upr000040 51

Las Vegas - April 28, 1 9 ^ W 23-3-3 Mr. Frank Strong? Supplementing my letter April 26 concerning correspondence from the City Planning Commission re­garding future layout of roads in the vicinity of Bancho Road, adjoining our property? Confirming our telephone conversation yes­terday X called on the City Engineers with a print to determine exactly what Xoo&tlon the City had in mind. Xt developed they were concerned with a 30* strip east of Rancho 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 ay letter April 26. They have a request from R. Kaltenborn to sub-divide that portion of the S& HE Section 32, tMknf between the Rancho Road and the old Tonopah Drive. Xf the Planning Commieaion 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 on the proposed road; and would also avoid the necessity of our backing houses up against this line 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 Seotlon 33 to a connection with the ultimate extension of Buol Avenue. X now attach copy of letter from Planning Commission under date of April 26 regarding possibilities of wecuring a 60* strip, 30* on each side of north ted south lines of Sections 28-29 32-33# to permit future extension of Tonopah Drive northerly to connect with aonanza 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* covering abandonment of the old Tonopah highway over our property bears reference to this future right-of-way to connect with Bonanza Road. Copy of minutes is attached for your ready reference. A. M. Folgep