HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-09 Margie Williams (5-43 PM)1
Chris Johnson
From:Margie Williams <margie.g.williams23@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 5:43 PM
To:Steven Taulbee
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:SUBJECT: Clarification – Statements made on record regarding fire access compliance
for Cherry Blossom East
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Hi Fire Marshal Taulbee,,
I wanted to make you aware of statements made on record at the November 6, 2025 Planning & Zoning
hearing for Cherry Blossom East.
During his testimony, the applicant’s engineer, John Brecken (Brecken Land Design), has represented
that all fire-department approval requirements have been met, including that:
• He has “been working closely with the Fire Department”
• The fire access “is in compliance”
• The Fire Department has “approved the jog at the power pole”
Below is the relevant context showing why these statements appear inaccurate and should be reviewed:
Turning into the development from NW 4th Street is not compliant
The applicant only has a 20-ft emergency access easement at the entrance from NW 4th Street.
A ladder truck’s required outside turning movement cannot be contained within 20 ft.
A ladder truck’s required outside turning movement cannot be contained within 20 ft.
To make the turn, the wheel path and overhang must swing outside the easement, onto Hanson/Williams
private property.
There is no recorded emergency access easement allowing that turn.
2
The design does not keep emergency access within the property served, as required by IFC and UDC.
The “approved jog” around the power pole requires use of private property not owned by the
applicant
Mid-driveway, the plans show a “jog” around a power pole that the applicant claimed the Fire
Department approved. The engineer design plan submitted actually leaves this power out of the drawing
- as well as the power lines that run underneath both the 20 foot common driveway and the common
south 12 foot driveway.
However:
• At that power pole location, the paved width is ~19 ft, not 20
• The fire-truck swept path shown in the hearing crosses onto private property
• Again, outside the access easement
The maneuver relies on land the applicant does not control, so it cannot constitute compliant fire
access.
Approval of this design would cut off all legal emergency access to the two existing
homes. There is no work around or remedy.
Our driveway to the south is 12 ft wide and currently functions as fire access for our homes.
If Cherry Blossom East is approved as the official emergency route:
• Our existing emergency access would be eliminated
• Fire/EMS would have no compliant route to reach our homes
• We would become two residences with zero legal fire access
3
That situation would not meet IFC requirements for existing occupied structures.
These issues were created by the developer in overbuilding and blocking his original access point to the
short plat of property. No variance should be granted.
I wanted to share these specific details so you are aware of what is being represented as “approved by
the Fire Department.” If you would like, I can send the exact timestamped video clips from the public
record for verification.
Thank you for your attention to this — I know this is an unusual access situation.
Respectfully,
Margie Williams
1251 NW 4th St
Meridian, ID 83642
dge, we are in compliance.”