chapter of their Municipal Code. The chapter prohibits the landing of any civil aircraft (any aircraft other_ than public aircraft) in the City (land or navigable water) . 6) City of. Park Forest : Helicopter and heliports are speci - fied separately in the definitions section of the Z . O. Also, private heliport are permitted as a conditional use within M- 1 Industrial Districts only. The language within this ordinance provides the most detailed of all ordi - nances reviewed thus far. 2 _ 1 ) Direction of approach and departure being used at the Kraft Inc . heliport : As recommended by the FAA and [ DOT, the approach and departure routes are from 450 clockwise to 1350 and/or 2200 clockwise to 2250. 2) Minimum heights at which helicopters are allowed to fly : Based on conversations with both FAA and IDOT officials , helicopters may not fly in a reckless or unsafe manner . No minimum height requirements were specified by either agency. 3) Number of flights made at Kraft heliport : According to Kraft Inc . , the Palwaukee Airport helicopter flight log indicated that an average of 37 . 5 flights were made per month during last twelve months , for a total of 450 flights. They also indicated that not all of these re- corded flights were made to the Kraft Inc . property. 4) The extent of limitation of proposed amendatory. language on landing at. approved and unapproved sites : The proposed language does not limit the number of landings , time of landings , etc. , on an approved site, nor does it address the limitation of a "Special -Purpose Aircraft" (which allows helicopter landings and take offs from un- certified areas i . e : areas which have not received a Certificate of Approval from IDOT Division of Aeronautics) Alternatives to be considered in regulating heliports ( including both IDOT approved and unapproved landing areas) will be presented at the Plan Commission meeting of July 1980, depending on the degree of restrictiveness the Plan Commission wishes to achieve. Also 1 will be prepared to answer any questions regarding this case not contained herein . Enclosures cc. Steve T. Pudloski 3 _ VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ZONING ORDINANCE C.28 ZONING REGULATIONS C.28 (g) Servants' quarters comprising part of an accessory garage and solely for occupancy by a servant or household employee (and his or her family) of the occupants of the principal dwelling. (h) Off-street motor vehicle parking areas, and loading and unload- ing facilities. (i) Signs (other than advertising signs) as permitted and regulated in each district incorporated in this ordinance. (j) Carports. (k) Public utility communication, elech1c, gas, water and sewer lines, their supports, and incidental equipment. 3.2.2 Acreage. Any tract or parcel of land having an area of one acre or more which has not been sub-di%jded by metes and bounds or platted. 3.2-3 Airport or Aircra t_L4 d� g lc'„ Any ]arTding area, runway or other facility (including heliports), designed, used or intended to be used either publicly or privately by any person or persons for the landing and taking off of aircraft, including all necessary taxiways, aircraft storage and tiedown areas, hangars, and other necessary buildings and open spaces. 3.2-4 Alley. A public or private thoroughfare not more than 30 feet wide which affords only a secondary means of access to abutting property. 3.2.5 Alteration, Structural. Any change which would tend to prolong the life of the supporting members of a building or structure, such as bear- ing walls, columns, beams or girders. 3.2.6 Apartment. A room or suite of rooms in a multiple-family struc- ture, which is arranged, designed, used or intended to be used as a single housekeeping unit. Complete kitchen facilities, permanently installed, must always be included for each apartment. 3.2.7 Apartment-Hotel. (See "Hotel, Apartment"). 3.2-8 Apartment House. (See "Dwelling, Multiple-Family"). 3.2-9 Automobile Laundry. A building or portion thereof, where auto- mobiles are washed using production line methods with a chain conveyor, blower, steam cleaning or other mechanical devices. 3.2-10 Automobile Repair, Major. Engine rebuilding or major recondi- tioning of worn or damaged motor vehicles or trailers; collision service, including body, frame or fender straightening or repair; and overall paint- ing of automobiles. 3.2.11 Automobile Repair, Minor. Incidental repairs,replacement of parts, and motor service to automobiles, but not including any operation specified under "Automobile Repair, Major." 3.2.12 Automobile Service Station. Any building or premises used for dis- pensing, sale or offering for sale at retail to the public, gasoline stored only in underground tanks, kerosene, lubricating oil or grease for the op- eration of automobiles and including the sale and installation of tires, bat- teries and other minor accessories and services for automobiles, but not including major automobile repairs; and including washing of automobiles xvhere no production line methods are employed. When the dispensing, sale or offering for sale of motor fuels or oil is incidental to the conduct of a public garage, the premises shall be classified as a public garage. 3.2-13 Automobile and Trailer Sales Area. An open area, other than a street, used for the display or sale of new or used automobiles or trailers, i C,28 IIFAUGMTR YII.i.AC F CODE C.28 which It may be necessary to allow because of their unusual charac errstics or the service they provide the public. These require particular consideration as to their proper location adjacent established or intended uses, or to the planned development of the community. The conditions controlling the location and operation of such "special uses" are established by the following provisions of this Sub- section. 7.2 Authority. Th d of the Village of Arlington Heights shall have authority to permit e o wing uses of land or structures, or both subject to the provisions of Section 7.4, if it finds that the proposed location and establishment of any such use will be desirable or necessary to the public convenience or welfare and will be harmonious and compati- ble with other uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the selected site or sites: 7.2-1 ALri)ortheliport, _landing field or landing strip -'' subject to the Civil Aeronautics Administration certifying that a new or reoriented runway will not interfere with the flight pattern of any estab- lished airport, landing field or landing strip. 7.2-2.1 Auditorium, stadium, arena, armory, gymnasium and other sim- liar places for public events; in any "B" or "M" District. 7.2.2.2 Automobile Service Station in any B-2 District; provided how- ever that any automobile service station which has been established and was in use on or before the first day of September, 1962 and was a legal conforming use on that date shall be permitted to continue in operation without a special use permit- Such automobile service stations within this exception shall not be subject to the amortization provisions of this ordinance and may continue in operation for as long as the use of the land and building remains substantially similar to the use in being on September 1, 1962. 7.2-2.3 Drive-in business where persons are served in automobiles such as a bank, restaurant, refreshment stand and the like, in any B-2 and B-3 District; provided, however, that any drive-in business which has been established and was in use on or before the first day of September, 1962, and was a legal conforming use on that date shall be permitted to continue in operation with- out a special use permit. (Ord. 78-3, Jan. 9, 1978). Such drive-in business within this exception shall not be subject to the amortization provisions of this ordinance and may continue in operation for as long as the use of the land and buildings remains substantially similar to the use in being on Sep- tember 1, 1962. 7.2.3 Bus terminal, railroad passenger station, in any "B" District. 7.24 Cemeteries, crematories or mausoleums, in any use district. 72-5 Extraction of gravel, sand or other raw materials, in any "M" Dis. trict. 72-6 Golf courses, public or private, in any use district. 72-7 Hospitals and Sanitariums, public or private, in any R-5 or R-6 District. 72-8 Residential Institutions, in any R-5 or R-6 District, and Non-Resid- dential Institutions, in any R-1, R-2, or R-3 District 7.2-8.1 Restaurants in any B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5, M-1 and M-1A District. (Ord. 78-3, Jan. 9, 1978). 724 Municipal recreation building or community center, in any use dis- trict. 1/9/78 CITY OF EVANSTON ZONING ORDINANCE 6-2-4 6-2-4 IRPORT (LANDING Any premises which are used, or intended for use, for STRIP. HELIPORT or the landing and take-off of aircraft; and any HELISTOP) appurtenant areas which are used, or intended for use, as airport buildings or other airport structures or rights of way, together with all airport buildings and structures located thereon. ALLEY A right of way with a width not exceeding twenty four feet (241 which affords a secondary means of access to abutting property. ANIMAL HOSPITAL A building or portion thereof designed or used for the boarding, care, observation or treatment of domestic animals. APARTMENTS See "DWELLING, MULTIPLE-FAMILY". AUTOMOBILE A building or portion thereof where automobiles are LAUNDRY washed, using a conveyor, blower, steam-cleaning equipment or other mechanical device of production-line nature. AUTOMOBILE SERVICE A building or portion thereof or premises used for STATION IGAS STATION) dispensing or offering for sale at retail any automotive fuels or oils; having pumps and storage tanks thereon, or where .battery, tire and other similar services are rendered, but only if rendered wholly within lot lines. Automobile service stations do not include open sales lots, as defined herein, and the open storage of motor vehicles and the repair, rebuilding or reconstruction of motor vehicles is not permitted. (See GARAGE, STORAGE, also GARAGE, PUBLIC) BASEMEN 7r A portion of a building located partly underground but having less than half its clear floor-to-joist height below the average grade of the adjoining ground. (See CELLAR) (Ord. 35-0-78) BLOCK A tract of land bounded by streets or by a combination of one or more streets and public parks, cemeteries, railroad rights of way, bulkhead lines or shore lines of waterways or corporate boundary lines. BOARDING HOUSE A building or portion thereof where meals are provided to five (5) or more persons who are not T6p5 VILLAGE OFb ARTICLE IV. SPECIAL, USES 4 . 01 Definitions . ) Even though prohibited by the general terms of this ordinance , special uses as. described in this article, may be established and maintained in accordance with the terms hereof, and subject to any conditions that may be imposed by the Board of Trustees in the ordinance granting such use. 4 . 02 Permitted s�al uses . ) Special uses shall not be granted unless a there- for the procedure set out i r Areas for the dumping or disposal of trash or garbage, in "M" Districts only . 'Auditorium, stadium, arena, armory, gymnasium, and other similar places for public events, in any "B" or 'IM" District . Automobile service station in the B-2 Business District - General Retail, or B-3 Business Services and Wholesale District, or any Manufacturing District . r Pius terminal, or parking or storage lot , railroad passenger station, or any other public transportation terminal facilities, in any use district. Cemeteries , crematories, or mausoleums, in any use • i district . --30-- i SCHA! M81ff0 ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE VII - SPECIAL USES ARTICLE VII - SPECIAL USES SECTION 1 - PURPOSE The principal objective of this zoning ordinance is to provide for an orderly arrangement of compatible building and land uses , and for the proper location of all types of uses required in the social and economic welfare of the village . To accomplish this objective each type and kind of use is classified as permitted in one or more -of the various districts established by this ordi- nance. However, in addition to those uses specifically classi- fied and permitted in each district, there are certain addition- al uses which it may be necessary to allow because of their unusual characteristics or the service they provide the public. These special uses require particular consideration as to their proper location in relation to adjacent established or intended uses , or to the planned development of the community. The condi- tions controlling the location and operation of such special uses are established by the following provisions of this Article. SECTION 2 - AUTHORITY The Villag % . �� of the Village of Schaumburg shall have authority to permit the following uses of land or structures , or both, s 0'0Rc, x :o of this Article, if it find at the proposed location and establishment of any such use will be desirable .or necessary to the public convenience or welfare and will be harmonious and compatible with other uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the selected site or sites. 2 - 1 Airy rt heli ort landin field or landin stri , subject to the Federal Aeronautics Admin- istration certifying that a new or reoriented runway will not interfere with the flight pattern of any established airport, landing field, or landing strip. 2 . 2 Automobile Service Stations , in any T, B or M District. 2 . 3 Auditorium, stadium, arena , armory, gymnasium, and other similar _places for public events , in any B or M District, or public park area. 2. 4 Bus terminal or mass transportation stations , in any B District. 2. 5 Cemeteries , crematories or mausoleums , in any R-1, R-2 or M District, provided the tract of land has a minimum area of 160 acres . 2 . 6 Churches, temples ,_ rectories , seminaries , convents , monasteries, parish houses and similar institu-tions ,_ including dormitories and other accessory uses required for religious operation, on .:-- any - zoning lot having an area of not less than three (3) acres, having not more than thirty per cent (300) of the lot occupied 38 .i is. li/��. RULES AND 6 FI\1 O?'S 17.04.460 Street (avenue, place, road, defined. terrace or parkway). (Ord. 1960-16 : III (part).) 17.04.465 Structural alterations. 17.04.470 Structure. i 17.04.475 Toxic material. 17.04.010 Aircraft. a 17.04.480 Trailer. "Aircraft" means an), contrivance, now 17.04.485 Use. known or hereafter invented for use in or 17.04.490 Use, accessory. uesigned for navitation of or flight in the air. 17.04.495 Use, nonconforming. (Ord. 1960-16 § III (part).) 