I've been interested in this easement/right of way for a very long time. At a point in the past, in March of 2010, there was a meeting at City of Glen Rose Town Hall in which the owner of then viable restaurant Hollywood and Vine asked that a city street be closed so they could use it as a parking lot. The reason that particular small piece of street still was a city street was that there were possible plans at some point to continue the street up to Highway 67. The Town Council, in what seemed to me to be unusual at the time, gave permission for Hollywood and Vine to string a sign over the road. The last I saw of that sign was in January 2019 after a city resident alerted me it was gone.
I came when the zoning commission met on this item. I just wanted to make sure y'all understood that I didn't want any of Elm Street closed down where it goes up the top of the hill there. I don't mind it being rezoned, we own a property that Elm Street goes to. We'd just like to see that stay a street and they concurred in the zoning meeting.
Miller: Anyone else have anything on this particular piece of property?
Larry Garnett, representing the developers. There's an agreement that allows the owners to use that
I can't recall what happened after that with the sign but it was something hinky and discussed in the Glen Rose Reporter. I think it had something to do with bypassing the City of Glen Rose code ordinances about stretching that sign over the easement road. If someone remembers about this, please add in the comments or send to me at email@example.com.
That brings us up to this year. The former owners of the property are no longer running Hollywood and Vine and sold said property to someone else.
Rogers: If it please the council, back again. Several observations here. First of all, I can't recall which one of the members of the council suggested that perhaps we need to set up a meeting with the Lemures to try to mediate this in some way, might have been you, Miss Mayor.
Miller: No, it was (unintelligible)
Rogers: After the meeting of last month, we attempted to talk to Miss Dana Lamure about possibly setting up a meeting, see what we could work out and quite frankly, we were stiff-armed on this. In reading the summary from this, Mr Leamons, who also contacted Dana Lamure to arrange a meeting, he met with the same result that we did. So, they weren't interested in trying to resolve anything in any amicable manner. So we start with that premise. And I'm going to hearken back to something I'd told you earlier last month and that is, my clients the Moores are not just trying to be (horsey?) about this issue. They believe that one day their property which goes all the way to highway 67 could possibly in some manner utlize that right of way for some great purpose for the City. It would be one of the only accesses, even if it was a walking trail, that was designed, down to the downtown area. It's the only way you could really do it as a direct route from Hwy 67. Their motivation is not to be just be (horsey?) , they believe that they would suffer a monetary loss as a result of what is being proposed here. Apparently what the Lemures are now proposing is instead of a 100 foot of abandonment of the roadway, 99 feet. Now what would be the purpose of that? It's pretty clear what the purpose of that is, and taht is to circumvent the law. What the Lamures are asking you to do is engage in a subterfuge here. That's what they're asking you to do because otherwise the Moore's property does touch the old street there and as such the law is pretty clear that they would have a right to veto any attempt to abandon the roadway. But they want to go back one foot and want you, the council here to approve a resolution whereby they go back one foot so they eliminate the property rights of the Moores. I concur with the letter that you got with reference to teh ability of the city to abandon a portion of road, you don't have to abandon an entire roadway, but that's not really the question here, the question is whether you are abusing your discretion in doing so.... because what you're being asked to do is obviously engage in a subterfuge here.. The Moores have been residents here in Glen Rose for decades, they're property owners, they live here, they pay their taxes, they're good citizens. The Lamures, who don't live here in Glen Rose, are wanting to engage in a for-profit enterprise, hey look, this is America but not at other citizens expense.
Lamure: The space would serve as the ability to connect those two properties and be able to be utilized as a single property or extension of space for the one restaurant. So, there are two restaurants, two establishments that we're looking at, one would occupy the former Hollywood and Vine site and one the 2 story building so .. the former Hollywood and Vine would be completely remodeled... and then it would have a stage that would open towards that side area, that would allow that whole side are, largest cat house in Glen Rose so it could be used as all types of community space downtown that we don't currentl have. Build that sense of community with a common gathering space, having that access really important for our funding, that is one of the things that people are most interested in, less interested in the restaurant. Planning on building stuff there, VIP type of seating, .. Park? Open to the community, master plan to make it so that is very accessible, retain trees, like a car show.
Miller: Charged for that use? If someone just wanted to go in and use it, are they going to be charged for that?
Lemure. WE would love to work out a situation where it is When it's in the publics' best interest that it not cost the City of Glen Rose. Now, when it's a private entity that is going to be making money off of it, yeah. we'll charge for it. Different motivations there but yes. Taht was part of the original plan.