Planning Commission Agenda - 04/02/2024AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 2, 2024 – 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING
Monticello Community Center – North Mississippi Room
5:00 p.m. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Submittal for a proposed multi -use
development including Commercial Lodging, Event Center, and Restaurant
facilities on a parcel currently in the Monticello Township and guided
Employment Campus
Commissioners: Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa
Robeck, Rob Stark
Council Liaison: Councilmember Charlotte Gabler
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden
Stensgard
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
D. Approval of Agenda
E. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Joint Workshop Meeting Minutes—March 4, 2024
• Regular Meeting Minutes—March 4, 2024
• Joint Workshop Meeting Minutes—March 25, 2024
F. Citizen Comment
2. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage,
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.046: Overlay Zoning Districts, Adopting
the updated Flood Hazard Determination including Flood Insurance Study & Flood
Insurance Rate Maps for the City of Monticello as part of the Official Zoning Map
and the subject Zoning Ordinance Section herein.
Applicant: City of Monticello
3. Regular Agenda
4. Other Business
A. Community Development Director's Report
5. Adjournment
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, March 4, 2024 – 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING
Monticello Community Center – Academy Room
4:45 p.m. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Submittal for a proposed
multi -phased Residential Development including Single -Family
Residential and Medium Density -Residential uses
Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa Robeck, Rob Stark
Commissioners Absent: Chair Paul Konsor
Council Liaison Absent: Councilmember Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden
Stensgard
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Vice Chair Andrew Tapper called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Mr. Tapper called the roll.
C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
None
D. Approval of Agenda
ROB STARK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 4, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0
E. Aaaroval of Meetine Minutes
• Workshop Meeting Minutes—February 6, 2024
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 6, 2024,
WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
• Regular Meeting Minutes—February 6, 2024
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 6, 2024,
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
F. Citizen Comment
None
2. Public Hearings
A. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for an Amendment to the
Country Club Manor 2nd Addition PUD District, as related to principal residential
use for development of 22 units of twinhomes; Request for Preliminary Plat of
Country Club Manor 4t" Addition.
Applicant: Michael Hoagberg
City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the
Planning Commission and the public. The applicants proposed to amend the
previously approved Country Club Manor 2nd Addition PUD to adjust the
development plans from a 102 -unit senior living apartment complex to an additional
22 units of twinhomes. The design of the proposed twinhomes would reflect those
of the previously approved 60 units that are currently under construction.
Commissioner Rob Stark asked how much distance is between each driveway. Mr.
Grittman says it varies, though the distances are not significant. The lack of space in
these areas raises a concern for snow management, and that is an aspect of the
proposal the applicants will need to address.
Commissioner Tapper asked if this development would have an association for
maintenance and such. Mr. Grittman said that an association is not planned for
these twinhomes, and clarified that the owner of the development will be managing
the properties, consistent with the original 60 units approved in 2022.
Brian Nicholson, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission and
the public. Mr. Nicholson noted that the applicant team is currently looking for
another location in Monticello for the previously approved apartment building. The
amendment being requested stemmed from public feedback and interest in the
twinhomes portion of the development.
Commissioner Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2024-09, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTRY CLUB MANOR SECOND ADDITION
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. MELISSA ROBECK
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2024-10,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COUNTRY CLUB MANOR
FOURTH ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of an Update on Floodplain Hazard Determination & Man Adontion
Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an overview of the
agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. The DNR informed City staff
that the flood hazard determinations for Wright County had been finalized by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a process that began in 2011. In
order for the City of Monticello to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program,
the City is required to revise its floodplain ordinance so that the language reflects
the new maps created from the determination process. This agenda item was
merely informative for the Planning Commission, and an official ordinance
amendment would be brought back in the future for their formal review and
consideration.
No action was taken on the item.
4. Other Business
A. Community Development Director's Report
Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning
Commission and the public.
No action was taken on the item.
5. Adjournment
ROB STARK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO
»_1►1►11►[eIK�I► 1► I[•Y•9[�L�:�:�1�:1►1�:�.1��L�1► � � 1:1�► [�l1[�LAu[�>t1[�L[�1_1:�:�L��7
UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:35 P.M.
MINUTES
JOINT MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Monday, March 4, 2024 — 4:45 p.m.
Monticello Community Center
Planning Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Rob Stark
Planning Commissioners Absent: Chair Paul Konsor, Teri Lehner, Melissa Robeck
City Councilmembers Present: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Charlotte Gabler, Sam Murdoff, Tracy
Hinz, Lee Martie
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Rachel Leonard, Ron
Hackenmueller, Hayden Stensgard
1. Call to Order
Planning Commission Vice Chair Andrew Tapper called the joint workshop of the
Monticello Planning Commission and City Council to order at 4:47 p.m.
2. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Submittal for a proposed multi -phased
Residential Development including Single -Family Residential and Medium Density -
Residential uses
PI Ds: 155-259-000060. -000070. -000080. -000090. -000100. -000110. -000120
Legal Description: Outlots F, G, H, I, J, K, L, Haven Ridge
Applicant: Twin Cities Land Development
Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an overview of the
Concept Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) joint workshop meeting's purpose and
intent. The purpose was for a concept stage PUD review aimed at providing helpful and
constructive feedback to the development team that presents the concept. Notices
were sent out for this meeting to the surrounding area where the development is
proposed. Ms. Schumann added that the meeting did not involve a public hearing, but if
time allows, residents present may address the group.
City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning
Commission, City Council, and the public. The group was asked to consider a concept
stage PUD for a multi -phased single-family residential development consisting of 298
lots. The submittal team had indicated that they would complete the development in its
entirety in five separate phases. The group was asked to identify any areas of concern
that would require change to avoid the potential for denial during the land use
application process, as well as any elements of the concept that would be essential for
grounds for approval.
Ben Schmidt, of Twin Cities Land Development (applicant), addressed the Planning
Commission, City Council, and the public. Mr. Schmidt provided an overview of Twin
Cities Land Development and how their team came to this point with the proposed
concept and also noted that they were available for questions.
Mr. Tapper asked why the flexibility request includes smaller finishable square footage
areas for homes in the proposed T -N district area of the concept. Mr. Schmidt clarified
that given the size of the lots for those specific areas of the concept, if homes were to
be built on them without a basement (slab -on -grade), 2,000 finishable square feet of
home would not fit on those lots. Though not a concern for homes with finishable
basements, flexibility is requested for the opportunity to have slab -on -grade homes
available to prospective residents. The flexibility would also allow for more builders to
be able to construct homes in the development, providing more variety of home
selection and design within the neighborhood.
Mayor Hilgart noted that given the current environment surrounding housing
development, the flexibility requests shown in the concept PUD did not appear out of
character.
Mr. Tapper asked the proposer if they believed all the townhomes would be built by the
same builder. Mr. Schmidt believed they would all be built by one builder.
Mayor Hilgart asked why the roads accessing the townhome areas would be private
streets. Mr. Schmidt noted that the private streets can be smaller than the public
streets, providing more area for development of the townhomes without disrupting too
much of the woodland in the same vicinity.
Councilmember Charlotte Gabler mentioned the westernmost street of the concept,
Elemore Lane NE, is a long section of road around the development without a stop sign,
and asked if the development team would foresee any issues with that. Mr. Schmidt
noted that all of the streets intersecting with Elemore Lane NE would have a stop sign,
and said that consideration could be given to putting a stop sign where Elemore Lane NE
turns at close to a 90 -degree angle at the northwest corner of the development.
Councilmember Gabler asked if the ponds shown on the site plan were existing and
would be enlarged in conjunction with the development. Mr. Schmidt clarified that the
ponds do not exist currently, but would be created to manage stormwater within the
development.
Councilmember Gabler asked for clarification on the plan for a park within the
development, or if this neighborhood would rely on Hunters Crossing Park to the North
to serve as the closest park location for the development. Mr. Schmidt noted that the
intention would be to add more park area to Hunters Crossing Park with the realigning
of 85th Street NE when the roundabout is installed.
Ms. Schumann added that given the amount of wetland area surrounding the
development, City staff has worked with the developers to create an extensive pathway
system, that will also be considered as a component of the park dedication
requirements. Consideration would need to be given in the future to the distance from
the south end of the development to the nearest park location, as neighborhood
walkability to parks remains an important component of the City's park system.
Councilmember Gabler asked if this development would incorporate a neighborhood
conservation overlay district that is referenced within the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan
(Comp Plan). Ms. Schumann noted that though there are areas of this concept plan that
reflect some of the guidelines of that overlay district laid out within the comp plan, it is
not anticipated that the overlay district would be incorporated into this development.
Councilmember Gabler asked if the development team knew what the home designs
would be for the slab -on -grade houses in the 55 -foot lot width area of the development.
Mr. Schmidt clarified that there is no defined design for those specific homes and that
they anticipate a wide variety of home designs throughout the development.
Public Comment
Rob Collins, 8278 Eisele Ave NE, Monticello, MN 55362, asked how many townhomes
were proposed at the south end of the roundabout, and if all the trees in that area were
to remain. Mr. Schmidt clarified that there were 22 in that location, and though not all
the trees in the area would be saved, the development team is planning to avoid the
disturbance of trees in the area as much as possible.
Public Comment
Nancy Friesen, 8116 Edmonson Ave NE, Monticello 55362, asked if there are plans for a
berm or screening along the southwest portion of the development. Mr. Schmidt noted
that boundary landscaping is important for both new homeowners moving into the
development, as well as the existing property owners adjacent to the development
area, and those will be considered in those areas as the development continues to
progress in the process.
Public Comment
Paul Nelson, 4750 25th St SW, Waverly, MN 55390, asked where the stormwater for this
development would go, and expressed concern for potential flooding of surrounding
farmland from the stormwater created from the development. Brian Krystofiak, or
Carlson McCain, Inc. said that the majority of the west side of the development would
flow through the ponds to be created, and eventually discharge into the wetland at the
south edge.
Mr. Schmidt added that the anticipation is that the amount of runoff in this location
currently will be more than the runoff that will occur following full development of the
site.
Mr. Nelson asked where the majority of traffic for the development would be entering
and leaving the development. Mr. Schmidt said they would verify that information with
a traffic study, but would anticipate once the roundabout is completed, people within
the development would utilize that in the northeast, rather than exiting to the west.
Mayor Hilgart added that the direction they use to exit the neighborhood is ultimately
dependent on where the traffic's destination is.
Councilmember Sam Murdoff asked if the landscape proposal for the lots was 3 caliper
inches per tree (9 caliper inches total) per lot in place of any shrub plantings. Mr.
Schmidt clarified that is what would be proposed per the PUD flexibility.
Councilmember Tracy Hinz noted that the development team's focus on providing
variety in this concept neighborhood is a positive and looks forward to seeing that
further incorporated as they get closer to development of the site.
No action was taken on the item.
3. Adjournment
By consensus, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
CI
MINUTES
JOINT MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Monday, March 25, 2024 — 5:00 p.m.
Monticello Community Center
Planning Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark
Planning Commissioners Absent: Chair Paul Konsor, Melissa Robeck
City Councilmembers Present: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Charlotte Gabler, Sam Murdoff, Tracy
Hinz, Lee Martie
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Rachel Leonard, Sarah
Rathlisberger, Jennifer Schreiber, Ryan Melhouse, Ron
Hackenmueller, Hayden Stensgard, Tammy Omdal
(Northland Securities Inc.)
1. Call to Order
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart called the joint workshop meeting of the Monticello Planning
Commission and City Council to order at 5:01 p.m.
2. Conceot Stage Planned Unit Develooment Submittal for a or000sed multi -chased
Industrial Business Campus project, including Clinics/Medical Services facilities on a
parcel currently zoned Agricultural Ooen Space District and guided Emolovment
Campus
PIDs: 155-271-000030
I Descriotion: Outlot C. Featherstone 6th Addition
Applicant: Silas Partners, I.I.C.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an overview of the
Concept Stage PUD joint meeting's purpose and intent. The purpose was for a concept
stage Planned Unit Development review aimed at providing helpful and constructive
feedback to the development team that presented the concept. Notices were sent out
for this meeting to the surrounding area where the development is proposed. Ms.
Schumann added that the meeting did not involve a public hearing, but if time allows,
members of the public present may address the group.
City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning
Commission, City Council, and the public. The proposed site is roughly 89 acres adjacent
to Highway 25 to the West, 85th Street NE to the South, the Featherstone residential
neighborhood to the East, and The Meadows manufactured home park to the North.
Phase one of the project would consist of an Ambulatory Surgery Center of about
25,000 square feet, interior road system, and utility installation. Subsequent phases of
development are to follow that will complement the first phase. The remaining area of
developable land is anticipated to be platted and sold to potential users that will align
with uses identified in the PUD language. The project as proposed requires a PUD as it is
designed to include a series of commercial/light industrial properties that rely on joint
access and in some cases, shared parking. In addition, certain aspects of site design are
anticipated to require flexibility given the complex use. This is likely to include
comprehensive sign planning, cooperative landscaping, and other shared site elements.
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart asked if these concept plans would affect MnDOT's plan to widen
Highway 25 in this area. Assistant City Engineer Ryan Melhouse said that MnDOT does
have planned expansions on Highway 25 around 2026, although the lane expansion
would occur south of this project. The applicant team will need to work with MnDOT in
preparation for those improvements.
Councilmember Charlotte Gabler asked if given the southwest corner of the property is
guided as Regional Commercial in the Comp Plan, which is separate from the balance of
land that is guided Employment Campus, would the PUD incorporate uses that would
align more with a commercial district than industrial. Mr. Grittman clarified that there is
a capability of working certain uses into the PUD that will accomplish the land use
guidance purpose and intent for that area.
Jim Vos, of Silas Partners, LLC., addressed the City Council, Planning Commission, and
the public. Mr. Vos noted that Stellis Health is interested in developing 25 acres of the
site and does not need the balance of the land left over. The intent would be to sell the
remainder of the land to users that would complement Stellis's ambulatory surgery
center and subsequent phases. It is the anticipation of the applicant group that
construction of that first 25,000 -square -foot building would begin in the Spring of 2025.
Mayor Hilgart said that the first phases of development are consistent with what the
City would want in an Employment Campus guided area. He stated that uses identified
in the PUD language could influence site layout.
Mr. Vos noted that they intend to be conscious of their neighbors in the surrounding
properties when identifying potential users in those areas to be marketed and sold. The
intent to have commercial uses concentrated at the corner of 85th Street NE and
Highway 25 was to align their conceptual plan with the Future Land Use Map in Chapter
3 of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comp Plan).
Dan Lavender of Stantec, and part of the applicant team, also noted that their hope is
the PUD will allow flexibility in principle uses that include commercial and some
components of industrial. The conceptual outline of the land and the use designations
shown were included in alignment with the original Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) that was conducted across the entire Featherstone development site.
Councilmember Sam Murdoff asked if Stellis Health plans to move from its current site
in Monticello to the proposed location. Mr. Vos confirmed but added that the
ambulatory surgery center would be a new addition to the Stellis Health operation
within the City, and the existing practice would eventually move. At this time, there is
no plan to relocate Stellis Health's location in Buffalo, MN in connection with this
proposed concept.
Councilmember Murdoff asked if there have been any conversations with The Meadows
manufactured home park in connection with bringing Cedar Street through the park to
the south to connect with this concept proposal. Ms. Schumann said in the past, the City
has had conversations with The Meadows's ownership group about bringing both Cedar
Street and Deegan Avenue through to the South, but it is not anticipated that the
extension of Cedar Street would occur in conjunction with this concept development.
Commissioner Tapper asked what the phasing of the road system would be. Mr. Vos
said that they intend to build all the roads in the first phase of the development.
Mayor Hilgart commented that building the southerly road going east and west on site
could potentially hinder any changes to the site plan for the 25 -acre initial development
parcel.
Commissioner Tapper asked if the interior road shown going between the conceptual
buildings would have access to Highway 25. Mr. Vos clarified that the road would not
have access to Highway 25, and would serve as an interior road for the development's
circulation. The conceptual development proposes a full intersection access and a
"right -in right -out" access on Highway 25.
Councilmember Gabler noted the substantial amount of parking on site, and asked if
that many spaces were necessary. Mr. Lavendar clarified that the concept plan shows
the City's requirement per the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, and the applicant team
feels that there may not be a need for that many spaces.
Councilmember Gabler asked if a parking ramp for the site was ever considered. Mr. Vos
clarified that a ramp would be a substantial cost compared to surface parking.
Councilmember Gabler asked if there were any plans for a public transportation
component to be included with this development. City Administrator Rachel Leonard
noted that there are no plans for public transportation to be included, or designated
stops in this area for public transit, but Trailblazer Transit continues to serve as a form of
public transportation in the area. Mr. Lavender also added that there will be sidewalks
and pathways installed within this development, as well as along Highway 25 and 85th
Street NE.
Councilmember Murdoff noted that it would make sense to only install the north -south
road in the development to where it needs to be installed, allowing more flexibility in
planning the eventual extension of Cedar Street.
Ms. Schumann mentioned that the City's authority with right-of-way for public streets
comes at plat. If the development intends to plat the entire 89 acres into lots and
blocks, an understanding of Cedar Street's right-of-way will need to be known.
Ms. Leonard reiterated that the goal is to allow as much flexibility to the developer with
regard to road alignment, but at the same time be conscious of the fact that the City will
continue to work with The Meadows on connecting Cedar Street through that
residential neighborhood with a focus on minimal impact to the existing neighborhood
itself. Part of that consideration would include utilizing the existing private
infrastructure within The Meadows to make that through connection. The importance
of making the eventual connection would allow residents in that neighborhood to exit
that area without needing to use Highway 25, or the J -turn setup that exists for both
sides of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Tracy Hinz asked if the development team has encountered resident
concerns for developments of the like. The development team said that when it comes
to medical office buildings and the development that tends to follow that initial phase of
development, they do draw attention, but residents have not typically expressed
pushback or concerns.
Councilmember Murdoff asked if the roads were planned to connect to the
Featherstone residential area, where 89th St NE currently ends with a cul-de-sac. Mr.
Vos clarified there is no intention to connect the conceptual development's road system
with the residential area.
Mayor Hilgart asked if they knew the estimate of jobs that would come with the first
three phases of development. Mr. Vos said at this time, they can be certain that the first
phase of development (25,000 square foot ambulatory surgery center) would bring 25-
30. Mr. Grittman clarified that there is information available that can be used to
speculate that medical office buildings such as the proposed one would have one job
per 500-700 square feet of building space. All three phases at a conceptual level would
have 275,000 square feet.
Public Comment
Keith Samuelson, 4121 Eaton Circle NE, Monticello, MN 55362, appreciated that this
proposed concept would not connect to the Featherstone residential neighborhood.
Public Comment
Scott Nelson, 4124 Eaton Circle NE, Monticello, MN 55362, asked that the development
team give attention to controlling the development's lighting so that it is not a
disturbance to the residential neighbors to the east.
No action was taken on the agenda item.
3. Adjournment
By consensus, the meeting was adjourned at 6:02 p.m.
Planning Commission Agenda — 04/02/2024
2A. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello Citv Code. Title XV:
Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.046: Overlay Zoning Districts,
Adopting the updated Flood Hazard Determination including Flood Insurance Study
and Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the City of Monticello as part of the Official Zoning
Map and the subject Zoning Ordinance Section herein. Applicant: City of Monticello
Prepared by: Meeting Date: Council Date (pending
Community Development Director 04/02/2024 Commission action):
04/22/2024
Additional Analysis by:
Consulting City Planner, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Project Engineer,
Chief Building & Zoning Official
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of Ordinance Amendment — Flood Hazard Determinations
1. Motion to continue the public hearing and table action on Resolution No. PC -2024-11 to
allow for individual mailed notice to affected property owners.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Description: City of Monticello
PID #: City of Monticello
Planning Case Number: 2024-13
Request(s): Amendment to the Floodplain Overlay Zoning District, Adopting
the updated Flood Hazard Determination including Flood
Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Land Use Designation
Zoning Designation
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable:
Current Site Uses:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Ive1
Varies
Floodplain Overlay District (FP)
NA
NA
1
Planning Commission Agenda — 04/02/2024
ORDINANCE AND NOTIFICATION
City staff requests that the Planning Commission open the public hearing on this item and
continue action to the May 7t", 2024, regular meeting of the Commission.
As a procedural matter, the City's Zoning Ordinance requires mailed notice to property owners
"within 350 feet" for Zoning Map Amendments. In this case, because the proposed amendment
incorporates the final Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels as part of the Official Zoning
Map, written (mailed) notice would therefore be required by the City's ordinance.
State statute requires mailed notice only when a map amendment involves changes in district
boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less. Staff would propose to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to align with the statute, rather than the 350 feet in all cases, as a matter of general
applicability for notice requirements. The City will hold a separate public hearing on that
notification amendment item.
The proposed amendment to 153.027 of the Zoning Ordinance would also eliminate confusion
regarding a possible requirement to notify all property owners within 350 feet of the floodplain,
not just affected property owners.
Regardless of the proposed amendment for notification, written notice to all property owners
impacted by the proposed updated floodplain mapping will be sent for the continued May
hearing on the subject amendment.
ANALYSIS
The flood hazard determination for Wright County, including Monticello, has been finalized by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The finalized flood hazard determinations
include Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Monticello.
The process of updating Wright County's floodplain mapping began in 2011 and has been
ongoing since that time. The prior adopted floodplain mapping for Monticello was dated 1979
and 1981.
In 2016, Wright County received notice of its public comment period for the new floodplain
hazard determination information. The City worked with its designated environmental
consultant WSB to understand the new mapping, provide map comments to the DNR and
FEMA, and notify affected property owners of the comment period. No formal appeals were
received during the comment period.
As part of the requirements for continued inclusion in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), the City is also required to update its local ordinances for floodplain management. In
conjunction with the 2016 public comment period and preliminary mapping, Monticello
updated its Floodplain District ordinance, adopting the amended ordinance in 2018 and
receiving certification of the ordinance from the DNR in coordination with FEMA in 2018.
2
Planning Commission Agenda — 04/02/2024
Due to comments on the flood hazard determinations received in other parts of Wright County,
the final adoption of flood hazard determinations for Wright County was delayed. In 2022, the
City received notice that FEMA was in its final review period for the determination. After
finalizing changes to mapping for these other portions of Wright County, the flood hazard
determinations were finalized by FEMA in 2023. Monticello's mapping remained consistent
with the preliminary maps provided in 2016.
The Wright County flood hazard determinations will now become effective June 20, 2024.
In conjunction with the updated flood hazard determination for Wright County, the City of
Monticello is required to update its Floodplain Overlay District ordinance to reference the final
flood map and study dates.
The DNR has provided a recommendation on the necessary language, which has been
incorporated into a draft ordinance. The ordinance incorporates the final flood insurance rate
map panels and flood insurance study, striking reference to the prior maps and study. The DNR
has provided conditional approval of the proposed ordinance. The City is now required to hold
a formal public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Following Council review and decision, the
DNR must then certify the ordinance.
The map panels and insurance study for Monticello are included for reference with this report.
The 2024 Official Zoning Map Appendix Floodplain, Shoreland, and MWSRR Overlay District
included floodplain mapping consistent with the preliminary mapping, now to be adopted as
final.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City is required to enact an ordinance that is compliant with federal floodplain regulations,
including adoption of the updated floodplain maps and insurance study, to maintain
Monticello's inclusion in the National Flood Insurance Program. Staff therefore recommend
adoption of the proposed amendment.