17.04.500 Use, permitted. j 17.04.505 Use, principal. 17.04.510 Use, special 17.04.015 Airport (landing strip, heliport. 17.04.5 15 Yard. -or helistop). ' 17.04.520 Yard, front. "Airport (landing strip, heliport, or 17.04.525 Yard, rear. helistop)" means any premises which are used 17.04.530 Yard, side. or intended for use for the landing and take-off i 17.04.535 Research laboratory. of aircraft: and any appurtenant areas which are j 17.04.540 Ringelmann Chart. used or intended for use for airnort buiidin-s or 17.04.545 Ringehnann number. other airport structures or riehts-of-way, 17.04.550 Roominghouse, boardinghouse together with all airport buildings and structures or tourist home. located thereon. (Ord. 1960-16 : III (part).) 17.04.555 Screening. 17.04.560 . Sian. 17.04.030 Alley. "Alley" means a right-of-way, with a width 17.04.005 Rules of construction. not exceeding twenty- four feet, wliich affords The IanRttage set forth in the text of this a secondary means of access to abutting tide shall be interpreted in accordance with the property. (Ord. 1960-16 : II1 (part).) f ollowim! rules of construction: A. The singular number includes the plural, and the plural the singular; 17.04.025 Animal hospital. 1,. The present tense includes the past and "Animal hospital" means any building or future tenses, and the future the present; portion thereof designed or used for the care. C. The word "shall" is mandatory, while the obsen ation or treatment of domestic animals. word "may" is permissive; (Ord. 1960-16 ` III (part).) 1?. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter: };. \Whenever a word or term defined in this 17.04.030 Automobile laundry. chapter appears in the rest of this title, "Automobile laundry" means any building its meaning shall be construed as set forth or portion thereof where automobiles are in the definition thereof; and any word washed, using a conveyor, blower, steam- in parenthesis, between a word cleaning equipment, or other mechanical device and its definition herein, shall be construed of production-line nature. (Ord. 1960-16 : III is the same sense as that word; and words (part).) hcrein not defined shall be interpreted in accordance with applicable definitions contained in Webster's Dictionary; 17.04.035 Automobile service station F, All measured distances, expressed in feet, (gas station). shall be to the nearest integral foot; if a "Automobile sen-ice station (gas station)" fraction is one-half foot or more, the integral means any building or portion thereof or foot next above shall be taken, premises used for dispensing or offering for sale G. 'Che words and terms set out in Sections at retail any automotive fuels or oils having 17.04.020 through 17.04.560 wherever they pumps and storage tanks thereon, or where occur in this title, shall be construed as here battery, tire and other similar minor services 313 R1 DISTRICT Chapter 17.10 D. Convents. monasteries. and seminaries: E. Colleges and universities and uses accessory RI • SINGLE-FAMILY and incidental thereto. but not colleges RESIDENCE DISTRICT or trade schools operated for profit; F. Golf courses. but not including Sections: commercially-operated driving ranges. 17.10.010 Penmitted uses. miniature Rolf courses. or li=ghted par-three 17.10.020 Special uses. -olf courses for night play: 17.10.030 Lot area. G. Growing of farm crops in the open, 17.10.040 Lot width. including •snick gardens and nurseries: 17.10.050 Floor area ratio—Nonresidetltial provided, that no livestock or poultry are permitted uses and special uses. kept, and no offensive odors or dusts are 17.10.060 Building,height—Single-family created: and, provided further. that no dwelling uses. retail sales are conducted from a store or 17.10.070 Ground floor area per dwelling. stand erected or maintained on the premises; 17.10.080 Front yard—Single-family H. Hospitals: dwelling, uses. 1. Libraries: 17.10.090 Side vards—Single-family J. Parks and plzivgrounds, priN•ately-owned and dwelling,uses. operated: 17.10.100 Rear yard—Single-family K. Planned unit developments: dwellin- uses. L. Schools, private. boarding; 17.10.110 Yards—Nonresidential M. Jtility and public service uses including: permitted uses and special uses. 1. Electric substations and distribution 17.10.120 Off-street loading— centers. Nonresidential permitted uses 2, l=ire stations. and special uses. 3. Police stations. 17.10.130 Off-street parking. 4. Radio and television towers, 5. Railroad rights-of-way. 6. Transit and public transportation 17.10.010 Permitted uses. facilities. including shelters. terminals. Permitted uses in an R1 district are as parking areas, and service buildings, -follows: 7. Telephone exchanges, microwave relay A. Single-family detached dwellings: towers and telephone transmission B. Home occupations, as regulated in Section equipment buildings. 17.08.010; 8. Rater filtration plants, pumping stations, C. Parks and playgrounds, publicly-owned and reservoirs, and sewage treatment plants— operated; municipal; D. Schools, elementary, junior high, and high N. Accessory uses to the special uses allowed (norboarding); above in this section, including but not E. Signs, as regulated in Section 17.08.020. limited to off-street parking and off-street F. Temporary buildings for construction loading: purposes for a period not to exceed such O. An executive training center for business construction; and professional personnel, with residential G. Accessory uses to the uses permitted by accommodations, food preparation and this section, including but not limited to service, and recreational facilities for staff off-street parking and off-street loading. and trainees and including the conduct of all (Ord. 1960-16 y VI1(B)(1).) service activities normally incident to a public accounting practice: P. Private heliopad restricted to use for 17.10.020 Special uses. emergency or disaster medical transporta- Special uses in an R1 district are as follows: tion. A. Art galleries and museums; (Ord.'1973-Z-12 l : Ord. 1970-Z-1 9(A): Ord. B. Churches; 1967-14 (part): Ord. 1964-21; Ord. 1960-16 C. Cemeteries» 326 • 'Y / �/)�-�"f`/-l%�71'-(moi.�l./�av // /`per/- /. AIRCRAFT LANDINGS inspector of the health department the duty to 8.04.250 Prosecution of complaints of investigate such charge and, if such nuisance violation. exists, to issue a notice to the owner or The city shall prosecute all complaints of occupant of the property as provided in Section violation of Section 8.04.180. (Ord. 1066-21 8.04.200. (Ord. 1966-21 (part): prior code (part): prior code § 27.1009.) § 27.1005.) 8.04.220 Notice of violation — Service Chapter 8.08 procedure. Any policeman or inspector of the building AIRCRAFT LANDINGS2 department or health department of the city shall serve the notice provided for in Sections Sections: 8.04.200 and 8.04 210 upon the owner or 8.08.010 Definitions. occupant of the property which such nuisance 8.08.020 Restriction on landing within exists, or upon both of them, and shall upon his corporate limits. return make a copy of such notice, showing the 8.08.030 Exemption. time of service, the person upon whom it was 8.08.040 Erection of sign prohibiting served, or the manner in which it was served. landing. (Ord. 1966-21.1 (part). prior code § 27.1006.) 8.08.050 Violation—Penalty. 8.04.230 Nuisance abatement — Investigation. 8.08.010 Definitions. Immediately upon the termination of the For the purposes of this chapter, the time allowed in any such notice for the following words shall have the meanings ascribed abatement of such nuisance, the policeman or to them as follows: inspector of the building department or health A. "Aircraft" means any contrivance now department of the city who served such notice, known or hereafter invented, used or or any other policeman or inspector who shall designed for navigation of or flight in the be assigned by the city sanitarian, shall investi- air. gate to determine whether or not such nuisance B. "Civil aircraft" means any aircraft other has been abated. (Ord. 1966-21 (part): prior than public aircraft. code § 27.1007.) C. "Navigable waters" means any stream, creek or river within three miles of the corporate limits of the city but not within 8.04.240 Complaint procedure upon failure the corporate limits of another municipality. to comply with abatement notice. D. "Operator" means a person who causes or In the event the owner or occupant of the authorizes the operation of an aircraft property where such nuisance exists has failed whether with or without the right of legal within the prescribed time to abate such control of the aircraft. nuisance, then the policeman or Inspector of the E. "Person" means any individual, firm, part- building department or of the health department nership, corporation, company, association, of the city, who filed an affidavit with the city joint stock association, public service sanitarian, or the inspector of the health depart- corporation or body politic. ment who investigated whether such nuisance F. "Public Aircraft" means an aircraft used has been abated, shall file a complaint charging exclusively in the service of any government violation of Section 8.04.180 with the circuit or of any political subdivision thereof, court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, charging including the government of any state, violation of Section 8.04.180 and demanding territory, or possession of the United States, that the owner of the property or the occupant or the District of Columbia,but not including thereof, or both, be punished as provided in any government-owned aircraft engaged in Section 8.04.190. (Ord. 1966-21 (part): prior carrying persons or property for commercial code § 27.1008.) purposes. 99 j CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (Ord. 1978-M-49 § 1: Ord. 1976-M-54 § 1: prior 8.12.040 Deliveries to quarantined code § 28.017a (1).) premises. 8.12.050 Violation—Penalty. 8.08.020 Restriction on landing within corporate limits. 8.12.010 Report required. It is unlawful for the operator of any civil Every physician called in to care for or treat aircraft to cause or permit said civil aircraft a person afflicted with a contagious disease to land or otherwise make any physical touching or any epidemic disease shall make a report of at any time on or upon any navigable water the same within twenty-four hours after being within the corporate limits or within three miles called in to the health officer. In case no of the corporate limits of the city and not physician is in attendance, it shall be the duty of within the corporate limits of another the person in charge or having the care of such municipality or on or upon any land within the person to make a report within twenty-four corporate limits of the city. (Ord. 1976-M-54 hours from the time the disease is recognized. § 2: prior code § 28.017a (11).) (Prior code § 19.101.) 8.08.030 Exemption. 8.12,020 Quarantine. This chapter shall not apply to any valid The board of health shall have the power permit issued pursuant to the Illinois and the authority to place any premises within Aeronautics Act prior to the effective date of whirh a contagious disease or an epidemic the ordinance codified in this chapter. (Ord. occurs under quarantine, and it shall determine 1978-M-49 § 3: Ord. 1976-M-54 § 3: prior code the time when quarantine ends. (Prior code § 28.017a (III).) § 19.102.) `-- 8.08.040 Erection of sign prohibiting landing. 8.12.030 Spreading contagion. The director of public works shall cause to It is unlawful for any person to spread be erected and maintained suitable signs bearing wilfully or carelessly any contagious disease or the inscription, "No Landing of Civil Aircraft to so cause the spread of the same. (Prior code at Any Time," or words of similar import. § 19.103.) (Ord. 1978-14-49 § 4: Ord. 1976-M-54 § 4: prior code § 28.017a (IV).) 8.12.040 Deliveries to quarantined premises. No person engaged in the delivery of food or 8.08.050 Violation — Penalty, drink intended for human consumption shall Any person who violates this chapter shall enter any premises which are quarantined be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than because of the existence of a contagious or five hundred dollars for each offense. (Ord. epidemic disease. No containers or bottles shall 1978-M-49 § 5: Ord. 1976-M-54 § 5: prior code be removed from any such premises until the 28.017a (V).) termination of the quarantine and no such container which has been so removed shall be again placed in use for the carrying of food or drink until the same has been thoroughly Chapter 8.12 sterilized. (Prior code § 19.104.) CONTAGIOUS DISEASES; 8.12.050 Violation — Penalty. Sections: Any person, firm or corporation violating 8.12.010 Report required. any of the provisions of this chapter shall be 8.12.020 Quarantine. fined not less than two dollars nor more than 8.12.030 Spreading contagion. twenty-five dollars for each offense. (Prior code § 19.105.) 100 DATE : October 3 , 1980 TO R. H . van Deusen FROM: E . A. Wilcox SUBJECT : Survey of neighboring communities regarding ordinance enforcement of heliports . A telephone survey of the following communities was conducted by the Planning Department to determine whether they have found it necessary to enforce their zoning ordinance to obtain compliance with regulations governing heliports . Provision within Enforcement Zoning Ordinance Existing of Ordinance to Community regulating heliports Heliport obtain compliance 1 . Arlington Heights Yes (condition in No No any use dis- trict) 2 . Deerfield No No No 3 . Evanston Yes (conditional No " `:<< No use in B- Business C-Commercial M-3 & M-4 Industrial Districts ) 4 . Franklin Park Yes (conditional Yes No ( 1 ) use) (Brunner Lay) Corp. 5 . Hoffman Estates Yes (conditional Yes No use in any (Hospital ) use district) 6. Northbrook Yes (conditional No No use in M-1 Industrial District) 7. Oak Brook. Yes (conditional Yes No use) (McDonalds Corp . ) 8. Park Forest Yes (conditional No No use in M-1 Industrial Districts ) Provision within Enforcement of _ Zoning Ordinance Existing Ordinance to Cor-,mu regulating heliports He�ort obtain compliance r 9. Rosemont No Yes No ( Flying Carpet Hotel ) 10. Schaumburg Yes (conditional No No use in M- Industrial District) 11 . Skokie No No No 12. South Barrington Yes (conditional Yes No use) ( Rose Pack- ing ) 13. St . Charles Yes ( special use No No in R-1 Single Family Resi - dential Dis- trict re- stricted to use for emer- gency or dis- aster medical transportation) 14. Wilmette Yes (conditional No No use in C- Com- mercial and B-1 , B-2 & B-3 Busi - ness Districts ) 15. Winnetka No No No ( 1 ) Note : According to conversation with the Franklin Park Building and Zoning Inspector, the Franklin Park Development and Control Commission recommended approval of the heliport to the Village Board . The Village Board denied approval . The Brunner Lay Corporation was then granted the permit for their heliport by a Circuit Court decision . Source : Conversations with Planning and Zoning Departments October, 1980. 