HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 08/02/1978 - AMBULATORY SURGICAL CTR Minutes
Elk Grove Village Plan Commission
August 2, 1978
The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to
order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8:15 p.m. on Wednesday, August 2, 1978
in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington
Avenue.
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT:
Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman James Petri
Leah Cummins, Secretary STAFF PRESENT:
George Mullen Thomas Rettenbacher,
Orrin Stangeland Building Commissioner
Thomas Hamilton (8:20 p.m.) Charles Durham,
John Glass (8:25 p.m. ) Administrative Intern
Docket 7720: Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance
Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center
The petitioner (Elk Grove Village) was requesting a Text Amendment
to Section 5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend the Village's B-2,
General Business District.
Hauser began the discussion by stating that the Plan Commission
needed to decide which definitions (i .e. for hospital , ASTC, and
Medical Center) would be made operational for use in a Text Amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance relating to ASTC's. He added that upon his
review of the definition provided for "hospital" he believed it could
be condensed. Hauser continued by restating the definition for "hospital"
as suggested in the Plan Commission meeting of July 12, 1978:
"Hospital" means any institution, place, building, or
agency, public or private, whether organized for profit
or not, devoted primarily to the maintenance and opera-
tion of facilities for the diagnosis and treatment or
care of two or more unrelated persons admitted for
emergency treatment or out-patient services or for
overnight stay or longer in order to obtain medical ,
including obstetric, psychiatric and nursing, care of
illness, disease, injury, infirmity or deformity.
Cummins questioned the definition for "hospital" by noting that
5�he did not see the need for the phrase "two or more unrelated persons"
contained in the definition.
Cummins continued by suggesting that the word "unrelated" be
deleted from the definition for hospital . Glass agreed with Cummins'
contention that the word "unrelated" be removed from the definition.
At that point, Hauser requested the Plan Commission decide if
the word "unrelated" should be eliminated from the definition for
hospital . The consensus of the Commission was that the term "unrelated"
be eliminated from the definition.
Hauser stated that when the Commission submitted its recommendation,
the Village Attorney would review the definition for possible revisions.
Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - August 2, 1978
Docket 77-20 (continued)
The consensus of the Commission was to let the definition for hospital
remain as presented with the exclusion of the word "unrelated".
Hauser continued the discussion for a definition for ASTC's by
restating the State definition for "ASTC's" as follows :
"Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center" means any
institution, place or building devoted primarily to the
maintenance and operation of facilities for the performance
of surgical procedures . Such facilities shall not provide
beds or other accommodations for the overnight stay of
patients .
Rettenbacher began by noting that it might be desirable to exclude
oral surgeons from the ASTC definition since they have traditionally
performed independently of ASTC. However, Rettenbacher noted that by
excluding oral surgeons the door would be opened for criticism by others
who would want the same status .
Hauser acknowledged Rettenbacher's statement by suggesting that
oral surgeons operating within the Village now be allowed to continue
without ASTC association while new oral surgeons be required to join
an ASTC. Mullen agreed but added that the Commission might want to
make clear that all established oral surgeons would not be restricted
from participation in ASTC's.
At this point, Glass questioned the necessity to make exclusions
at the present point of forming the definition for ASTC's . Hamilton
responded by stating that in his opinion any exclusions should be
made as part of the definition agreed on by the Commission.
Stangeland continued the discussion by suggesting that a separate
provision be included within the ASTC definition for oral surgeons.
Mullen responded to Stangeland's suggestion by noting that such a
provision might be unwarranted since oral surgeons are not very plentiful
(within the Village) . Hauser added that in his opinion the Commission
did not want to issue a definition that included an abundance of
restrictions .
Mullen noted Hauser's statement and suggested that an additional
item be added to the definition for "medical clinic" which states that
medical clinics would not include a facility for surgical procedures
other than oral surgury: Glass responded by noting that in some cases
oral surgeons do not restrict themselves to particular types of surgical
procedures .
Hamilton noted Glass's comment and stated that the Commission should
not even consider bringing oral surgeons into the ASTC's definition since
they could legally practice on their own. Hamilton suggested that a
definition for ASTC's just include a provision that states "(a facility for)
surgical procedures other than oral surgury". Stangeland responded to
Hamilton's statement by expressing his concern that such a provision
might result in the exclusion of oral surgeons from ASTC's.
Next , Rettenbacher suggested that the Commission might wish to
make it clear that a person is not excluded from performing oral surgury
just because he does not belong to an ASTC.