Following the effective date of the new flood hazard determinations, property owners may be
contacted by their lenders regarding any specific requirements for flood insurance.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution No. PC -2024-11
B. Draft Ordinance No. XXX
C. Draft Ordinance No. XXX As Amended
D. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, 153.027
E. FEMA Correspondence, March 12, 2024
F. DNR Conditional Approval, March 21, 2024
G. June 20, 2024 Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels, Monticello
3
Planning Commission Agenda — 04/02/2024
H. June 20, 2024 Flood Insurance Study, Wright County
I. GIS Mapping— Floodplain Changes
J. 1979 and 1981 FIRM Panels, Monticello
K. 2024 Floodplain, Shoreland and MWSRR Overlay District Map
4
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
CHAPTER 153, SECTION 153.046, ADOPTING REVISED FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS AND
RELATED FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agenda (FEMA) maintains a program
providing flood insurance for flood -prone and other affected properties; and
WHEREAS, FEMA establishes a system identifying properties at risk of flooding, and further
establishes a variable level of risk based on a variety of environmental and geographic
factors; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties can be eligible to participate in the federal flood
insurance program when the applicable local government has adopted the required
floodplain management ordinance; and
WHEREAS, FEMA regularly conducts a study (the Flood Insurance Study — FIS) for the
purpose of updating regulations and the mapping identifying the affected properties in a
series of maps known as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM); and
WHEREAS, FEMA has provided notice that the updated FIS and FIRM for Wright County,
including the City of Monticello, will be final as of June 20, 2024; and
WHEREAS, notice of adoption of the Final Flood Hazard Determinations that make up the
FIS and FIRM were published in the Federal Register by FEMA and the Department of
Homeland Security on March 18, 2024, effective on June 20, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello notified all owners with property affected by the updated
preliminary FIS and FIRM, during the formal appeal period in 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello, following published notice, conducted a required public
hearing amending Chapter 153.046 for the Floodplain Overlay District in July 2018 under
the guidance of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as the responsible agency
for statewide Floodplain Management compliance, with said ordinance receiving
certification from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in August 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello, under the guidance of the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources as the responsible agency for statewide Floodplain Management
compliance, has prepared proposed updates to its Floodplain Management Overlay District
for the purpose of incorporating the new FIS and FIRM, by reference, into its existing
ordinance; and
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-11
WHEREAS, the revised FIRM documents include maps with the following panel numbers:
27171C0155D, 27171C0160D, 27171C0165D, 27171C0170D, and 27171C0190D; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment on April 2,
2024, and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to
the Planning Commission and comment on the proposed ordinance amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the approval:
1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the City's interest in protecting
the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, businesses, and property owners.
2. The proposed amendment incorporates requirements of the Federal and State
agencies as required to maintain local property owner eligibility in the federal
flood insurance program.
3. Failure to adopt the relevant amendments may put individual property owners
and the public at significant risk if left without eligibility in the federal flood
insurance program.
4. The City has complied with the procedural requirements of FEMA and DNR in
considering and adopting the proposed amendments.
5. The City of Monticello supports the purposes and intent of the Federal Flood
Insurance Program through proper application of floodplain management
regulations, and ensuring that property owners are eligible for insurance
coverage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, recommends that the Monticello City Council adopts the proposed
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as specified in Ordinance No.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 2024, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
A, -
2
Paul
Paul Konsor, Chair
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-11
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
ORDINANCE NO.8XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE XV,
CHAPTER 153, MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE,
SECTIONS 153.046 (C) FOR FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT REGULATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. § 153.046(C) — General provisions is hereby amended as follows:
(2) General provisions.
(a) Lands to which ordinance applies. This chapter applies to all lands within the
jurisdiction of the city of Monticello within the boundaries of the Floodway and Flood
Fringe Districts. The boundaries of the zoning districts are determined by scaling
distances on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as modified in accordance with
§ 153.046(C)(2)(a)2. below.
1. The Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts are overlay
districts that are superimposed on all existing zoning districts. The standards imposed in
the overlay districts are in addition to any other requirements in this chapter. In case of a
conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply.
2. Where a conflict exists between the floodplain limits illustrated on the official
floodplain maps and actual field conditions, the flood elevations shall be the governing
factor in locating the regulatory floodplain limits.
3. Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a
reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Planning Commission and to submit
technical evidence.
(b) Incorporation of maps by reference.
1. The following maps together with all attached material are hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of the Official Zoning Map and this chapter. The
attached material, all prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
includes:
a. Currently effective €Flood }Insurance &Study:
(4) W -fight C;otintyN4imesetatinineofpor-atedar-eas, dated 8/18/1992.
b. Gtiffently eff-eetive Flood Insufanee Rate Map panels em+mef4ed below:
(;) City „r>\a,.,, eelle,'mel 2705410005B, enr€Etiye 1 1 i1 n o7 -n
(ii) W -f ght County, Minnesota2705340018C,
T �Pa��e1 ��effeetive Q 11 Q 11992
r;;) W -fight r,,,,,, y, Mifines,.ta Panel 270534nn�Tef eetiye 8/4 /1988.
Vol
dire-li,Y,;,,afy
(i)
flood ; „cess
Flood Insurance Study for Wright County Minnesota and Incorporated
Areas, dated 6
X22/2 dated June 20, 2024.
e.
Currently effective Flood Insurance Rate Map panels, dated
June 20, 2024,
enumerated below:
(i)
27171 C0155D
(ii)
27171 C0160D
(iii)
27171 C0165D
(iv)
27171 C0170D
(v)
n(i)
(ii)
27171 C0190D
W -fight County, Minnesota Panel 27171CO 15 5D, da4ed 6/22/2011..
W -fight County, Minnesota Panel 2717 1 CO 1 60D, dated 6/22/2011.
W- fight r,,,,,, Mrnnesotel 6
(iii
t;.,
2.
y, 2""�1 ate�Z'��201r
W-fight rotmt ., Minnesota Panel 27171G01dated 6/22/2011.
fight County, Minnesotems' 7171GO�dated 6/22/2011.
, the M
,.os*,.;e five mar
shall app4� . These materials are on file in the City Clerk's Office, City of
Monticello City Hall.
SECTION 2.
The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this
Ordinance as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title XV, Chapter
153, Zoning Ordinance, and to renumber the tables and chapters
accordingly as necessary to provide the intended effect of this Ordinance.
The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary corrections to any
internal citations that result from said renumbering process, provided that
such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has
been adopted.
SECTION 3.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its
passage and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be
posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete
Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall.
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rachel Leonard, Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
153.046(C) — General provisions [AS AMENDED]
(2) General provisions.
(a) Lands to which ordinance applies. This chapter applies to all lands within the
jurisdiction of the city of Monticello within the boundaries of the Floodway and Flood
Fringe Districts. The boundaries of the zoning districts are determined by scaling
distances on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as modified in accordance with
§ 153.046(C)(2)(a)2. below.
1. The Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts are overlay
districts that are superimposed on all existing zoning districts. The standards imposed in
the overlay districts are in addition to any other requirements in this chapter. In case of a
conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply.
2. Where a conflict exists between the floodplain limits illustrated on the official
floodplain maps and actual field conditions, the flood elevations shall be the governing
factor in locating the regulatory floodplain limits.
3. Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a
reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Planning Commission and to submit
technical evidence.
(b) Incorporation of maps by reference.
1. The following maps together with all attached material are hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of the Official Zoning Map and this chapter. The
attached material, all prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, includes:
a. Currently effective Flood Insurance Study:
(i) Flood Insurance Study for Wright County Minnesota and Incorporated
Areas, dated June 20, 2024.
e. Currently effective -Flood Insurance Rate Map panels, dated June 20, 2024,
enumerated below:
(i) 27171C0155D
(ii) 27171C0160D
(iii) 27171C0165D
(iv) 27171C0170D
(v) 27171C0190D
2. These materials are on file in the City Clerk's Office, City of Monticello City
Hall.
§ 153.027 COMMON REVIEW PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS.
(A) Applicability. The requirements of § 153.027 shall apply to all applications subject to review under this chapter unless
otherwise stated.
(B) Authority to file applications.
(1) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, applications may be initiated by:
(a) The owner of the property that is the subject of the application;
(b) The owner's authorized agent; or
(c) The city, including the Community Development Department as authorized by this chapter.
(2) When an authorized agent files an application under this chapter on behalf of a property owner, the agent shall
provide a signed authorization from the fee title property owner stating that the property owner agrees to be bound by all
decisions, agreements, and related conditions agreed to by such agent.
(3) For all applications involving multiple owners, contract purchasers, etc; all such persons shall sign the application.
(C) Application submission schedule. The schedule for the submission of applications in relation to scheduled meetings
of the decision-making bodies shall be maintained by the Community Development Department and made available to the
public.
(D) Application contents.
(1) Organization and copies. The organization of applications and the number of copies of required information to be
submitted shall be determined by the Community Development Department.
(2) General submittal requirements. All applications shall include:
(a) A completed City of Monticello application form;
(b) Verification of authority to file applications per the requirements of §153.027(B);
(c) Supporting title information establishing ownership interests in the property (e.g. a title commitment and/or
signature of fee title property owner);
(d) All submittal requirements outlined in this chapter for the specific application type;
(e) Electronic copies of all written narratives and plan sets required by the Community Development Department as
part of the specific application;
(f) The city may require applicants to submit such technical studies as may be necessary to enable the city to
evaluate the application. Such studies may include, but not be limited to, traffic studies, engineering studies, environmental
impact assessments, and economic impact reports. The costs of such studies shall be borne by the applicant with the
persons or firms preparing the study approved by the city.
(3) Submission of fees. Applications shall be accompanied by a fee as established by the City of Monticello pursuant to
the most recently adopted City of Monticello Fee Schedule.
(E) Application acceptance.
(1) Complete application required. The review and consideration of an application submitted under this section shall
only occur if such application includes all items that are required in support of the application and is deemed complete by the
Community Development Department (see M.S. § 15.99(3)(a), as it may be amended from time to time).
(2) Waiver of application requirements. Except for the required application form and the associated fee, the Community
Development Department may waive individual submittal requirements and deem an application complete for review if it is
determined that such information will serve no purpose during the review process. However, it is the responsibility of the
applicant to supply all information required by this chapter, and a waiver issued by the Community Development Department
shall not eliminate the need to provide such information at a later time if it is ultimately deemed necessary to adequately
review the application. During the review process, failure of an applicant to supply information in a timely manner may result
in denial of the application due to the city's inability to comply with state mandated time deadlines.
(F) Simultaneous processing of applications. Whenever two or more forms of review and approval are required under this
chapter (e.g., a proposed rezoning and subdivision application), the applications for those approvals may, at the discretion
of the Community Development Department, be processed simultaneously, so long as all applicable requirements are
satisfied for all applications.
(G) Pre -application conferences.
(1) All prospective applicants are encouraged to speak with a member of the Community Development Department
prior to submitting an application in order to review the proposal and to determine the specific materials to be submitted with
the future application.
(2) Discussions that occur during a pre -application conference are not binding on the city and do not constitute official
assurances, representations or approvals by the city or its officials on any aspects of the plan or application discussed.
(H) Fees.
(1) Determination of fees. Fees required to accompany applications submitted under this chapter shall be in
accordance with the approved fee schedule adopted yearly by the City Council.
(2) Fees to be paid. No application shall be accepted until all applicable application fees have been paid.
(3) Refund of application fee. Application fees are not administratively refundable except when the Community
Development Department determines that an application was withdrawn prior to any consideration or review of the
application.
(4) Escrow. Application fees may also require payment of an escrow in favor of the city. The required escrow amount
shall be in accordance with the approved fee schedule adopted yearly by the City Council.
(5) Staff and/or consultant fee. In order to defray the additional cost of processing applications submitted under this
chapter, all applicants shall pay the total cost of staff and/or consulting time spent exclusively in producing materials for the
applicants request and all materials for said request.
(a) "Materials" shall include, but not be limited to, maps, graphs, charts, drawings, etc., and all printing and
reproduction of same.
(b) "Staff and/or consulting time" shall include any time spent in either researching for or actual production of
materials.
(c) The hourly rate for "staff and/or consulting time" shall be in accordance with the approved fee schedule adopted
yearly by the City Council.
(1) Public notification. Applications requiring public notification shall be noticed in compliance with the following
provisions.
(1) Content. Notices for public hearings, whether by publication or mailed notice, shall contain at a minimum:
(a) A bold title referring to the content of the notice.
(b) Identification of the address or location of the property or properties subject to the application.
(c) Date, time, and place of the public hearing.
(d) Nature and scope of the application.
(e) Where to view the application.
(f) Where the public may be heard.
(g) Provision for written comments. The notice will describe where written comments will be received prior to the
public hearing.
(2) Timing of the notice. Unless otherwise expressly provided or required by law, all statutorily or code required notices
shall be postmarked or published at least ten days prior to the hearing or meeting at which the application will be
considered.
(3) Responsibilities.
(a) Published notice. When the provisions of this chapter require that notice be published, the Community
Development Department shall be responsible for preparing the content of the notice and publishing the notice in the city's
official newspaper. The content and form of the published notice shall be consistent with the requirements of § 153.027(1)(1)
and state law.
(b) Written (mailed) notice. When the provisions of this chapter require that written or mailed notice be provided, the
Community Development Department shall be responsible for preparing and mailing the written notice per the requirements
outlined in Table 2-2.
TABLE 2-2: WRITTEN NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Application Type
Written Notice Provided To
TABLE 2-2: WRITTEN NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Application Type
Written Notice Provided To
(4) Notice construction.
(a) The Community Development Department may use property tax records to determine the names and addresses
of affected property owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent must
be attested to by the Community Development Department and must be made a part of the records of the proceedings.
(b) Minor defects in any notice shall not impair the notice or invalidate proceedings pursuant to the notice if a good
faith attempt has been made to comply with applicable notice requirements. Minor defects in notice are errors that do not
affect the substance of the notice (e.g., errors in a legal description, typographical or grammatical errors, errors of actual
acreage, etc). Failure of a party to receive written notice shall not invalidate subsequent action. In all cases, however, the
notification requirements and information specifying the time, date, and place of a hearing shall be strictly construed.
(c) When the records of the city document the publication, mailing, and posting of notices as required by this division,
it shall be presumed that notice of a public hearing was given as required by this division.
(J) Continuation of public hearings. A public hearing for which proper notice was given maybe continued during the
course of such hearing to a later date without again complying with the written and publication notice requirements of this
chapter, provided that the continuance date is announced at the meeting.
(K) Withdrawal of an application. A request for withdrawal of an application shall be submitted in writing with a signature
to the Community Development Department.
(L) Required action deadline. All applications for land use approvals shall be approved or denied within timeframes
required by applicable laws, regulation and the provisions of this chapter in effect on the date the application was submitted.
(M) Environmental review.
(1) No development project shall be approved prior to review by the Community Development Department to determine
the necessity for completion of an Environmental Assessment worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Procedures for EAWs and EISs are set forth in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Review Board (EQB) regulations for
the Environmental Review Program authorized by M.S. §§ 116D.04 and 116D.045, as the may be amended from time to
time, and specified in Minn. Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 44410.7800.
(2) Environmental reviews (EAWs and EISs) shall be conducted as early as practical in the processing of a
development project. No decision on granting of a permit or other approval required may be issued until the EAW/EIS
process is completed.
(N) Reconsideration of land use approval applications. No application for land use approval which has been denied by
the City Council, in whole or in part, shall be reconsidered for a period of six months from the date of City Council action on
the application, except where there is substantial new evidence or proof of a change in conditions with respect to such
application. Before any such reconsideration, the city may require the submission of the appropriate application fee and the
application may be considered as a new application.
- For amendments which involve five acres of land or less,
written notice shall be provided to all property owners within
Comprehensive Plan
350 feet
Amendment
- For amendments which involve more than five acres of
land, notice need only be published within the city's official
newspaper
Zoning Map Amendment
All property owners within 350 feet
Variance
All property owners within 350 feet
Conditional Use Permit
All property owners within 350 feet
Interim Use Permit (new and
All property owners within 350 feet
renewal)
CUP/IUP Revocation
Permittee/landowner only
Planned Unit Developments
All property owners within 350 feet
(4) Notice construction.
(a) The Community Development Department may use property tax records to determine the names and addresses
of affected property owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent must
be attested to by the Community Development Department and must be made a part of the records of the proceedings.
(b) Minor defects in any notice shall not impair the notice or invalidate proceedings pursuant to the notice if a good
faith attempt has been made to comply with applicable notice requirements. Minor defects in notice are errors that do not
affect the substance of the notice (e.g., errors in a legal description, typographical or grammatical errors, errors of actual
acreage, etc). Failure of a party to receive written notice shall not invalidate subsequent action. In all cases, however, the
notification requirements and information specifying the time, date, and place of a hearing shall be strictly construed.
(c) When the records of the city document the publication, mailing, and posting of notices as required by this division,
it shall be presumed that notice of a public hearing was given as required by this division.
(J) Continuation of public hearings. A public hearing for which proper notice was given maybe continued during the
course of such hearing to a later date without again complying with the written and publication notice requirements of this
chapter, provided that the continuance date is announced at the meeting.
(K) Withdrawal of an application. A request for withdrawal of an application shall be submitted in writing with a signature
to the Community Development Department.
(L) Required action deadline. All applications for land use approvals shall be approved or denied within timeframes
required by applicable laws, regulation and the provisions of this chapter in effect on the date the application was submitted.
(M) Environmental review.
(1) No development project shall be approved prior to review by the Community Development Department to determine
the necessity for completion of an Environmental Assessment worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Procedures for EAWs and EISs are set forth in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Review Board (EQB) regulations for
the Environmental Review Program authorized by M.S. §§ 116D.04 and 116D.045, as the may be amended from time to
time, and specified in Minn. Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 44410.7800.
(2) Environmental reviews (EAWs and EISs) shall be conducted as early as practical in the processing of a
development project. No decision on granting of a permit or other approval required may be issued until the EAW/EIS
process is completed.
(N) Reconsideration of land use approval applications. No application for land use approval which has been denied by
the City Council, in whole or in part, shall be reconsidered for a period of six months from the date of City Council action on
the application, except where there is substantial new evidence or proof of a change in conditions with respect to such
application. Before any such reconsideration, the city may require the submission of the appropriate application fee and the
application may be considered as a new application.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20472
Oti4A/'��FA
T
"U-1FE
MA
qND Sti~
March 12, 2024
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The Honorable Lloyd Hilgart
Mayor, City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Dear Mayor Hilgart:
I commend you for the efforts that have been put forth in implementing the floodplain management
measures for the City of Monticello to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
As you implement these measures, I want to emphasize the following:
a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) have been
completed for your community;
the FIS and FIRM will become effective on June 20, 2024 and
by the FIS and FIRM effective date, the Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office is required to approve the
legally enforceable floodplain management measures your community adopts in
accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 60.3(d).
As noted in FEMA's letter dated December 20, 2023, no significant changes have been made to the
flood hazard data on the Preliminary and/or revised Preliminary copies of the FIRM for Wright
County. Therefore, the City of Monticello should use the Preliminary and/or revised Preliminary
copies of the FIRM as the basis for adopting the required floodplain management measures. Final
printed copies of the FIRM for the City of Monticello will be sent to you within the next few
months.
If you encounter difficulties in enacting the measures, I recommend you contact the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Ecological and Water Resources Division. You may contact Ceil
Strauss, CFM, the NFIP State Coordinator, by telephone at (651) 259-5713, in writing at 500
Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155, or by electronic mail at ceil.strauss@state.mn.us.
The FEMA Regional staff in Chicago, Illinois, is also available to provide technical assistance and
guidance in the development of floodplain management measures. The adoption of compliant
www.fema.gov
The Honorable Lloyd Hilgart
March 12, 2024
Page 2
floodplain management measures will provide protection for the City of Monticello and will ensure
its participation in the NFIP. The Regional Office may be contacted by telephone at (312) 408-5500
or in writing. Please send your written inquiries to the Director, Mitigation Division, FEMA Region
5, at 536 South Clark Street, Sixth Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60605.
You may have already contacted the NFIP State Coordinator and/or the FEMA Regional Office, and
may be in the final adoption process or recently adopted the appropriate measures. However, in the
event your community has not adopted the appropriate measures, this letter is FEMA's official
notification that you only have until June 20, 2024 to adopt and/or submit a floodplain management
ordinance that meets or exceeds the minimum NFIP requirements, and request approval from the
FEMA Regional Office by the effective date. Your community's adopted measures will be reviewed
upon receipt and the FEMA Regional Office will notify you when the measures are approved.
I appreciate your cooperation to ensure that your community's floodplain management measures are
approved by the FEMA Regional Office by June 20, 2024. Your compliance with these mandatory
program requirements will enable your community to avoid suspension from the NFIP.
Additional information on community suspensions as proposed, other notices of current NFIP
community status information, and details regarding updated publication requirements of community
eligibility status information under the NFIP can be found on the Community Status Book section of
our website at www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/community-status-book. Notices for
scheduled suspension will be available on the National Flood Insurance Community Status and
Public Notification section of our website at www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-
nfip/community-status-book/public-notification. Individuals without internet access will be able to
contact their local floodplain management official and/or NFIP State Coordinating Office directly
for assistance.
Sincerely,
-01
)e Ole" - 10
Rachel Sears, Director
Floodplain Management Division
Mitigation Directorate I FEMA
cc: Thomas C. Sivak, Regional Administrator, FEMA Region 5
Ceil Strauss, CFM, NFIP State Coordinator, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Ecological and Water Resources Division
Rachael Leonard, City Administrator, City of Monticello
MDEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
March 21, 2024
The Honorable Lloyd Hilgart
Mayor, City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mayor Hilgart:
RE: CONDITIONAL STATE APPROVAL OF FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE & REQUIRED NEXT STEPS
On behalf of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), I am writing to conditionally approve the City of
Monticello's draft floodplain management ordinance.
We received the most recent draft of the City's floodplain management ordinance via email on February 29,
2024, from Community Development Director, Angela Schumann. The ordinance is being amended to
incorporate the updated Flood Insurance Rate Map panels and accompanying Flood Insurance Study for Wright
County, with an effective date of June 20, 2024, and maintain participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP).
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103F.121, we find that the City's draft floodplain management
ordinance substantially complies with the state floodplain management rules (Minnesota Rules, parts 6120.5000
to 6120.6200) and, to the best of our knowledge, with the floodplain management standards of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. It is hereby conditionally approved.
We will provide final approval of the City's draft ordinance once the DNR has received a copy of the following,
no later than June 18, 2024:
• the adopted ordinance (complete ordinance, signed and stamped with the community seal),
• the affidavit of publication, and
• the completed "Ordinance Processing Checklist" (enclosed).
Please forward these documents via email to the DNR Floodplain Program email at floodplain.dnr@state.mn.us,
and copy the DNR's State NFIP Coordinator, Ceil Strauss at ceil.strauss@state.mn.us. Upon receipt and
verification, we will send a final approval letter. Ms. Strauss will then transmit the ordinance and final approval
letter to our contacts at FEMA's Chicago Regional Office. Be advised that any future amendments to this
ordinance or change in the designation of flood prone areas require prior DNR approval. In addition, you are
required to send copies of hearing notices and final decisions pertaining to floodplain variances, conditional
uses, and ordinance amendments to this agency. Please email these notices to Ceil Strauss. Should you have any
questions on this ordinance or related matters, please contact Ms. Strauss via email or at (651) 259-5713.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Division of Ecological and Water Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25, Saint Paul, MN 55155-4025
Though FEMA must receive a signed, certified, and effective ordinance no later than June 20, 2024, we request
that you submit the materials noted above to the DNR no later than June 18, 2024, to accommodate for
processing. If FEMA has not received the documentation by the map effective date, FEMA will suspend the City
from the National Flood Insurance Program.
While our office in St. Paul will be the main contact for the ordinance update, your DNR Area Hydrologist will
continue to be your main contact for day-to-day assistance with administering your floodplain management
ordinance and questions about other DNR water -related programs and permits. Your Area Hydrologist is James
Bedell, who can be contacted at (320) 223-7850 or james.bedell@state.mn.us.
The DNR greatly appreciates your community's cooperation and initiative in providing for the reduction of flood
damages through the adoption and administration of this ordinance.
Sincerely,
Emily Jave n 5 Digitally signed by Emily Javens
Date: 2024.03.21 16:37:26 -05'00'
Emily Javens
Land Use Unit Supervisor
DNR Ecological and Water Resources
Enclosures: Ordinance Processing Checklist
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director—City of Monticello
Dan Lais, DNR EWR Regional Manager
Tim Crocker, DNR EWR District Manager
Constance Holth, DNR EWR North District Hydrologist Supervisor
James Bedell, DNR Area Hydrologist
Ceil Strauss, DNR State Floodplain Manager/NFIP Coordinator
MAP NUMBER
7171 CO075D
27171 CO250D
27171CO070D
6/20/2024
CANADIAN
PACIFIC
RAILWAY
'171C0080D
6/20/2024
CLEAR WATER RIVER
City of
South Haven
I
27171CO090D
6/20/2024
27171CO275D
6/20/2024
I
I
I
7171 CO245D
6/20/2024
I
L
�D
�I3
*PANEL NOT PRINTED - AREA OUTSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY
**PANEL NOT PRINTED - NO SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
7171 CO085D
6/20/2024
City of _
Annendale
27171CO095D
1 6/20/2024
Wright County
Unincorporated Areas
North Fork
Crow River
71 CO025D
27171 CO015D
6/20/2024
A
;
G
171CO105D
6/20/2024
27171CO115D
6/20/2024
-'City of
Annendale
171CO300D
6/20/2024
North Fork
Crow River
Township
of Corinna
7171CO050D
'471,C0016D �27171COOVD 27171 CO040D
612012024 6/20/2024 6/20/2024
City of
Clearwater sa
27171 CO018D 27171 CO019D
612012024 6/20/2024
*27171 CO110D
Wright County
Unincorporated Areas
171CO120D
7171 CO285D
4/20/2024
North Fork
Crow River
C0150D
27171CO045D
6/20/2024
27171CO135D
6/20/2024
Wright County
Unincorporated Areas
27171CO155D
6/20/2024
Otter Creek
I MAPLE LAKE 27171 CO165D
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
6/20/2024
-L---, 27171 CO310D **27171 C0330D
City of " 6/20/2024
Maple 1. .