4 Sectign 6 -Chicago Tribune, Thursday, August 21, 1980 N eft en" 7Modf. Point, helgper�lr if By John McCarron endorsed the heliport plan by a 5-too vote. ' twice-hourly. commuter flights to O'Hare. _ Urban Affairs Editor The vote effectively killed the park, which And they told reporters a one-way ticket ALTHOUGH CITY Hall is cosponsoring the Kennedys had promised to build when would cost$32. the River Festival this weekend, the most they sought zoning changes to build the ''IiQwever, they held only a "restrleted ' - far-reaching; action the Byrne adminis .adjacent Apparel Center. use' state permit, which does not allow tration has taken so far on the Chicago ISefore votingagainst the heliport, Com operation of a public commuter service. River has been approval of a plan to pave missioner Leon Despres said, "I support Asked about the apparent discrepancy,the over historic Wolf Point for use as a Ted Kennedy for president but I don't sup- developers said they are going ahead with helicopter pad port his taking away the rivers edge in construction based on their "restricted use" Chicago. permit—They said they soon will apply fur a Despite angry protests from environmen- "Let's have a heliport," Despres said, -commerical use" permit, and that they til groups, developers of the heliport say "but not on'this piece of land. We didn't bet have been assured by state inspectors thaC their 1)1.ujcet is going ahead and that flights an open lakefront by making this kind of the dimensions of Wulf,Point are adequate will betiin as early as Nooernber. tradeoff." for such an operation. I 'rhe Wolf Point controversy-began in April CITY PLANNING officials responded that MEANWHILE, TIIE,Illinol�attorney gen-• wlien developers unveiled the proj- it was .'regrettable" to lose public access to, eral's office has notified state aero- ,!ct before the Chicago Plan Commission. Wulf Point, but that downtown will benefit natics officials that a Wolf Point heliport They asked the commission to free them economically from having a close-in may cause environmental damage. Irorn a commitment they made seven years heliport. A recent leiter from John Van Vranken, af;u to convert Wolf Point into a landscaped chief of the attorney general's Northern 11- 1).)rk. . Several weeks later,The Tribune revealed linois pollution unit, said the heliport would that the developers never obtained the prop- 'cause noise and water pollution i1nd "will , rim. 1)EVELOPE it-owners are the family er safety certification frorn the state, which create a public nuisance." of the late Joseph P. Kennedy of Bostou, would allow them to operate the commercial The letter asks the aeronautics unit to who also own the nearby Apparel Center heliport. ' deny a commercial license for Wolf Point, and Merch;rndise Mart. The developers had told the plan commis- or, at minimum, hold a public hearing on 11yrne loyalists on the plan commission sion they had all necessary permits for the matter. , OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION SOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY �+R S DIRECTORS President Donald H. Craigmile Secretary and Financial Counsel April 21, 1981 CBI Industries, Inc. Vice President Charles A. Goding Director,Corporate Communications Nalco Chemical Company Secretary Julie Pearson Vice President Farnsworth,McKoane&Co. Mr. Bruce F. Kappf, Treasurer T. Brian Malone Assistant Village Manager President Village of Oak Brook Malone,zaiicek&Co. Ltd. 1200 Oak Brook Road Certified Public Accountants James J. Benes Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 President James J. Benes&Associates Dear Bruce: Allred P. Bianucci Attorney at Law The Law Offices of Alfred P. Bianucci, Ltd. Enclosed is a copy of a questionnaire relative to the Joseph A.Jiloty heliport issue which we have prepared and intend to distribute Kodak Regional Director, Midwestern Region Eastman Kodak Co. to a number of OBACI members who we feel may have interest Richard W. Kowal,C.L.U. in this issue. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. Carl L. Neumann Attorney at Law When all of the responses have been received, we will Bishop&Crawford, Ltd, forward copies of the same to you for your use. Carol Walters Director Training, Inc. Very t yours, Administrative Manager Eleanor M. Olsen President The Executive's Secretary, Inc. Past Presidents Alf red P. Bianucci Robert Boers Tom Wason Howard Black APB:Ifj John Ford Enclosure James Bailey Richard Ascher Charles Kiefer James Spiker cc: Mr. Charles A. Goding James Cray Mr. W. R. Andres George M. Schlosser James J. Benes Mr. Peter H. Huizenga 616 ENTERPRISE DRIVE 0 OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 Telephone: (312) 323-0616 OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I, Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No ✓� If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) -- V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes Noy If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No __ i If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No i i I VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No '=" IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company BLISTEX INC_ 1800 Swift Dtive Individual Responding Chwtte,5 E. AAch Position PAezident Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. THE LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIA,yUCCI, LTp. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDURFr�W�� i A April, 1981 APR 3 0 1981 I DIARIZED DOCKETED ATTY. „ ,OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY i Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Dees your Company presently own ah�e(licopter? Yes No " II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No [f yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No __ If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) i VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter (` service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No Y VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company c3J nuc Jc,+ts c.c r ?c�c} ,: Individual Responding C .y {-gyp ,-A ' S'j`=P,4--c,` Position ZA'4" �A-r+ Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. -401'tLej) glOpplcLt'OF OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRO]�+r, ��Ucc/' To ,TVk April, 1981 DIA APR 30 1981 R�zEo A rry DoCktrEo OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No _x II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. 'What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) V_ V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes __ No __ r If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) _ f VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter f service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No zv_ If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No X__�_ VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No _—__ IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company ---- Individual Responding _ Position i Thant; you for your cooperation and assistance. ALF LAPOFFICEi,O THE 'F OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY " MI 'APR 3 0 19$i April, 1981 DIARIZED DOCKETEI) OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No ✓ f If so, on what basis? (Please check one) 4 Own helicopter I Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) II III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use Other (Please describe) THE Ix'W OFFICES 01 RED P. BIANUCCI, LTD V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brgq�c.CEIW11) �for its own needs? J Yes No ✓ 'APR 3 0 1981 ----- ppCKETED :.. If yes, has it constructed such facilities? DIARjZ0 .---- T ATTY• -...•••-..•_... _ .. Yes No __ i i If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No IV/ If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility In Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No V/ IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company Ut-ISa (,AuG tL�.� � , .tSilaia Individual Responding Position r Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. r OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No x If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use Other (Please describe) E UW OFFICES Of V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brq m P. BIANUCcl. iro, for its own needs? RECFTyFD fr Yes ---- No rAPR 3 0 1981 :[f yes, has it constructed such facilities? OIARIZEQI - DOCxE7ED .,..,..„ Yes No --- ATTY. » »..-._._.._...»...»»....�... If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No X If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No i i VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility In Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes _ No �C VIII. Would ;your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Villlage of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No ? IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company Individual Responding Position Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helico ter? Yes No i II, Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No � If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. WhatVA Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) mmuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak B"Aw 0"c' OF ALFRED P BIXNUCCI, LTD. TVE n for its own needs? RE,r � Yes No ` 1J ---- `APR 29 1981 If yes, has it constructed such facilities? DIARIZED -- DOCKETED Yes No --- ATIY. i I If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No _—__(�--- If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No 1 VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a :facility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information conce ning this response. Company Individual Responding Position ��« �A� Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMER April, 1981 CORPORATION 1301 West 22nd Street—Suite 900 Oak Brook,Illinois 60521 O/NK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a he 'copter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) f Commuting to airports General Business Use Other (Please describe) - V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No V If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? / Yes No IX. Pleaserovide the following g information concerning this response. CompanyF• i,. F�ssL�y Mnrc�t�f, C.O , Individual Responding Position ,,�,f.� , Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 �J OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own 7hl' pter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? / Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need fo helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) -- V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in oOak Brook THE LAW OF for its own needs? / ALFRED P. BIMUCCI,I, LTV. Yes No If yes, has it constructed such facilities? APR 3 0 1981 Yes __ .. No DIARIZED _._ DOCKETED ATTY. If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) i VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or,increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five ears? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of i heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as suc , share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and m ' tenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company �jtyt�(�, Gc/ !�� Gp Individual Responding Position Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. THE LAW OFFICES OF M LTD. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMS R' , BIA—' April, 1981 APR 3 0 1981 i r DIARIZED DOCKETED Am. ..._»_–..• – OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) — I III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) . Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) OFFICES OF -"'-" RRALLIR''ED P. BIANUCCCII,, LTD, V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak'Btdok� T V l�,D for its own needs? / MAY 1 1981 Yes Noy DIARIZED ,.._..... DUCM:4 ED If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No __ I I I If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and m 'ntenance? Yes �_- No i VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a f<<cility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company Individual Responding Position Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 i I` I OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I, Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No ✓ If so, on what basis? (Please check one) i Own helicopter i Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) I III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) i Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No j If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No __ If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) ' i VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter , service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No / M If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? I Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land f acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No ViIl. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No V IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company PICc.'e E4 Individual Responding — C k'EEN,i ' Position ` .r �� tAw pFFICES1 LID. pIFRED P•.RE ��( E ty�I V Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Zr�AY 1 �9a� OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INB6X.. 00CKE�E April, 1981 per' e i OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I, Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If ;so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? 