The Plain Planning & Zoning Commission on Tuesday tabled the preliminary planned unit development for Converse Crossing (PUD 25‑3) after an extended review in which developers touted an enlarged village park but commissioners pressed on density, traffic and infrastructure.

Commissioners heard a presentation from Gary Smith of G2 Planning and Drew Miller of Arbor Homes, who described a two‑developer project along Converse Huff Road. Gary Smith said the revised layout creates shared open space and "we were able to get to a total donation of almost 9 acres" for a village park, a figure the developers said exceeded the village's initial request. Drew Miller said Arbor’s approach is "mission backed," targeting more‑attainable detached homes for first‑time buyers and downsizers by using smaller slabs and multiple floor plans.

Why it matters: The commission framed the issue as a trade‑off between affordability and neighborhood character. Developers argued that higher density is required to lower per‑house costs; commissioners questioned whether this site and its nearby streets can absorb additional traffic and whether the product mix and lot configuration preserve Plain City’s design standards.

During questioning, one commissioner said the project felt "just too dense for Plain City" and raised concerns about vehicles and delivery traffic cutting through adjacent residential streets. Developers acknowledged those concerns and proposed adjustments — including swapping product ratios away from the denser "arrival" units and exploring whether some density bonuses could apply if the land is dedicated and meets open‑space thresholds.

Commissioners and developers also debated elevation choices, entry treatments and whether the community should require basements as an option to reduce perceived density. The developer noted the economics of site development drive many cost decisions and said they would test alternative mixes to try to hit a target density closer to the commission's comfort level.

Outcome and next steps: The commission voted to table PUD 25‑3 so the developers can rework the plan and respond to commission direction. The motion to table was moved and seconded; roll call recorded affirmative votes at the meeting. Staff said the applications will also go to council for discussion as the applicants revise plans.

The tabled status does not represent approval or denial; it preserves the commission's ability to request modifications and to return the application for a later vote.