Lake a$'
27171 CO305D
6/20/2024
27171 C0315
6/20/2024
MAPLE
LAKE
27171 C0316D -1
612012024 City of
Buffalo
BUFFALO
LAKE
27171 C0317D
1 612012024 ,
27171 CO329D
-612012024
171 CO328D
612012024'
27171CO160D
6/20/2024
BURLINGTON NORTHERN &
SANTA FE RAILWAY
25
City of Monticello
27171CO170D
6/20/2024
?7171 C0335D
6/20/2024
PELICAN
LAKE -
171 C03360 2A716340D 27171 CO345D
t3/20/2024 6/2012024 6/20/2024
Buffalo Lake
Tributary
BUFFALO
MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
Wright County
Unincorporated Areas
*27171 CO200D
27171CO190D
6/20/2024
City of
Monticello
•
*27171 CO225D
27171 CO195D 27171 CO215D 27171 CO220D
6/20/2024 6/20/2024 6/20/2024
SHERBURNE COUNTY
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
WRIGHT COUNTY
CYeek
City of Otsego
27171 CO355D **27171C 0,360D 27171 CO380D
101 .� `
6/20/2024 6/20/2024
Ci of
City of Albertville & sa Dayton
(AREA NOT
LINCLUDED)
27171 CO358F 27171 CO359F : c°xs
6/20/2024 6/20/2024-
A
C�
City of St. Michael
27171CO365D
6/20/2024
City of Hanover
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)
LAKE
CHARLOTTE
School
Lake Creek
27171 C037(
6/20/2024
� q
IN
C-
MINK�7Wright County
LAKE LAKE Unincorporated Areas
25 �-
171C
O24 D 27171 C 024 D 1 *2 +171 C0338D 55 MARTHA
*27171 C0400D
27171CO385D
6/20/2024
MAP DATES
This FIRM Index displays the map date for each
FIRM panel at the time that this Index was
printed. Because this Index may not be
distributed to unaffected communities in
subsequent revisions, users may determine the
current map date for each FIRM panel by visiting
the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange
(FMIX) website at https://msc.fema.gov, or by
calling the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) at 1-877-336-2627.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM
panels must obtain a current copy of the
adjacent panel as well as the current FIRM
Index. These may be ordered directly from the
Mapping and Insurance eXchange at the number
listed above.
NOTE TO USER
Future revisions to this FIRM Index will only
be issued to communities that are located
on FIRM panels being revised. This FIRM
Index therefore remains valid for FIRM
panels dated June 20, 2024 or earlier.
Please refer to the "MOST RECENT FIRM PANEL
DATE" column in the Listing of Communities
table to determine the most recent FIRM Index
date for each community.
r. N1.414 F
MAP INDEX
MAP REPOSITORIES
(Maps available for reference only, not for FIRM
distribution.)
ALBERTVILLE, CITY OF: SOUTH HAVEN, CITY OF:
m FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
Cit Hall DELANO, CITY OF: City Hall WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
5959 Main Avenue NE City Hall 521 Oak Avenue INDEX LOCATOR DIAGRAM WRIGHT COUNTY,
Albertville, Minnesota 55301 234 Second Street North South Haven, Minnesota 55382
Delano, Minnesota 55328 In MINNESOTA
ANNANDALE, CITY OF: ST. MICHAEL, CITY OF:
City Hall HOWARD LAKE, CITY OF: City Hall ® AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Cit Hall 11800 Town Center Drive NE SEE LISTING OF COMMUNITIES TABLE
30 Cedar Street E Y ( )
Annandale, Minnesota 55302 625 8th Avenue St. Michael, Minnesota 55376
Howard Lake, Minnesota 55349
BUFFALO, CITY OF: WAVERLY, CITY OF: MAP INDEX
City Center MAPLE LAKE, CITY OF: City Hall
212 Central Avenue City Hall 502 Atlantic Avenue
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 10 Maple Avenue S Waverly, Minnesota 55390 SHEET 1 OF 2
Maple Lake, Minnesota 55358
CLEARWATER, CITY OF: WRIGHT COUNTY PANELS PRINTED: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
City Hall MONTICELLO, CITY OF: (UNINCORPORATED AREAS): 40, 45, 70, 80, 85, 90, 95, 105, 115, 135, 155, 160,
605 County Road 75 City Hall Wright County Government Center SHEET1 OF 2 165, 170, 190, 195, 215, 220, 245, 275, 285, 300,
Clearwater, Minnesota 55320 505 Walnut Street 3650 Braddock Avenue NE 305, 310, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 328, 329, 335,
Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 711336, 340, 345, 355, 358, 359, 365, 370, 380, 385
COKATO, CITY OF:
City Hall MONTROSE, CITY OF: ® (SEE SHEET 2 FOR ADDITIONAL PANELS
255 Broadway Avenue S City Hall PRINTED)
Cokato, Minnesota 55321 311 Buffalo Avenue S
Montrose, Minnesota 55363
CORINNA, TOWNSHIP OF
Corinna Township Hall OTSEGO, CITY OF:
9801 Ireland Avenue NW City Hall
Annandale, Minnesota 55302 13400 90th Street NE
Tnn ningni
Otsego, Minnesota 55330
SEE SHEET 1 OF 2 FOR LISTING OF COMMUNITIES
VART���
MAP NUMBER
°
27171CINDlA
x ^� �
o��L'�ND
EFFECTIVE DATE
S�GJ4,
JUNE 20, 2024
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
i
NOTES TO USERS
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. It does
not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage
sources of small size. The community map repository should be consulted for
possible updated or additional flood hazard information.
To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs)
and/or floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the Flood
Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables contained
within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report that accompanies this FIRM. Users
should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole -foot
elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance rating purposes only and
should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly,
flood elevation data presented in the FIS Report should be utilized in conjunction with
the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management.
Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward of 0.0'
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Users of this FIRM should be
aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary of Stillwater
Elevations table in the Flood insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Elevations
shown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for construction
and/or floodplain management purposes when they are higher than the elevations
shown on this FIRM.
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated
between cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with
regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths
and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report
for this jurisdiction.
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control
structures. Refer to Section 2.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance
Study Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction.
The projection used in the preparation of this map was Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) zone 15. The horizontal datum was NAD 83, GRS 1989
spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the
production of FIRMS for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional
differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not
affect the accuracy of this FIRM.
Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of
1988. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations
referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion
between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American
Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following
address:
NGS Information Services
NOAA, N/NGS12
National Geodetic Survey
SSMC -3, #9202
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282
(301) 713-3242
To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks
shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the National
Geodetic Survey at (301) 713- 3242, or visit its website at http://www.ngs,noaa.gov.
Base map information shown on this FIRM was derived from 6 inch pixel resolution
digital ortho imagery for Wright County dated 2008.
The profile baselines depicted on this map represent the hydraulic modeling baseline,
that match the flood profiles in the FIS report. As a result of improved topographic data,
the profile baseline, in some cases, may deviate significantly from the channel
centerline or appear outside the SFHA.
Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available at the time
of publication. Because changes due to annexations or de -annexations may have
occurred after this map was published, map users should contact appropriate
community officials to verify current corporate limit locations.
Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the
county showing the layout of map panels; community map repository addresses;
and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program
dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community
is located.
For information on available products associated with this FIRM visit the Map
Service Center (MSC) website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may
include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report,
and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or
obtained directly from the MSC website.
If you have questions about this map, how to order products, or the National
Flood insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) at 1 -877 -FEMA -MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA
website at http://www.fema.gov/busiriess/rifip-
911, 99, 30"
45° 22'
50240DOmN
5023000mN
5022000mN
c
c
5021000mN
5020000mN
5019000"N
450 18'45"
93° 5
4320o0mE
4330D0mE
43400omE
435DODmE
436000,E
BURLINGTON NORTHERN &
SANTA FE RAILWAY
T45"
45° 22' 30"
)11
14
ONE AE
NOY LN
18' 45"
a
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO
INUNDATION BY THE I% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
The 1% annual chance flood (100 -year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has
a 11/16 chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is
the area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard
include Zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V, and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water -surface
elevation of the 111/a annual chance flood.
ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average
depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined.
ZONE AR Special Flood Hazard Areas formerly protected from the 1% annual chance
flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone
AR indicates that the former flood control system 1s being restored to provide
protection from the I% annual chance or greater flood.
ZONE A99 Area to be protected from 1% annual chance flood by a Federal flood
protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE v Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of
encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in
flood heights.
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 0.2°/o annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with
average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square
mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs)
C B R S areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas.
1% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
Floodway boundary
DX5510 X Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM
panel)
0 M1.5 River Mile
MAP REPOSITORIES
Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
June 20, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community
Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your insurance agent
or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'
504 0 1000 2000
FEET
METERS
300 0 300 600
I rN�111 11;;;;11!!11 Ill[[
PANEL 0155D
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 155 OF 660
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
MONTICELLO, CITY OF 270541 0155 D
WRIGHT COUNTY 270534 0155 D
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
d�VAkIpt MAP NUMBER
27171 CO155D
x r:'
EFFECTIVE DATE
Nn S�JUNE 20, 2074
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Zone D boundary
••••■•••••■•■
CBRS and ORA boundary
Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and boundary
dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood Elevations,
flood depths, or flood velocities.
-.....573-.....
Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet*
(EL 987)
Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; elevation in
feet*
*Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988
q A
Cross section line
23 - - - - - 23
Transect line
45° 02'08', 93° 42' 12"
Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of
1983 (NAD 83) Western Hemisphere
49 890m N
1000 -meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values, zone 15
DX5510 X Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM
panel)
0 M1.5 River Mile
MAP REPOSITORIES
Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
June 20, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community
Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your insurance agent
or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'
504 0 1000 2000
FEET
METERS
300 0 300 600
I rN�111 11;;;;11!!11 Ill[[
PANEL 0155D
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 155 OF 660
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
MONTICELLO, CITY OF 270541 0155 D
WRIGHT COUNTY 270534 0155 D
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
d�VAkIpt MAP NUMBER
27171 CO155D
x r:'
EFFECTIVE DATE
Nn S�JUNE 20, 2074
Federal Emergency Management Agency
NOTES TO USERS
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. It does
not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage
sources of small size. The community map repository should be consulted for
possible updated or additional flood hazard information.
To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs)
and/or floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the Flood
Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables contained
within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report that accompanies this FIRM. Users
should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole -foot
elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance rating purposes only and
should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly,
flood elevation data presented in the FIS Report should be utilized in conjunction with
the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management.
Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward of 0.0'
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Users of this FIRM should be
aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary of Stillwater
Elevations table in the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Elevations
shown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for construction
and/or floodplain management purposes when they are higher than the elevations
shown on this FIRM.
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated
between cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with
regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths
and other pertinent Floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report
for this jurisdiction.
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control
structures. Refer to Section 2.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance
Study Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction.
The projection used in the preparation of this map was Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) zone 15. The horizontal datum was NAD 83, GRS 1980
spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the
production of FIRMS for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional
differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not
affect the accuracy of this FIRM.
Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of
1988. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations
referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion
between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American
Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at
http:l/www.ngs.noaa.gov or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following
address:
NGS Information Services
NOAA, N/NGS12
National Geodetic Survey
SSMC -3, 99202
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282
(301) 713-3242
To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks
shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the National
Geodetic Survey at (301) 713- 3242, or visit its website at http:l/www. ng s.noaa.gov.
Base map information shown on this FIRM was derived from 6 inch pixel resolution
digital ortho imagery for Wright County dated 2008.
The profile baselines depicted on this map representthe hydraulic modeling baseline
that match the flood profiles in the FIS report. As a result of improved topographic data.
the profile baseline, in some cases, may deviate significantly from the channel
centerline or appear outside the SFIHA.
Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available at the time
of publication. Because changes due to annexations or de -annexations may have
occurred after this map was published, map users should contact appropriate
community officials to verify current corporate limit locations.
Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the
county showing the layout of map panels; community map repository addresses;
and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program
dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community
is located.
For information on available products associated with this FIRM visit the Map
Service Center (MSC) website at http:/imsc.fema.gov. Available products may
include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report,
and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or
obtained directly from the MSC website.
If you have questions about this map, how to order products, or the National
Flood Insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) at 1 -877 -FEMA -MAP (1-877-335-2627) or visit the FEMA
website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip.
5024
5023
50220
5021 0(
502000
5019000
PROFILE BAS'
WRIGHT COUNT
ZONI
RIVER ST
PROFILE BASI
Otter L'J
SAND'
45°
9
43700orrE
930 48' 45"
43800omE
439o00r:,E
44000ornE
441000mE
OTTERCREEK WILLOW 5T
RD
51001,
450 22' 30"
18'45"
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO
INUNDATION BY THE 10/o ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
The 1% annual chance flood (loo -year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has
a 111Io chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is
the area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard
include Zones A, AE, AH, AQ, AR, A99, V, and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water -surface
elevation of the 1% annual chance flood.
ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average
depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined.
ZONE AR Special Flood Hazard Areas formerly protected from the 10/6 annual chance
flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone
AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide
protection from the 1% annual chance or greater flood.
ZONE A99 Area to be protected from 1% annual chance flood by a Federal flood
protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE V Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard twave action); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of
encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in
flood heights.
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE x
Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with
• • • • ■ • • • • • • • •
average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square
mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.
-
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X
Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
ZONE D
Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
(EL 987)
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAS)
CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special FEood Hazard Areas.
A A
1% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
23 — — — — — 23
0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
45' 02'08', 93' 02' 12'
Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of
Floodway boundary
DX5510 X Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM
panel)
* MI -5 River Mile
MAP REPOSITORIES
Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
June 20, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping: refer to the Community
Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community. contact your insurance agent
or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Z&
MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'
500 0 1Q00 2000
FEET
FEB METERS
300 0 300 Soo
�Rw
err[ .. . D
i 1
lyl7iil
WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 960 OF 660
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
MONTICELLO, CITY OF 270541 6166 b
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
R T�, MAP NUMBER
q 27171CO160D
1w k
` EFFECTIVE DATE
���t'1,vo SECJ� JUNE 20 2024
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Zone D boundary
• • • • ■ • • • • • • • •
CBRS and OPA boundary
Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and boundary
-
dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood Elevations,
flood depths, or flood velocities.
^^" 513`""
Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet*
(EL 987)
Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; elevation in
feet*
*Referenced to the North American vertical Datum of 1988
A A
Cross section line
23 — — — — — 23
Transect line
45' 02'08', 93' 02' 12'
Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of
1983 (NAD 83) Western Hemisphere
4989000- N
1000 -meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values, zone 15
DX5510 X Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM
panel)
* MI -5 River Mile
MAP REPOSITORIES
Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
June 20, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping: refer to the Community
Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community. contact your insurance agent
or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Z&
MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'
500 0 1Q00 2000
FEET
FEB METERS
300 0 300 Soo
�Rw
err[ .. . D
i 1
lyl7iil
WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 960 OF 660
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
MONTICELLO, CITY OF 270541 6166 b
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
R T�, MAP NUMBER
q 27171CO160D
1w k
` EFFECTIVE DATE
���t'1,vo SECJ� JUNE 20 2024
Federal Emergency Management Agency
NOTES TO USERS
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. it does
not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage
sources of small size. The community map repository should be consulted for
possible updated or additional flood hazard information.
To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs)
and/or floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the Flood
Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables contained
within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report that accompanies this FIRM. Users
should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole -foot
elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance rating purposes only and
should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly,
flood elevation data presented in the FIS Report should be utilized in conjunction with
the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management.
Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward of 0.0'
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Users of this FIRM should be
aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary of Stillwater
Elevations table in the Flood insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Elevations
shown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for construction
and/or floodplain management purposes when they are higher than the elevations
shown on this FIRM.
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated
between cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with
regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths
and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report
for this jurisdiction.
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control
structures. Refer to Section 2.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance
Study Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction.
The projection used in the preparation of this map was Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) zone 15. The horizontal datum was NAD 83, GRS 1989
spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the
production of FIRMS for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional
differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not
affect the accuracy of this FIRM.
Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of
1988. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations
referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion
between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American
Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following
address:
NGS Information Services
NOAA, N/NGS12
National Geodetic Survey
SSMC -3, #9202
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282
(301) 713-3242
To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks
shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the National
Geodetic Survey at (301) 713- 3242, or visit its website at http://www.ngs,noaa.gov.
Base map information shown on this FIRM was derived from 8 inch pixel resolution
digital ortho imagery for Wright County dated 2008.
The profile baselines depicted on this map represent the hydraulic modeling baseline,
that match the flood profiles in the FIS report. As a result of improved topographic data,
the profile baseline, in some cases, may deviate significantly from the channel
centerline or appear outside the SFHA.
Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available at the time
of publication. Because changes due to annexations or de -annexations may have
occurred after this map was published, map users should contact appropriate
community officials to verify current corporate limit locations.
Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the
county showing the layout of map panels; community map repository addresses;
and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program
dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community
is located.
For information on available products associated with this FIRM visit the Map
Service Center (MSC) website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may
include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report,
and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or
obtained directly from the MSC website.
If you have questions about this map, how to order products, or the National
Flood Insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) at 1 -877 -FEMA -MAP (1-877-336-2627) Or visit the FEMA
website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip.
9
45° 18'
50170o0mN
501 6000m
5015 DOMN
c
c
LJ
c
5014000mN
5013"'N
501200"N
450 1500"
9315
a 000- a 000- FLOODING EFFECTS FROM
32 E 33 E a34o0on,E 4' �5000mF OTTER CREEK 4,,,,_-0Q0rnr
JUIN hJANLL 033U
93' 48' 45"
18' 45"
IRAIRIE
REEK LN
Wright County
Unincorporated Areas
270534
:ity of Monticello
270541
W
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO
INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
The 1% annual chance flood (100 -year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has
a 11/16 chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is
the area subject to flooding by the 11% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard
include Zones A, AE, AH, Ad, AR, A9g, V, and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water -surface
elevation of the 1% annual chance flood.
ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average
depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined.
ZONE AR Special Flood Hazard Areas formerly protected from the 1% annual chance
flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone
AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide
protection from the I% annual chance or greater flood.
ZONE A99 Area to be protected from 1% annual chance flood by a Federal flood
protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE V Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of
encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in
flood heights.
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 0. 211/b annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with
average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square
mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance Floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAS)
CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas.
1% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
Floodway boundary
DX5510 X Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM
panel)
* MI -5 River Mile
MAP REPOSITORIES
Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
June 20, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community
Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your insurance agent
or call the National Flood Insurance Prowam at 1-800-638-6620.
Z&
MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'
504 0 1000 2000
FEET
METERS
300 0 300 600
I Jr�111 11111 1 Illlt
I ,lll� PANEL 01 65D I
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 165 OF 660
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
MONTICELLO, CITY OF 276541 0165 D
WRIGHT COUNTY 270534 0165 ❑
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
MAP NUMBER
° 27171 CO165D
_w EFFECTIVE DATE
lyD SE`s JUNE 203 2024
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Zone D boundary
••••■••••••••
CBRS and ORA boundary
Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and boundary
dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood Elevations,
flood depths, or flood velocities.
-.....573-.....
Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet*
(EL 987)
Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; elevation in
feet*
*Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988
A A
Cross section line
23 - - - - - 23
Transect line
45' 02'08", 93° 02' 12'
Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of
1983 (NAD 83) Western Hemisphere
4989000- N
1000 -meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values, zone 15
DX5510 X Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM
panel)
* MI -5 River Mile
MAP REPOSITORIES
Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
June 20, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community
Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your insurance agent
or call the National Flood Insurance Prowam at 1-800-638-6620.
Z&
MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'
504 0 1000 2000
FEET
METERS
300 0 300 600
I Jr�111 11111 1 Illlt
I ,lll� PANEL 01 65D I
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 165 OF 660
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
MONTICELLO, CITY OF 276541 0165 D
WRIGHT COUNTY 270534 0165 ❑
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
MAP NUMBER
° 27171 CO165D
_w EFFECTIVE DATE
lyD SE`s JUNE 203 2024
Federal Emergency Management Agency
NOTES TO USERS
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. It does
not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage
sources of small size. The community map repository should be consulted for
possible updated or additional flood hazard information.
To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs)
and/or floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the Flood
Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables contained
within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report that accompanies this FIRM. Users
should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole -foot
elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance rating purposes only and
should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly,
flood elevation data presented in the FIS Report should be utilized in conjunction with
the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management.
Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward of 0.0'
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Users of this FIRM should be
aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary of Stillwater
Elevations table in the Flood insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Elevations
shown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for construction
and/or floodplain management purposes when they are higher than the elevations
shown on this FIRM.
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated
between cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with
regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths
and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report
for this jurisdiction.
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control
structures. Refer to Section 2.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance
Study Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction.
The projection used in the preparation of this map was Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) zone 15. The horizontal datum was NAD 83, GRS 1980
spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the
production of FIRMS for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional
differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not
affect the accuracy of this FIRM.
Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of
1988. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations
referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion
between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American
Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following
address:
NGS Information Services
NOAA, N/NGS12
National Geodetic Survey
SSMC -3, #9202
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282
(301) 713-3242
To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks
shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the National
Geodetic Survey at (301) 713- 3242, or visit its website at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov.
Base map information shown on this FIRM was derived from 6 inch pixel resolution
digital ortho imagery for Wright County dated 2008.
The profile baselines depicted on this map represent the hydraulic modeling baseline;
that match the flood profiles in the FIS report. As a result of improved topographic data,
the profile baseline, in some cases, may deviate significantly from the channel
centerline or appear outside the SFHA.
Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available at the time
of publication. Because changes due to annexations or de -annexations may have
occurred after this map was published, map users should contact appropriate
community officials to verify current corporate limit locations.
Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the
county showing the layout of map panels; community map repository addresses;
and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program
dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community
is located.
For information on available products associated with this FIRM visit the Map
Service Center (MSC) website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may
include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report,
and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or
obtained directly from the MSC website.
If you have questions about this map, how to order products, or the National
Flood Insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) at 1 -877 -FEMA -MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA
website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip.
C
BRo
5(
Wright Cot
Unincorporate
270534
City of Mont
270541
50
50
Wright Cor
Unincorporate
270534
Wright Cou
Unincorporate(
270534
501
501
5012
4'.
4 OOOm 4 OOOm
37 E 3$ E 439000mE 44000omE 441000»E
ZONE A "70 `'' VV
611
18' 45"
Wright County
Unincorporated Areas
270534
Wright County
Unincorporated Areas
270534
51001,
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUB3ECT TO
INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
The 1% annual chance flood (100 -year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has
a 11% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is
the area subject to flooding by the 11% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard
include Zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V, and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water -surface
elevation of the 111/a annual chance flood.
ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average
depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined.
ZONE AR Special Flood Hazard Areas formerly protected from the 1% annual chance
flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone
AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide
protection from the I% annual chance or greater flood.
ZONE A99 Area to be protected from 1% annual chance flood by a Federal flood
protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE V Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of
encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in
flood heights.
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 0.211/0 annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with
average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square
mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2°/a annual chance floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAS)
CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas.
1% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
Floodway boundary
DX5510 X Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM
panel)
MI -5 River Mile
MAP REPOSITORIES
Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
June 20, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community
Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your insurance agent
or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
za��_
MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'
504 0 1000 2000
FEET
METERS
300 0 300 600
r�111 11111 1 Ill[[
IPANEL 0170D
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 170 OF 660
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
MONTICELLO, CITY OF 270541 0170 D
WRIGHT COUNTY 276534 6176 D
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
d��p���Z MAP NUMBER
27171 CO170D
D-GOV*
EFFECTIVE DATE
N$�`'�� JUNE 20 2024
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Zone D boundary
••••■•••••■•■
CBRS and OPA boundary
Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and boundary
dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood Elevations,
flood depths, or flood velocities.
-..... 513-.....
Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet*
(EL 987)
Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; elevation in
feet*
*Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988
A A
Cross section line
23 - - - - - 23
Transect line
45' 02'0a". 93- 02' 12"
Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of
1983 (NAD 83) Western Hemisphere
4989000- N
1000 -meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values, zone 15
DX5510 X Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM
panel)
MI -5 River Mile
MAP REPOSITORIES
Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
June 20, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community
Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your insurance agent
or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
za��_
MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'
504 0 1000 2000
FEET
METERS
300 0 300 600
r�111 11111 1 Ill[[
IPANEL 0170D
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 170 OF 660
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
MONTICELLO, CITY OF 270541 0170 D
WRIGHT COUNTY 276534 6176 D
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
d��p���Z MAP NUMBER
27171 CO170D
D-GOV*
EFFECTIVE DATE
N$�`'�� JUNE 20 2024
Federal Emergency Management Agency
NOTES TO USERS
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. It does
not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage
sources of small size. The community map repository should be consulted for
possible updated or additional flood hazard information.
To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs)
and/or floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the Flood
Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables contained
within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report that accompanies this FIRM. Users
should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole -foot
elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance rating purposes only and
should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly,
flood elevation data presented in the FIS Report should be utilized in conjunction with
the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management.
Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward of 0.0'
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Users of this FIRM should be
aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary of Stillwater
Elevations table in the Flood insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Elevations
shown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for construction
and/or floodplain management purposes when they are higher than the elevations
shown on this FIRM.
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated
between cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with
regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths
and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report
for this jurisdiction.
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control
structures. Refer to Section 2.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance
Study Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction.
The projection used in the preparation of this map was Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) zone 15. The horizontal datura was NAD 83, GRS 1989
spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the
production of FIRMS for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional
differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not
affect the accuracy of this FIRM.
Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of
1988. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations
referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion
between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American
Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following
address:
NGS Information Services
NOAA, N/NGS12
National Geodetic Survey
SSMC -3, #9202
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282
(301) 713-3242
To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks
shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the National
Geodetic Survey at (301) 713- 3242, or visit its website at http://www.ngs,noaa.gov.
Base map information shown on this FIRM was derived from 6 inch pixel resolution
digital ortho imagery for Wright County dated 2008.
The profile baselines depicted on this map represent the hydraulic modeling baseline,
that match the flood profiles in the FIS report. As a result of improved topographic data,
the profile baseline, in some cases, may deviate significantly from the channel
centerline or appear outside the SFHA.
Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available at the time
of publication. Because changes due to annexations or de -annexations may have
occurred after this map was published, map users should contact appropriate
community officials to verify current corporate limit locations.
Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the
county showing the layout of map panels; community map repository addresses;
and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program
dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community
is located.
For information on available products associated with this FIRM visit the Map
Service Center (MSC) website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may
include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report,
and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or
obtained directly from the MSC website.
If you have questions about this map, how to order products, or the National
Flood insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) at 1 -877 -FEMA -MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA
website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfi .
45° 1
5017000n,1
501 6000mr
5015000mN
Wright County
Unincorporated Area:
270534
City of Monticello
270541
5014000mN
501 3o00mN
5012060%
45° 15' C
9I
442000n,E
4 43000m
444000n,E
930 45 00 ir)mic nnNlr-i n9nn
4 45000m
446000mE
11' 15"
5° 18,451,
JUIN;_') Y'HIVCL UO3D
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO
INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
The 1% annual chance flood (100 -year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has
a 11/16 chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is
the area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard
include Zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V, and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water -surface
elevation of the 111/a annual chance flood.
ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AH
Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE AO
Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average
depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined.
ZONE AR
Special Flood Hazard Areas formerly protected from the 1% annual chance
flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone
AR indicates that the former flood control system 1s being restored to provide
protection from the I% annual chance or greater flood.
ZONE A99
Area to be protected from 1% annual chance flood by a Federal flood
protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE v
Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE VE
Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
105TH The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of
ST NE encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in
flood heights.
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
103RD ST NE
ZONE X Areas of 0.2°/o annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with
average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square
mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
` OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAS)
C B R S areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas.
1% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
Floodway boundary
Zone D boundary
••••■•••••■•■ CBRS and ORA boundary
Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and boundary
dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood Elevations,
flood depths, or flood velocities.
-.....573-..... Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet*
(EL 987) Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; elevation in
feet*
*Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988
A A Cross section line
23 - - - - - 23 Transect line
45° 02'08', 93° 02' 12" Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of
1983 (NAD 83) Western Hemisphere
49 890m N 1000 -meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values, zone 15
DX5510 X Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM
panel)
M1.5 River Mile
1500"
93° 41' 15"
MAP REPOSITORIES
Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
June 20, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL
r(I!r uw r
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community
Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your insurance agent
or call the National Flood Insurance Proqram at 1-800-638-6620.
MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'
504 0 1000 2000
FEET
METERS
300 0 300 600
ID
PANEL r 190 D
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 190 OF 660
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
MONTICELLO, CITY OF 270541 0196 D
OTSEGO. CITY OF 270747 0190 D
WRIGHT COUNTY 270534 0190 ❑
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below
should be used when placing map orders; the
Community Number shown above should be
used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
MAPNUMBER
>� 27171CO190D
x :^
EFFECTIVE DATE
c��r�Nn JUNE 20, 2024
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FL001
INSUR
STUDN
WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Community Community
Name Number
*ALBERTVILLE, CITY OF
275256
*ANNANDALE, CITY OF
270665
BUFFALO, CITY OF
270535
CLEARWATER, CITY OF
270536
COKATO, CITY OF
270537
CORINNA, TOWNSHIP OF
270860
DELANO, CITY OF
270539
*HOWARD LAKE, CITY OF
270397
MAPLE LAKE, CITY OF
270667
MONTICELLO, CITY OF
270541
MONTROSE, CITY OF
275257
OTSEGO, CITY OF
270747
*SOUTH HAVEN, CITY OF
275255
ST. MICHAEL, CITY OF
270543
WAVERLY, CITY OF
270666
WRIGHT COUNTY
270534
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
NO SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS IDENTIFIED
WRIGHT COUNTY
EFFECTIVE: JUNE 20, 2024
O�pA�T
° Federal Emergency Management Agency
�l-ND 5�G�4
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER
27171 CVOOOA
NOTICE TO
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS
Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have
established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood
insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all
data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the
Community Map Repository for any additional data.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish
part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of
this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve
republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult
with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the
most current FIS report components.
Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for this community contain information
that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and
Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood
hazard zone designations have been changed as follows:
Old Zone(s) New Zone
Al through A30 AE
B X
C X
Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: June 20, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of Study............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments.................................................................................. 2
1.3 Coordination.................................................................................................................. 4
2.0 AREA STUDIED................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Scope of Study............................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Community Description................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Principal Flood Problems............................................................................................... 6
2.4 Flood Protection Measures............................................................................................ 8
3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS............................................................................................. 8
3.1 Hydrologic Analyses...................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Hydraulic Analyses....................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Vertical Datum.............................................................................................................. 15
4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS..................................................... 18
4.1 Floodplain Boundaries.................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Floodways..................................................................................................................... 19
5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS....................................................................................... 36
6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP................................................................................. 37
7.0 OTHER STUDIES.............................................................................................................. 37
8.0 LOCATION OF DATA...................................................................................................... 39
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES......................................................................... 39
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURES
Figure1— Floodway Schematic....................................................................................................... 36
TABLES
Table 1
— Summary of Discharges....................................................................................................12
Clearwater River
Table 2
— Summary of Stillwater Elevations....................................................................................
13
Table 3
— Roughness Coefficients (Manning's "n" Values)..............................................................15
North Fork Crow River
Table 4
— Vertical Datum Conversion..............................................................................................
16
Table 5
— Crow River Datum Conversion........................................................................................
16
Table6
— Floodway Data..................................................................................................................
20
Table 7
— Community Map History..................................................................................................
38
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles
Clearwater River
Panels OIP-06P
Crow River
Panels 07P -11P
Mississippi River
Panels 12P -19P
North Fork Crow River
Panels 20P -26P
Otter Creek
Panel 27P
School Lake Creek
Panel 28P
South Fork Crow River
Panels 29P -31P
Exhibit 2 - Flood Insurance Rate Map Index
Flood Insurance Rate Map
ii
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND INCORPORATED AREAS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Study
This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) revises and updates information on the existence
and severity of flood hazards in the geographic area of Wright County, Minnesota
including the Cities of Albertville, Annandale, Buffalo, Clearwater, Cokato,
Delano, Howard Lake, Maple Lake, Monticello, Montrose, Otsego, South Haven,
St. Michael, and Waverly; the Township of Corinna, and the unincorporated areas
of Wright County (referred to collectively herein as Wright County), and aids in
the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This study has developed flood -risk data for
various areas of the community that will be used to establish actuarial flood
insurance rates and to assist the community in its efforts to promote sound
floodplain management. Minimum floodplain management requirements for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are set forth in the
Code of Federal Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.3.
Please note that the Cities of Dayton, Hanover and Rockford are geographically
located in Wright and Hennepin Counties. These cities are not included in this FIS
report. Also, note that the City of Clearwater is geographically located in Wright
and Stearns Counties. Only the Wright County portion of the City of Clearwater is
included in this FIS report. See the separately published FIS reports and Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for flood hazard information.
Please note that the Cities of Albertville, Annandale, Howard Lake, and South
Haven have no mapped special flood hazard areas. Special Flood Hazard Areas
in the Township of Corinna were previously shown in the unincorporated areas of
Wright County until this countywide update.
In some states or communities, floodplain management criteria or regulations may
exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than the minimum Federal
requirements. In such cases, the more restrictive criteria take precedence and the
State (or other jurisdictional agency) will be able to explain them.
The Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) and FIS report for this
countywide study have been produced in digital format. Flood hazard information
was converted to meet the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
DFIRM database specifications and Geographic Information System (GIS) format
requirements. The flood hazard information was created and is provided in a
digital format so that it can be incorporated into a local GIS and be accessed more
easily by the community.
1
1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments
The sources of authority for this FIS are the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
Precountywide Analyses
Information on the authority and acknowledgements for each jurisdiction included
in this countywide FIS, as compiled from their previously printed FIS reports, is
shown below:
Buffalo, City of The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Buffalo
Lake and Deer Lake and Lake Pulaski for the
May 15, 1985, FIS report (FEMA, 1985) were
performed by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), for
FEMA, under Interagency Agreement No. EMW-
84-E-1548, Project Order No. 01. The work was
completed in November 1984.
Clearwater, City of The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for
Clearwater River and Mississippi River for the May
1979, FIS report were performed by Barr
Engineering Co., for the Federal Insurance
Administration (FIA), under Contract No. H-3799
(FIA, 1979a). The work was completed in
November 1977.
Delano, City of The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for South
Fork Crow River, FIS report (FIA, 1980) were
performed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), for FIA, under Interagency Agreement
No. IAA -H-10-77, Project Order No. 15. The work
was completed in December 1977.
The revised hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for
South Fork Crow River for the December 2, 1988,
FIS Report (FEMA, 1988a) were performed for
FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-89-E-2978,
Project Order No. 5. The work was completed in
June 1990.
N
Monticello, City of The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for
Mississippi River and Otter Creek for the May
1979, FIS report (FIA, 1979b) were performed by
Barr Engineering Co., for FIA, under Contract No.
H-3799. The work was completed in
November 1977.
Otsego, City of The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Crow
River and Mississippi River for the
September 30, 1992, FIS report (FEMA, 1992a)
were performed by Barr Engineering Co., for
FEMA, under Contract No. H3799 / Interagency
Agreement No. EMW-84-E-1506, Project Order
No. 01. The work was completed June 1986.
St. Michael, City of The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for School
Lake Creek for the May 1979 FIS report
(FIA, 1979c) were performed by Barr Engineering
Co., for FIA, under Contract No. H-3799. The work
was completed in June 1978.
Wright County The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Buffalo
(Unincorporated Areas): Lake, Clearwater River, Crow River, Mississippi
River, North Fork Crow River, and South Fork
Crow River, for the August 1988, FIS report
(FEMA, 1988b) were performed by Barr
Engineering Co., for FEMA, under Contract No.
H3799 / Interagency Agreement No. EMW-84-E-
1506, Project Order No. 01. The work was
completed June 1986.
The revised hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for
North Fork Crow River and South Fork Crow River
for the August 18, 1992, FIS Report
(FEMA, 1992b) were performed for FEMA, under
Contract No. EMW-89-E-2978, Project Order No.
5. The work was completed in June 1990.
The Cities of Albertville, Annandale, Cokato, Howard Lake, Maple Lake, South
Haven, and Waverly and the Township of Corinna have no previously printed FIS
reports.
3
1.3
This Countywide FIS Report
Revised hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were incorporated for the detailed
portion of the Clearwater River, from County Highway 75 to approximately 200
feet downstream of Interstate Highway 94 (FEMA, 1994).
The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the streams studied by approximate
analysis for this study were performed by Atkins for FEMA, under Contract No.
HSFE05-05-D-0023, Task Order 29. The work was completed in February 2011.
Base map information shown on the FIRM was derived from six inch pixel
resolution digital ortho-imagery for Wright County, dated 2008. The projection
used in the preparation of this map is Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone
15, and the horizontal datum used is North American Datum 1983 (NAD83).
Coordination
An initial meeting is held with representatives from FEMA, the community, and
the study contractor to explain the nature and purpose of a FIS, and to identify the
streams to be studied or restudied. A final meeting is held with representatives
from FEMA, the community, and the study contractor to review the results of the
study.
Precountywide Analyses
The initial and final meeting dates for previous FIS reports for Wright County and
its communities are listed in the following table:
Community
FIS Date
Initial Meeting
Final Meeting
Wright County
June 1986
March 1984
July 21, 1987
(Unincorporated Areas)
August 18, 1991
Buffalo, City of
May 15, 1985
August 1983
January 8, 1985
Clearwater, City of
May 1979
July 1977
August 23, 1978
Delano, City of
December 2, 1988
August 16, 1976
October 17, 1978
Monticello, City of
May 1979
July 1977
October 18, 1978
Otsego, City of
September 30, 1992
St. Michael, City of
May 1979
June 1977
October 19, 1978
*Data Not Available
This Countywide FIS Report
The initial meeting was held in May 29, 2008, and attended by representatives of
Atkins, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), FEMA, Wright
County and the Cities of Annandale, Clearwater, Delano, Monticello, and
Waverly.
The results of the study were reviewed at the final meeting held on December 14,
2011, and attended by representatives from FEMA, MNDNR, the National
Weather Service, Atkins, Wright County, and the Cities of Buffalo, Delano,
Monticello, St. Michael, and Waverly. All issues and/or concerns raised at that
meeting have been addressed.
11
2.0 AREA STUDIED
2.1 Scope of Study
This FIS covers the geographic area of Wright County, Minnesota, including the
incorporated communities listed in Section 1.1. The areas studied by detailed
methods were selected with priority given to all known flood hazards and areas of
projected development or proposed construction through the time of the study.
The following lakes and streams are studied by detailed methods in this FIS report:
Buffalo Lake
Clearwater River
Crow River
Deer Lake
Mississippi River
North Fork Crow River
Otter Creek
School Lake Creek
South Fork Crow River
The limits of detailed study are indicated on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1) and on
the FIRM (Exhibit 2).
This Countywide FIS Report
Buffalo Lake, Clearwater River, Crow River, Deer Lake, Mississippi River, North
Fork Crow River, Otter Creek, School Lake Creek, and South Fork Crow River
were redelineated using new topographic data.
In addition, revised hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were incorporated for
Clearwater River from the confluence with Mississippi River to State Highway 55,
and for Mississippi River from approximately 3.7 miles downstream of U.S.
Highway 169 to approximately 0.5 miles upstream of State Highway 24 (FEMA,
1994).
For this countywide FIS, the FIS report and FIRM were converted to countywide
format, and the flooding information for the entire county, including both
incorporated and unincorporated areas, is shown. Also, the vertical datum was
converted from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) to the
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD). In addition, the Universal
Transverse Mercator coordinates, previously referenced to the North American
Datum of 1927 (NAD 27), are now referenced to NAD83.
Approximate analyses were used to study those areas having low development
potential or minimal flood hazards. The scope and methods of study were
proposed to and agreed upon by FEMA and Wright County.
Crow River has been renamed from Main Stem Crow River, the name by which it
was referred in previous studies.
5
2.2 Community Description
Wright County is located in the northwestern edge of the Minneapolis - St. Paul
metropolitan area in central Minnesota. It is bordered by Todd and Morrison
Counties to the north, Sherburne County to the northeast, Hennepin County to the
east, Carver and McLeod Counties to the south, Meeker County to the west,
Stearns County to the northwest.
The floodplains throughout Wright County are generally lightly developed;
however, development is concentrated in lake shore areas. The county's proximity
to the Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan area has resulted in increasing
development pressure in recent years. The trend is anticipated to continue in the
future, particularly in the aesthetically pleasing floodplain areas along the rivers
and lakes in the county.
The climate classification of Wright County is humid continental with seasonal
variations in temperature ranging from 13.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to
74.3°F in July. The average annual temperature is 44.9°F. The average annual
precipitation is approximately 24 inches; the average annual snowfall for Wright
County is 45 inches (The Weather Channel, 2010).
Land use in Wright County consists primarily of agricultural cropland and
meadows. Scattered woodlands occur on farms and along river bottoms. Numerous
wetland areas occur throughout the county with characteristic wetland vegetation
types.
The topographic relief is uniform in Wright County. The landscape can be
characterized as gently rolling, with elevations varying from 900 to 1,000 feet
across the county and a topographic relief of approximately 40 feet below the
adjacent land surface. The Mississippi River and Clearwater River lie in valleys
that gradually descend from the adjacent land surfaces.
2.3 Principal Flood Problems
The most severe flooding of lakes and rivers in Wright County occur during spring
snowmelt-runoff events. Restrictive characteristics of certain man-made structures
have, during larger floods of record, caused inundation of land areas. Along the
Mississippi River, large floods occurred in 1897, 1950, 1952, 1965, 1969, 1972,
1975, and 1979. The 1965 flood was comparable to approximately a 1 -percent -
annual -chance frequency flood on the Mississippi River. Detailed information on
these floods was recorded by various agencies and by the communities along the
rivers. In addition to Spring run-off events, flooding on Otter Creek has also
resulted from the occurrence of short -duration, high-intensity rainstorms.
For the Clearwater River basin there are limited records of flooding events as no
gaging station is available. However, a summer rain storm event in 1983 did cause
flooding problems in the Clearwater River basin. Recorded rainfall amounts for the
storm of June 21, 1983, averaged 9.19 inches over the watershed. This storm
exceeded the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood 12 -hour storm of 5.1 inches.
Historic floods in Wright County have primarily damaged public services facilities
such as roads and bridges in the unincorporated areas, while the majority of the
structural damage has occurred within the incorporated areas along the rivers.
On Crow River, North Fork Crow River, and South Fork Crow River, the largest
recorded floods occurred in 1916, 1952, 1957, 1965, and 1969. The 1965 flood
was comparable to approximately a 0.5 -percent -annual -chance flood along Crow
River.
The low-lying areas of the City of Delano are subject to periodic overflow from
the South Fork Crow River. The most severe flooding results in early spring from
heavy rains or a combination of heavy rains and snowmelt. Major floods occurred
in 1890, 1897, 1906, 1916, 1952, 1957, 1965, and 1969. The following available
discharges and frequencies of the more recent floods were taken at the Bridge
Avenue bridge. The 1965 flood had a discharge of 16,700 cubic feet per second
(cfs) and an estimated 2 -percent annual exceedance probability (50 years). The
1952 flood had a discharge of 10,800 cfs (based on high water marks near the site)
and an estimated 5 -percent annual exceedance probability (20 years). The 1957
flood had a discharge of 10,400 cfs (based on high water marks near the site) and
an estimated annual exceedance probability slightly greater than 5 -percent (18
years). The 1969 flood had a discharge of 9,680 cfs and an estimated annual
exceedance probability slightly greater than 5 -percent (17 years). It is probable
that the April 1965 flood had the greatest peak discharge of the floods listed. The
most recent large flood at the City of Delano reached a crest elevation of 920.35
feet NAVD with a maximum discharge of 9,680 cfs on April 11, 1969.
Buffalo Lake and Deer Lake are connected to North Fork Crow River 2.5 miles to
the south through Deer Lake and the valley of Mill Creek and a large marsh. The
route for floodwaters to enter Buffalo Lake and Deer Lake has sufficient capacity
so that backwater flow from North Fork Crow River readily affects Buffalo Lake
and Deer Lake. Flooding on North Fork Crow River occurs frequently and the
level of Buffalo Lake and Deer Lake rises and falls with the river. Some of the
roadways adjacent to the lake are overtopped during even a moderate flood.
7
2.4 Flood Protection Measures
No flood control projects exist in the unincorporated areas of Wright County.
Various municipalities in Wright County, do have flood control structures within
their boundaries.
There are two dams on the Clearwater River: Fairhaven Dam, located
approximately 1,200 feet upstream of County Highway 2 in Wright County
(Unincorporated Areas); and an unnamed dam, located just downstream of Grass
Lake. There is one dam on the Crow River: Berning Mill Dam. These dams
provide no flood protection for the county.
A pump/pipeline flood control project was constructed by the USACE for Lake
Pulaski in late 1986. The goal of the project was to stem the long term increase in
lake level that results from the gradual accumulation of surface runoff and from
groundwater.
Although there are a number of levees located within Wright County providing
some level of flood protection, there are no accredited levees within the county
providing protection from the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood event.
3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS
For the flooding sources studied by detailed methods in the community, standard
hydrologic and hydraulic study methods were used to determine the flood hazard data
required for this study. Flood events of a magnitude that are expected to be equaled or
exceeded once on the average during any 10-, 50-, 100-, or 500 -year period (recurrence
interval) have been selected as having special significance for floodplain management
and for flood insurance rates. These events, commonly termed the 10-, 50-, 100-, and
500 -year floods, have a 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2 -percent chance, respectively, of being equaled
or exceeded during any year. Although the recurrence interval represents the long-term,
average period between floods of a specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short
intervals or even within the same year. The risk of experiencing a rare flood increases
when periods greater than 1 year are considered. For example, the risk of having a flood
that equals or exceeds the 1 -percent -annual -chance (100 -year) flood in any 50 -year
period is approximately 40 percent (4 in 10); for any 90 -year period, the risk increases to
approximately 60 percent (6 in 10). The analyses reported herein reflect flooding
potentials based on conditions existing in the community at the time of completion of this
study. Maps and flood elevations will be amended periodically to reflect future changes.
3.1 Hydrologic Analyses
Hydrologic analyses were carried out to establish peak discharge -frequency
relationships for each flooding source studied by detailed methods affecting the
community.
Precountywide Analyses
For the Clearwater River, discharge frequency relationships were determined by
applying the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center's (HEC) HEC -1 rainfall -
N.
runoff computer model (HEC, 1970). The entire watershed above the confluence
with the Mississippi River was modeled using thirteen subbasins, nine reservoir
routings, and 11 combining units. To obtain Snyder's unit hydrograph parameters,
Cp, a coefficient accounting for flood wave and storage conditions, and Ct, a
coefficient representing variations of watershed slopes and storage, for the
Clearwater River basin, the Crow River, near Regal was used as the two rivers
have similar hydrologic characteristics (USACE, 1986). The parameters were
determined using the optimization capability in HEC -1 for two selected historic
events. A10 -day storm duration was selected to insure the most critical duration of
storm was modeled for the lakes. The 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance
flood, 10 -day precipitation values were obtained from the National Weather
Service's (NWS) Technical Memorandum Hydro -35, Technical Paper No. 40, and
Technical Paper No. 49 (NWS, 1961, 1964, and 1977). The Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) curve numbers were used to determine rainfall excess. These curve
numbers were estimated from information obtained from the Minnesota Land
Management Information Center. The HEC -1 model was calibrated to a USGS
peak discharge estimated based on a discharge measurement made on the
Clearwater River upstream of the State Highway 75 Bridge following the June 21,
1983 storm. This value is believed to be within 0.2 foot of the peak stage with an
estimated peak discharge of 2,610 cfs. This storm produced an average rainfall
over the watershed of 9.19 inches (USGS, 1985). Three methods were used to
validate the peak flow values. The first method used a USACE Open -File report
for the City of Clearwater, in which a USGS regression analysis was performed
(HEC, 1977 and USACE, 1985). The equations used accounted for basin area,
slope, and storage. The second method used updated regression equations that
took into account basin area, storage, mean annual runoff, and forest cover (USGS,
1985). The third method used in the final analysis of the Clearwater River was the
generalized SCS Technical Release No. 20 model (SCS, 1965). Based on these
comparisons, the HEC -1 values were adopted.
