a front street and that the panhandle or flag pole portion of the property does not apply to <br />the setback. <br />Initially, I agree with VRI that there can be more than one front yard for purposes of front <br />yard setbacks. The definition of "front yard setback" at EC 9.0500 does not restrict front yard <br />setbacks to one side.3 Although the applicant originally agreed that Delta Highway was the <br />applicable front yard, it now argues that Delta Highway does not apply to front yard setbacks <br />because Delta Highway is not a public street. According to the applicant, a "street" is defined by <br />EC 9.0500 as "[a]n improved or unimproved public or private way, other than an alley, that is <br />created to provide ingress or egress for vehicular traffic to one or more parcels or lots * * <br />According to the applicant, because Delta Highway does not provide ingress or egress to the <br />subject property or properties nearby it is not a "street." I do not see that the definition of street <br />requires Delta Way to provide ingress or egress to a specific property or nearby properties to be <br />considered a "street." The applicant does not argue that Delta Highway does not provide ingress <br />or egress to one or more parcels over its entire length, so I agree with VRI that is a "street." <br />Therefore, under EC 9.2170(4)(b)(2), the proposed development must locate at least 25% of street <br />facing facades within the front yard setback. <br />As to Valley River Way, the applicant argues that that the flag pole portion of the lot should <br />not be considered as part of the 25-foot setback. EC 9.0500 defines "Flag Lot" as "[a] lot located <br />behind another lot except for a narrow portion extending to the public street which is suitable for <br />vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access. The `flag pole' of a flag lot is the access corridor to the <br />buildable 'flag portion' of the lot." According to the applicant, the required 25-foot setback does <br />not include the access corridor of a flag lot. I agree with the applicant that it does not make sense <br />to include the access corridor of a flag lot as part of the measurement for front yard setbacks. To <br />do so would often require locating buildings in the flag pole portion of the lot. As the definition <br />illustrates, the "flag portion" of the flag lot is the "buildable" portion of the lot - so setbacks for <br />buildings should only apply to the buildable portion of the lot. I do not understand VRI to argue <br />that the proposed building does not comply with setbacks requirements to the north if the flag pole <br />3 EC 9.0500 defines "Front Yard Setback" as " [a]n area extending between lot lines that intersect a street lot line, <br />from a front lot line to a minimum depth required by zone standards." <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 16-1/SR 16-1/ARB 16-3) 4 <br />