Gahanna officials review Creekside development agreement; parking, financing and staging remain unresolved

Gahanna — City staff and the developer team for the proposed Creekside mixed‑use project presented details and answered council questions at the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 27, 2025, as the administration and developers seek council approval of a development agreement and related financing. The presentation covered four substantive contract changes, parking-study data, public engagement results and two fiscal‑impact models used to estimate the project's effect on city finances.

The development agreement was updated to merge separate purchase agreements into a single contract with staggered closings, to verify parcel numbers, to clarify reconveyance as a parcel‑by‑parcel process extinguished upon receipt of building permits, and to specify permitted staging areas and their limits. Director Gotke said the city will not provide revenue guarantees: “The city is not guaranteeing any revenue sources from TIF or NCA or etcetera,” and added that the properties are being conveyed "as is," with the developer assuming environmental and infrastructure risk discovered during inspections.

Council members probed several potential city exposures and operational impacts. Director Gotke told council staff had developed two fiscal models — one estimating marginal per‑unit costs and another using American Farmland Trust cost‑of‑community‑services averages — and that both showed the project would be “fiscally positive, meaning it brings in more revenue than it consumes in services” over the long term, while noting the models assume full occupancy and do not include construction‑period or induced economic effects.

Parking and staging were central concerns. Staff presented a districtwide parking study showing 28% average daily usage across measured surface lots and time‑of‑day heat maps. Specific occupancy examples cited: street parking next to Signatures averaged 69% occupancy in the morning and 87% at lunch; another nearby lot reached 77% in the afternoon. Staff said the High Street municipal lot generally scored below half capacity on average during study days but cautioned the study excluded special‑event demand. Council members warned the loss of proximate parking could harm downtown businesses that have relied on those spaces for decades.

Developers and staff clarified which parcels could be used temporarily for staging or overflow parking. The team said percentage limits for use of a city‑controlled lot will be incorporated into a revised redline (for example, daytime allocations discussed included a 75% cap and an evening cap near 33%, to be placed on the correct city parcel). Developer representatives said demolition and construction would not begin immediately: permitting and approvals make it "most likely at least a year and a half" from the date a development agreement is approved before construction starts.

Public engagement included four events with about 200 participants and online comment; staff summarized responses as largely positive toward the mixed use and plaza revitalization (average ratings: 4.1/5 for mixed use; 4.6/5 for the plaza), while noting recurring concerns about unit count, traffic, water capacity and housing affordability. Staff also outlined the traffic‑impact analysis process: developers deliver studies to city specifications and the city reviews and requires mitigation before issuing construction permits.

No final vote was held. The administration and developer representatives said they will circulate a redline that moves percentage‑of‑use language to the correct city parcel and clarifies staging details; the item is scheduled for a public hearing Nov. 3 and for council action on Nov. 17. Director Gotke and developers said the city will continue coordinating with CIC and other parties on parcel timing, reconveyance triggers and any necessary environmental or geotechnical work.

Implementation details left open by the Oct. 27 session include the exact dollar amounts for any city fee reductions or revenue sharing, the final TIF/NCA structure (staff noted the city will not backstop TIF or NCA revenues), and a timetable for demolition and phase‑2 staging. Council members asked for clearer public‑facing timelines and for final redlines showing which parcels are subject to temporary use.