On the Crow River, discharges were developed at the City of Rockford and at its
confluence with the Mississippi River. For the South Fork Crow River, discharges
were developed at the Wright County boundary with Carver County and at the
confluence of the Crow River. Discharges for Crow River and South Fork Crow
River were determined by a statistical analysis of gage information. The
discharge -frequency curves at USGS gages on Crow River and South Fork Crow
River were developed using USGS Water Resources Council (WRC) Bulletin 17B
and the USACE Flood Flow Frequency Analysis (HEC, 1982 and WRC, 1982).
For North Fork Crow River, 53 years of USGS gage records were used to define
the discharge -frequency relationships. The coordinated discharge -frequency
relationship used was based on the discharge -frequency relationship at the
confluence of the North Fork Crow River and was transferred upstream using the
0.6 power of the drainage area ratio.
9
For Otter Creek, discharges were calculated with a regression analysis using
Regional Flood Frequency Equations for Minnesota (USGS, 1977).
For School Lake Creek, hydrographs were developed for its subwatersheds using
the 24-hour duration rainfall event and the unit hydrograph methods of the TR -20
computer program (SCS, 1965). Times of concentration and curve numbers were
computed following procedures from the SCS National Engineering Handbook
(SCS, 1972), using USGS topographic maps (USGS, 1958), aerial photographs
(Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc., 1975), soil maps (SCS, 1968), field survey data,
and field inspection data. Precipitation intensities for the 10-, 2-, and 1 -percent -
annual -chance flood events were obtained from the Weather bureau TP -40 (NWS,
1961). The 0.2 -percent -annual -chance precipitation intensity was estimated by
extrapolating the 10-, 2-, and 1 -percent -annual -chance intensities on probability
paper.
Storage -discharge relationships for School Lake Creek were developed using
USGS topographic maps (USGS, 1958), field survey data, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Public Roads culvert nomographs (USDOT,
1965), and the USACE HEC -2 backwater computer program (HEC, 1977).
The hydrology of the Mill Creek basin from Buffalo Lake downstream is
overshadowed by backwater from flooding on North Fork Crow River. The
normal low level of Buffalo Lake is well below flood level on North Fork Crow
River where it passes 2.5 miles to the south. The valley of Mill Creek between
Buffalo Lake and the river is large, being approximately 0.25 miles wide between
banks of the 920 foot NAVD level. The channel of Mill Creek is below elevation
910.4 feet NAVD through that reach. Thus, floodwaters from North Fork Crow
River are readily conveyed up the valley of Mill Creek, through Deer Lake, and
into Buffalo Lake. A dam at the county road bridge at the outlet of Deer Lake
maintains the low level of Deer Lake and Buffalo Lake at approximately 913.4 feet
NAVD. However, floodwaters submerge the dam crest 5 feet during a 10 -percent -
annual -chance flood and more than 8 feet during the 1 -percent -annual -chance
flood. Significant differences in elevation between Buffalo Lake and North Fork
Crow River cannot develop when the river is in flood because the conveyance of
the connecting valley is so large.
Lake Pulaski represents the opposite extreme in hydrologic conditions in that it has
no outlet and there is no evidence to indicate that overflow has ever occurred
(MNDNR, 1981 and USACE, 1984). The total area of the basin of Lake Pulaski is
about 4.2 square miles. With the lake comprising 1.2 square miles of the basin, it
has been estimated that the area supplying runoff is not large enough to maintain a
lake in Minnesota's climate and there must be a significant groundwater
contribution (MNDNR, 1984). The opposite argument maintains that if the lake
received significant groundwater inflow from a large aquifer, the fluctuation in
lake level over the years would not have been as great as has been observed.
Nevertheless, the fluctuation in lake level since the area was settled precludes an
10
analysis from which to estimate the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood level. The peak
level reached in any year is largely dependent upon precipitation and average
climate over the basin for the past several years, which determined the elevation at
the beginning of the year.
To estimate a 1 -percent -annual -chance flood level for Lake Pulaski, it was
assumed that the lake was at the natural ordinary high-water level of 969.2 feet
NAVD and a 1 -percent -annual -chance, 10 -day rainfall occurred. This results in a
rise of 2.2 feet from direct rainfall on the lake and from runoff from the
surrounding basin. The resulting elevation for the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood
on Lake Pulaski is 971.4 feet NAVD. This elevation is used to delineate flooding
even though the study method for Lake Pulaski is approximate and flood levels for
other recurrence intervals are not estimated (FEMA, 1985).
This Countywide FIS Report
For the Mississippi River, data for flow -frequency analyses were derived from
USGS gaging station records, from a gage located at the downstream side of
Parrish Avenue NE in the City of Otsego. Those records were from a time period
of July 1915 to October 1956. It was then taken over by the USACE, which
continues to obtain miscellaneous peak data at that site.
Flood -flow frequency -discharge values were obtained from the USGS for the
Mississippi River above and below its confluence with the Elk River. These
discharges represent an administrative agreement between USGS and the USACE
reached April 5, 1973. WRC Bulletin No. 17 analysis of 45 years of gage data for
the Mississippi River at Elk River showed the administrative discharges to fall
within 95 -percent confidence limits required by FEMA (HEC, 1977 and WRC,
1982). Further, drainage -area -frequency -discharge curves were constructed from
discharges obtained from the USGS for six points along the Mississippi River.
From these curves, the average drainage area ratio exponent was found to equal
0.64, from the following equation:
Qz = Qi (Ai/Az) x
However, the Mississippi River detailed study reaches are located immediately
upstream and downstream of the confluence with the Elk River.
For the approximate analyses streams, peak discharges were estimated using the
published USGS regional regression equations (Lorenz, 2009). Regression
equations estimate peak discharges for ungaged streams based on characteristics of
nearby gauged streams. Drainage areas were developed from USGS 30 -meter
Digital Elevation Models (DEMs).
Peak discharge -drainage area relationships for each flooding source studied in
detail are shown in Table 1.
11
Table 1 - Summary of Discharges
SCHOOL LAKE CREEK
At confluence with Crow River 10.9 390 465 500 565
SOUTH FORK CROW RIVER
At confluence with Crow River 1,134 6,380 11,800 14,400 21,100
At Wright -Carver county 1,080 6,260 11,600 14,100 20,700
boundary
Stillwater elevations for Wright County are shown in Table 2.
12
Peak Discharges (cubic feet per second)
Drainage Area
10 -Percent-
2 -Percent-
1 -Percent-
0.2 -Percent -
Flooding Source and Location
(square miles)
Annual -Chance
Annual -Chance
Annual -Chance Annual -Chance
CLEARWATER RIVER
At confluence with Mississippi
171.4
740
1310
1,560
2,340
River
At 1401h Street NW
160.2
730
1,280
1,530
2,290
Approximately 8,880 feet
94.0
670
1,110
1,320
2,020
downstream of Pittman
Avenue NW
At Fairhaven Dam
91.2
640
1,070
1,280
1,940
At State Highway 55
81.5
610
1,010
1,190
1,790
CROW RIVER
Approximately 2.32 miles
2,760
11,000
22,900
29,500
48,300
downstream of State
Highway 101
Approximately 5.02 miles
2,590
9,800
16,600
19,900
27,700
upstream of County Highway
22
Just upstream of State
2,404
9,370
15,900
19,000
26,500
Highway 55
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Just downstream of
14,500
39,300
57,600
66,000
85,500
confluence of Elk River
Just upstream of confluence
13,800
36,400
53,300
61,000
79,000
with Elk River
Approximately 7.5 miles
13,694
35,800
52,500
60,200
77,900
upstream of State Highway
25
Approximately 1.9 miles
13,616
35,460
52,000
59,570
77,100
downstream of State
Highway 24
NORTH FORK CROW RIVER
At confluence Crow River
1,250
4,650
8,400
10,300
16,700
Approx 600 ft downstream of
1,028
4,140
7,470
9,160
14,800
State Highway 8
OTTER CREEK
At West River Street
12.3
220
360
420
520
SCHOOL LAKE CREEK
At confluence with Crow River 10.9 390 465 500 565
SOUTH FORK CROW RIVER
At confluence with Crow River 1,134 6,380 11,800 14,400 21,100
At Wright -Carver county 1,080 6,260 11,600 14,100 20,700
boundary
Stillwater elevations for Wright County are shown in Table 2.
12
Table 2 — Summary of Stillwater Elevations
Water Surface Elevations (Feet NAVD)
10 -Percent- 2 -Percent- 1 -Percent- 0.2 -Percent -
Flooding Source Annual -Chance Annual -Chance Annual -Chance Annual -Chance
BUFFALO LAKE 918.6 921.2 922.1 926.0
DEER LAKE 918.6 921.2 922.1 926.0
3.2 Hydraulic Analyses
Analyses of the hydraulic characteristics of flooding from the sources studied were
carried out to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected
recurrence intervals. Users should be aware that flood elevations shown on the
FIRM represent rounded whole -foot elevations and may not exactly reflect the
elevations shown on the Flood Profiles or in the Floodway Data Table in the FIS
report. Flood elevations shown on the FIRM are primarily intended for flood
insurance rating purposes. For construction and/or floodplain management
purposes, users are cautioned to use the flood elevation data presented in this FIS
report in conjunction with the data shown on the FIRM.
Precountywide Analyses
Cross sections for the channel and overbank portions of Clearwater River, Crow
River, and South Fork Crow River were field surveyed. They were located at
close intervals upstream and downstream of bridges, culverts, and other structures
in order to compute significant backwater effects of these structures.
For Otter Creek and School Lake Creek, cross sections used in the analyses were
located at close intervals upstream and downstream of bridges and other hydraulic
structures to allow computation of the significant backwater effects of these
structures. Other cross sections were located along the streams to provide a typical
representation of stream valley topography. Data for cross sections on Otter Creek
and dimensions and elevations of bridges, culvers, and other obstructions on Otter
Creek were obtained by field survey. Starting WSELs were determined using a
drainage area ratio of Otter Creek to the Mississippi River of less than 1:50, and
the 20 -percent -annual chance frequency WSEL was determined for the Mississippi
River at the confluence with Otter Creek (MNDNR, 1976).
For Crow River, South Fork Crow River, and North Fork Crow River, effective
flow areas of the floodplain cross sections, loss coefficients for bridges and other
channel obstructions, and channel and overbank roughness coefficients were
initially assigned to each cross section based on field inspection. Adjustments
were made to the coefficients until the computed high-water profile using HEC -2
13
step -backwater program matched the historic high-water profile of the April 1965
flood on the Mississippi River (HEC, 1977).
Starting WSELs for Crow River were derived from a discharge -elevation rating
curve from the City of Dayton (FIA, 1978). For South Fork Crow River, they
were taken from elevations at the confluence with the Crow River. For Clearwater
River, they were derived from a rating curve of discharges versus elevations from
the FIS for the City of Clearwater (FIA, 1979a). In that report, the starting water -
surface elevation for the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood was the 20 -percent -annual -
chance flood elevation of the Mississippi River (MNDNR, 1976). The 10-, 50-,
and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance WSELs were determined from corresponding flood
elevations on the Mississippi River.
The flood level for Buffalo Lake and Deer Lake was estimated based on the
detailed study flood levels on the North Fork Crow River.
The hydraulic analysis of flow controlling the response of Buffalo Lake to floods
of North Fork Crow River was based on area of the constricted opening at the
outlet of Deer Lake and observations of flow and water levels during the floods of
April and June 1984.
Fountain Lake and Pelican Lake have no natural outlets. Therefore, flood levels
for the approximate studies of these lakes were estimated based on approximate
storage curves and consideration of various runoff events. Flood levels for the
approximate studies of Lake Martha and Lake Charlotte were estimated based on
an approximate storage -outflow relationship developed for each lake with
consideration of various runoff events.
No hydraulic analysis of flow was necessary for Lake Pulaski as no channels or
stream flow are involved.
This Countywide FIS Report
During the 1997 analysis, the effective HEC -2 models for the Mississippi River
from the Sherburne and Anoka County boundary to the confluence with
Clearwater River were revised and the floodway alignment was added (FEMA,
1994). Cross sections for the Mississippi River were obtained from aerial
photographs at a scale of 1:12,000 and field surveys (Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys,
Inc., 1975). Water -surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals
for the Mississippi River were computed using the USACE, HEC -2 step -backwater
computer program (HEC, 1982).
For the streams studied by approximate methods, cross section data was obtained
from the topography. Roads were modeled as bridges with cross-sections
upstream and downstream of the structure. The studied streams were modeled
using the USACE, HEC computer program HEC -RAS, version 4. 1.0 (HEC, 2010).
14
Channel roughness factors (Mannings "n") used in the hydraulic computations
were chosen using field inspection data, USGS topographic maps and aerial
photography. The Manning's "n" values for all detailed studied streams are listed
in Table 3.
Table 3 — Roughness Coefficients (Manning's "n" Values)
Stream
Channel "n"
Overbank "n"
Clearwater River
0.036-0.044
0.072-0.088
Crow River
0.030-0.040
0.050-0.150
Mississippi River
0.033-0.036
0.070-0.083
North Fork Crow River
0.020-0.150
0.020-0.150
Otter Creek
0.033-0.100
0.035-0.160
School Lake Creek
0.032-0.580
0.035-0.150
South Fork Crow River
0.030-0.040
0.050-0.150
Locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses are shown on
the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1). For stream segments for which a floodway was
computed (Section 4.2), selected cross section locations are also shown on the
FIRM (Exhibit 2).
The profile baselines depicted on the FIRM represent the hydraulic modeling
baselines that match the flood profiles on this FIS report. As a result of improved
topographic data, the profile baseline, in some cases, may deviate significantly
from the channel centerline or appear outside the Special Flood Hazard Area.
The hydraulic analyses for this study were based on unobstructed flow. The flood
elevations shown on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1) are thus considered valid only if
hydraulic structures remain unobstructed, operate properly, and do not fail.
3.3 Vertical Datum
All FIS reports and FIRMS are referenced to a specific vertical datum. The vertical
datum provides a starting point against which flood, ground, and structure
elevations can be referenced and compared. Until recently, the standard vertical
datum in use for newly created or revised FIS reports and FIRMS was NGVD.
With the finalization of NAVD, many FIS reports and FIRMS are being prepared
using NAVD as the referenced vertical datum.
All flood elevations shown in this FIS report and on the FIRM, unless otherwise
noted, are referenced to NAVD. Structure and ground elevations in the
community must, therefore, be referenced to NAVD. It is important to note that
adjacent communities may be referenced to NGVD. This may result in differences
in Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) across the corporate limits between the
communities. Some of the data used in this study were taken from the prior
effective FIS reports and adjusted to NAVD. The average conversion factor that
15
was used to convert the data in this FIS report to NAVD was calculated using the
National Geodetic Survey's (NGS) VERTCON online utility (NGS, 2009). The
data points used to determine the conversion are listed in Table 4.
Table 4 - Vertical Datum Conversion
Average: 0.358
For the Crow River, datum conversions were calculated at the location of each
lettered cross section using the National Geodetic Survey's VERTCON online
utility (NGS, 2009). This results in a rolling conversion factor for the Crow River
as listed in Table 5.
Table 5 - Crow River Datum Conversion
Cross
NGVD to NAVD
Conversion from
Quad Name
Corner
Latitude
Longitude
NGVD to NAVD
-93.522
Albion Center
SE
45.125
-94.000
0.312
Annandale
SE
45.250
-94.000
0.361
Big Lake
SE
45.250
-93.625
0.384
Buffalo East
SE
45.125
-93.750
0.308
Buffalo West
SE
45.125
-93.875
0.322
Clear Lake
SE
45.375
-93.875
0.397
Clearwater
SE
45.375
-94.000
0.384
Cokato
SE
45.000
-94.125
0.364
Dassel
SE
45.000
-94.250
0.397
Delano
SE
45.000
-93.750
0.259
Elk River
SE
45.250
-93.500
0.371
French Lake
SE
45.125
-94.125
0.305
Howard Lake
SE
45.000
-94.000
0.315
Kimball
SE
45.250
-94.250
0.518
Kingston
SE
45.125
-94.250
0.358
Monticello
SE
45.250
-93.750
0.328
Saint Augusta
SE
45.375
-94.125
0.427
Silver Creek
SE
45.250
-93.875
0.331
South Haven
SE
45.250
-94.125
0.427
Waverly
SE
45.000
-93.875
0.295
Average: 0.358
For the Crow River, datum conversions were calculated at the location of each
lettered cross section using the National Geodetic Survey's VERTCON online
utility (NGS, 2009). This results in a rolling conversion factor for the Crow River
as listed in Table 5.
Table 5 - Crow River Datum Conversion
Cross
NGVD to NAVD
Section
Latitude
Longitude
Elevation Change(feet)
A
45.244
-93.522
0.377
B
45.243
-93.521
0.377
C
45.238
-93.520
0.377
D
45.234
-93.521
0.377
E
45.231
-93.526
0.377
F
45.225
-93.526
0.377
G
45.222
-93.529
0.377
16
Table 5 - Crow River Datum Conversion (continued)
Cross
NGVD to NAVD
Section
Latitude
Longitude
Elevation Change(feet)
H
45.226
-93.534
0.381
1
45.231
-93.536
0.381
J
45.230
-93.545
0.381
K
45.227
-93.548
0.381
L
45.225
-93.557
0.381
M
45.223
-93.563
0.381
N
45.219
-93.571
0.377
O
45.219
-93.575
0.377
P
45.218
-93.578
0.374
Q
45.215
-93.594
0.367
R
45.209
-93.595
0.364
S
45.208
-93.600
0.361
T
45.212
-93.603
0.364
U
45.210
-93.609
0.361
V
45.203
-93.624
0.348
W
45.203
-93.631
0.344
X
45.210
-93.638
0.348
Y
45.205
-93.643
0.341
Z
45.201
-93.645
0.338
AA
45.199
-93.648
0.335
AB
45.199
-93.655
0.335
AC
45.195
-93.658
0.331
AD
45.189
-93.657
0.331
AE
45.181
-93.649
0.328
AF
45.179
-93.646
0.328
AG
45.179
-93.644
0.328
AH
45.150
-93.684
0.315
Al
45.144
-93.689
0.312
AJ
45.131
-93.703
0.305
AK
45.124
-93.710
0.305
AL
45.118
-93.717
0.302
AM
45.110
-93.722
0.299
For Clearwater River, a datum conversion of +0.553 was used to be consistent with
data presented in the FIS for Stearns County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas.
For additional information regarding conversion between NGVD and NAVD, visit
the NGS website at www.ngs.noaa.gov.
Temporary vertical monuments are often established during the preparation of a
flood hazard analysis for the purpose of establishing local vertical control.
17
Although these monuments are not shown on the FIRM, they may be found in the
Technical Support Data Notebook associated with the FIS report and FIRM for this
community. Interested individuals may contact FEMA to access these data.
To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for
benchmarks shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of
the NGS at (301) 713-3242, or visit their website at www.ngs.noaa.gov.
4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS
The NFIP encourages State and local governments to adopt sound floodplain management
programs. Therefore, each FIS provides 1 -percent -annual -chance (100 -year) flood
elevations and delineations of the I- and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance (500 -year) floodplain
boundaries and 1 -percent -annual -chance floodway to assist communities in developing
floodplain management measures. This information is presented on the FIRM and in
many components of the FIS report, including Flood Profiles, Floodway Data Table, and
Summary of Stillwater Elevations Table. Users should reference the data presented in the
FIS report as well as additional information that may be available at the local map
repository before making flood elevation and/or floodplain boundary determinations.
4.1 Floodplain Boundaries
To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1 -percent -
annual -chance flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain
management purposes. The 0.2 -percent -annual -chance flood is employed to
indicate additional areas of flood risk in the community.
For each stream studied by detailed methods, the 1- and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance
floodplain boundaries have been delineated using the flood elevations determined
at each cross section. Between cross sections, the boundaries were interpolated
using topographic maps, with a contour interval of 2 feet, derived from Light
Detection and Ranging (LIDAR), provided by MNDNR (MNDNR, 2008).
For School Lake Creek, from approximately 1,700 feet downstream of
Meadowlark Road SE, to approximately 275 feet upstream of Lincoln Drive, the l -
and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundaries have been delineated
between cross sections using photogrammetric methods with aerial photographs
taken in May 1975 (Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc., 1975).
The 1- and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundaries are shown on the
FIRM (Exhibit 2). On this map, the 1 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundary
corresponds to the boundary of the areas of special flood hazards (Zones A and
AE) and the 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the
boundary of areas of moderate flood hazards. In cases where the 1- and 0.2 -
percent -annual -chance floodplain boundaries are close together, only the 1-
percent -annual -chance floodplain boundary has been shown. Small areas within
the floodplain boundaries may lie above the flood elevations but cannot be shown
due to limitations of the map scale and/or lack of detailed topographic data.
For the streams studied by approximate methods, only the 1 -percent -annual -chance
floodplain boundary is shown on the FIRM (Exhibit 2).
4.2 Floodways
Encroachment on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces flood -carrying
capacity, increases flood heights and velocities, and increases flood hazards in
areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management
involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the
resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the NFIP, a floodway is used as
a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain management. Under
this concept, the area of the 1 -percent -annual -chance floodplain is divided into a
floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus
any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1 -
percent -annual -chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood
heights. Minimum Federal standards limit such increases to 1 foot, provided that
hazardous velocities are not produced. The floodways in this study are presented
to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly or that can be
used as a basis for additional floodway studies. In Minnesota, however, floodplain
encroachment is limited by Minnesota Regulations to that which would cause a
0.5 -foot increase in flood heights above pre-floodway conditions at any point
(MNDNR, 1977). Floodways having no more than 0.5 -foot surcharge were
delineated for this FIS. The floodway can be adopted directly or that can be used
as a basis for additional floodway studies.
The floodways presented in this FIS report and on the FIRM were computed for
certain stream segments on the basis of equal -conveyance reduction from each side
of the floodplain. Floodway widths were computed at cross sections. Between
cross sections, the floodway boundaries were interpolated. The results of the
floodway computations have been tabulated for selected cross sections in Table 6.
In cases where the floodway and 1 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundaries
are either close together or collinear, only the floodway boundary has been shown.
