Oakley council approves Ruby Lane five‑lot final plat to secure water easement

The Oakley City Council voted to approve the Ruby Lane subdivision final plat after staff described a proposal that trades one additional development right for a city easement to support future water infrastructure. Planning staff said the 20‑acre parcel would be platted with five lots if the developer grants a continuous 20‑foot easement down to Northbench Road — a stretch staff described as about 2,500 feet — enabling a future 8‑inch city water main and improving potential connections to a planned water storage tank in the North Hills.

Planning staff told the council the property is zoned for the acreage's existing development rights and that the fifth lot is a master‑plan bonus tied to the public‑benefit easement. The developer would install the water main at its own cost; the top lot currently contains a home and a well and would continue to use the well while the new water main would serve the lower four lots and a proposed fire hydrant. Staff also said the developer will provide roughly three irrigation water shares (about 0.75 share per development right) to the city as part of the exchange.

Doug, a planning commission member participating online, told the council the area just above Lot 1 is a logical location for a future storage tank because of elevation contours; an easement that reduces the infrastructure needed to connect that tank would increase citywide fire flow and redundancy, he said. Multiple nearby residents spoke during the public hearing: Rob Lenz, who lives east of the property, said he opposed increased density and offered to donate water shares and easement rights; another neighbor contested that the proposal would be unusually dense compared with nearby one‑to‑two‑acre lots.

On balance the council voted to approve the final plat. Council members discussed tabling to seek a voluntary easement donation from an adjacent owner but ultimately accepted the planning commission's recommendation and approved the plat by voice vote. Staff said that outstanding survey and easement language items noted in the staff report must be completed prior to recordation.

The council did not record a roll‑call vote in the minutes; the action was recorded as council approval by voice. The council also reiterated that any future additional subdivisions on irrigated land would require the appropriate water‑share exchanges as spelled out in the city's development standards.

The council took no separate action on the potential tank timeline; staff said the timing for constructing a storage tank could range from a few years to more than a decade and depends on city priorities and funding.