Developers, city discuss Creekside development agreement, parking and demolition funding; vote timing left open

City economic development officials and the proposed development team updated Gahanna council Monday on a draft development agreement for a private Creekside expansion project and discussed related financing, parking and demolition options.

Director of Economic Development Jeff Gotke described the developer’s proposal as private development that would bring “263 apartments, two restaurants, a parking structure, a hotel, and some townhouses in phase 2” to the Creekside District. He emphasized the proposed agreement is a traditional development contract — not a city-financed bond underwriting — and said the city would not be guaranteeing developer financing.

Gotke summarized the proposed schedule and key milestones: a phase-1 plan approval triggers a six-month inspection/due-diligence period (extendable by the developer), then a closing and conveyance of phase-1 parcels 30 days after the inspection period ends. Developers said they expect to submit plans and obtain plan approvals; the agreement defines a maximum timeline of 36 months from phase-1 plan approvals to substantial completion, with phase-2 plan submissions and closing tied to 18-month milestones after phase-1 plan approval.

Gotke and Connect Real Estate reported an early parking utilization assessment of marked parking in the Creekside area. The study counted 667 marked spaces in the defined downtown study area with an aggregated average usage of about 28 percent; the High Street surface lot (50 spaces) averaged 27 percent utilization over the study period and peaked at roughly 43% in the evening counts. Developers said the proposed garage would be designed to fully park the project’s residential and hotel uses while leaving first-floor garage spaces available for retail visitors and said they do not intend to charge for retail parking on the first-floor spaces.

Council members pressed for clarifications on several points. Key items discussed:

- Parcels and timing of conveyance: council asked which specific parcels will be transferred and when. City staff said conveyance mechanics were still being clarified in red-line negotiations and that some city-owned parcels would need council ordinances to transfer to the Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) before final conveyance to the developer. Staff committed to verifying the parcel list before a final vote.

- Parking and public access: staff and the developers said preliminary counts show spare capacity in nearby private lots and on-street spaces, but council members requested more detail about how private lots would be shared, whether on-street angled spaces could be added and whether the garage would reserve spaces for residents/hotel while leaving other spaces available to the public.

- Timelines and plan approvals: developers said “phase-1 plan approval” refers to receipt of building permits and final approvals from city departments and commissions; the 36-month substantial-completion timeline begins from that point. Council members noted the plan-approval process could take substantially longer than some of the maximum timelines and asked for ongoing public milestone reporting.

- Accountability and risk mitigation: Gotke outlined five accountability measures proposed in the agreement, including semiannual developer reporting to the city, a completion guarantee, a reconveyance clause for nonperformance, “loan step-in” rights for the city in some default scenarios, and an explicit statement that the city is not guaranteeing private financing. Council members asked for a city-attorney review to verify the city’s exposure is limited and to translate those protections into enforceable contract language.

- Demolition funding and contingency (Plan C): the Committee discussed a parallel appropriation item that would allow the CIC or the city to advance demolition work if grant timelines require demolition before a final development agreement is complete. City staff said they would bring a supplemental appropriation ordinance to next week’s regular agenda with waiver language and proposed reimbursement language ensuring grant proceeds would return to the city if the CIC used city-appropriated funds. The draft $5,000,000 appropriation to CIC was discussed as a precautionary measure; staff said final reimbursement and contract language would be worked out with the city attorney and CIC counsel.

No formal vote on the development agreement occurred. Staff and the development team said red-line exchanges were underway and that they expect to produce an updated draft to council in the coming days; council members asked for a timely red-line distribution so members could review before the next Committee meeting. Several council members said they were not ready to vote at the next meeting, and the mayor and staff said timing would be set after the outstanding red lines and fiscal impact analyses were completed.

Developers said they intend to begin construction-phase work on both east and west portions of phase 1 concurrently (garage on the east side, primary apartment building on the west), using an adjacent lot for laydown and short-term construction parking as needed. They also said their construction methods reduce on-site labor and overall schedule compared with conventional builds, which the developers argued reduces neighborhood impacts.

City staff said the development agreement would be the genesis for a number of follow-up items — purchase and sale agreements, TIF creation, NCA formation, building-plan approvals, and other documents — and that those items would return to council as appropriate. The committee directed staff to continue due diligence and legal review of the red-lined development agreement and to circulate red-line drafts to council as they are completed.