1" Yes No If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No __ I If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes _ No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company Individual Responding A) Position THE LA`N offiCES ULTD. ALFRED P Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. `yqwl R OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY t�AY 1'1W April, 1981r)(3CKETED ---- OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Doe,, your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) I III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No `\ i I If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter ' service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility'' Yes No i IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company POLAROID CORPORATION 2020 Swift Drive Individual Responding Wade Culb ers on Position Regional Distribution $ Consumer Services Manager Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. THE LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED EF. eIANUCCI, LTD. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRI'�(�� `LF'` ENVY 14 Ay 4 1981 April, 1981 DIARIZED DOCKETED ATTY. f OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use , Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No ✓ II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No ✓ If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less _ 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week _! IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) �f rv6 ale o ou&, or w•dc a A& rrol�� Commuting to airports TN is PvRf "t General Business Use Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No X If yes, has it constructed such facilities? NA. Yes No If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) N.R VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? 0Ncr Yes :?oss;SCE, No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No t/ VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? �S No7 REgLGr`o�`/ ivn«/TEa3FFsT1"�TA�n'?GASoT TNPh E, Yes No _ IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company v v�L_T�UST L/F� Individual Responding Position .�A 1Mt LAW OFFiC.ES O, ALFRED P diA,NUCCI, lib Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. REC , V `l OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUS%� 4 1981 April, 1981 DIARIZED -- DOCKETED ........•. AAS .«.....« 4 1 G OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No X II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No X If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? i Yes No X I If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak BrookTHELAW OFFICES Of for its own needs? ALFRED F gjANUcCI, LTD. Yes _ No X R�I�,E If yes, has it constructed such facilities? MAY 5 1981 Yes No DIARIZED DOCKETED ' ATTY. ..._.. ...__ ---- i I I If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) No need VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No X If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility In Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No X VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No X IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company JOHNSON CONTR.QLS. INC 2221 Camden Court Individual Responding H. L. Brooks _ Position Vice President, General Manager Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No oo--' II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? i Yes No �►�" If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check ore) Commuting to airports General Business Use Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in THE L LTD. for its own needs? ALMD 1 BWAUCCO, n Yes No I� P,1F ,!'iE V ��V If yes, has it constructed such facilities? MAY 5 1981 Yes No r� DIARiZED ---- DOCKETED ATTY. i If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter ; service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No ✓-'' If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No r--1 VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No ✓� IX. Please provide the following information cone rning this r nse. Company Individual Responding Position Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook 1. Does your Company presently own avhelicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes � aAer No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week _ More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) ---- V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No — -___ i " I f I If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) i VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter - service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No X_ If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes _ No Yo s 5 1 Lit_ r!G;V /Yt 0 VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes _ No _ ��s'Yt,k} !a p,f IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company Individual Responding Ic-_��+IoFF - Position A D m�>J Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. THE LAW OFFICES OF OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUST�ALFRED f >iIANUCCI, LTO. E(:ETVED April, 1981 rte AY 5 1981 DIARIZED __ DOCKETED •rry OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No -- II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in -the past? l Yes No i If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No x If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) _ P---- `_ / 0 A,2 E - V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes _ No If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No ___ i i If no, wh/y has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? \ Yes No _-A If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No X VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes _ No X — VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the 'Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No X __ IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company ev cx-,, Individual Responding , _ -�- Position p THE LAW OFFICES OF Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. ALFRED P. BIANUCCI, LTD. RECEIVED OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND IND J4�Y 5 1981 April, 1981 DIARIZED .....••••• DOCKETED ..»----- ATTY. ...».._.. ..»._.._._......._.....»— i OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I, Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No X If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Daes your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? ---- Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check i one) Commuting to airports General Business Use Other (Please describe) ---- V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? , Yes _ No ` If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No __ If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes —Z,-- No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No --� VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes _ No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company , _Sun__beam Corporation Individual Responding Position - C. P. Leffel, President Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY '"t '`' vF BIA:J1CC1 o. QALFRED i teCtl, LTD I April, 1981 i �� F V�, MAY 6 1981 DIARIZED .-.....- DOCKETED ATTY. .._ OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY i Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes N o V"" A10T 47— bshS► L-OL4 NW II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes Noy/ If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility In Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No Y VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should j the 'Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No 1//�_ IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company General Electric Co. Installation & Service Engineering Individual Responding Billy D. Campbell Position General Manager Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. THE txw OFFICES OF Ai.FREU P. B'"UCCI. L'") RRFF��,,�,rvFv OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND IPFDt7S�TRY M AY 6 1981 April, 1981 ptARIZED — DOCKETED -----� --- AT1Y. I i OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Daes your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? �( Yes No ✓\ I _ r G If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No -y If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) —_ V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? THE LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED P. BIA..l000I, LTD. Yes No P 17CF I VFD If yes, has it constructed such facilities? MAY 5 1981 Yes No -- ---DIARIZED 11-K.&ETED ATTY. -.._.........._.............. ...._......... i , I If no, why has it notpur ed construction of such facilities? (Please explain) - VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter ' service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No y If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such G a facility? Yes No j IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company Individual Responding v �_ Position Thank; you for your cooperation and assistance. i OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 a OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No _X __ II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No Y-s _ If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook icor its own needs? Yes No '.[f yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No __ If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No _ VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company Nalco Chemical Co. 2901 Butterfield Road Individual Responding Charles A - nclinq Position Dir. , Corporate Communications Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. THE LAW OFFICES OF OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTR ALFRED F. BIANUCCI, LT6. April, 1981 Iii A y G 1981 IIARiicu DOCKETED A FTY ............... OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No x II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No x If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) I III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? i Yes No x If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) i Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) N/A —_ V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No x If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No __ s. If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) We can see no need in the immediate future. VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? s Yes No x i i If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No x fVIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No x IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company BUNKER RAMO CORPORATION Individual Responding IJ- ,l_ Gi vPn Position Director, Office P1anagement THE LAW OFFICES Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. �Ap— BIA"ccr, LTD F, VF OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUST 12,"'rr 1981 April, 1981 D►ARIZED AT7Y _ ~ DOCKETEo R � OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No _X— II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? ---- ---� Yes No � If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? I I Yes No If :yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No tl I If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) I G VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? I, Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? 1 Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes _ _ No 'I_1Z __ VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company FC/r7r/ Individual Responding Position ("A G - Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. THE LAW OFFICES OF OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INBU ,-4uccI, LTD. R 117 JVF D April, 1981 MAY 6 1981 DIARIZED - DOCKETED ATiY. _.__ _ ....»._............ OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook 1. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? I Yes No i If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? i Yes No i If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) i Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) — V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilitiesof tN� lTb� for its own needs? `�nTFPr AVFRFo�7jtN Yes No '�` y`�j `AR`{ 7 19B1 If yes, has it constructed such facilities? 0oCK�Ep Yes _^ No _- �►AR►Zt� t)1A,00r----""'".- �'rIY. ---A�• � �...- If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No V VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No A, t c, IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company Individual Responding Position Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? i Yes No �Z/ If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter i Use of other facilities I Other (Please describe) T III. Does your Company have a preen ` need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) / Commuting to airports ? General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No __ i I i If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook hin the next five years? Yes No If yes„ do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No 1/ VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and a "uch, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, a maintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the onstruction and operation of such a facility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company /,tens u�s7tI'fi� �e�� Individual Responding Position Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY THE LAW OFFICES or ALFRED F. BIAJUCCC1,,�LTD. April, 1981 R�'��r'1 Y `�'T'D MAY 7 1981 DIARIZED -- DOCKETED ATTY. - OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No r II. Has ;your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No &-" i If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? GW offices 01 st �,1,FRED P. 81ANUGCI, Yes ---- NO k If yes, has it constructed such facilities? J 1c4� MAY Yes No Dt LRIW) i I If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of i heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? i Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? +4,AI61VT A,"Xs ecust� oto p cxAo sw"I"- N{ t?' !� 3t:M��a6D Yes No sr",CEs 'rte t,Mst.: b f rS OL S p IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. i Company �L S 7- DAk, Individual Responding ?, A , T t L-bry i Position Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 i OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No ✓ II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check r one) Commuting to airports General Business Use I Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities iW0&414F for its own needs? ALFRED p. SIANUCCILTD�� Yes No ✓ -� MAY 5 19 81 If yes, has it constructed such facilities? bIARIZED ........ LX)CKETED --» Yes — No i I If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No Z If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and aintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION 2200 KENSINGTON COURT Individual Responding C2,,ROL BUECHIN Position EMPLOYMENT MANAGER Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? i Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use _ Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes No X If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No __ If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) j VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No X If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes _ No IK _ VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the 'Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company Individual Responding Position Cam. bit, /4/,4f a-a- ✓j' � Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. THE LAW OFFICES OF OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTR;VFRED P. 81AN0001, LTD. R.ECETVED April, 1981 `APR 3 0 1981 DIARIZED DOCKETED AM. __ ..._.�..._.. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities X Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes x No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less x 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? THE LAN OFFICES OF Yes NO ALFRED P. BIANUCCI, LTD. R-w-F:TVED If yes, has it constructed such facilities? MAY 5 1981 Yes No DIARIZED DOCKETED . ATTIC i If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? i YesNo VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? tes No N. VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No .— IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. i Company ts�Ls f�' a G11�E'?J i Individual Responding _ ' s' Position VtC¢, 1 Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 TIIF. LA-Nv OFFICES OF ALFRED P BiiA\t?CCI, LTD. OAK BROOK EAST OFFICE BUILDINC 2000 SPRING ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 CHICAGO OFFICE (312) 654-2900 200 WEST MONROE STREET CHICAGO,ILLINOIS 60606 ALFRED P. BIANUCCI (312) 782-0003 May 14, 1981 Mr. Bruce F. Kappf, Assistant Village Manager Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, Ulinois 60521 Dear Bruce: As indicated in our telephone conversation of Wednesday, May 13, enclosed please find copies of the survey questionnaires which we've received through May 13. You will note, that we have received 29 responses of a total of 62 questionnaires which were forwarded. We asked all those surveyed to return the questionnaires not later than May 15. Consequently, it may be that we will be in receipt of several additional responses by Friday. In that event, we will forward those responses to you the first part of next week. As you will note, in a review of the responses there appears to be no particular or discernable need or desire for helicopter service by those companies responding. If you would like to have a list of the 62 companies to whom the survey was forwarded, ;?lease so advise and we will make it available to you. Those companies that were selected were because of their size and therefore it was anticipated that if there was any general need for this type of service the same would emanate from the larger companies who are members of our association. I trust this information will be helpful to the Man "Commission and the Village Board in their further deliberations on this subject matter. Very truly yours, THE LAW FILES OF ALFR P. BIANUCCI, LTD. By Alfred . Bianucci APB:kmr Enclosures cc: Mr. Charles A. Goding Mr. W.R. Andres Mr. Peter H. Huizenga SUMMARY OF .SURVEY RESULTS 62 DISTRIBUTED, 29 RETURNED TABULATED AS OF MAY 14, 1981 BY BRUCE F. KAPFF OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I. Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No 29 II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes 1 No 28 YES: Waste Management If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities 1 Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes 2 No Z7 YES: Osco Waste Management If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1 - Waste Management 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week 1 - Osco IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one.) Commuting to airports 1 Osco (if competitive with other General Business Use 1 - Waste Management forms) Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oak Brook for its own needs? Yes 1 No 28 YES: Waste Management If yes, has it constructed such facilities? Yes No 1 A If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) current application - Waste Management VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes 3 No 26 YES: Sunbeam Lions Waste Management If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes 1 No 2 YES: Waste Management VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes 1 No 28 YES: Osco V1II. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? YES: Osco Yes 5 No 24 Sunbeam Glidden IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Waste Management Kodak (if regular Company service to Midway, and down- town) Individual Responding Position Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 Apdx. 1 JANUARY 1, 1978 ORDER 11-3 '---- 39. FACILITIES. Every commercial airport shall provide at least the following facilities:. a. Hangar or office. b. Wind direction indicator. c. Fuel and oil facilities. d. Sanitary drinking water. e. First-aid kit. f. Sanitary toilets. g. Adequate fire protection equipment. h. Auto parking area adequately fenced to prevent overrunning of landing area and aircraft parking area by automobiles. L Reasonably accessible telephone. j. Adequate fencing. k. Adequate tie-down facilities. 1,410' Circle marker where anon-standard traffic pattern is used. 40. AIRPORTS FOR NON-CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT. The minimum requirements for the establishment, management or operation of commercial seaplane bases or landing facilities for seaplanes, amphibious planes, or non-conventional types of aircraft such as lighter-than- air aircraft, helicopters, gliders or autogyros shall be such as the Department may prescribe with reference to each application for the establishment, management or operation thereof, in the light of all the conditions and circumstances which exist in connection therewith. a.Y Commercial Heiorts. The minimum requirements for the establishment, management or operation o comme�rc al heliports or landing facilities for rotary-wing aircraft shalt be in accordance with the standards and limitations shown in the following sub-paragraphs of Par. 40 a. and shall be designated as commercial heliports. R(1)A_ Com mercial Heliport Physical Standards. £t. Figure 6-2 - COMMERCIAL HELIPORT PHYSICAL STANDARDS RECTANGULAR CIRCULAR AREAS AREAS Minimum Minimum Minimum Number of Length of Width of Landing Landing Landing Areas Areas Areas Minimum Diameter 1 300' 150' 300' (2) Approach Zones. In order to be eligible for a certificate of approval under these rules a commercial heliport shall initially and continue to provide at least two approach zones which shall be free of obstructions within the ratios and height limitations shown in the attached drawing entitled "Approach Zones for Commercial Heliports." At least two of the approach zones as provided hereinabove shall be so located that the lines bisecting them shall form an arc of not less than 90 degrees at their intersection. 24 0A c o � \2 G F�pu__ VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS May 14, 1981 654-2220 MEMO TO: Plan Commission FROM: Bruce F. Kapff SUBJECT: Heliport Study At the request of the Plan Commission at their regular meeting of April 27, 1981, this item has been placed on the May 18, 1981 Plan Commission agenda for further discussion. Since that meeting, I have been able to gather much informal'-ion on the subject from a number of sources, which are attached to this memo;, and which I will proceed to describe further. Exhibit 1 is a survey which was circulated by the Oak Brook Association of Commerce and Industry at the Village's request in order to determine the degree of interest in the business community for either a private or public heliport. There were 62 questionnaires circulated to larger corporations in the Oak Brook Association of which 29 have been returned as of this date. In discussions with Mr. Bianucci, he has indicated that very few corporations have expressed any interest in heliports. Attached is a summary of the survey results. Mr. Bianucci will forward any other returned questionnaires as well as attend the May 18 meeting to further discuss these survey results. In order to gather information concerning heliports which presently exist throughout the country, I have been in contact with Mr. Richard Hodgkins, Director of Heliport Development with the Helicopter Association of America located in Washington, D.C. The HAA is an organization whose primary role is in assisting communities interested in heliports by assessing their needs, and assisting in the development of a heliport if that course is taken. In assessing the needs of a community with regard to a heliport, Mr. Hodgkins suggested that there is federal funding available to communities which would pay for a private consultant's analysis of the following subject areas: 1. The needs of the community for a heliport as well as its feasibility in the community. 2. Site selection for a heliport in the event the needs justify such a course. 3. A preliminary environmental impact study for the site which is ultimately selected. Concerning feasibility reports which might be available concerning existing heliports, the HAA is presently compiling such reports, although these are entirely related to heliports which are located in large metropolitan areas. None of these reports are completed as of this time. May 14, 1981 Page 2 The Plan Commission also suggested that "feasibility reports for other existing heliports be researched with the idea that these reports might assist the Village of Oak Brook in their study. In talking with a number of sources including the HAA, I have been advised that these "feasibility reports" are very site specific; and, as such, these other studies would not be transferrable to our situation. Furthermore, to the extent that the various Federal and State regulations which would govern the installation and operation of a heliport are already known, these other "feasibility reports" would be of very limited use in analyzing the Oak Brook situation. The following exhibits enumerate the various Federal and State regulations as they relate to the construction and use of heliports. Exhibit 2, from the Illinois Division of Aeronautics, lists the various require- ments concerning a commercial heliport. The facilities which would be required at such a heliport are noted on Page 24 of this exhibit under Item 39. Exhibit 3 from the Illinois Division of Aeronautics lists the various regulations concerning restricted landing areas. Of particular interest in this exhibit is Item 52, entitled "Restrictions on Use", which denotes the difference between a Commercial and a Restricted heliport and further clarifies the distinction between the carrying of passengers for hire, as opposed to carrying of passengers for hire under a continuing bilateral contract. Items 55 and 56 describe various physical parameters concerning a restricted heliport. Exhibit 4 from the FAA contains various design considerations which would affect the construction of a ground-level heliport. Exhibit 5 from the FAA contains the design regulations which should be considered in the construction of an elevated heliport. Exhibit 6 from the FAA summarizes the various design criteria in the construction of either a Public-Use or a Private-Use heliport. The particular classification of a heliport by the FAA is described on the second page of this exhibit. Although the FAA and the Illinois Division of Aeronautics use somewhat different terms to describe the intended use of a heliport, the particular requirements are comparable. The Public U.se classification by the FAA can roughly be equated with the Commercial designation by the Division of Aeronautics; similarly, the Private-U.se designation is comparable to the Restricted Landing Area as defined by the Division of Aero- nautics. The various dimensions which are utilized in sizing a particular heliport relate entirely to the particular dimensions of the helicopter which is intended to use the heliport. Accordingly, I have attached at the back of Exhibit 6 the particular dimensions of a number of helicopters. Underlined on Page 1 of this information are the dimensions for the Bell #206-B Jet Ranger which is the helicopter utilized by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, McDonald's Corporatior�,,and is the helicopter which has been proposed to be used at the Waste Management heliport. Exhibit 7 from the FAA contains various other regulations concerning the location as well as operation of helicopters. To be noted is Item 47 a, Noise, which describes the various concerns to be included in the analysis of any proposed heliport. May 14, 1981 Page 3 In the event that the Plan Commission recommends the continued designation of a heliport in the Special Use category of the ORA-1, ORA-3 and B-3 Zoning Districts, it might be appropriate to include a recommendation concerning the contents of those various sections of the Zoning Ordinance. You have pre- viously received in my memo dated March 27, 1981 copies of the Village of Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance concerning the Special Use designation of heliports as well as various noise and vibration standards which must be met by any use in the various zoning districts. In addition, I have attached Exhibits 8 and 9, the particular Zoning Ordinance sections on heliports from the Village of Glenview and the Village of Park Forest for your review. Whereas the Village of Oak Brook's Zoning Ordinance includes certain physical parameters in the Special Use description of a heliport, the approach taken by other villages is to require that the applicant comply with all of the various FAA and Illinois Division of Aeronautics require- ments simply by reference, in their ordinance, to such regulations. There would seem to be an advantage to this other approach in that our standards would then be continually up to date concerning all safety and other Federal or State requirements. If, on the other hand, particular physical parameters were to be included in Oak Brook's Zoning Ordinance, they may at some future time become contradictory to the pertinent Federal and State regulations. A further problem with the