<div dir="ltr"><div>



















<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Greetings, listmates,<span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Has anyone dealt with any issues arising from, or challenges
to, Seattle’s downtown zoning restriction set forth in SMC 23.49.048.D related
to the required 80-foot separation between high rise towers above 160
feet?<span>  </span>Or perhaps folks were involved with
proposing or contesting the law at its adoption?<span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">My concern with this statute is that, in practice, it can
result in vastly unequal application to parcels in the same zone and even in
the same block.<span>  </span>For example, if two
neighboring parcels in the Downtown Mixed Commercial zone are each contemplating
building a 440-foot tower, but are within 80 feet of each other, only one can
build such a tower.<span>  </span>The first one to get
its MUP can go ahead and build its 44-story tower.<span>  </span>However, once that MUP is granted, the neighboring
parcel is severely limited in what it can build within 80 feet of its new
towering neighbor, in some cases being restricted to a mere 12 stories.<span>  </span>Obviously, this is a huge diminution in value
simply by virtue of being a day late in securing its MUP with respect to the
neighbor.<span>  </span><span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">WA has a pretty well established framework for challenging
zoning as a regulatory taking, or as a due process violation.<span>  </span>Has anyone here raised any such issues with
respect to this Seattle zone or similar zones that can result in such an asymmetrical application?<span> 
Any other thoughts or knowledge?</span><span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Many thanks,</span></font><span></span></p>





<br></div>-Paul Okner<br><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div style="text-align:left"><b><font face="arial narrow, sans-serif">Fremont Law Group PLLC</font></b></div><div style="text-align:left"><font face="arial narrow, sans-serif">3417 Fremont Ave. N.  Suite 225<br></font></div><div><font face="arial narrow, sans-serif">Seattle, WA 98103</font></div><div><font face="arial narrow, sans-serif">(206) 399 - 1922</font></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>