Developer proposes 74-unit, 55+ affordable complex at Montgomery and Maple in Norwood

Nick Wingenfelter with PLK Communities presented plans to Norwood’s Housing Committee for a 74‑unit, age‑restricted affordable housing project on the former Quality Inn site at Montgomery and Maple.

The developer said the two‑building project would be targeted to residents 55 and older, with rents set for households at roughly 50–70% of county area median income. "We're targeting a 74 units here," Wingenfelter said, and described rents "all in with your utilities" of about $975 up to $1,300 for the largest units.

The project would be financed using 4% low‑income housing tax credits available to developments in a Qualified Census Tract, a tax‑credit investor and additional public financing. Wingenfelter said PLK has requested $6.5 million in county funds and is working with the Port Authority on issuing bonds to help fill the financing gap. He described a 50/50 joint venture split with an institutional partner and said the overall project cost is about $56,000,000.

Why it matters: the proposal would add affordable, age‑restricted housing near Norwood’s business district and transit connections while using public financing tools that require local commitment and state tax‑credit approval. Committee members asked about design, parking, public safety access and long‑term ownership implications.

Key details and design

Wingenfelter said the site is zoned CBD (central business district), which he described as having a minimum three‑story requirement and few height limits; the project steps down from five stories on the Montgomery side to four stories on the station side. He said the front of the main building would have more storefront glass to keep an active street appearance, and the rear would present a more residential façade.

Units will be mostly one‑bedroom and two‑bedroom apartments sized roughly 700 to 1,000 square feet, with a mix that Wingenfelter said is typical for age‑restricted tax‑credit housing: "You have to be over 55 on a fixed income, and your rent all in with your utilities is roughly 975 all the way up to $1,300 for the largest units." He said some corner units and select units would have balconies or shared community outdoor space, but balconies will not be on every unit.

Parking and public safety access

Norwood code requires one parking space per dwelling unit for multifamily buildings, and Wingenfelter said the developer is planning roughly 1.0 parking spaces per unit, consistent with code and typical practice for senior housing. He described completed traffic studies and noted ongoing coordination with the fire chief on curb cuts and vehicle access, including adjustments to existing curb cuts used by the fire department on Maple.

Site preparation, utilities and remediation

Wingenfelter said the developer completed an environmental cleanup of part of the site and that remaining work is confined to areas under the sidewalk and parallel parking on city property. He described the remaining excavation area as "no more than 10 to 12 feet deep" and said the city and developer are coordinating on that work because the sidewalk will be disturbed.

Financing, ownership and timeline

The developer described a financing package built around 4% tax credits that are more competitive when a parcel is in a Qualified Census Tract. PLK’s partner on the project was named as Virgin Health (identified by Wingenfelter as an Indianapolis‑based group); Wingenfelter also referenced Bergen Health earlier in the presentation. He said PLK would act as steward during the credit period, with the investor/partner buying the land and PLK receiving a minimal management fee until 15 to 30 years out. The project team has also asked the county for $6.5 million and is pursuing bonds through the Port Authority.

Wingenfelter said if the tax credits are awarded, site work could begin in late summer with structural work starting the following spring; he said a likely construction start was around July if credits are received.

Amenities, program and limits

The development is proposed as conventional rental apartments targeted to older adults, not as assisted living or a licensed care facility. Wingenfelter said the project will include community rooms and amenity space — but not an internal cafeteria or assisted‑living services — and that units will meet accessibility requirements. The developer also plans rooftop solar and, where feasible, solar canopies to reduce residents’ utility costs.

Neighborhood and related parcels

Wingenfelter said the site’s redevelopment involved negotiating the removal of cross easements with the owner of an adjacent Frisch’s parcel to allow a new curb cut and road extension; the developer said Frisch’s landlord agreed to remove easements in exchange for a new curb cut and the ability to redevelop that parcel in the future. He said he had attempted to contact Frisch’s chief counsel without success and did not expect the adjacent property to redevelop immediately.

Concerns and committee questions

Committee members asked about building height, whether more commercial space could be preserved, how parking and curb cuts would affect pedestrian safety, and whether tax‑credit rules could require future unit purchase options after 15 years. Wingenfelter said he would check specific regulatory questions about ownership options after the tax credit period and confirm any modification needed to the original development agreement, which previously called for about 6,000 square feet of retail.

Next steps

Wingenfelter said the project team will continue design work, coordinate with the fire chief on access, finalize the county funding request and Port Authority bond work, and submit the schematic materials required for the state tax‑credit application. He said the project would not return to council for zoning review because the site is already zoned CBD, but the city and developer will resolve any necessary amendments to earlier agreements before starting construction.

Ending

Committee members asked staff to share the presentation materials with the mayor and city administration. No formal vote or action was taken during the meeting; the session closed after the developer’s presentation and public questions.