existing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance is that they refer primarily to ground-level heliports and contain no pertinent dimensions for roof-top heliports. If we were to change our Ordinance such that it simply refers to the Federal and State regulations, this sort of inadequacy in the future could be avoided. Both the Glenview and Park Forest Ordinances go one step further than simply referring to these other Federal and State regulations)by limiting the use of any such heliports to certain hours of operation, locations of the touch-down area) as well as other logical constraints. Mr. Hodgkin; from the HAA suggested that this is a common approach by communities interested in such other concerns as noise and nuisances. To the extent that the FAA and Illinois Division of Aeronautics are primerily concerned with the safety involved with a heliport, these "other conditions" which a municipality might include in their Zoning Ordinance would permit the further control of heliport and helicopter operations once the craft is airborne. Respectfully submitted, VPBruce F. Kapff Assistant to Village Manager BFK:jr Att. THE Lniv OFFICES OF ALFRED P MANUCCI, LTD. OAK BROOK EAST OFFICE BUILDING 2000 SPRING ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 (312) 654-2900 CHICAGO OFFICE 200 WEST MONROE STREET CHICAGO,ILLINOIS 60606 ALFRED P. BIANUCCI � � +� � � (312) 782-0003 i Awo < t V V , ry) t 1 _ l OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Survey Questionnaire Regarding Helicopter Use Village of Oak Brook I, Does your Company presently own a helicopter? Yes No II. Has your Company used helicopter transportation to or from Oak Brook in the past? Yes No If so, on what basis? (Please check one) Own helicopter Use of other facilities Other (Please describe) III. Does your Company have a present need for helicopter service in Oak Brook? Yes No If yes, with what frequency? (Please check one) Once per week or less 1-3 times per week More than 3 times per week IV. What is your Company's principal need for helicopter service? (Please check one) Commuting to airports General Business Use Other (Please describe) V. Has your Company considered building heliport facilities in Oakr L�o OFFICES OF for its own needs? ALFRED P. BIANUCCI, LTD, Yes No RECEIVED ---- If yes, has it constructed such facilities? MAY 15 1981` DIARIZED — DOCKETED Yes NO -- ATTY, If no, why has it not pursued construction of such facilities? (Please explain) VI. Do you expect your Company to generate or increase its need for helicopter service in Oak Brook within the next five years? Yes No , If yes, do you expect your Company's service requirements in the next five years to be such that consideration will be given to the installation of heliport facilities in Oak Brook? Yes No VII. Would your Company consider joint-venturing a heliport facility in Oak Brook with other local corporations and as such, share all costs of land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance? Yes No VIII. Would your Company support (use and financial) a municipal heliport should the Village of Oak Brook consider the construction and operation of such a facility? Yes No , IX. Please provide the following information concerning this response. Company Individual Responding Position Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. OAK BROOK ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY April, 1981 VII. Heliport Study General discussion ensued between members of the Plan Commission regarding this subject. Member Reece suggested that the Village settle the present petition before the Village Board with Member Marcy responding that the Village Board sent this study to the Plan Commission to review in a general way regarding the heliport concept. Chairman Barton suggested that the concept of the Special Use approach seemed adequate watil such time as a public/quasi-public heliport facility was utilized. Mr. Rodney Jacobs, Waste Management, commented on the Oak Brook Association of Commerce and Industry's questionnaire and the response to that questionnaire which led him to believe that very few businesses have either the need or the desire for heliport facilities. Chairman Barton suggested that this item be referred back to the Ad Hoc Committee for a definitive recommendation regarding. the Special Use concept and other ordinance revisions or comments. Member O'Brien then moved, seconded by Member Reece, to recommend to the President and Board of Trustees that heliports continue to be a Special U•se within a zoning district and that the Village's regulations regarding heliports be modified to reflect current state and federal regulations, that the concept of rooftop heliports be dealt with within the ordinances, and that heliport facilities be eliminated within the B-3 zoning district and added to the ORA-2 zoning district. Chairman Barton then inquired if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this subject. Mr. Sauerman stated that he worked for a helicopter ser- vice company and further commented that helicopter transportation is the wave of the future. Barbara Reynolds questioned the various zoning districts which would utilize the special use heliport concept. In response to a question from Ken Beard, the Plan Commission responded that the ordinance does not speak to the size and the type of helicopters. Roll call vote: Ayes: (6) Members Bushy, Marcy, O'Brien, Ramm, Reece, Chairman Barton Nays: (0) Absent: (1) Member Antoniou MOTION CARRIED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLAN COMMISSION Minutes -4- May 18, 1981 ou VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS May 19 , 1981 654-2220 President W. F. Cerne and Board of Trustees Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 Re : Heliport Study Gentlemen: At the Regular Plan Commission Meeting held on May 18 , 1981 , the Plan Commission voted, 6-0 , to recommend to the Village Board that the present approach for control of heliports by means of special use in. designated districts be continued, but that the special use provisions relating to heliports be amended in the following respects : 1 . Delete such special use from B-3 districts but add such special use in ORA-2 districts ; 2 . Provide that the applicant must comply with all applicable state and federal regulations concerning heliports and the use of air space ; and 3 . Provide for the possibility of heliports at other than ground level (e. g. , on building rooftops. ) The Plan Commission had available to it , prior to making its recom- mendation as outlined above, the results of a survey of the busi - ness community that showed thirty responses out of sixty-two ques- tionnaires mailed out by OBACI , and of the questionnaires returned only one business was strongly in favor of promoting a heliport operation. Two businesses were mildly interested in supporting a municipal or quasi-public heliport operation, provided sufficient other interest and support were available . The remaining busi - nesses that responded appeared to have no present interest in oper- ating or participating in heliport operations. Accordingly, the President W. F. Cerne and Board of Trustees May 19, 1981 Page 2 . Plan Commission believes tht there will be no great proliferation of heliport applications unc'er the Special Use ordinance, and that that ordinance provides the most effective vehicle for controlling the situation in the light of the present lack of interest on the part of the business community in promoting the use of helicopters. Respectfully submitted, Richard A. B ton Chairman - Plan Commission it VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK MINUTES -2- May 26, 1981 V. OLD BUSINESS A. Albert W. Beutler - Final Plat On May 15, 1981, the Plan Commission recommended approval of the 3 lot Beutler's Subdivision, waiving sidewalks and streetlights. Trustee Watson stated he will abstain from voting due to relationship with owner. Trustee Philip moved - seconded by Trustee Congreve. . . . To approve Beutler's Subdivision as recommended by the Plan Commission and that the Village Attorney be directed to prepare the required resolution. Roll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Congreve, Imrie, Listecki, Philip, and Rush- Nays: none Abstain: Trustee Watson President Cerne indicated approval of the motion. So ordered. B. Fullersburg Traffic Study On May 15, 1981, the Plan Commission recommended the hours of prohibited south- bound turns onto Spring Road from Oak Brook Road be shortened from 3:00 to 6:30P.M. to 4:00 to 6:00 P.M., or take other action deemed advisable to accomodate the residents of the area. Trustee Congreve moved - seconded by Trustee Philip. . . . To amend the Traffic Regulations as recommended by the Plan Commission by changing the hours of restricted southbound turns onto Spring Road at Oak Brook Road to the hours of 4:00 to 6:00 P.M. , and that the Village Attorney prepare the required ordinance. Roll call vote:: Ayes: Trustees Congreve and Philip Nays: Trustees Imrie, Listecki, Rush and Watson President Cerne indicated disapproval of the motion. Trustee Congreve moved - seconded by Trustee Philip. . . . Motion failed. To authorize the attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance to close Spring Road . between Adams Street and Madison Street to effectuate one-way northwest bound traffic movement between the hours of 3:00 and 6:30 P.M. Roll call vote,. Ayes: Trustees Congreve and Philip Nays: Trustees Imrie, Listecki, Rush and Watson President Cerne indicated disapproval of the motion. Trustee Rush moved - seconded by Trustee Watson. . . . Motion failed. To amend the Traffic Regulations changing the hours of prohibited turns onto Spring Road from Oak Brook Road from 3:00 to 6:30 P.M. Monday through Friday to 3:00 to 6:00 P.M. and that the Village Attorney prepare the required ordinance. Roll call vote: Ayes: Trustees Congreve, Imrie, Philip, 'Rush and Watson Nays: Trustee Listecki President Cerne indicated approval of the motion. So ordered C. Heliport Study Without objection, this matter was deferred to the Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting of June 8, 1981. D. Butterfield. Office Venture - Variations & Special Use - Heliport At the Regular Meeting of March 10, 1981, this matter was tabled for a study by the Plan Commission of a community heliport or other alternatives. On May 18, 1981 the Plan Commission recommended Special Uses for Heliports be addressed on a case- by-case basis. On February 16, 1981 the Plan Commission had recommended the Special Use be granted, whereas on March 3, 1981 the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended denial of the Special Use and three variations. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK MINUTES -2- May 26, 1981 Q, FILE v �o y � O � G O V �COUt1 ` VILLAGE OF OAK BKOOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 May 28, 1981 Waste Management, Inc. 900 Jorie Boulevard Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 Attention: Mr. Rodney L. Jacobs Director of Real Estate Dear Mr. Jacobs: The Village Board reviewed the request of Waste Management for the construction of a heliport. on the property located at 3003 Butterfield Road. The matter has been continued to the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting of June 8, 1981. As was indicated at the Village Board meeting, arrangements should be made for the testing of the noise levels which can be arranged through our Fire Chief/Build- ing Commissioner Jim Clark. In addition, our staff will analyze the number of parking spaces necessary and those lost if the pad were to be constructed within the parking area. It was suggested at the Board meeting that Waste Management investigate the alternative of installing the pad either on the shore line and into the lake area adjacent to the build=-ng, or within the lake area itself. I would appreciate if you would provide the Village with information prior to Friday, June 5th so that we can include it in the files that will be sent out at that time. If not, be prepared to discuss the matter at the Co ittee-of-the- Whole meeting; on Monday. If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Si cerely yours, e net h G. Carni ani Village Manager KGC/cak cc: James E. Clark - Fire Chief/Building Commissioner SOUND LEVEL ANALYSES FOR PROPOSED WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC, HELIPORT OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS JUNE, 1981 PREPARED BY JAMES J . BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC . 1100 JORIE BOULEVARD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS INTRODUCTION With the development of their new office space in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Butterfield Road and Meyers Road in Oak Brook , Illinois , Waste Management, Inc. has petitioned the Village of Oak Brook to permit the construction of a heliport on the roof of their building. Upon notice of this intent, the Village Board of Trustees as well as some of the surrounding property owners expressed concern regarding the noise such an installation might produce. The Village also suggested the possibility of studying alter- native sites for the heliport instead of the building 's roof. Consequently, in order to evaluate the noise impacts of helicopter operations in this area, aseries of simulated land- ing, takeoff and hovering manuevers were performed by a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter on June 4 , 1981. During these operations , sound .levels were recorded at various receptor sites so as to develolo data from which an assessment of the noise impacts may be made. EQUIPMENT The sound level meter employed in the survey was a General Radio #1565-B , Type 2 .ANSI , Serial No. 38084. This meter (i.e. a Type 2 classification) is regarded as a general purpose instrument with an accuracy of approximately plus or minus one decibel (dB) . . A Type 1 classification implies a precision meter with an approximate accuracy of plus or minus 0. 5 dB , while a Type 3 classification is assigned to a survey style meter with accuracy in the range of plus or minus 2 dBs. The GenRad meter used in this analysis had a capability to read sound values on an A, B or C weighting scale (shown as dBA, dBB or dBC) . The A weighting measures sound pressures as generally received by the human ear in the range of 20Hz Hertz or cycles per second) to 20 ,000 Hz. The B and C scales expand the sound reception spectrum. An A °scale use has been adopted for the data incorporated in this report; but for com- parison purposes , some C weighted readings were taken when measuring ambient noise levels . The accuracy of the meter was checked on June 3 , 1981, with a General Radio Company Permissible Sound Level Calibrator, Type 1562 A, Approval 2G-2263 , Serial No. 25349 and was found to produce a minimum accuracy of 0 . 