At that point, Hauser suggested that the Commission consider adding
a sentence to the ASTC's definition stating that, "ASTC does not include
any institution, place or building devoted exclusively to the performance
1 • •
Plan Commission Minutes 3 August 2, 1978
Docket 77-20 (continued)
of dental or oral surgical procedures". Mullen responded by noting
that this would be a good addition since it meant that the oral
surgeoncould operate in an ASTC if he wished. The consensus of the
Commission was to incorporate the addition into the definition for
ASTC.
Hauser next addressed the proposed definition for medical center.
He noted that the definition read as follows :
"Medical Clinic" shall mean a medical facility used for
offices of more than one doctor for the examination and
treatment of patients , which doctors may be associated
together or practicing independent of each other, while
sharing the facilities and equipment thereon, and shall
not include a facility devoted primarily for the purpose
of surgical procedure. Such facility could also accommodate
different areas of health care, such as dentistry, neurology,
psychiatry but not limited to only these examples .
Hamilton began the discussion by noting that what the Commission
was attempting to do with the definition for medical clinic was to
include as many doctors as possible who do not fit within the other
two classes (hospital and ASTC) . He continued by stating that the
problem was to design the definition in such a way that a loophole
is not created which would allow doctors who really belong in a hospital
or ASTC catagory to claim they should be allowed to operate in a
medical clinic. Hamilton continued by stating that he felt the loophole
would be prevented if the Commission agreed to delete the final sentence
from the medical clinic definition.
Cummins stated that a problem could develop because the word
"primarily" was included in the definition. She noted that to say a
facility devoted primarily for the purpose of surgical procedure would
leave the door open for an interpretation of 51% or more (in relation
to the amount of surgical operations not allowed) . Stangeland agreed
with Cummins ' statement.
Glass responded by suggesting that the definitions be stated so
that medical clinics be allowed to perform only minor surgery.
Rettenbacher acknowledged the statements made by the Commissioners
and suggested that this area might be covered already since by defining
ASTC's certain types of surgeries were already automatically excluded
from medical clinics.
At this point, Hauser asked the members to decide on a definition
for "medical clinic". The consensus of the Commission was to accept
the definition as presented with the exclusion of the last sentence
and the addition of the following sentence: "Such facilities shall not
provide beds or other accommodations for the overnight stay of patients."
Hauser continued the discussion by asking members to consider any
conditions for ASTC which might be recommended. Mullen suggested that
the Commission might want to discuss the possibility of a free-standing
building requirement for ASTC use. Hauser acknowledged Mullen's
suggestion but commented that he was not sure the Commission should
address the question of a free-standing building since it could be
considered for a special use.
Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - August 2, 1978
Docket 77-20 (continued)
Hamilton noted that certain conditions relating to ASTC's had
been considered in the past and should be discussed before the Commission
issued its recommendation. Hamilton indicated three issues as listed
on a 11/2/78 "Legal Notice" concerning the public hearing on ASTC's.
He noted the conditions as follows :
1 . Each ASTC shall provide an ambulance loading facility
as a part of the building;
2. Each center shall provide an approved plan for vehicular
ingress and egress , said approval to take the form of
a certificate signed by the Chiefs of the Police and
Fire Departments and the Village Engineers certifying
that the plan for ingress and egress, proposed by the
user, will not interfere with either highway or shopping
center traffic, nor increase the risk to persons or
property; and
3• One parking space shall be provided for each 150 square
feet of floor area of building plus one parking space
for each person, employee and professional or technical
staff member on duty at any one time.
Rettenbacher acknowledged Hamilton's comments but stated that the
conditions could be provided for when the Special Use Permit was issued.
Hauser noted that he was inclined to agree that the special use route
might be better since by spelling out conditions the Commission might
exceed its zoning functions.
Hamilton reiterated that the conditions had been considered by the
Commission in the past. He added that if consideration of conditions
were put off there might be a danger that they will not ever be brought
at a later time.
Cummins continued the discussion by noting that her main concern
was for public safety and that it should not be put off. Hauser acknowledged
Cummins ' statement but responded that he agreed with Rettenbacher's
suggestion that conditions be added in the Special Use Permit.
Glass concluded the discussion by stating that he felt that a free-
standing building should be, a requirement. Glass noted that his point
was to require that the building be away from other uses .
Hennessey Industries , Inc. : Special Location Parking Plan
Henry Pollman, general contractor, was present to represent the
petitioner. The petitioner was requesting permission to establish an
additional 34 parking spaces directly across from their existing building
located at 520 Lively Boulevard. The additional parking area would be
used by employees and customers attending special conferences and meetings .
Hamilton made a motion to recommend approving the Hennessey Special
Location Parking Plan. Cummins seconded the motion. All present voted
'AYE' .
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
S Xtted byPQI-�
�,
CLD:ms Charles L. Durham
(8/15/78) Administrative Intern