Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 18 <br />The applicants also urge that a 14-foot width on Oakleigh Lane would conflict <br />with the Oregon Fire Code with regard to "[f]ire apparatus access roads." However, <br />these standards govern the installation or arrangement of a fire. access road and not to <br />existing streets. See OFC 503.2. As is set forth above, OMC already provides <br />compliant fire apparatus access roads within the PUD, as well as the required <br />hammerhead turnaround. Furthermore, even if these standards applied to Oakleigh <br />Lane, as is set forth above, the improved street is 20-feet wide. Even if it were not, the <br />standards allow narrower streets where "The building is equipped with an approved <br />automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.31.1, 903.3.1.2 or <br />903.1.1.3." OFC 503.1.1(1). As is reflected in the June 19, 2014 Alternative Material(s) <br />and Method(s) application and subsequent June 25, 2014 approval by Mark Whitmill <br />and Deputy Fire Chief Keith Haggas, OMC is already providing an approved <br />automatic. sprinkler system within the PUD. Hence, even a 14-foot width would not <br />conflict would the Oregon Fire Code. <br />Furthermore, the opponents have failed to establish that public is limited to the <br />use of the 14-foot width. The owners of tax lot 10100, the Brandts, acquired their <br />property in 1998, and with' the stated exception of the "RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC IN <br />STREETS." Likewise; when Ms. Regan acquired her lots 5900 in 2009 it was subject to <br />an encumbrance described as "Rights of the public ...in and to any portion of said land <br />lying within the boundaries of streets." Since these property owners took their <br />property subject to the rights of the public in the street on their property, they cannot <br />• now attempt to bar public access to the improved street. <br />Moreover, as is set forth in the opponents' survey:. <br />"BECAUSE OF LONGSTANDING USE BY THE PUBLIC OF 'THE PAVED <br />PORTION OF OAKLEIGH LANE OUTSIDE THE DEDICATED RIGHT-OF- <br />WAY, THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE A PRESCRIPTIVE. EASEMENT FOR THE <br />CONTINUED USE OF THAT AREA." <br />In fact, the evidence in record establishes that the public has acquired a prescriptive <br />easement over-and-across those portions of the improved road that are located outside <br />of the public right-of-way. Will Dixon's August 27, 2015 letter clearly provides that <br />the paved surface of the road -has been continuously "open to the public" and that use <br />has not been blocked or obstructed for more than 10 years. Nothing more is required <br />for the public easement to vest. Feldman v. Knapp, 196 Or 453, 250 P2d 92 (1952)(upon <br />showing of open, continuous and uninterrupted use for the prescriptive period the <br />burden shifts to the landowner to disprove that the use was adverse). <br />Lauren Regan contends in her letter of August 25, 2015, that she would oppose <br />a prescriptive easement based on her use of "the area in question." However, she is <br />clearly mistaken concerning the portion of the improved roadway at issue. She <br />contends that she has "grown food and flowers" in the area for six years, but there is <br />no gardening occurring on the improved street. Likewise, while she contends that <br />public use has been interrupted by parking on the property, this is contradicted by <br />321 <br />441 <br />