19
Table 6 - Floodway Data
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
2
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
CLEARWATER
RIVER
A
925
340/1973
403
3.9
948.8
939.85
940.2
0.4
B
1,315
220/150
2,259
0.7
955.3
955.3
955.8
0.5
C
1,785
314/93
2,435
0.6
955.3
955.3
955.8
0.5
D
2,625
200/145
1,431
1.1
124
955.4
955.4
955.8
0.4
E
3,830
194/121
1,681
0.9
136
955.9
955.9
956.3
0.4
F
4,855
142/24
819
1.9
956.3
956.3
956.8
0.5
G
5,900
118/58
538
2.9
957.2
957.2
957.6
0.4
H
6,800
220/80
770
2.0
959.2
959.2
959.7
0.5
1
7,410
20/10
180
8.5
960.9
960.9
961.1
0.2
J
8,690
302/1714
1.8
963.2
963.2
963.3
0.1
K
11,480
95/514
6.4
75
965.5
965.5
965.5
0.0
L
12,960
304/2044
3.2
968.3
968.3
968.8
0.5
M
14,170
60/30
360
4.3
969.8
969.8
970.2
0.4
N
16,570
322/744
2.2
190
972.9
972.9
972.9
0.0
O
18,830
88/514
0.8
590
973.9
973.9
973.9
0.0
P
20,890
220/160
590
2.7
974.7
974.7
974.7
0.0
Q
22,300
125/384
1.4
270
975.7
975.7
976.1
0.4
R
24,760
420/50
1,270
1.2
976.7
976.7
977.1
0.4
S
26,610
570/192
1,150
1.4
977.7
977.7
977.9
0.2
T
28,005
570/61
1,420
1.1
979.0
979.0
979.2
0.2
*Data not computed
'Feet above confluence with Mississippi River
2Total width / Width within county boundary
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pip WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
M AND INCORPORATED AREAS
0
3Floodway widened to contain open channel
4Administrative Floodway
5Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Mississippi River
20
FLOODWAY DATA
CLEARWATER RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
2
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
CLEARWATER
RIVER
(CONTINUED)
U
31,075
110/35
400
3.9
981.4
981.4
981.5
0.1
V
32,995
420/50
1,470
1.1
982.7
982.7
983.1
0.4
W
34,875
555/435
1,110
1.4
983.6
983.6
984.0
0.4
X
36,925
500/312
1,250
1.3
50
985.4
985.4
985.5
0.1
Y
38,675
560/110
1,200
1.3
986.5
986.5
986.5
0.0
Z
39,965
640/497
1,170
1.3
987.4
987.4
987.4
0.0
AA
42,345
250/70
700
2.2
989.0
989.0
989.0
0.0
AB
43,705
230/160
760
2.0
990.0
990.0
990.1
0.1
AC
44,975
258/1143
3.1
991.1
991.1
991.5
0.4
AD
45,545
120/20
420
3.7
992.4
992.4
992.8
0.4
AE
47,545
390/244
1,570
1.0
993.9
993.9
994.1
0.2
AF
48,525
90/90
450
3.4
994.1
994.1
994.3
0.2
AG
49,485
180/90
980
1.6
994.8
994.8
995.1
0.3
AH
50,375
190/25
1,040
1.5
995.0
995.0
995.4
0.4
Al
53,005
820/60
4,490
0.3
995.2
995.2
995.6
0.4
AJ
55,665
720/139
3,540
0.4
995.3
995.3
995.7
0.4
AK
56,605
720/264
3,860
0.4
995.3
995.3
995.7
0.4
AL
57,765
490/80
2,660
0.6
995.4
995.4
995.8
0.4
AM
59,975
100/50
570
2.7
995.6
995.6
995.9
0.3
AN
62,565
280/175
870
1.8
996.1
996.1
996.4
0.3
*Data not computed
'Feet above confluence with Mississippi River
2Total width / Width within county boundary (unless otherwise noted)
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
D WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
00
r AND INCORPORATED AREAS
M
0)
3Administrative Floodway
21
FLOODWAY DATA
CLEARWATER RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
2
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
CLEARWATER
RIVER
(CONTINUED)
AO
76,505
460/60
2,070
0.6
996.8
996.8
997.3
0.5
AP
77,875
430/250
2,390
0.6
997.0
997.0
997.5
0.5
AQ
80,735
1,344/4973
14,580
0.1
997.0
997.0
997.5
0.5
AR
82,605
320/130
1,890
0.7
997.0
997.0
997.5
0.5
AS
85,285
340/220
1,970
0.7
997.1
997.1
997.5
0.4
AT
87,945
150/80
1,450
0.9
997.2
997.2
997.6
0.4
AU
89,715
120/117
1,340
1.0
997.2
997.2
997.6
0.4
AV
91,965
340/190
3,640
0.4
997.3
997.3
997.7
0.4
AW
96,365
1,200/3864
0.2
85
997.3
997.3
997.7
0.4
AX
97,435
220/100
620
2.1
997.3
997.3
997.7
0.4
AY
98,285
70/30
370
3.6
998.5
998.5
998.6
0.1
AZ
98,750
130/110
380
3.4
1,000.1
1,000.1
1,000.1
0.0
BA
99,485
210/165
910
1.5
1,001.7
1,001.7
1,001.7
0.0
BB
100,185
190/100
1,580
0.8
1,009.4
1,009.4
1,009.4
0.0
BC
102,865
437/1253
2,960
0.4
1,009.5
1,009.5
1,009.5
0.0
BD
106,215
390/130
2,940
0.4
1,009.5
1,009.5
1,009.5
0.0
BE
106,975
300/100
1,830
0.7
1,009.5
1,009.5
1,009.5
0.0
BF
110,225
560/290
9,880
0.1
1,009.5
1,009.5
1,009.5
0.0
BG
112,665
860/308
5,740
0.2
1,009.5
1,009.5
1,009.5
0.0
*Data not computed
'Feet above confluence with Mississippi River
2Total width / Width within county boundary
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
r AND INCORPORATED AREAS
M
��
3Floodway widened to contain open channel
4Administrative Floodway
22
FLOODWAY DATA
CLEARWATER RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
(FEET)
AREA
VELOCITY
PER
REDUCED
FROM PRIOR
REGULATORY
NAVD)
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(SQUARE
(FEET
(FEET
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
CLEARWATER
RIVER
(CONTINUED)
BH
115,915
694/4052'3
1,330
1.0
1,009.5
1,009.5
1,009.5
0.0
BI
116,815
180
450
2.9
1,010.4
1,010.4
1,010.6
0.2
BJ
117,455
100
330
4.0
1,012.3
1,012.3
1,012.7
0.4
BK
118,945
80
320
4.1
1,016.3
1,016.3
1,016.3
0.0
BL
122,365
5504
2.7
1,021.3
1,021.3
1,021.4
0.1
BM
124,545
130
550
2.4
1,024.5
1,024.5
1,024.5
0.0
BN
126,065
350
1,330
1.0
1,025.1
1,025.1
1,025.1
0.0
BO
127,165
50
310
4.2
1,025.5
1,025.5
1,025.5
0.0
BP
128,345
300
1,020
1.3
1,026.4
1,026.4
1,026.5
0.1
BQ
129,345
80
480
2.7
1,027.2
1,027.2
1,027.6
0.4
BR
131,465
350
1,570
0.8
1,027.9
1,027.9
1,028.3
0.4
BS
133,135
130
680
1.9
1,028.2
1,028.2
1,028.5
0.3
BT
134,520
80
420
3.2
1,029.1
1,029.1
1,029.4
0.3
BU
135,065
1104
3.4
1,030.4
1,030.4
1,030.6
0.2
BV
136,465
2253
1,370
1.0
1,030.7
1,030.7
1,031.0
0.3
*Data not computed
'Feet above confluence with Mississippi River
2Total width / Width within county boundary
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
r AND INCORPORATED AREAS
3Floodway widened to contain open channel
4Administrative Floodway
23
FLOODWAY DATA
CLEARWATER RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
2
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
CROW RIVER
A
767
304/171
5,158
3.9
112
858.3
858.3
858.8
0.5
B
1,477
446/213
5,593
3.6
16
858.5
858.5
858.9
0.4
C
5,007
883/1063
8,289
2.4
859.3
859.3
859.7
0.4
D
6,767
752/260
6,123
3.3
859.7
859.7
860.0
0.3
E
8,507
475/106
5,022
4.0
860.2
860.2
860.5
0.3
F
10,547
649/500
5,254
3.8
861.0
861.0
861.3
0.3
G
12,037
732/669
5,179
3.9
289
861.6
861.6
861.9
0.3
H
13,777
224/176
3,388
5.9
862.4
862.4
862.7
0.3
1
16,267
480/154
3,487
5.7
108
863.8
863.8
864.1
0.3
1
19,277
936/241
9,264
2.1
31
865.6
865.6
865.7
0.1
K
20,747
850/634
7,379
2.7
866.0
866.0
866.1
0.1
L
23,457
450/349
4,884
4.1
867.0
867.0
867.1
0.1
M
26,817
595/471
5,410
3.7
868.5
868.5
868.7
0.2
N
29,357
422/287
5,381
3.7
869.5
869.5
869.7
0.2
O
30,327
339/118
6,250
3.2
71
869.7
869.7
869.9
0.2
P
31,317
284/208
5,585
3.5
17
869.8
869.8
870.0
0.2
Q
35,267
392/0
4,899
4.0
871.0
871.0
871.3
0.3
R
37,462
215/117
3,083
6.4
26
871.9
871.9
872.1
0.2
S
38,802
859/589
11,745
1.7
873.0
873.0
873.2
0.2
T
40,662
1,018/141
11,983
1.7
873.1
873.1
873.4
0.3
U
43,412
2,500/1,420
33,354
0.6
873.2
873.2
873.5
0.3
V
52,702
1,900/1,718
10,356
1.9
875.2
875.2
875.2
0.0
W
54,582
1,378/1,256
4,972
4.0
875.6
875.6
875.6
0.0
'Feet above confluence with Mississippi River
2Total width / Width within county boundary, unless otherwise noted
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pip WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
m AND INCORPORATED AREAS
a)
3Total width / Width within county boundary, excluding City of Dayton (area
not included)
24
FLOODWAY DATA
CROW RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
2
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
CROW RIVER
(CONTINUED)
X
57,842
508/140
4,123
4.8
878.4
878.4
878.5
0.1
Y
60,462
663/566
4,298
4.6
880.5
880.5
880.5
0.0
Z
62,402
372/225
3,712
5.3
881.8
881.8
881.9
0.1
AA
63,102
243/189
3,282
6.0
3
882.2
882.2
882.5
0.3
AB
64,892
707/113
6,400
3.1
17
883.4
883.4
883.7
0.3
AC
66,532
664/180
4,998
3.9
883.9
883.9
884.1
0.2
AD
69,122
404/283
4,447
4.4
885.1
885.1
885.2
0.1
AE
72,822
367/175
3,740
5.2
44
886.8
886.8
886.9
0.1
AF
73,662
600/89
6,493
3.0
887.5
887.5
887.6
0.1
AG
74,262
653/308
5,617
3.5
887.6
887.6
887.7
0.1
AH
93,468
890/311
6,929
2.8
901.0
901.0
901.0
0.0
Al
96,428
676/286
5,218
3.7
901.8
901.8
901.9
0.1
AJ
102,528
732/197
5,851
3.3
903.8
903.8
903.8
0.0
AK
105,608
258/68
3,009
6.4
904.7
904.7
904.8
0.1
AL
108,708
266/176
3,100
6.2
906.5
906.5
906.6
0.1
AM
111,828
327/161
4,489
4.3
104
908.0
908.0
908.1
0.1
'Feet above confluence with Mississippi River
2Total width / Width within county boundary
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
m AND INCORPORATED AREAS
.H
25
FLOODWAY DATA
CROW RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
2
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
A
2,550
1,184/309
14,388
4.6
857.4
857.4
857.8
0.4
B
4,260
2,024/1,342
27,389
2.4
858.0
858.0
858.4
0.4
C
6,100
2,221/1,608
23,559
2.8
858.2
858.2
858.6
0.4
D
8,420
857/416
12,168
5.4
858.5
858.5
858.8
0.3
E
10,490
716/323
10,432
6.3
859.1
859.1
859.4
0.3
F
12,600
778/408
10,585
6.3
860.0
860.0
860.2
0.2
G
14,800
1,366/292
14,335
4.6
861.0
861.0
861.2
0.2
H
17,520
964/525
12,036
5.4
861.6
861.6
861.8
0.2
1
19,980
724/252
11,606
5.7
862.3
862.3
862.5
0.2
J
21,580
1,183/454
15,422
4.3
862.8
862.8
863.0
0.2
K
22,570
732/226
11,519
5.7
42
863.4
863.4
863.5
0.1
L
24,240
643/259
9,890
6.7
863.9
863.9
864.0
0.1
M
25,640
806/462
12,056
5.5
864.7
864.7
864.8
0.1
N
27,130
414/223
8,376
7.9
864.9
864.9
865.0
0.1
O
28,640
1,121/876
17,755
3.7
866.4
866.4
866.5
0.1
P
32,130
2,852/832
23,392
2.6
867.0
867.0
867.3
0.3
Q
34,270
2,942/1,422
22,681
2.7
867.6
867.6
868.0
0.4
R
35,760
2,170/670
21,396
2.9
868.0
868.0
868.3
0.3
S
36,940
2,223/769
15,762
3.9
868.2
868.2
868.5
0.3
T
38,320
974/257
11,821
5.2
868.6
868.6
869.0
0.4
'Feet above Anoka / Sherburne County boundary
2Total width / Width within county boundary
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
m AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Im
26
FLOODWAY DATA
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
2
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
(CONTINUED)
U
40,300
619/179
8,877
6.9
869.5
869.5
869.8
0.3
V
42,450
645/352
8,313
7.3
870.6
870.6
870.9
0.3
W
44,630
734/452
10,334
5.9
188
872.3
872.3
872.5
0.2
X
45,895
1,927/1,265
19,255
3.2
873.3
873.3
873.4
0.1
Y
47,885
828/591
9,389
6.5
873.8
873.8
873.9
0.1
Z
49,425
660/194
8,426
7.2
874.4
874.4
874.5
0.1
AA
51,245
933/363
8,739
7.0
44
875.5
875.5
875.6
0.1
AB
53,485
668/318
7,553
8.1
876.7
876.7
876.7
0.0
AC
55,225
1,460/232
13,276
4.6
878.6
878.6
878.6
0.0
AD
57,305
1,881/381
13,851
4.4
130
880.3
880.3
880.3
0.0
AE
59,695
616/294
7,921
7.7
882.2
882.2
882.2
0.0
AF
61,625
539/147
7,291
8.4
884.4
884.4
884.4
0.0
AG
66,645
719/150
9,588
6.4
47
888.3
888.3
888.4
0.1
AH
70,145
1,814/1,019
13,864
4.4
891.1
891.1
891.1
0.0
Al
73,145
756/393
9,649
6.3
1
892.9
892.9
892.9
0.0
AJ
78,145
731/335
8,330
7.3
16
895.4
895.4
895.4
0.0
AK
82,945
563/165
6,185
9.8
899.3
899.3
899.3
0.0
AL
87,945
523/120
7,122
8.5
904.2
904.2
904.2
0.0
AM
90,045
590/275
6,986
8.7
905.8
905.8
905.8
0.0
AN
92,045
927/537
11,173
5.4
907.6
907.6
907.6
0.0
'Feet above Anoka / Sherburne County boundary
2Total width / Width within county boundary
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
m AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Im
27
FLOODWAY DATA
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
2
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
(CONTINUED)
AO
129,205
490/87
9,514
6.4
933.5
933.5
933.7
0.2
AP
130,995
550/133
10,054
6.0
934.3
934.3
934.5
0.2
AQ
133,215
611/198
11,003
5.5
935.2
935.2
935.4
0.2
AR
135,015
605/355
12,743
4.7
122
935.9
935.9
936.1
0.2
AS
137,255
1,062/317
18,448
3.3
936.5
936.5
936.7
0.2
AT
138,305
835/483
13,433
4.5
936.6
936.6
936.8
0.2
AU
139,675
1,114/510
16,706
3.6
937.1
937.1
937.3
0.2
AV
141,565
670/309
11,116
5.4
937.4
937.4
937.6
0.2
AW
143,275
555/248
8,512
7.1
938.0
938.0
938.2
0.2
AX
145,255
889/421
13,779
4.4
55
939.4
939.4
939.6
0.2
AY
146,925
1,135/222
14,114
4.3
939.8
939.8
940.0
0.2
AZ
148,675
1,000/232
12,273
4.9
940.3
940.3
940.6
0.3
BA
151,125
1,923/1,401
24,720
2.4
20
941.2
941.2
941.5
0.3
BB
152,945
818/530
13,040
4.6
941.4
941.4
941.7
0.3
BC
154,195
713/285
13,052
4.6
20
941.8
941.8
942.1
0.3
BD
155,945
720/189
11,904
5.1
942.2
942.2
942.5
0.3
BE
157,735
748/355
11,820
5.1
122
942.7
942.7
943.0
0.3
BF
159,535
786/431
13,571
4.4
943.4
943.4
943.7
0.3
BG
161,285
669/322
12,648
4.8
943.8
943.8
944.1
0.3
'Feet above Anoka / Sherburne County boundary
2Total width / Width within county boundary
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
m AND INCORPORATED AREAS
01
W.
FLOODWAY DATA
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
2
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
(CONTINUED)
BH
163,085
861/542
15,564
3.9
207
944.3
944.3
944.6
0.3
BI
164,685
1,146/938
14,145
4.2
944.6
944.6
944.9
0.3
BJ
165,935
1,093/422
19,239
3.1
945.1
945.1
945.4
0.3
BK
168,365
2,656/2,060
23,305
2.6
945.3
945.3
945.6
0.3
BL
170,465
2,200/832
19,960
3.0
945.6
945.6
945.9
0.3
BM
172,415
1,732/592
16,188
3.7
68
946.0
946.0
946.3
0.3
BN
174,315
1,488/441
16,752
3.6
946.6
946.6
947.0
0.4
BO
176,145
1,250/895
16,798
3.6
947.0
947.0
947.4
0.4
BP
177,345
900/676
13,129
4.5
947.2
947.2
947.6
0.4
BQ
179,175
783/691
13,440
4.4
947.6
947.6
948.0
0.4
BR
180,535
784/784
15,260
3.9
20
948.4
948.4
948.8
0.4
BS
182,235
646/383
11,490
5.2
58
948.5
948.5
948.9
0.4
'Feet above Anoka / Sherburne County boundary
2Total width / Width within county boundary
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
D WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
00
r AND INCORPORATED AREAS
rn
a�
29
FLOODWAY DATA
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
NORTH FORK
CROW RIVER
A
686
1,890
21,240
0.5
914.9
914.52
914.52
0.0
B
4,936
718
4,619
2.2
914.9
914.52
914.52
0.0
C
8,036
763
8,580
1.2
914.9
914.82
914.82
0.0
D
9,336
760
9,553
1.1
914.9
914.82
914.92
0.1
E
10,836
530
6,120
1.7
914.9
914.92
914.92
0.0
F
11,722
398
3,774
2.7
23
914.9
914.9
915.0
0.1
G
14,097
855
9,641
1.1
915.3
915.3
915.4
0.1
H
19,197
508
6,135
1.7
915.5
915.5
915.6
0.1
1
21,197
870
10,150
1.0
915.6
915.6
915.7
0.1
1
22,847
2,087
23,363
0.4
915.7
915.7
915.8
0.1
K
26,097
4,880
55,574
0.2
915.7
915.7
915.8
0.1
L
29,597
3,900
33,933
0.3
915.7
915.7
915.8
0.1
IM
36,023
4,500
39,259
0.3
915.7
915.7
915.8
0.1
N
40,873
941
7,896
1.3
915.7
915.7
915.8
0.1
Q
47,273
3,069
16,852
0.6
916.2
916.2
916.4
0.2
P
50,773
643
3,444
2.9
916.6
916.6
916.7
0.1
Q
55,413
430
3,803
2.6
918.4
918.4
918.7
0.3
R
57,588
1,250
9,937
1.0
919.0
919.0
919.3
0.3
S
60,338
1,3403
9,946
1.0
919.2
919.2
919.6
0.4
T
74,253
8073
2,145
4.4
923.6
923.6
923.7
0.1
'Feet above confluence with Crow River
2Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Crow River
3Mapped topwidth differs from Floodway Data table width due to presence of high ground/divided flow
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
r AND INCORPORATED AREAS
M NORTH FORK CROW RIVER
M
WE
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
NORTH FORK
CROW RIVER
(CONTINUED)
U
79,053
1,6702
14,203
0.7
924.1
924.1
924.4
0.3
V
83,903
5,150
40,916
0.2
924.1
924.1
924.4
0.3
W
90,353
4,100
22,601
0.4
924.2
924.2
924.4
0.2
X
93,853
3,325
13,066
0.7
924.7
924.7
924.9
0.2
Y
99,053
1,185
1,393
6.8
273
924.7
924.7
924.9
0.2
Z
105,521
399
2,969
3.2
932.4
932.4
932.5
0.1
AA
110,321
2,650
22,103
0.4
933.1
933.1
933.4
0.3
AB
118,321
2,300
13,928
0.7
933.1
933.1
933.6
0.5
AC
121,621
1,920
9,053
1.0
933.3
933.3
933.7
0.4
AD
126,371
1,490
6,138
1.5
933.9
933.9
934.4
0.5
AE
134,659
1,555
5,284
1.7
935.6
935.6
935.9
0.3
'Feet above confluence with Crow River
2Mapped topwidth differs from Floodway Data table width due to presence of high ground/divided flow
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
r AND INCORPORATED AREAS
M NORTH FORK CROW RIVER
M
31
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
OTTER CREEK
A
80
70
245
1.7
910.3
904.32
904.82
0.5
B
250
30
75
5.6
910.3
904.32
904.82
0.5
C
610
30
60
7.0
910.3
910.02
910.02
0.0
D
1,440
70
300
1.4
913.7
913.7
914.2
0.5
E
1,850
70
225
1.9
914.2
914.2
914.7
0.5
F
2,290
70
165
2.5
915.6
915.6
916.1
0.5
G
2,730
50
175
2.4
917.1
917.1
917.6
0.5
H
3,510
40
170
2.5
920.4
920.4
920.6
0.2
1
3,990
40
140
3.0
921.0
921.0
921.5
0.5
J
4,200
50
180
2.3
921.4
921.4
921.9
0.5
K
4,480
60
220
1.9
922.1
922.1
922.6
0.5
L
4,710
90
315
1.3
922.3
922.3
922.8
0.5
M
5,110
170
565
0.7
922.5
922.5
923.0
0.5
N
5,350
1343
205
2.0
922.8
922.8
923.3
0.5
O
5,860
70
175
2.4
923.6
923.6
924.0
0.4
'Feet above confluence with Mississippi River
2Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Mississippi River
3Floodway widened to contain open channel
D
00
r
M
M
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
32
FLOODWAY DATA
OTTER CREEK
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
MEAN
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
SECTION AREA
VELOCITY
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE FEET)
(FEET PER
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
SECOND)
SCHOOL LAKE
CREEK
A
1,980
30
85
5.9
885.4
885.4
885.5
0.1
B
2,485
60
125
4.1
888.4
888.4
888.5
0.1
C
3,170
40
85
5.9
893.1
893.1
893.1
0.0
D
4,180
30
140
3.5
898.5
898.5
898.6
0.1
E
4,925
25
80
6.2
900.3
900.3
900.4
0.1
F
6,695
30
95
5.3
909.4
909.4
909.4
0.0
G
8,415
30
160
3.1
917.7
917.7
918.0
0.3
H
8,620
40
450
1.1
926.1
926.1
926.2
0.1
1
10,045
60
225
2.2
926.2
926.2
926.4
0.2
J
10,880
90
530
0.9
926.2
926.2
926.7
0.5
K
11,620
130
460
1.1
926.4
926.4
926.9
0.5
'Feet above confluence with Crow River
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
rn AND INCORPORATED AREAS
0)
33
FLOODWAY DATA
SCHOOL LAKE CREEK
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
SOUTH FORK
CROW RIVER
A
686
1,530/8442
12,899
1.1
914.9
914.9
914.9
0.0
B
1,436
1,245/1,1832
12,536
1.1
914.9
914.9
914.9
0.0
C
6,188
1,130/5042
11,391
1.3
915.0
915.0
915.0
0.0
D
8,886
1,283/1,1652
10,281
1.4
915.2
915.2
915.2
0.0
E
12,635
1,209/1,1482
4,815
3.0
121
915.7
915.7
915.8
0.1
F
15,138
1,040
6,362
2.3
916.8
916.8
916.9
0.1
G
18,459
479
3,843
3.7
88
918.0
918.0
918.1
0.1
H
19,705
880
7,072
2.0
918.7
918.7
918.8
0.1
1
21,606
2,409
12,223
1.2
919.0
919.0
919.1
0.1
1
25,106
2,572
19,015
0.8
25
919.2
919.2
919.3
0.1
K
28,105
1,319
9,277
1.5
57
919.3
919.3
919.4
0.1
L
28,805
231
2,412
6.0
37
919.4
919.4
919.5
0.1
M
30,175
171
2,712
5.3
19
921.2
921.2
921.2
0.0
N
30,430
187
2,323
6.2
921.7
921.7
921.8
0.1
O
30,835
185
2,150
6.7
922.0
922.0
922.0
0.0
P
31,340
158
2,212
6.5
31
922.4
922.4
922.4
0.0
Q
31,830
230
2,606
5.5
922.7
922.7
922.7
0.0
R
32,240
180
2,777
5.2
95
923.0
923.0
923.0
0.0
S
32,530
230
2,713
5.3
923.0
923.0
923.1
0.1
T
32,880
289
3,773
3.8
923.4
923.4
923.5
0.1
'Feet above confluence with Crow River
2Total width / Width within county
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
m AND INCORPORATED AREAS
0)
34
FLOODWAY DATA
SOUTH FORK CROW RIVER
Table 6 - Floodway Data (continued)
FLOODING SOURCE
FLOODWAY
1 -PERCENT -ANNUAL -CHANCE -FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
SECTION
MEAN
WIDTH
WITHOUT
WITH
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE'
WIDTH
AREA
VELOCITY
REDUCED
REGULATORY
FLOODWAY
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
(FEET)
(SQUARE
(FEET PER
FROM PRIOR
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET NAVD)
(FEET)
FEET)
SECOND)
STUDY (FEET)
SOUTH FORK
CROW RIVER
(CONTINUED)
U
33,020
294
3,754
3.8
923.6
923.6
923.6
0.0
V
33,970
336
3,530
4.1
923.8
923.8
923.9
0.1
W
35,608
925
6,282
2.3
924.4
924.4
924.8
0.4
X
37,208
903
10,668
1.3
924.9
924.9
925.3
0.4
Y
38,708
1,051
9,116
1.6
925.1
925.1
925.4
0.3
Z
40,007
1,216
8,958
1.6
925.2
925.2
925.7
0.5
AA
40,608
1,278
10,158
1.4
925.3
925.3
925.8
0.5
AB
45,107
1,725
12,607
1.1
75
926.0
926.0
926.4
0.4
AC
46,807
1,870
16,162
0.9
926.2
926.2
926.6
0.4
AD
48,307
2,160
15,205
0.9
926.4
926.4
926.7
0.3
AE
53,824
1,077
9,443
1.5
928.3
928.3
928.6
0.3
AF
55,825
1720
12,075
1.2
928.6
928.6
928.9
0.3
AG
59,527
770
4,743
3.0
929.1
929.1
929.3
0.2
AH
61,327
677
4,515
3.1
930.2
930.2
930.3
0.1
Al
62,626
344
2,982
4.7
930.7
930.7
930.8
0.1
'Feet above confluence with Crow River
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
pDp WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
r AND INCORPORATED AREAS
m
0)
35
FLOODWAY DATA
SOUTH FORK CROW RIVER
The area between the floodway and 1 -percent -annual -chance floodplain
boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the
portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing
the WSELs of the I -percent -annual -chance flood more than I foot at any point.
