Opinion ID: 2034704
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Special Permit.

Text: A. Petitioner argues that the proposed project cannot meet the requirements of the granting of a special permit [1] without the variance allowing for parking in the front yard of the project. Therefore, she argues, since the district court sustained the writ of certiorari attacking the parking variance, the granting of the special permit exceeded the authority of the board. The general power of a board of adjustment to grant special permits or exceptions is specified in Iowa Code section 414.12(2) (1983). Here, section 2A-27 of the Des Moines Municipal Code sets forth the procedure to be followed in granting a special permit. The section provides in part: The Board of Adjustment may by special permit after public hearing authorize the location of any of the following buildings or uses in any district from which they are prohibited by this ordinance. . . . 1. Any public building erected and used by any department of the city, township, county, state or federal government. .... Applications for a special permit under the terms of this section shall be accompanied by evidence concerning the feasibility of the proposed request and its effect on surrounding property and shall include a site plan defining the areas to be developed for buildings, the areas to be developed for parking, the locations of sidewalks and driveways and points of ingress and egress, including access streets where required, the location of heights of walls, the location of type of landscaping and the location, size and number of signs. In the present case, the district court concluded that the board had complied with section 2A-27 and that the board's findings with reference to the special permit were supported by substantial evidence. Putting aside, for the moment, the petitioner's claim that the proposed building is not a public building, we find no error in the district court's conclusion that the board met the statutory requirements in granting the special permit. Denial of the parking variance does not per se render the special permit invalid; the special permit was not conditioned upon a granting of the variance. The denial merely alters the location of the proposed parking area. Section 2A-27 specifically provides that [i]n the event a special permit is granted under the terms of this section, any change thereafter in the approved use or site plan shall be resubmitted and considered in the same manner as the original proposal. The authority is simply required to resubmit its site plan with the parking area located in conformity with the applicable section of the zoning ordinance. [2] B. The petitioner contends that the housing project proposed by the authority will be used as a retirement home for the elderly, and retirement homes are prohibited in any R-2 zone. Other prohibited uses in R-2 zones, such as schools, hospitals, and churches are specifically mentioned in the ordinance as qualifying for special exemptions. Retirement homes, however, are not so mentioned. The petitioner argues therefore that the council did not intend to allow them under any circumstances in an R-2 zone. She argues this project was not therefore qualified for an exemption under the general exemption accorded for public buildings by section 2A-27(1) of the ordinance. We do not agree; there is nothing in the ordinance which mentions the exceptions for churches, schools, hospitals and similar projects which qualify for special exemptions, that suggests the list is exclusive. Moreover, this project, an outgrowth of the municipal housing law, Iowa Code chapter 403A, and promoted by the housing authority, which was created by the city of Des Moines, is a public building entitled to a specific exemption under the ordinance. The district court so found and we agree.