Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />.� <br />ERWIN A. PETERSON <br />ROBERT C. 9Ell <br />WILlAR6 I.CONVERSE <br />l�EORO[ O. PETERSEN <br />lAW OFFICES OF <br />PETERSON� BELL & CONVERSE <br />PNON E � 224-47p3 <br />September 4, 1968 <br />Mr . Richard Turnlund <br />Village Manager <br />-- Village of Roseville <br />2701 North Lexington <br />Roseville, Minne�ota <br />55113 <br />Re : aur F ile No . MS- 003 <br />Dear Mr. Turnlund: <br />W-1591 FIi7ST NATIONA� BANK s�oa. <br />MINNEISOTA AT /OURTM <br />ST. PAUL 1, MINN6lSOTA <br />On August 30, 1968, you wrote concerning a letter <br />yau received irom Ra�.ph A. (Ram) Matson. <br />You also inform�ed me that the minutes of the Village <br />Council showed substantiallX as follows: <br />A special use permit was issued on the condition that <br />it expired July 1, 1968. There was nothing in the <br />Council minut�es indicating that the matter could be <br />renewed without a�other application for a second <br />special use permit. <br />The essential factor in all matters of the Village <br />Council taking action following a public hearing is <br />as follows. Would a person attending a public hearit�g <br />of the Village Council of the Village of Roseville be <br />misled by what the Cou�cil intended to do. <br />Here, a person attending the Village Council meeting <br />would have heard the Village make a motion that the <br />special u�e permit would be terminated July 1, 19F8. <br />Such a person attending a publ ic hearing would hava <br />�� <br />