Typical relationships between the floodway and the floodway fringe and their
significance to floodplain development are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 — Floodway Schematic
5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS
For flood insurance rating purposes, flood insurance zone designations are assigned to a
community based on the results of the engineering analyses. These zones are as follows:
Zone A
Zone A is the flood insurance risk zone that corresponds to the 1 -percent -annual -chance
floodplains that are determined in the FIS by approximate methods. Because detailed
hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no BFEs or base flood depths are
shown within this zone.
W
t LIMIT OF FLOODPLAIN FOR UNENCROACHED 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD -I
�FLOODWAY FLOODWAY _ �_FLOODWAY�
FRINGE FRINGE
STREAM
~CHANNEL -
FLOOD ELEVATION WHEN
GROUND SURFACE CONFINED WITHIN FLOODWAY
ENCROACHMENT ENCROACHMENT
C D
FILL FILL
SURCHARGE*
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A B
AREA OF ALLOWABLE
FILL ENCROACHMENT, RAISING FLOOD ELEVATION
GROUND SURFACE WILL BEFORE ENCROACHMENT
NOT CAUSE A SURCHARGE ON FLOODPLAIN
THAT EXCEEDS THE
INDICATED STANDARDS
LINE A - B IS THE FLOOD ELEVATION BEFORE ENCROACHMENT
LINE C - DS THE FLOOD ELEVATION AFTER ENCROACHMENT
*SURCHARGE NOT TO EXCEED 1.0 FOOT (FEMA REQUIREMENT) OR LESSER HEIGHT IF SPECIFIED BY STATE OR COMMUNITY.
5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS
For flood insurance rating purposes, flood insurance zone designations are assigned to a
community based on the results of the engineering analyses. These zones are as follows:
Zone A
Zone A is the flood insurance risk zone that corresponds to the 1 -percent -annual -chance
floodplains that are determined in the FIS by approximate methods. Because detailed
hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no BFEs or base flood depths are
shown within this zone.
W
Zone AE
Zone AE is the flood insurance risk zone that corresponds to the 1 -percent -annual -chance
floodplains that are determined in the FIS by detailed methods. In most instances, whole -
foot BFEs derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals
within this zone.
Zone X
Zone X is the flood insurance risk zone that corresponds to areas outside the 0.2 -percent -
annual -chance floodplain, areas within the 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain, areas of
1 -percent -annual -chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1 -
percent -annual -chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square
mile, and areas protected from the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood by levees. No BFEs or
base flood depths are shown within this zone.
6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
The FIRM is designed for flood insurance and floodplain management applications.
For flood insurance applications, the map designates flood insurance risk zones as
described in Section 5.0 and, in the 1 -percent -annual -chance floodplains that were
studied by detailed methods, shows selected whole -foot BFEs or average depths.
Insurance agents use the zones and BFEs in conjunction with information on structures
and their contents to assign premium rates for flood insurance policies.
For floodplain management applications, the map shows by tints, screens, and symbols,
the 1- and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplains, floodways, and the locations of
selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses and floodway computations.
The countywide FIRM presents flooding information for the entire geographic area of
Wright County. Previously, FIRMs were prepared for each incorporated community and
the unincorporated areas of the County identified as flood -prone. This countywide FIRM
also includes flood -hazard information that was presented separately on Flood Boundary
and Floodway Maps, where applicable. Historical data relating to the maps prepared for
each community are presented in Table 7.
7.0 OTHER STUDIES
Information pertaining to revised and unrevised flood hazards from each jurisdiction
wihin Wright County has been compiled into this countywide FIS. Therefore, this FIS
supercedes all previously printed FIS texts, FHBMs, and FIRMS for all jurisdictions
within Wright County.
37
COMMUNITY
NAME
INITIAL
IDENTIFICATION
FLOOD HAZARD
BOUNDARY MAP
REVISION DATE
FIRM
EFFECTIVE DATE
FIRM
REVISION DATE
*,**Albertville, City of
N/A
None
N/A
None
*,**Annandale, City of
N/A
None
N/A
None
Buffalo, City of
May 8, 1974
May 28, 1976
May 15, 1985
None
Clearwater, City of
August 23, 1974
May 28, 1976
November 1, 1979
None
Cokato, City of
May 24, 1974
November 14, 1975
August 19, 1985
None
Corinna, Township of
May 1, 1978
None
May 1, 1978
August 4, 1988
August 18, 1992
Delano, City of
May 24, 1974
May 14, 1976
April 1, 1980
December 2, 1988
*,**Howard Lake, City of
N/A
None
N/A
None
**Maple Lake, City of
January 10, 1975
None
N/A
None
Monticello, City of
May 24, 1974
March 26, 1976
November 1, 1979
None
**Montrose, City of
N/A
None
N/A
None
Otsego, City of
May 1, 1978
None
May 1, 1978
August 4, 1988
September 30, 1992
"*South Haven, City of
N/A
None
N/A
None
St. Michael, City of
May 17, 1974
August 20, 1976
November 1, 1979
July 2, 1982
**Waverly, City of
January 17, 1975
None
N/A
None
Wright County
May 1, 1978
None
May 1, 1978
August 4, 1988
(Unincorporated Areas)
August 18, 1992
*No special flood hazard areas identified
**This community did not have a FIRM prior to the first countywide FIRM for Wright County
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
WRIGHT COUNTY, MN
rAND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY
M
8.0 LOCATION OF DATA
Information concerning the pertinent data used in the preparation of this study can be
obtained by contacting FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division, 536 South
Clark Street, Sixth Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60605.
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, City of Buffalo,
Wright County, Minnesota, May 15, 1985.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, City of Delano,
Wright County, Minnesota, December 2, 1988a.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, Wright County
(Unincorporated Areas), Minnesota, August 1988b.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, City of Otsego,
Wright County, Minnesota, December 2, 1992a.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, Wright County
(Unincorporated Areas), Minnesota, December 2, 1992b.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, Stearns County
(Unincorporated Areas), Minnesota, November 16, 1994.
Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study, City of Dayton, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, February 1, 1978.
Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study, City of Clearwater, Wright
County, Minnesota, November 1, 1979a.
Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study, City of Monticello, Wright
County, Minnesota, November 1, 1979b.
Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study, City of St. Michael, Wright
County, Minnesota, Flood Insurance Study report, May 1979c.
Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study, City of Delano, Wright
County, Minnesota, April 1, 1980.
Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC -1 Flood Hydrograph Package, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Davis, California, 1970.
we
Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC -2 Water Surface Profiles, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Davis, California, May 1977.
Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC -2 Water Surface Profiles, Computer Program 723-
X6-L202A, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, California, April 1982.
Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC -RAS River Analysis System, Version 4.1.0, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, California, January 2010.
Lorenz, David L., Chris A. Sanocki and Matthew J. Kocian, Techniques for Estimating
the Magnitude and frequency of the Peak Flow on Small Streams in Minnesota Based
on Data through Water Year 2005, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations
Report 2009-5250, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2009.
Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc., Aerial Photographs, Scale 1:12,000, City of St.
Michael, Minnesota, May 1975.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, LIDAR Data, Wright County, 2008.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Flood Plain Management
Newsletter, Volume 2, Issue 3, Division of Waters, August 1984.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Natural Ordinary High Water Level
Determination for Lake Pulaski, Division of Water, 1981.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Technical Procedures of Floodway
Anal, Division of Water, October 1976.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Technical Report No. 6, The Re ug latga
Floodway in Floodplain Management, Division of Water, September 1977.
National Geodetic Survey, VERTCON-North American Vertical Datum
Conversion Utility. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://www.n sg noaa.gov.
National Weather Service, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, 30 -Minute to
24 -Hour Durations, 1- to 100 -Year Return Periods, Technical Paper No. 40, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1961.
National Weather Service, Two to Ten-day Precipitation for Return Periods of 2 to 100
years in the Contiguous United States, Technical Paper No. 49, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1964.
National Weather Service, Five to Sixty Minute Precipitation Frequency for Eastern
and Central United States, Technical Memorandum NWS Hydro -35, U.S. Department
of Commerce, June 1977.
M
Soil Conservation Service, Computer Program for Project Formulation, H.. d�gv,
Technical Release No. 20, U.S. Department of the Agriculture, 1965.
Soil Conservation Service, National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 1972.
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, Wright County Minnesota, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, June 1968.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, Flood Control Appraisal Report, Lake
Pulaski, City of Buffalo and Wright County, Minnesota, Memorandum Report, 1984.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, Interim Hydrology Report for Stearns
County Flood Insurance Study, July 1985.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, Interim Hydrology Report for Stearns
County Flood Insurance Study, May 1986.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Public Roads, Hydraulic Charts for the
Selection of Highway Culverts, December 1965.
U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Data and Analysis for the Clearwater River Flood
of June 23, 1983 in Stearns, Meeker, and Wright Counties, Water Resources
Investigation Report 85, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1985.
U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods
in Minnesota, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977.
U.S. Geological Survey, 15 Minute Series Topographic Mgps for Minnesota, Scale
1:62,500, Contour Interval 20 feet: Rockford, Minnesota, 1958.
Water Resources Council, Hydrology Committee, Guidelines for DeterminingFlood
Flow Frequency, Bulletin #1713, Revised September 1981, Editorial corrections March
1982.
The Weather Channel, Monthly Averages for Clearwater, MN. Retrieved December 1,
2010, from http://www.weather.com.
41
970
0
z 960
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
950
Lu
J
W
940
930
920
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
•.s
950
LEGEND
ry
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
W
LU
%
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
J
940
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LL
- - - - - - - -
- - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
o
STREAM BED
f)f
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
•.s
950
C/)
ry
980
W
LU
%
J
940
z
w
LL
ry
o
ry
f)f
LIJ
a
~
Q
o
970
0
ry
Q
W
0
Lu
J
930
LL.
U
•.s
950
18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 Lu
LL
01P
i
U
940
z
w
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
w
Lu
Q
930
Q
Q
Z
Lu
�
o
ryO
v
U
ry
zO
W
=
U
CDz
2
z
W
Q
J
Q
W
18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 Lu
LL
01P
0
z 990
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
980
Lu
J
W
1
24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 40,000 42,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
••1
•:1
970
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
z
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Z
Q
2
Lu
QZ
Q
O
w
<
Q
o
ryO
v
z
W
�(D
U
=
ry
O
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ww�■■■■w�■ww■w■��I�■.. w■w■■■w■ww■Www■ww■I�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■u■�■■i■I�r�rc■�uuu�■�.�:�� . ... ul��als■�seiazic�I�u�■W�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
�
W
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i��T11�R11R■rr'I�IRR�T.3�...: �/5irT1i7i7r13�1R1�1A1�1�1137TTG131�7■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■iirlriiriii ■■rirrrrlririrrl■■rill■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
n
111
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
111
•
0
z 990
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
980
Lu
J
W
1
24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 40,000 42,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
••1
•:1
970
44,000 46,000 48,000 50,000
i
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
z
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
44,000 46,000 48,000 50,000
i
U
z
w
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
Lu
QZ
Q
O
w
<
Q
o
ryO
v
z
W
�(D
U
=
ry
O
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
n
W
LL
02P
D
Q
Z, 1000
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
990
Lu
J
W
$:1
50,000 52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
1000
••1
•:1
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
z
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
C�
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
Z
W
Q
2
W
Qz
Q
O
LU
<
n
ryO
v
z
W
�(D
U
=
ry
O
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
n
W
ILL
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■0
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■..........
D
Q
Z, 1000
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
990
Lu
J
W
$:1
50,000 52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
1000
••1
•:1
70,000 72,000 74,000 76,000
i
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
z
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
C�
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
70,000 72,000 74,000 76,000
i
U
z
W
C�
Q
Z
W
Q
2
W
Qz
Q
O
LU
<
n
ryO
v
z
W
�(D
U
=
ry
O
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
n
W
ILL
03P
�
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
ONE IoommooIll������LVI��6m'J�6m'JC�7�v������
FINE I■■■■■■11�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1��
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■IJ�II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Illi■■■■■�11■■■■■■■■■■■
■■!al■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ti■■■■■►111■■■■■■■■■■■
■■FnOl■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1i17■■■■■J11■■■■■■■■■■■
■■_I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■loll■■■■t!■■■■■"sill■■■■■■■■■■■
������������������������������������I
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■l
��■■��������L'a■l��l�'�a■laiJ�*Il�l�iiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�llfvaVn■�Yrl■ii
ill■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I
I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■11�■■■■■■■■1��
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_■_■■■■■■■_■_■_
■■■1
f■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�il�JSf�■■■■■■■■■■■
111
■■■1
`■■■■■■■■■■■
111
��iii
������� •••i:::
���::::
���:::�
���::: �/�l��751■■■■I loom■■■■■■
■■■■■�����������������������������������������A�iii�����iii
!_l��
i
m�l��--1�!•1----1�l1----l,!l----l��l---DC7"i/��i■■■■
\■■■■■■■■■
����It�������lS����!»===1=■===CS====I�C===7f=1===�Cm====l�C===�C■===�Cl====i�C===�Cl����C�����i�C����Ci����Ci/��■■■■■■■
1■■■■■■■■■
iGGGTiii/rrri�/r■ri//rrrri//rrri//r■ri//rrrr■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■fi/■■■■■■'r/.�%\G\%��
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■loll■■II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
..
■■■■■■l■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■loll■II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
--------------
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Iloll■I■■■■li`.�i■li■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■����■■�14■r"l■■■r"lr-",%■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1
■■■ 1■I I■■■I 11 ■■■■■■■■
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
'
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
����
•
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii■
�
"qn■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■r■■■■�"
�■■■■■■■■■■■r■■■■■■�-
-■■■■■■■■■■r"
�■■■■■■■■■■r'■■■■■■r'
�■■■■■■■■r'
-. .
.
■I I■■■■
I■■■■■■■■■■■I
■■■■■■■
1■■■■■■■■■■I
I■■■■■■■■■■1
loll■■I
loll■■■■1
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii■
,
. 111
111 :1 111 111 :111 :. 111 :: 111 •1 111 • 111 •111 •. 111 •: 111 11 111 1
111
. ,:• • ..
0
z 1030
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
1020
Lu
J
W
1010
1000
•.I
102,000 104,000 106,000 108,000 110,000 112,000 114,000 116,000 118,000 120,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Ca■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■G!I■■■■ESI■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
LU
Lu
Q
1000
Q
Z
Q
Lu
O
ryO
v
U
ry
zO
W
=
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1 1
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
rii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
•
.....................................................................
0
z 1030
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
1020
Lu
J
W
1010
1000
•.I
102,000 104,000 106,000 108,000 110,000 112,000 114,000 116,000 118,000 120,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
1030
1020
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
1030
1020
122,000 124,000 126,000 128,000 Lu
LL
05P
i
U
1010
z
w
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
LU
Lu
Q
1000
Q
Z
Q
Lu
O
ryO
v
U
ry
zO
W
=
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
122,000 124,000 126,000 128,000 Lu
LL
05P
71
1050
1050
W
W
J
LL
�
W
Q
1040
1040
0
W
0
J
LL
U
0
>
z
1030
1030
Lu
w
ILL
z_
z
O
1020
1020
Lu
J
W
i
U
1010
1010
z
w
Q
~Z
w 2 w
w> Q
I— o
LEGEND
ZQ z
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O
U U a -
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
z O
L = U
- - - - - - - - - - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
W �/ 0
Z
STREAM BED
W Q
CROSS SECTION
J
LOCATION
L c�
�
I I
I I
++�fl
W
-
-
-
-
0
128,000 130,000 132,000 134,000 136,000 138,000
w
ILL
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
06P
:•=
870
0
z 860
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
850
Lu
J
W
840
830
26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 40,000 42,000 44,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
46,000 48,000 50,000
:•1
m
870
:.1
850
W
J ry
LL W
O >
ry ry
a-
0 O
O ry
O v
LL
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
U
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
840
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
— - - - - - -
— 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
Q
LOCATION
46,000 48,000 50,000
:•1
m
870
:.1
850
W
J ry
LL W
O >
ry ry
a-
0 O
O ry
O v
LL
52,000 u -
08P
i
U
840
z
Lu
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
w
Lu
Q
830
Q
Q
Z
o
�
O
ryO
v
U
ry
z
O
W
=
U
�(D
Z
2
0
W
Q
J
Q
W
n
52,000 u -
08P
0
z 890
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
880
Lu
J
W
870
:.l
WON
52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
:•1
::1
870
:.1
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
--------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
Z
Z
Q
2
Lu
QZ
Q
O
w
<
Q
o
ryO
vU
zO
W
�(D
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�rrl■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■111.■■■■■■■■
a_
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
n
W
LL
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
..................................................................................................................................
0
z 890
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
880
Lu
J
W
870
:.l
WON
52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
:•1
::1
870
:.1
72,000 74,000 76,000 78,000
i
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
--------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
72,000 74,000 76,000 78,000
i
U
z
w
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
Lu
QZ
Q
O
w
<
Q
o
ryO
vU
zO
W
�(D
=
a_
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
n
W
LL
mi
D
z 900
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
890
Lu
J
W
::1
92,000 94,000 96,000 98,000 100,000 102,000 104,000 106,000 108,000 110,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
•11
:•1
::1
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
. 1
■■I�il■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■PEE■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■a■■■■■■■L11■■■■■■■■■■■I►�,
STREAM BED
C�
• 1
LOCATION
Z
W
Q
2
W
Qz
Q
■■I11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■111■11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■111■■■■■■■■L'_:■■■■■■■■■■■■111
W
<
n
ryO
vU
z
W
�(D
=
a_
O
U
z
2z
W<
■■r■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r�r�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■rte■■■■■■■�.■■■■■■■■■■■■r�
Q
•
■■r=■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r�r�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■rte■■■■■■■C■■■■■■■■�■■•1r==�
W
n
W
■■G■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■rir7ir7■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■rir7■■■■■■■G■�!!���i■■■■rir7
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_��■■■■■■■....i■■■■■■■■■■■■■
LL
�
1
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■����i�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�!��r■r■■■■��■■
1
•
1
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_■_■■■■■■�������G��i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_■■Al9C�Gii■■���C�Gii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■lZ�GiGiGirr■■
D
z 900
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
890
Lu
J
W
::1
92,000 94,000 96,000 98,000 100,000 102,000 104,000 106,000 108,000 110,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
•11
:•1
::1
112,000 114,000 116,000 118,000
i
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
--------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
C�
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
112,000 114,000 116,000 118,000
i
U
z
W
C�
Q
Z
W
Q
2
W
Qz
Q
O
W
<
n
ryO
vU
z
W
�(D
=
a_
O
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
n
W
LL
IN
W
J
�
LL
W
O
>
0
O
O
v
LL
0
>
z
920
920
Lu
w
LL
z_
z
O
910
910
w
J
W
i
U
900
900
z
Lu
Q
Z
Z Q
Lu
w Q
890
890
Q
LEGEND
Q Z Q
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODU
U a_
z O
- 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LLI = U
- - - - - - - - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
W 0
STREAM BED
LLLJ Q
CROSS SECTION
J
LL
LOCATION
W
126,000 128,000 130,000 132,000
w
LL
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
11 P
G7
W
Lu
J
>
LL
870
870
U)
O
U
U)
J
�
LL
0
z
860
860
Lu
Lu
LL
z_
z
O
Q
850
850
>
Lu
J
Lu
i
U
840840
z
w
U
Q
Z
Z Q
2 w
LU > Q
830
830
Q 1---
LEGEND
z LU
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O �
1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O
U U �
z O
- 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
w = U
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
Z
LU
STREAM BED
W Q
CROSS SECTION
J
LOCATION
LU
2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000
LU
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE ANOKA / SHERBURNE COUNTY BOUNDARY
12P
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
�.1
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■!!.it■■■■■■■tl�Ci�■■•,C9CGi■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_■■*!'JGrii�i■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!!G:■■■■■■■■SIC:Gir■itCii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�S=G■r.■■■■■■■■■■■■■
�.1
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�!�:�■■■■■■■!!�l`i■■�'!=iii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■t��'s=G�fi■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�!�:i■■■■■■■!'�Cii■!!■i`i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■��CC=iir■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!�:it■■■■■�IJGi�■!�Cii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�S3G:`iiir■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!moi■■■■■AJC=:its!�Gi■■■■■■■■■■■■■pct=3lrr■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/!5I■■■CGi�■!!!=i■■■■■■■■■■■■�C='iir■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i��Gi■■!'li�l�!illi■■■■■■■■■■■■�==ii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■�!�■■■■■■■■!l7Gi.lC���■■■■■■■■■■■�J=�ir■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!!i��i�ll"i�17■■
��.�G:it■■■■■AClii■!..ii■■■■■■■■■■�CCTii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�!Gi■�i�l`i�■■■■■■■
■■��lCili�i7rii■■■■■■■■■��==1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!moi■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■�.�Gii■■■■■■■■�S=l�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!moi■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
ii:;i'■iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
'
����
•
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
�•.•••
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii■■iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
'
111 111
. 111 111 .1 111 . 111 .� 111 .. 111 .: 111 1 111 111 111 . 111 111
G7
W
Lu
J
>
LL.
a
920
920
U)
U)
U)
J
�
LL.
