upr000173 351

Laa Vegas - April 28, 19^8 W 2 3 - > 3 Mr, Frank Strong? Supplementing ay letter April 26 concerning correspondence from the City Planning Commission re­garding future layout of roads In the vicinity of Baaoho Bead, adjoining our property? Confirming our telephone terday I called on the City Engine ercso nwvietrsha at iporni nyets ­to determine exactly what location the City had in mind. It developed they were concerned with a 30* strip JfcfJL oi &ehofco Road, that is, between the Rancho Road and the old Tonopah Drive along our south line, instead of west of Rancho Road as indicated on print attached to my letter April 26, They have a request from R. j. Kaltenborn to sub-divide that portion of the S§ HE§, Section 32, line between the Rancho Road and the old Tonopah Drive. If the Planning Commission can obtain an Indication from the Railroad Company that a 30* strip will be dedicated when required in the future along the northerly side of the south line between Rancho Road and Tonopah Drive, it would permit Kaltenborn to face his houses cn the proposed road; and would also avoid the necessity of our backing houses up against this lins in case we plan to open our property for de­velopment in the future. This road would run east along our south line at the center of Section 33 to a connection with the ultimate extension of Buol Avenue. X now attach oopy of letter from Planning Commission under date of April 26 regarding posaiMlitles of weouring a 60l strip, 30* on each side of n orth-«*- south lines of Sections 28-29 32-33, to permit future extension of Tonopah Drive northerly to connect with "onansa Road. My file does not indicate any record of right-of-way referred to in his letter except that the minutes of City Commissioner*s meeting October 15, 19^3, ooverlng abandonment of the old Tonopah highway over our property bears reference to this future right-of-way to connect with Bonansa Road. Copy of minutes is attached for your ready reference. A. M. Folger