Council members debated whether draft minutes of a prior meeting accurately recorded the council’s response to a developer question about a condo project and an up‑zone request.

John (first name used in the meeting) said he reviewed the recorded video and the minutes and thought the minutes were “a little too positive.” He said that when the developer (Hartman) asked whether the council would accept the condo project as proposed, “for the 5 of us, each made an independent statement saying they had a significant problem with the height of the building.” John listed council remarks: Dan said he “didn't like the look of the building,” Roger expressed concern about location “on the edge of the built up area,” and other members flagged height, water availability and access. John asked the minutes be revised to capture that “little to no support was shown for the proposal as presented.”

Other council members agreed the minutes should reflect the pivotal moment at the end of the discussion. One councilor noted minutes are a summary and not a verbatim transcript and urged reliance on the meeting recording as the official record of what occurred. Jen (staff) was asked to re‑listen to the recording and reword the draft minutes; council members indicated a preference to finalize the revised minutes at the next meeting if more time was needed.

No formal vote was taken on the project itself at that meeting; the discussion concerned how accurately the minutes reflected the earlier conversation.