5 dB when measuring a sound of 114dB at the microphone at 125 Hz, 250Hz, 500Hz, 1000Hz and 2000H z. 1 RECEPTOR SITES In order to determine the impact of the heliport, five areas surrounding the proposed installation were selected based on their being in closest proximity to the potential site. These locations are shown on Plate No. 1 and are described as follows : 1. South of chapel entrance at Bethany Theological Seminary, northwest corner Meyers Road and Butter- field Road intersection. 2 . Southwest corner of residential condominium com- plex, northeast corner Meyers Road and Butterfield Road intersection. 3. Northwest corner of office building complex, south- east corner of Meyers Road and Butterfield Road intersection. 4. Northwest corner of Ginger Creek subdivision (lot No. 130) , southeast corner of Meyers Road and East- West Tollway intersection. 5. Within Ginger Creek subdivision , south of cul de sac on Wyndham Court. HELIPORT PAD LOCATION Two pad locations were considered in the conduct of this study as follows : 1. East side of roof of Waste Management Inc. building, on south side of Butterfield Road just west of Meyers Road. This location establishes the pad approximate- ly 35 feet above the natural grade surrounding the site 2. In detention pond in southwest corner of Meyers Road intersection This location establishes the pad approximately 15 feet below the natural grade sur- rounding the site GLIDE PATHS Three glide paths for landings and take offs were establish- ed for -the pupose of the study described as follows and as shown on Plate No. 2 : L. From the northeast, generally on a line between 2 Butterfield Road and the East-West Tollwav 2 . From the southwest, generally on a line between Butterfield Road and the East-West Tollway 3. From the northwest, skirting the seminary buildings SOUND PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS Fundamentally, the sound pressure measurements developed in this study were dubdivided into three categories : 1. Ambient sound pressures or the existing noise levels encompassing the receptor site excluding the sound generated by the helicopter. Ambient sounds were re- corded as follows : A. On roof of Waste Management building (Exhibit 1) B. On driveway east of Waste Management building (Exhibit 1) C. Seminary, Receptor Site 1 (Exhibit 4) D. Residential condominiums , Receptor Site 2 (Exhibit 5) E. Commercial building, Receptor Site 3 (Exhibit 8) F. Ginger Creek Subdivision, Receptor Site 4 (Exhibit 11) G. Ginger Creek Subdivision, Receptor Site 5 (Exhibit 14) 2. Base level sound pressures or the sounds generated by the helicopter at a point 100 feet from the pad with the helicopter in a hovering mode at various altitudes A. On roof of Waste Management building (Exhibit 1) B. On driveway east of Waste Management building (Exhibit 1) 3. Receptor sound pressures or the pressures generated by the helicopter with the glide ,path , altitude and take off or landing operations as variables. A. Seminary, Receptor Site 1 (Exhibits 2 , 3 and 4) B. Residential condominiums , Receptor Site 2 (Exhibits 5 ,6 and 7) C. Commercial building, Receptor Site 3 (Exhibits 8 ,9 and 10) D. Ginger Creek Subdivision, Receptor Site 4 (Exhibits 11 , 12 and 13) E. Ginger Creek Subdivision, Receptor Site 5 (Exhibits 14 and 15) 3 Y 0 Q 0 0 .. n 1 SCALE. \ 2 co P- S a5 GE 36 �!. 12] Q 04V S Its u ia• ,v4�s Cl i I26 a, 42 43 • \NO\S �� 13 O IV 1 b O C \\ M 179 2 3 131 -Cr 135 1 (y / w o 137 136 135 13 -1 ' •s 138 zte�MPIA CT. 176 •n O 3 1 139 /. J • 175 •� 140 141. 142 � p5 4 149 1� O 17� ISO 5 144 143 ,mss 97 9d / 151145\ _ ; 181 4 146W, 184 Imo BAS O O ISO JAMES ). BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. RECEPTOR SITES PLATE 1100 JORIE BLVD., OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 O TELEPHONE: (312)6S4-4344 4 Q • 0 h � Y 2 OP S 35 38 a• U C1. � Is 12 A 125 „ 12 43 ►v • IT 130 �Y4O gas 0 G Ibo '1 —c 170 2 g T 132/ 135 176 P wu 1 � W � O 137 136 135 13 Q •s 138 OLYMPIA CT. 176 •� \fit O� 3 139 / 175 1 ss Lal 142 149 140 Vd 150 14♦ 143 ,tea 97 8 �. 96 I51 145 �� � \ tel 4OA. IS2 � i 146 1To 1.153 Z .._ 1ro ._... —r-- _•_ :,� < lab �:1 >l 134 JAMES J. BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. O HELICOPTER PLATE 1100)ORIE BLVD.,OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 0 l_I DE PATHS 2 TELEPHONE:(712)65"3" 5 JAMES x BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. • EXHIBIT 1 6 OAK BROOK. ILLINOIS 60521 • IND:ANAPOILIS.INDIANA 46268 Job No. Ng.: No.. CINCINPI'A71.OHIO 45202 Dw,e u ta�� Subject, (5QT � , Project By Qp n Ch,_ Sh. of JO`tili �,��V �l�Q�� th2 GAS SCtiN7 LeJ ovic- cfl1311u4M k/C��.} �1N6, A ' hp R i � �t;c.�a��.S �H.>r �u�c.���—S �►.�,�c- �t�c,lpSls�.S �1 ri,tf' O�c..��ssr�S 1 %_�� •� ��.6? :3 �.� Lr1. cr OZ.S c, ini r it S�.S ✓ �2. n �cr� °� V 51. o ~2 L Qls P Sq.o 1� j 59•'� � 4 f�• �, t+► C9 p i Lg p ✓ c-2_S I 13 5L3 D (A-0 vi JAMES J BENES JL74D ASSOCIATES,INC. • EXHIBIT 2 7 aK BROOK.ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 Job No. Page No. CINCINNATI.OHIO 45202 Date ^�- ` 1 Subject QAC_C-.`P� �S' Project By llf) Ch. Sh. of L T3�• AQP Q O A C 4-1'-- sa'-t N e- cx. : n �cv, 0 C.2.o Ped. m 100° +.r c- IDcc 6C,\-S -T'ri,rd Oc-ci gc- .s T-,,n�— OE c.iSE�g . r `'�' oo _ i -- _ ti _Sa Izo � ' " I'{ 11 tt 21 . 22 23 ZS CA:o-�. JAMES J BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. • EXHIBIT 3 OAK BROOK.1 L UNOLS 60321 INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 . Job No. page No. 8 CINCINNATI,01410 43202 Date ^A- q M 1 Subject ��G�� i'� �'T'�S' project By ±R:Q Ch. Sh, of Lo �10 t t �4e e r- La��e, -LL Qlrec.� e S 1�E� LQ c a-�1 ri ; tJ 1.c.( l�. _I� : ��.� �}+-� �.!�► ��+`��.� 6, : 1, O'erc.\-,tr L�s AT ns e'-1 20.7 toy �►1: 1S (•�, � loo' 1� : So :-zo 1-(� �(Cc1o,4'L.s 'D C- T Vc-cigc-Ls TI,,,,�— r 2 3 d s 1� 12 13 N l� - 1 lg _. It Z2 23 is JAMES J. BENES AND ASSOCIATES.INC. EXHIBIT 4 J OAK BROOK.IILLINOIS 60521 • INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 • Job No. Page No. 9 CINCINNATI.(*110 45202 Date K^a, q Subjectvim. '�)�— `��'S� Project By E-RQ Ch. Sh. of �. . Qat; Lo c./��t o t k L a ¢� - Aeo a o A c L-,-- ty n Y--1-L, w P- C-,to,S: 1,�s v F-tL SC6 `. k'L �iZ. S tom t«o 17 \�•r�� �(CG►asI:LS �� ��e�Aje':LS T�Mr� Vc G1 T,,�,L� r °\ :ao so, c' g ✓ 51.S a ✓ 5io . I.� j ✓ S3.c� It � I ✓ �SS,;� 13 i ✓�52.'S v s.V Iv ✓ SL.t> t� V- -/-7 ✓-7 q 23 ✓ SSa V S 1 D ZS CV- 02 ✓So ,� JAMES J.BENES AND ASSOCIATES,INC. • EXHIBIT 5 OAK BROOK.II.I.INOIS 60521 INDIANAPOI.K INDIANA 46268 • Job No. page No. 10 CINCINNATI.OHIO 45202 Date K^R- �1 Subject ���`P��2- S �"T'�y Project By Ch. Sh. of 1►_� 4_ L'G,A lG a r' La. , c-t L,6�a- , r� QQ ! Co., 4 C. o _ j 1 J. A Moe- T,.v%cr 71 t*' 'De'ci9C-Ls T, c-- �Ec lbe�S - fCA tLO _ 9.�- '. 411 I r sCo `` 1� ✓ 5-� - -�-- III' i �_ s ,? }C) { 1 f t TAMES J. BENES AND ASSOCIATES,INC. • EXHIBIT 6 OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIIS.INDIANA 462" • Job No. Page No. CINCINNATI,10H 10 45202 Date K^Q- °' Subject Project By . Ch. Sh. of =LL_ e_s-- fc,�3�`S i I i ..___20' ' i —1.1-`-�!bQ�; �2. ._ ..1..�a♦� � `o� �� i 5� o o Ci 2 .S' i -i tool _ �`� Q1 o+r �8 S Zoe' ►1 : S"1 lo , Lz :� o . ' p 5 Zo 3 - 1 e t } i 9 +- Z { 13 �.._, _. iS ' f I i I s IZ IM f .---t �._ 2 a JAMES I BENES AND ASSOCIATES,INC. • EXHIBIT 7 OAK SHOOK.I LUNO W. INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 Job No. Page No. 12 CINCINNATI.'OHIO 45202 pate vi } Subject Project BY Ch. Sh. of I I -1- -i---1_4 1_ . LA. l G hL.-1 � �.e � �t- a .r �--4 ►c Q, ,.�dG i�rt__ S 1"(� L.e c.A�'i p�� � C.' CX K�- �•, � o S ' i r,e.Rr2 �, 1 •�5 I . &I U i-i- Fa Com, , s`3 two i - lij� i ' +(J �j.t� bL-cLIAUs 'V��f s 'D �b��.S TK. �G—t.!3��.5 T�►.ntr '7�c1bE�1 - I 2 ' I � i 4— -T- 4 F—t .F. - t ZS JAMES J.$EKES AND ASSOCUTES,INC. • EXHIBIT 8 OAK !ROOK.IILUNOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS: INDIANA 46268 • Job No. Page No. 13 GN INNAT1,CH 10 45202 Date K^a- q Subject ��-G�`P 2- �"��5 Project By F-�� Ch. Sh, of 1� 4- ' Qj 1 l o� 0-1C-1- SN' `� 1 r ; ° 1 '0 Lf 6 Ll i 0, H.cr I OC-C-14A;LS NC� 'DG-C16t-.S vc-ciRc- T,14 ,,,,� vs i t� _ .�_ i / .. p ?1 f r s , JAMES J,BENE,$ AND ASSOCIATES,INC. • EXHIBIT 9 OkK NOOK.ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOCI&INDIANA 46268 • Job No. Page No. 14 CINCINNATI,OHIO 45202 Date ^R- Subject Project By F-•P� Ch,_, Sh, of Q o-3 �p Or LoCA �1.o1., -aT'•;—'�Qo cz o,�a c ter- . 1E..( e s'+;-� n A j �+n.N 7►N V "(sem DewC- 's C--S .w. 2 0� ' l '1` , O.I�: �'S .._}t•Ci O 1 0�� 12 1 o S . �-t S (a�,S foo;' 20=x' �-i' o sx hfCG14�kLS Ttm4:t ! �GC��SI�.S ��v. 17�Gte'3L'lS Tlpn� ��G-Ibl:tS i —4-4 _. 1 j i i 7 It JAMES J. BENES AND ASSOCIATES,INC. O EXHIBIT 10 OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 • Job No. Page No. 15 CINCINNATI,01410 45202 pate KIR- °1 '1 Subject o Project By F'' Ch. Sh. of S E i A-- r�sc.� `-S --_._ . 71. i._.. o� I_ leo � t�"� �t.� � -�`•�;>� Z'o�� O ..�• ' OI OIL1, eL s T,+v,ct T��L�4rsts ,.<. 9G-G1��LSA Tv--p f.- 0EC1b�S f _ s r ` 3 G 1 r S f t t JAMES J, BLNES .AND ASSOCIATES, INC. • EXHIBIT 11 OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 • Job No. Page No. 15 CI NCINNATI.OHIO 45202 Date K^�- r. .1 ei Subject !(- -2) `'ir,�/ � Project BY E.. '�� Ch. Sh, of -4 QBGG j &I, yee Crt-e � (✓(�. c 4+ 'D TF►n:<s' 0,0 rJ - --i- _'+'�,z<, `_ ✓_L�, X30. 0 12 Vi� O ✓SS•o logo �� ".__ ._.�__.i_ _�✓LS.� _. '. . ..✓. [o�.�, -tom, s IS r- -' f I'S - !� !✓ s� .o ✓OZ.S ��.� JAMES JIG BENES AND ASSOCIATES.INC. • E XH I B I T 12 OhK BROOK.ILUNOI.S 60521 INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 • Job No. Page No. 17 CINCINNATI.,OHIO 45202 pate K^Q- Subject : �' — Project — 8y ±-f� Ch._ \ Sh. of ed' L�c.p, �-4 cn, n erS I�-d A 1 � , 's • i J -7 , M�E� (CLI/5('LS Ti 'DG-C- 64\.s T Y*o6— gc-Ls T, ��C.Iti6bS I i 1 � 1 � P 1 4- t1t ZD r JAMES J. BENES A]:1T'D ASSOCIATES. I11TC. • EXHIBIT 13 aK WIOOK.ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 • Job No, Page No. 1 CINCINNATI,OFI10 45202 Date '{^R. Ll ItJbl Subject v� .. o 1 Project By F'' Ch. Sh. of � 1 • i { , .pcN X71 N� I a���+0 �� TT O 3. 'V, M« /eLI�L.S `,1Q"QC "D 71M QGGigc-Ls T,MLT 1 i f _;_._ 4_4 ; 1 17-4 is 7 Ig ' zS - 4_t__ _ JAMES A BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ® EXHIBIT 14 OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 • Job No, Page No. 19 CINCINNATI.OHIO 45202 Date Subject�v :�. Project Bye Ch. Sh, of -A C _�. kfva.0AG. 1-4• s.. �L`� — .�J'Grl-1 Q� Cs--Z �. -Ar.-I_t:.r._' _f- v�+-Y 1r(er t U i-i-j fes, t� s N• e-.1 T. �. f4 �i <e►.t � C 'D 71 Qe•c i gc-" Ti. f 0` ".S K. �4 ✓ S`L, O -1. Pati (.`i, ° 3i,� ✓Sb "S e��( d �✓ " ' S Z 10 Is - ✓. ` Is ✓ I:� 4-to° . ° s 2S _.I •o� _ . _��_��i,� 5'9,0 �� �� G �'° . JAMES J BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. • EXHIBIT 15 alc eAoou.II.,uNols W. � — INDIANAPOLI&INDIANA 46268 Job No. Page No. 2 CINCIN NATI.OHIO 45202 Date K^�- � 1 Subject �� 2 5 �'T'�S� Project _ ByF''�� Ch. Sh. of -u Q'%&CirGLoc.AT1pu C-o1*--Jc., ��, ( ��l,, 1� , 'So.1..a� � l.,�J e`. (��A,p�r.► cam,S N. __t s'L ; rr- ca I+, ".i h, ; C a} N••�� n A�. ,, -r, .�•`-- �������s Ate. 1 �n� � � ���3��-s �4. . a � 1ST '1'1 . 0 1 Z `� C, -7Z.o eC O(Gr-1^A'LS 'D4 t, sl.S 71 gc-" f 15 ._ i 22 _, SOUND PRESSURE DATA SUMMARY I . "Average" ambient sound pressures In order to establish an "average" ambient sound level for the period during which the noise measurements were taken, a procedure is used which establishes Leq, or the equivalent steady state sound level which, during the duration of the measurements , would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same period. Calculations for Leqfor the seven areas of investigation are included in this report. Le qq* L q** Location Time of Day Le A. Roof of Waste Management bldg. 9 : 30 AM. 59 . 4 59 . 4 B. Driveway east of Waste Management bldg. 8 : 45 AM. 63. 2 59 . E C. Seminary, Re,;:7eptor Site 1 9 : 00 AM. 63. 5 54. 0 D. Residential condominiums , Receptor Site 2 9 : 10 AM. 61. 0 55. 8 E. Commercial bldg, Receptor Site 3 1 :25 PM. 59 . 3 59 . 3 F. Ginger Creek Subdivision, Receptor Site 4 12 : 15 PM. 65. 0 64. 0 G. Ginger Creek Subdivision, Receptor Site 5 1 : 05 PM. 54. 7 54. 2 * including entire measured sound spectrum ** adjusted spectrum deleting high sound generation incidents (e.g. jet airplane) II . Base level sound pressures (helicopter .noise in hovering mode at various altitudes above pad) . The objective of these measurements is to establish the maximum noise produced by the helicopter to use as a comparison with noise level measurements at the various receptor.- sites. A. Roof of Waste Management building with sound pressure meter 100 ft. from future pad position, 10 : 30 AM. Altitude dBA 300 ft. 81. 5 200 ft. 86 . 5 100 ft. 91. 5 6 ft. 88 21 B. Driveway east of Waste Management building with sound . pressure meter approximately 200 ft. from anticipated pad location in detention basin Altitude dBA 300 ft. 75 200 ft. 77 100 ft. 79 III. Receptor sound pressures So as to determine the effect of the helicopter in terms of sound gen- eration, 5 sE�nsitive sites in the area were selected as shown on Plate No. 1 for noise measurements during various phases of helicopter oper- ations. The results of these recordings are shown on Plate No. 3. NOISE LEVEL AND ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS In order to relate the data shown on Plate No. 3 to other sound pressure levels experienced during daily activities , Plate No. 4 provides a scale of decihel le::veis for ncises tiiroughout Lhe human audible spectrum. Construction equipment is known to produce especi.aliy h;.gh levies of noise. So as to draw further comparisons between the sound levels ex- perienced during the helicopter tests and construction noises, Plate No. 5 provides a summary of construction machinery noises at varying receptor distances. 22 JAMES J. BENES ,AND ASSOCIATES,INC. • E X I B I T 16 OAK BROOK.ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 • Job No. 233 Page No. 23 CINCINNATI,OHIO 45202 Date OUhe 5, I,°� Subject I -=omQu-�a-kl�ns Project (10234e Man� ;'Zk7' "4 Bya�J b Ch. Sh. of g n-� building Roo-F o��- C..�ctske Mana9eme A 13 _�u rnd Lee l Pet a�we Re(c.{gyve TO fal IVI¢ter_ .dBA Suuncl Cner�y �y C coon-( Sound Ene :... ,...,...�...._r-tom... '._. G3.1 2o, O j_ .. 12,5 ►1b,0' C. 3 .x_ 2 4S . 2 . 4 _ 60__ �_; __ ___i- 10. 0 17. 94 , 2t . 