Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Developer outlines Nord 61 plan to fill degraded wetland, buy bank credits and manage stormwater on-site
Loading...
Summary
Developer Ace Land Holdings told the Inver Grove Heights Environmental Advisory Commission on Feb. 26 that the Nord 61 townhome project would remove a degraded on-site wetland (Wetland 7) and replace it at a 2:1 ratio using wetland-bank credits, while relying on a central retention pond and an HOA-managed reuse system for stormwater.
Dave Stoffer, director of development for Ace Land Holdings, told the Inver Grove Heights Environmental Advisory Commission on Feb. 26 that his company’s Nord 61 project would remove a degraded, centrally located wetland on the roughly 23-acre site to create a stormwater retention pond and mitigate runoff on-site.
"The wetland itself has been fairly degraded to the point where there's invasive species. There doesn't seem to be any life in there whatsoever," Stoffer said, describing what he called Wetland 7 at the center of the planned development. He said the plan calls for about 119 rental townhomes and rowhomes, two access points and a central clubhouse, with stormwater captured in the proposed retention facility.
City staff and the developer said the proposal calls for wetland replacement at a 2-to-1 ratio and the purchase of wetland‑bank credits to meet that requirement. A staff member identified a nearby option, noting Wetland Bank 1689 (Sibley Meadows) is in the same watershed and that Dakota County had no available credits, explaining the bank-selection "pecking order" that prioritizes proximity and watershed.
Staff described the technical approach to stormwater: the site will be modeled so post-development outflows are at or below existing rates, and the central pond is intended to provide primary treatment and infiltration. The developer said a reuse irrigation system is part of the mitigation plan; staff emphasized such systems remain privately maintained by homeowner associations rather than city infrastructure.
Commissioners asked technical and design questions about how runoff would be routed, whether filtration would occur between systems, snow storage impacts, planting plans around wetlands and whether elevation and grading would keep flows directed to the retention facility. Stoffer said slopes and a retaining wall to the east would direct runoff toward the central pond and that many units will have walkout basements where grading is steeper.
Commissioners generally supported the plan’s approach for Wetland 7 given its degraded, farmed condition. Commissioner Bemke called the 2:1 replacement ratio "a good move," and other commissioners urged the developer to prioritize native plantings and to consult Dakota County Soil and Water for vegetation plans. Staff clarified that the Environmental Advisory Commission’s role under city code is to review land alteration and wetland replacement applications and collect commissioners’ opinions for council; a formal recommendation to council is not required in this review step.
There were no public comments at the meeting. The commission did not vote on the project during this session; the developer’s wetland replacement application will proceed through the city and then to council per normal permitting procedures.
