The Plain City Council reviewed concept plans from Pulte Homes and Arbor Homes on two adjacent sites along Converse Off Road, hearing details about lot counts, product types and open-space allocation while asking developers to return with revisions focused on usable green space and street frontage. Developers said no formal approvals were requested; feedback from the council will guide zoning and design revisions.

The Pulte presentation showed approximately 240 single-family lots on a long, L-shaped parcel with “about 24, 24 close to 25, acres of open space,” a developer representative said, representing roughly 30% open space and a reported density of about 2.77 units per acre. Jim Hills, with Pulte Homes, described the product mix as mostly 52-foot and 60-foot lots and said the neighborhood pricing would be “in the high fours.”

Drew Miller, with Arbor Homes, described the adjacent 59-acre site as a mixed product neighborhood with two series: a traditional Arbor product on wider lots and a more affordable “arrival” (bridal) product on 40-foot lots. Arbor’s concept showed roughly 234 houses and a density the presenter described as “about 4 units an acre” with roughly 28.8–30% open space. Miller said the arrival product targets first-time buyers by reducing lot and house widths; on that product “the slab” is 30 feet and the developer said the starting prices are in the mid-$200,000s while traditional Arbor product pricing starts in the mid-$300,000s.

Council comments focused on how the two developments would feel in practice. One councilmember asked, “Where is that wow factor?” and urged the teams to pursue a centralized park or gathering space and to improve pedestrian connectivity between the projects and adjacent neighborhoods. The council member criticized the proposed open-space layout as fragmentary — “retention ponds” and narrow slivers — and said the plan should prioritize usable amenities, paths and places for children to play rather than meeting only minimum open-space acreage.

Developers acknowledged the criticism and said they had already met with adjacent property owners (identified in the presentation as “BG farms”) about rear-yard adjacency and would return with refined plans. The project consultant said the teams plan to model the long frontage on Converse Off Road and explore screening, berming and improved landscaping to avoid “staring into people’s backyards.” Pulte’s presenter also noted multiple required street connections to surrounding parcels and showed intent to connect internal path networks with neighboring developments.

Council questions also reviewed dimensional and code details. Speakers discussed lot widths, side-yard offsets and garage sizes; staff and developers noted the bridal/arrival product is designed so 30-foot slab widths plus setbacks meet the city’s minimum cumulative side-yard offsets. The council asked for clearer diagrams showing setbacks and how three-car garages or 50–60-foot lots would fit the planned lot standards.

There was no motion or vote on either concept plan during the work session. Developers were directed to revise the plans and return with clearer open-space layouts, 3-D frontage modeling and refined street/traffic circulation options. Planning staff and the developers said zoning submittals and formal review would follow; the presenters referenced an earlier planning commission review that generated similar feedback.

The council also voiced traffic concerns tied to nearby intersections and encouraged the developers to avoid creating an easy “cut-through” that would route nonlocal traffic through the new neighborhoods. Developers said they will study entry/exit geometry and internal circulation to avoid long, direct speedways through the subdivisions.

The presentation combined two projects for review because the teams expect the sites to be designed to tie together; council members emphasized that feedback applied to both plans and asked the teams to look for ways the two developments could create a stronger shared identity and centralized amenities rather than separated, pocket open spaces.

What happens next: developers will revise concept plans to address the council’s open-space, frontage and circulation critiques, then submit zoning applications and site plans for formal Planning & Zoning and council review. No approvals or commitments were made at the session; the discussion served as preliminary direction to staff and applicants.

Ending: The council closed the discussion after the developers acknowledged they would return with updated plans. No changes to the city code or formal entitlements were adopted at the meeting.