166 / 7 t 1 - -- S7 01 2 -��... �._� � , ►0. 02 -� � Y__ 220 4 -- f _+ 1 ,Avg:. re(ail�1e sound► QneroG) 220 $4a 0.8° ►4. 5 t. 7. 94 22,0 f f 3 JAMES J BENES AND ASSOCIATES,INC. • E X I B I T 17 OAK BROOK.ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS,INDIANA 46268 • Job No. 2326 Page No.?4 CINCINNATI,OH10 45202 Date�� �` � Subject Leg ComQuia��tohs Project she nanemen4 By iLO Ch. Sh. 2 of 8 �r i veuio-y Ira-' o�F (A)aske. Mo.n a3e me 4 (o I d 9 A - i3 C __ Ion I ► oo -mo-_. .1......-..1..... ;,... .._ _.. "79.4- :. .. ( _ 79.4. 4 f .� 103.1 I " Co3 t . j { too : ( 3 Is 2, 2 45.0 : G 2.5 I a w ; . ' 2 5G.0 - _f S 4 59 _ 7,U I 7.94 G.31 ? - ; 57, S— --- 5-7 5, o ► I _ t 5(.5 4•,4 I 4.49 4__ r 4 55,.5 _ 7 5 _ .__....._ 51.S I , 42 1 !. 42 2 2.52 (,4 2 5, ( 24 49 B. 97 6 3 = 20. o �,� 498.97_ 5.1 L .,= (o3.2 det,, 24 JAMES J BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. • E X I E I T 18 OAK BROOK. ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOILIS,INDIANA 46268 • Job No. 232) Page No. G 5 CINCINNATI.,OHIO 45202 Date �° _ Subject C°rnpc�fa�i:7n5 Project ()Cute Manaq¢men�' J — By -L�—b Ch._ Sh.-!—of 12.6 E F _a 10.0 _ t 5 a � G."61 2 12 (o2- 4.49 024.49 I A. 49 + — _t ._._.... ..,....1. ..... b._...,.-4.-...-,.�. 3, 98 9. 4 8 p 52 ►. S°� 2 3. 18 1.42 Z 2. 84 51 a (. ZCo 1 , Z(O 1 4 I, 00 2 2 , 00. — 25.1 5to7, SCo22. 71 5 Zo.o JAMES J. BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. • EXIBIT 19 OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS,INDIANA 46268 • Job No.233 Page No, 26 CINCINNATI,OHIO 45202 Date Jvne S , 19'61 Subject Len. Compu+a_+ions Project WISfe- MIELa emenf By L 13 Ch._ Sh. 4 of � Q l 6 '�+eiid6�'1T10.I COnCi0rntYlIUYnF _ .. I'�C • . ° _ F j j Is °�.-7 _ _.. (o � too 59. 5_ 17. 94 56 57• S 57 5,0( 5(0.5 4.41) I 4,49 5C� -- -- 55.S _. 3.57 7, 14 � i i o0 L I 50.5 3 3 3s 39 4.9 0. 94 I 0, ?,D 25 12, 89 (aI = I2.( G,o = 10.E 2.52 25 2.60 0.07 a , JAMES J BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. • E X I B I T 20 OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS,INDIANA 46268 Job No. ZS-3 Page No. '7 CINCINNATI.OHIO 45202 Date JUne 8, 198 Subject Lr4 Compu+a�cans Project Waske Maym9evre_ By J J Ch.— Sh. 5 of 8 — co M' Mi amial 6U66kyv3 54C B < 4 R l ti 5 r 1 t i � f r_ • a i _ P j . 4 2o, E r {¢ G,2 J _. t 5.°� m_ I ► S. 9 E ._.. � 3 .�2 59 3 2 . ! sa _ # + 57 S.o1 4- 2 0. 04 5(0 3.98 i 3.g8 4 8 54 2. S1 1 2. S1 ._ 52 x .59 2 3. 18 . ► _._ + 21Z,76 f eoo= 10. 0 25 40.S77 2,0 G L 5g.3 d fad x _ JAMES J. BENES .AND ASSOCIATES,INC. • EXIBIT 21 OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS,INDIANA 46268 Job No. 2.33 Page No. 2 B CINCINNATI,OHIO 45202 Date June 6, t°,�I Subject Le-Carn0U�0,: MkM project Waste MaKaclQwicv4' By J LL Ch. Sh. of ._._ G►h9e,r &e¢ I, 5 i-I 73 . _ 2o,U _ �, I m.� 200 72 _; f 1 e ?Q 79.4 4 11 12 . 2 6 7 80. 1 G0. 1 a5 _j-4 __ 31.E 2 X3. 2 25. 1 22.5 _ (42 15. 3 47.7 _ X2.5 is .o Z 36.0 X0.5 11..3 1 l 1. 3 o rf r i 59 7.94 .7 5� x, 31 3 ► �.��� JAMES J BENES .AND ASSOCIATES, INC. • E X I B I T 22 OAK BROOK,ILLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS.INDIANA 46268 . Job No.233 Page No. 12— CINCINNATI,OHIO 45202 Date June f�� X98 Subject L= CAm;D"Aa�t.on5 Project C.l�a�'eMarlaaQl,�c�►_rE- By 01 B Ch. Sh. 7 of 8 Ginger. C.roe k. 5i4e 4 c,.©►4 , p 57 f t , ( t tt, i A, # -,_ SS _,_ a 5 ...,.. ., j f t s ; ti a . 31 33 � i , , 3 e t r b . r r r , t r E i f a a , JAMES J BENES AND ASSOCIATES,INC. • E X I B I T 23 OAK BROOK,II LLINOIS 60521 INDIANAPOLIS,INDIANA 46268 • Job No.2:33 Page No.3'O CINCINNATI,IDHIO 45202 Date a�urt5- 81 19 F � Subject LIQ Corrlpu+a+L4ns Project Wastc mar,agewe-M4 By . J � Ch. Sh. 8 of G►nnar Creek &4e. _ __.. 7.94- 1 7. 94 .s r L4 _-4.49 -�'- 55.5 3 .57 14 r- -` i i r 9, 4a S { z F 54 ff 54 ' 2. G112.55 � , .__... _ s �--- ___-I---�_ ; 1 !_ 53 2.00 6 ,Q01{S ; i 51.5 1.42 G`3 � F 3;7s 50.5 1 , 13 2. 2(0 _ __ 5O 149, tO ! 54 -- 2.51 149. 10 r 2, 18 ; . 47 0 �s Le,= 54.7 d 6 A 4¢ A 1 f J Q WEST GLIDE PATH dBA EAST GLIDE PATH dBA NW GLIDE PATH dBA SITE F", LANDING TAKE OFF LANDING TAKE OFF LANDING TAKE OFF a 300 20C 100PAD 00 200 10 PAD 300 200 100 AD 00 200100 AD 300 20C 1 00 AD 300 200100 PAD 1 63.5 54d 62 60.5 6 4.5 69.5 7 1.5 72 73.5 74 (o2 (o6 64 74 - - - - 59 62.5 68.5 70 - - - - 2 61.0 65.8160 58 58.5 61 61.51 62 62.5 61 65 65.5 G4 61 64.5 66 66.5 61 -% 61 63 61 - 3 59.3 59.3 63 66 63 65 56 58 65.5 68 62 61 70.51 68 69 74 65 65 60 62 59.5 65 - _ - 4 65.0 60 - - - - 60 60 59 61.5 64 64 66 60 64 66 - 65 64 61 66.5 65 - - - 5 1 ,54.7 54,2 5E.E B E Ovt/ FO R F L O EQ D TA Site No. 4 Fly Over at 300 ft. Site No. 5 Fly Over At 300 ft. Altitude 70 dBA Altitude Commencing at 1 : 14 PM. and recorded in 5 sec. Intervals Begin : 54. 0 dBA 70. 0 57. 0 69. 0 59 . 0 63. 0 62. 0 55. 0 dBA 67. 0 JAMES J. BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. O SI MIMPPY OF POR S ITE DBA PLATE 1100 JORIE BLVD, OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 , OIL 4-,TELEPHONE (312)6S4-4344 �0 READINGS WITH NFU CCPFR FFFFCT 3 1 vy` � � � . . �i�P�iA► til:.. •.. Grou • • • • • I I�rLd >dl I ( d.�f • -v Heavy Truck �• • • • • • peech onversational 1 010o 0 AZY • L' IIIII Njlr 11111111111I1f1 111111116111r�11�i��'�IIIIIIF,,I—',Poo lll!i.it] ;1 %11111101611 .••� I • Ilallfl"11.1=d■R'!.I 451N i{I � . r �, �� ,� ..��`. 1111111",IIIIIIIUIIII'I�11.Ihadlgll.. Ori i �1 1 y • • i,��� ,:c`-Ik`w•� - 3 r t' .�'i'!Iii•.1t°ti • 1:1�?H aaaam FPOM IL=I�INOIS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION TP.AFFIC NOISE AND VIBRATION MAN UAL Construction Machinery Noise dBA dBA dBA at at at 50 ' 100 ' 200 ' Air Compressor 81 75 69 Backhoe 85 79 73 Concrete Mixer 85 79 73 Concrete Pump 82 76 70 Concrete Vibrator 76 70 64 Crane , Derrick 88 82 76 Crane , Mobile 83 77 71 Dozer 80 74 68 Generator 78 72 66 Grader 85 79 73 Jack Hammer 88 82 76 Loader 79 73 67 Paver 89 83 77 Pile Driver 101 95 89 Pneumatic Tool 85 79 73 Pump 76 70 64 Rock Drill 98 92 86 Roller 74 68 62 Saw 78 72 66 Scraper 88 82 76 Shovel 82 76 70 Truck 91 85 79 Engines used in above construction equipment have standard mufflers. If muffler is omitted, add 15 dBA to each noise level shown. AAMES J. BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. O r'0NSTPTTCTION PL?"7E 11001OR1E BLVD., OAK BROOK, iuiNOis boszl MACHINERY NOISE TELEPHONE: (312)654.4344 0I 33 NOISE STANDARDS In order to draw any conclusions concerning the impacts of sound levels on various activity categories , the federal government, through its Federal Highway Administration has established a list- ing of maximum design noise levels (.Lea) for both exterior and in- terior conditions. This data is shown on Plate No. 6 . Plate No. 16 also establishes for interior receptors the highest corresponding exterior noise level which would achieve an interior design noise level which meets the FHWA standard of 52 dBA. CONCLUSIONS 'fie ambient sound level samples taken in this survey were of a rel- atively short duration , averaging only two to four minutes for each series of measurements . Therefore, it is difficult to establish that they are fully representative of the equivalent steady state sound :Levels at each receptor for the average day. (For example , refer to the data listed for Site No. 4 on Plate No. 3; the Lea for ambient conditions is generally higher than the levels recorded during the helicopter testing) . However, predicated on the information as developed herein , the sound. level impacts when expressed in terms of the hourly equivalent steady state sound levels fall well within the standards as shown on Plate No. 6 for Activity Category B. Similarly, since the maximum sound pressure produced by the helicopter at any of -rhe receptor sites was 74 dBA, interior noise levels would not exceed 52dBA which is the design standard for Activity Category 1]. 34 FROM FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM MANUAL AND AS INCLUDED IN ILLINOIS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC NOISE AND VIBRATION MAUNAL TABLE 1 (FHPM 7-7-3, Figure 3-1) DESIGN NOISE LEVEL/ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS Design Activity Noise Levels Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category A 57 Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are (Exterior) of extraordinary significance and serve an im- portant public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, open spaces, or his- _ toric districts which are dedicated or recog- nized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active (Exterior) sports areas, and parks which are not included in. Category A and residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Developed lands, properties or activities not in- (Exterior) cluded in Categories A or B above. D -- For requirements on undeveloped lands see paragraphs lla and c.(of FHPM 7-7-3) E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, (Interior) schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and audi- toriums. Corresponding Highest Noise Reduction Exterior Noise Due to Level Which Would Exterior of Achieve an Interior Design Building Type Window Condition the Structure Noise Level of 52 dBA All Open 10 dB 62 dBA Light Frame Ordinary Sash Closed 20 72 With Storm Windows 25 77 Masonry Single Glazed 25 77 Masonry Double Glazed 35 87 JAMES J. BENES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. O DESIGN NOISE LEVEL PLATE 1100)ORIE BLVD., OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 & TELEPHONE (311)6S44344 0 ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS 6 35 0oA e 0 s A 9 F� U VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 June 5, 1981 Memo To: Ken G. Carmignani From: Bruce Kapff Subject: Heliport Study The following memo has been compiled with the intent of simplifying the information which is already within the file as well as to serve as an elaboration on the specific points contained within the Plan Commissions` recommendation to the Village Board. The following are the specific items presently in the file beginning from the back of the file and working forward. 1. March 10, 1981 - Village Board Minutes - at which time the Village Board voted to table the requested Special Use for a Heliport by the Butterfield Office Venture until such time as the Plan Commission would be able to perform a study on the subject of Heliports. 2. March 13, 1981 - Letter from myself to the Plan Commission indicating the intended scope of the Heliport Study. 3. March 16, 1981 - Plan Commission Minutes - at which time an Ad Hoc Committee to perform the Heliport Study was appointed. 4. NTSB 1974 report on Rotor Craft Accidents. 5. NTSB 1973 report on Rotor Craft Accidents. 6. Ken G. Carmignani's memo to Village Board dated August 16, 1976 summarizing the Rotor Craft Accident data. 7. Ordinance S-267 dated October 27, 1976 approving an Agreement between the Village of Oak Brook and McDonalds Corporation to permit McDonalds to operate a rooftop Heliport for a period of one year. 8. Ordinance S-392 dated December 15, 1977 extending the above Agreement to an unlimited period of time. 9. Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards relative to noise and vibration. 10. Zoning Ordinance Heliport Standards as presently contained in the Special Use Section of ORA-1, ORA-3 and B-3. -2- 11. ZBA Minutes (March 3rd) and Recommendation Letter (March 5th) recommending denial of the requested Special Use Permit for a Heliport as requested by the Butterfield Office Venture. 12. March 31, 1981 - Ad Hoc Committee Minutes on the Heliport Study. 13. OBACI sample copy of survey to commercial properties within the Village. 14. May 14, 1981 memo including nine exhibits from myself to the Plan Commission listing the various possible courses of action with respect to Heliports. 15. Plan Commission Minutes (May 18) and recommendation letter (May 19) to the Village Board on the recommended course of action which the Village should take with respect to the control of Heliports within the Village of Oak Brook. The following is a clarification of the 3 specific recommendations made by the Plan Commission with respect to Heliports. 1. Delete such Special Use from B-3 Districts but add such Special Use in ORA-2 Districts. The Zoning Ordinance presently lists Heliports as a Special Use in the ORA-1, ORA-3 and B-3 Zoning Districts. The Plan Commission's intent is to include Heliports as a Special Use only in the 3 ORA Districts. To continue the inclusion of the Heliport Special Use in the B-3 District would provide for such Special Use on properties in the B-3 Zoning Districts adjacent to the intersection of 22nd Street and Midwest Road, as well as South of the Spring Road/York Road intersection. 2. Provide that the applicant must comply with all applicable State and Federal Regulations concerning Heliports and use of air space. Whereas the Village of Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance states certain physical parameters in the Special Use description (for example the requirement that the heliport be enclosed by a fence and be not less than 100 feet in diameter) , the approach taken by other Villages is to require that the applicant comply with all of the various FAA and Illinois Division of Aeronautics requirements simply by reference in their Ordinances to such regulations. Exhibits 8 and 9 illustrate the particular Zoning Ordinance Section on Heliports from the Villages of Glenview and Park Forest. The specific advantage to this approach is that our standards would then be continually up-to-date concerning all safety and other Federal or State requirements. Furthermore, the Commission's recommendation was not to copy the various State and Federal Regulations word for word within our Ordinance, but rather to simply contain a statement within our Ordinance stating that the applicant must comply with all applicable State and Federal Regulations. 3. Provide for the possibility of Heliports at other than ground level, e.g. on building rooftops. The Heliport standards as contained in our present Ordinance indicate a possible deficiency in that the standards listed, (e.g. fencing and 100 foot in diameter) , apparently refer to only ground level Heliports. Their recommendation is to specifically state that rooftop and ground level Heliports are an allowable Special Use. -3- I have contacted both the FAA and the Illinois Division of Aeronautics and representatives from both of those organizations will be present at the Monday, June 8th Committee of the Whole Meeting to answer further questions of the Village Board. Respectfully submitted, 00 Bruce F. Kapff Assistant to Village Manager BFK/ecs