0
>
z
910
910
Lu
Lu
LL
z_
z
O
Q
900---
900
Lu
J
W
i
U
890
890
z
W
Q
� Z
Z Q
2 W
W >- Q
880
880
Q
LEGEND
Z LU�
Q
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O �
1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O
U U a_
Z O
- 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
W = U
-------- - - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
Z_
LU
STREAM BED
W Q
CROSS SECTION
J
4-1
LOCATION
-
11
W
78,000
80,000 82,000 84,000 86,000 88,000 90,000 92,000 94,000 96,000 98,000 100,000 102,000 104,000
LU
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE ANOKA / SHERBURNE COUNTY BOUNDARY
15P
940
930
0
z 920
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
910
Lu
J
W
•1I
:•i
104,000 106,000 108,000 110,000 112,000 114,000 116,000 118,000 120,000 122,000 124,000 126,000 128,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE ANOKA/SHERBURNE COUNTY BOUNDARY
LEGEND
r"
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
J
L1
1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
900
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
- - - - - - - -
- - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
f)f
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
104,000 106,000 108,000 110,000 112,000 114,000 116,000 118,000 120,000 122,000 124,000 126,000 128,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE ANOKA/SHERBURNE COUNTY BOUNDARY
920
910
C/)
r"
940
J
L1
900
z
W
LL
f)f
D_
n
n
Z
930
LU
U)
Q
U)
O
U)
W
Q
890
LL
920
910
130,000 LU
IN
i
U
900
z
W
Q
Z
LU
Q
2
W
W
Q
890
Q
Z
o
Q
O
ryO
v
U
ry
z
O
W
=
U
�(D
z
2
z
W
Q
J
Q
W
130,000 LU
IN
950
940
0
z 930
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
920
Lu
J
W
910
•01
130,000 132,000 134,000 136,000 138,000 140,000 142,000 144,000 146,000 148,000 150,000 152,000 154,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE ANOKA/SHERBURNE COUNTY BOUNDARY
LEGEND
r"
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
J
Lu
1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
910
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
- - - - - - - -
- - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
f)f
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
130,000 132,000 134,000 136,000 138,000 140,000 142,000 144,000 146,000 148,000 150,000 152,000 154,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE ANOKA/SHERBURNE COUNTY BOUNDARY
930
920
C/)
r"
950
J
Lu
910
z
W
LL
f)f
D_
n
n
Z
940
LU
U)
Q
U)
O
U)
W
Q
900
LL
930
920
156,000 LU
17P
i
U
910
z
W
Q
Z
LU
Q
2
W
W
Q
900
Q
Z
o
Q
O
ryO
v
U
ry
z
O
W
=
U
�(D
z
2
z
W
Q
J
Q
W
156,000 LU
17P
D
z 940
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
930
Lu
J
W
920
910
156,000 158,000 160,000 162,000 164,000 166,000 168,000 170,000 172,000 174,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE ANOKA / SHERBURNE COUNTY BOUNDARY
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
Z
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Q
2
W
QZ
Q
O
W
<
Q
o
ryO
v
z
W
�(D
U
=
ry
O
U
z
2
W
z
Q
J
Q
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
W
LL
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_■_��■■■■■■������������:::.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�������■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
•
■■■■■_■_■■■■■���_���■■i�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�19C■����l�Cl===�C��i�■■�`i_■_r■■■■■■�IJC���i�`ii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
D
z 940
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
930
Lu
J
W
920
910
156,000 158,000 160,000 162,000 164,000 166,000 168,000 170,000 172,000 174,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE ANOKA / SHERBURNE COUNTY BOUNDARY
176,000
940
930
920
910
i
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
176,000
940
930
920
910
i
U
z
W
Q
Z
LU
Q
2
W
QZ
Q
O
W
<
Q
o
ryO
v
z
W
�(D
U
=
ry
O
U
z
2
W
z
Q
J
Q
W
LL
IN
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■,■■■■■■■■■■IEa■IF■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■7■■■■■■■■■■IF■■IF_■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■7■■■■■■■■■■Ihi1■In7■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■yin■�e�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■iii■■■■■■■■■■It■■iRi■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i'J■■■■■■■■■■Ir:1■IG■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■leg■IL!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Ili■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�
�
■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
uj
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i��■■■■■■■■■►\■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■�i�■■■■■■■■■■■■��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
LEGEND
LLJ
1 . 1
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
I% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LOODLLJ1
•
C) a-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LOOD
LLJ C)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■'.
1 ANNUAL..
■■a■■■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■■■■■■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
STREAM BED
LLJ <
■I■1 ■■■■■■1 ■■■■I ■■■■■■ 1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
'CROSS
LOCATION
LLJ.
111 : 111 :1 111 111
LLJ
0
Lu
L\
rr^^
VJ
/
930
930
Lu
J
LL
O
U
�
Y
920
920
O
OLL
~
LL
O
z
910
910
Lu
Lu
ILL
z_
z
O
900
900
Lu
J
W
i
U
890
890
z
Lu
Q
Z
Z Q
w
w > <
Q
� �
LEGEND
Q Q
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O 0�
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODU
U a -
z O
- 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LLI = U
Z_
- - - - - - - - - - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LLJ 0
STREAM BED
LU Q
CROSS SECTION
J
Q
LOCATION
W
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000
w
ILL
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
20P
ec
W
W
I
J
LL.
O
U
�
Y
920
920
O
OW
0
_
~
LL_
O
z
910
910
Lu
Lu
LL
z_
z
O
900
900
Lu
J
W
i
U
890
890
z
W
Q
Z
Z Q
W
w> <
Q
LEGEND
Q Q
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O 1
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
U i
U
Z O
- 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LLI = U
Z_
- - - - - - - - - - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
Lij 0
STREAM BED
W Q
CROSS SECTION
J
LOCATION
LW
+H +H+
22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 40,000 42,000 44,000
W
ILL
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
21 P
LL I
W
i
W
J
LL.
O
0
U
�
Y
930
930
O
OW
0
_
~
LL_
O
z
920
920
Lu
Lu
7 T-
w
z_
z
O
910
910
w
J
w
01.
i
U
900
900
z
w
Q
� Z
Z Q
LU
Lu > Q
890
890
�
LEGEND
Q
z Q
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODU
U a_
z O
- 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LLI = U
Z_
- - - - - - - - - - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LLI 0
STREAM BED
LU Q
CROSS SECTIONFEE
0W
J
#r
LOCATION
L LFFIL,
+�-�L
-L=44
44,000 46,000 48,000 50,000 52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000
w
LL
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
22P
Lu
cf)
i
Lu
J
LL.
O
U
�
Y
930
930
O
OLL
0
_
~
LL.
O
z
920
920
Lu
w
LL
z_
z
O
910
910
w
J
w
i
U
900
900
z
Lu
Q
Z
Z Q
2 w
Lu >0�
Q
LEGEND
Q Q
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O 0�
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
U �
U
Z O
— 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LLI = U
Z_
---------- 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2 0
STREAM BED
LU Q
— —
— — — — —
CROSS SECTION
J
J
LOCATION
L
LH
W
--I
66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 76,000 78,000 80,000 82,000 84,000 86,000 88,000
w
ILL
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
23P
W
c/)
i
Lu
J
LL.
O
U
�
Y
940
940
O
OLL
~
LL_
O
z
930
930
w
w
LL
z_
z
O
920
920
w
J
W
i
U
910
910
z
W
Q
� Z
Z Q
W
W <
Q
LEGEND
Q � Q
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O G�
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODU
U a_
Z O
— 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LLI = U
Z_
— — — — — — — — — — 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2 0
STREAM BED
W Q
CROSS SECTION
J
Q
LOCATION
W
88,000 90,000 92,000 94,000 96,000 98,000 100,000 102,000 104,000 106,000 108,000 110,000
W
LL
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
24P
W
c/)
i
Lu
J
LL.
O
U
a-
9400
940940
940
O
OLL
~
LL_
O
z 930
930
Lu
Lu
LL
z_
z
O
� 920
920
Lu
J
W
i
U
Z
W
C�
Q
� z
W Q
W
W > <
Q
LEGEND
Q Q
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O 0�
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODU
U a -
z O
— 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
W = U
Z_
— — — — — — — — — — 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LLI 0
STREAM BED
W Q
CROSS SECTION
J
Q
LOCATION
W
110,000 112,000 114,000 116,000 118,000 120,000 122,000 124,000 126,000 128,000 130,000 132,000
W
LL
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
25P
W
Lu
J
LL.
O
Of
U
a-
950
950
950
O
0
0
L
_
~
LL_
O
z
940
940
Lu
Lu
LL
z_
z
O
930
930
Lu
J
W
i
U
920
920
z
w
Q
Z
Z Q
LU
w > <
Q
� �
LEGEND
Q Q
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O 0�
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODU
U a_
Z O
- 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
W = U
Z_
- - - - - - - - - - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2 0
STREAM BED
W Q
CROSS SECTION
J
Q
im
11
#1111
LOCATION
LH
-4+�
W
0
132,000 134,000 136,000 138,000
w
LL
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
26P
D
z 915
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
910
Lu
J
W
905
•li
:•1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
Z
Z
Q
2
Lu
QZ
Q
O
w
<
Q
o
ryO
v
zO
W
U
=
ry
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
0
W
LL
■■■■■■■■■■L��J■■■■■CEJ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!3■L!a■Crt■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�!K■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Ii//_fi■■■■I�JG■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Iii■■�5�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
0
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■,,I.?.I■CL■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
•
•
D
z 915
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
910
Lu
J
W
905
•li
:•1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER
915
910
905
•l$
i
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
915
910
905
•l$
i
U
z
w
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
Lu
QZ
Q
O
w
<
Q
o
ryO
v
zO
W
U
=
ry
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
0
W
LL
27P
930
920
0
z 910
Lu
Lu
LL
z
O
900
Lu
J
W
:•1
::1
am
Fn
O
ry
U
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
10,000 11,000 12,000
LEGEND
Y
Lu
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
Lu
Lu
1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
J
ry
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
- - - - - - - -
- - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
Q
LOCATION
10,000 11,000 12,000
910
•11
c/)
Y
Lu
930
Lu
Lu
J
ry
z
w
U
O
LU
ryY
Q
a-
Q
Z
920
0
O
O
Q
_
O
0
Lu
LL
�
880
Q
910
•11
13,000 u -
28P
i
U
890
z
w
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
w
Lu
Q
880
Q
Z
Q
o
O
ryO
v
U
ry
zO
W
=
U
z
2z
W<
J
Q
W
0
13,000 u -
28P
0
z 920
Lu
Lu
LL
O
Q 910
Lu
J
W
•11
m
0 2000
4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
Lu
>-
w
Q
890
Q
Z
o
Q
�
Q
p
v
U
■■■■■■■■��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■tai■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
ry
z
O
W
=
U
cD
Z
LLJ2
z
W
Q
J
Q
W
0
Lu
LL
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
0
z 920
Lu
Lu
LL
O
Q 910
Lu
J
W
•11
m
0 2000
4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
18,000 20,000 22,000
W,
SA
920
910
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
----------
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
18,000 20,000 22,000
W,
SA
920
910
mi
}
U
900
z
Lu
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
Lu
>-
w
Q
890
Q
Z
o
Q
�
Q
p
v
U
ry
z
O
W
=
U
cD
Z
LLJ2
z
W
Q
J
Q
W
0
Lu
LL
mi
W
W
J
LL
O
U
a-
Y
0
13�
930
930
LL
LL.
O
Q
z
920
920
Lu
Lu
ILL
z_
z
O
910
910
Lu
J
W
}
U
900
900
z
w
Q
Z
Z Q
2 w
w Q
890
890
(D
LEGEND
z Q
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
O 0�
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODU
U a_
z O
- 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
LLI = U
Z_
- - - - - - - - - - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2
z
STREAM BED
W Q
CROSS SECTION
J
Q
LOCATION
W
22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 40,000 42,000 44,000
Lu
ILL
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
30P
0
Q
z_
Lu
Lu
u -
z_
z
O
Q
w
J
W
940
930
920
910
44,000 46,000 48,000 50,000 52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CROW RIVER
62,000 64,000 66,000
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
910
W
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
-
- - - - - - - -
- - 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
W
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION
LOCATION
62,000 64,000 66,000
920
910
W
z
W
J
LL
O
O
ry
Q
U
Y
940
C)
0�
O
�
2
L
0
=
Q
~
o
LL
Z
O
930
�
U)
920
31P
910
U
z
W
C�
Q
Z
Lu
Q
900
2
L
W
Q
Q
o
Z
Q
�
�
O
�
U
o
�
zO
W
=
U
Z
L-
0
W
Q
J
Q
ry
W
0
W
H
31P
q •.■C'a j • i ��
J ti ra 3, �l f
s1'fr-
New FIRM Data with Changes - GIS Map Layer
W
1
Ik 1
•_ r
City Boundary
Proposed Decrease in Floodplain Extents
W No Change in Floodplain Extents
Proposed Increase in Floodplain Extents
CITY OF
Monticello
1 in = 4,635 Ft
N
A
March 25, 2024
Map Powered By Datafi
wS%,
#a V D F u h r
K
rte -
A
i KEY TO MAP
)O-Y"M I loud 13ciunda1.
l(1 -Y oar I food Boundar -
W 1 LODUlb';\1 I RIN(,I: FL001)lr'AY
l)U-Yc',u I lirud (30ni0da!\x_\\.
..
JY ,
S � UU-) rar 11o,uf 1301,1:111,1 1A _
_r i'1 \ ' ` t.au>� Se0ion Linc CA }-------� p )
-1 LJ
r
1 C) r C G Eilecalion Reference Marl. RM7X
T;r
River Mile *M1 5
ra;
NOTES TO USER
Jill
Boundaries Of the flocrdWIr S were computed at cross sections
1 T r and interpolated between crass sections. The IlOodways were
r-
0 ty
, based on hydraulic considerations without regard to economic,
{� legal, or political factors.
I D la This map was Prepared to Support minimum flood plain manage-
{ ment regulations; it may not show all areas Subject to flooding
in the community Of',,dl: plartitt)eCric_`fratures outside special
flood hazard areas.
.� 0
01)
�.
u\
03
1 f I
l cll� (,
I l 1= IC
rr i7 i " THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR USE IN
DEFINING FLOODWAY AND FLOOD
BOUNDARIES. ZONE AND BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION (BFE) DATA MAY NOT BE
C i CORRECT AS SHOWN. REFER TO THE
o' c .�;
\ r- SEPARATELY PRINTED FLOOD INSURANCE
RATE MAP FOR CORRECT ZONE AND
BFE DATA.
REFER TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
MAP FOR DESCRIPTION OF ELEVATION
R f l� jr REFERENCE MARKS.
f.% t THIS MAP DOES NOT SHOW ALL FLOOD
BOUNDARIES. REFER TO THE FLOOD
L' INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR ADDITIONAL
FLOOD BOUNDARIES.
r'
1
�.
r
0
U)
Z
AMNATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.,
■
FLOODWAY
FLOOD BOUNDARY AND
O: 1 .r MAP P
PANEL 1
,..COMMUNITY -PANEL
270541 0r0B
."EFFECTIVE Dtis .
�ZrpENT OpNOVEMBER 19 1979
�yd !11811! c�
��3A3O �0d
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATIC
1__1-T-___ 1 1, __ I I % -I .%.., 11 , .- I I
IeW
5
r
00
>
law
J KLY 10 MAI'
�00-yvjr I loud l3ound,11%-
100-) cat I lood rl
Boud,11 if
I 001Ak•\'i I RIN(d.
100 Yvan I Im"d f3mind,11\
400 -)vat 1 kwd 13,undm.,
00.
(.1w." sk-ttion Link. A
f.lmnion Reference Mark RM7X
River Mile • M1.5
f a,
NOT15 10 USER
D
Boundaries of the t'I0()dWdVS Wete COInj)LIfed at 'To"s wctions
X and interpolated between uoss sections. The floodwa,}., 'Acle
based on hydraulic wrisidetations without regard i
g 0 eCOVIOMIL,
legal, or polili(al I'actors.
This map was prepared to NUPI)MA InininlLin) flood plain manag
e
_n merit regulations; it may not show ill frets to floodin
r- I I I h
0 in the tonimunit\ of all Iflaniniciri, fC,Mne< outside spwal
0 flood hazard aneas.
>
0
G)
2
S�
o,
J7 THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR USE IN
� D DEFINING FLOODWAY AND FLOOD
C
BOUNDARIES, ZONE AND BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION (BFE) DATA MAY NOT BE
CORRECT AS SHOWN. REFER TO THE
SEPARATELY PRINTED FLOOD INSURANCE
X RATE MAP FOR CORRECT ZONE AND
x BFE DATA.
REFER TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
MAP FOR DESCRIPTION OF ELEVATION
REFERENCE MARKS.
THIS MAP DOES NOT SHOW ALL FLOOD
BOUNDARIES. REFER TO THE FLOOD
-n
r- INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR ADDITIONAL
0 FLOOD BOUNDARIES.
0
Z
V_ / . . .
m
-n
0
0
>
0
E-
X
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOODWAY
FLOOD BOUNDARY AND
FLOODWAY MAP
CITY OF
MONTICELLO,
'MINNESOTA
I WRIGHT COUNTY
PANEL 2
COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER
270541 0002 B
V
EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOVEMBER 1, 1979
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
KEY" -1"O MAP
>oO-1 ter k 'c"d lioo+t.!e; %
! o')' -x I loot! Rountix"
{ lCtation Retrrence Hark RM7X
R3 Cr Clift •
M1.5
NoIL.S TUUSLR
liuund,trie, ut fhe llundtta�+ +trre �untputetl at uv+, +ci.tiam+
and innrrpolmed between oto;+ stmion" Tile tloodw t\+ :cC!r
haled on h draollt �unsi(ltrllionS without rcti;erd tut Om Lath.
Iek.11, of political !etlur;.
1'hi, ntal> c+a, PreParCt1 to upporl ntininuim Ifoud PIun nt o'lg..
merit rCti;olation+; it 111,1\'"C"'ot >)oc+ '111 '"C+ +object to tloridin 1
Ill the onortonilc of a!I p!anintCitit 1Ca1orr1 uol"kic special
flood !tar,utl .uCa•.
`'�
S
g,
p
,
-r
cl
® o w \
t X > Y
I
� , Qu
. 1 ���F _ _ off"
•.v
li
r
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGR
CITY OF
MONTICELL ,
MINNESOTA,
WRIGHT COUNTY
.:NUMBFR
,^
270541 0003
EFFECTIVE DATE:
11NOVEMBER 1919
* II�IIIII
�330 Ny°
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATI
THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR USE IN
DEFINING FLOODWAY AND FLOOD
BOUNDARIES. ZONE AND BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION (BFE) DATA MAY NOT BE
CORRECT AS SHOWN. REFER TO THE
SEPARATELY PRINTED FLOOD INSURANCE
RATE MAP FOR CORRECT ZONE AND
BFE DATA.
\�
REFER TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
MAP FOR DESCRIPTION OF ELEVATION
y
REFERENCE MARKS.
THIS MAP DOES NOT SHOW ALL FLOOD
\
\
BOUNDARIES. REFER TO THE FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR ADDITIONAL
FLOOD BOUNDARIES.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGR
CITY OF
MONTICELL ,
MINNESOTA,
WRIGHT COUNTY
.:NUMBFR
,^
270541 0003
EFFECTIVE DATE:
11NOVEMBER 1919
* II�IIIII
�330 Ny°
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATI
Planning Commission Agenda — 04/02/24
4A. Community Development Director's Report
Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations
Consideration of a Request for an Amendment to the Country Club Manor 2nd Addition
PUD District, as related to principal residential use for development of 22 units of
twinhomes; Request for Preliminary Plat of Country Club Manor 4t" Addition. Applicant:
Michael Hoagberg
Application for PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plat approved on the consent agenda
of the City Council on March 25, 2024. Council also held a public hearing on a
companion request to vacate public drainage and utility easements in association with
the project. The Council approved the vacation contingent on the final plat which will
re-establish the required easements and continued verification of easements by the City
Engineer. The final plat and development contract are expected for City Council review
on April 8, 2024.
Housing Workshop Rescheduled
No date has been set for the rescheduled Housing Workshop.
TH 25 Corridor Study
Wright and Sherburne County continue their work on the Planning and Environmental
Linkages (PEL) study for the Highway 25 area. The next step in this process is to gather
input on the Purpose and Need statement. The Purpose and Need of this PEL study will
serve as the primary guide for the development of concept alternatives for the corridor.
The comment period is open until April 12. You can view the Purpose and Need
statement, give your feedback through the comment tool, and learn more about the
project by viewing the project website here: https://arcg.is/lgaWPzO
Managed Natural Landscapes Update & No Mow May
City staff have been coordinating on the practical administration and public outreach
components of the new Managed Natural Landscapes ordinance. A presentation on the
new opportunity was provided at the last City Council meeting.
To view the presentation slides: PowerPoint Presentation (monticello.mn.us)
To view the FAQs: Managed Natural Landscapes I Monticello, MN
City Website Projects Page
The City's website is a valuable resource for staying current on projects happening in the
community and affecting the community. Visit the Project page of the site for an at -a -
glance listing of projects and initiatives to watch.
2024 Legislative Session
A number of bills that would preempt local zoning and subdivision authority have been
introduced in both the House and Senate early in this session. The League of MN Cities,
Planning Commission Agenda — 04/02/24
the Coalition of Greater MN Cities, and others including individual city leaders have
worked to educate lawmakers on concerns related to the provisions in these bills.
However, there is still legislation moving forward that would limit cities' ability to develop
based on individual community needs and grow and maintain neighborhoods reflective of
their comprehensive plan goals. Planning Commission is encouraged to monitor these
bills and the League of MN Cities website for more information.
Current Versions to Watch: SF3980, HF4010
Development Status
Current status update through March attached.
2
02/09/24 REVISOR KRB/HL 24-06741 as introduced
SENATE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NINETY-THIRD SESSION S.F. NO. 3980
(SENATE AUTHORS: PHA and Mitchell)
DATE
D -PG
OFFICIAL STATUS
02/19/2024
11658
Introduction and first reading
Referred to State and Local Government and Veterans
03/07/2024
12068
Withdrawn and re-referred to Housing and Homelessness Prevention
03/14/2024
12271
Author added Mitchell
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to local government; establishing requirements for multifamily residential
1.3 developments in cities; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes,
1.4 chapter 462.
1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. 1462.35711 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.
1.7 Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have
1.8 the meanings given.
1.9 (b) "Affordable housing development" means a multifamily residential development in
1.10 which:
1.11 (1) at least 20 percent of the residential units are for households whose incomes do not
1.12 exceed 50 percent of the area median income; or
1.13 (2) at least 40 percent of the residential units are for households whose incomes do not
1.14 exceed 60 percent of the area median income.
1.15
1.16
The deed or declaration for an affordable residential unit must also contain a restrictive
covenant requiring the property to remain affordable housing for at least 30 years.
1.17 (c) "City" means a home rule charter or statutory city.
t 18 (d) "Residential unit" means a residential dwelling for the use of a single owner or tenant.
1.19 Subd. 2. Multifamily residential developments. (a) Multifamily residential
1.20 developments are a permitted use in any zoning district that is not zoned as industrial or
1.21 agricultural, subject to compliance with all municipal standards.
Section 1.
02/09/24 REVISOR KRB/HI. 24-06741 as introduced
2.1 (b) A multifamily residential development may be mixed use so long as at least 50
2.2 percent of the square footage of the development is dedicated to residential use.
2.3 Subd. 3. Proximity to certain transportation infrastructure. A multifamily residential
2.4 development must not be located less than 500 feet from a federal interstate highway, airport,
2.5 or rail line. The limitation under this subdivision does not apply to a state trunk highway,
2.6 county state -aid highway, or other local road.
2.7 Subd. 4. Compliance with comprehensive plan; zoning. A multifamily residential
2.8 development must be approved by a city if it is consistent with the comprehensive plan on
2.9 the date of submission and complies with all state and municipal standards.
2.10 Subd. 5. Applicable zoning standards. (a) A city may not impose more restrictive
2.11 standards to a multifamily residential development than those that apply to property zoned
2.12 for the current use of the parcel.
2.13 (b) A city must not impose a height requirement on a multifamily residential development
2.14 that is less than the tallest structure within a one-quarter mile radius of the parcel on which
2.15 the development will be built or the maximum height permitted under the city's official
2.16 controls, whichever is higher, so long as the maximum height of the development is no
2.17 more than 150 feet.
2.18 (c) A city must not impose a setback requirement on a multifamily residential
2.19 development that is less than the smallest minimum setback distance required of a structure
2.20 within a one-quarter mile radius of the parcel on which the development will be built.
2.21 Subd. 6. Parking requirements limited. A citv may not require more than one off-street
2.22 parking space per residential unit.
2.23 Subd. 7. Affordable housing development; height requirements. (a) An affordable
2.24 housing development must be permitted to exceed both a maximum height requirement and
2.25 a maximum floor area ratio limitation imposed by city official controls as provided in
2.26 paragraphs (b) and (c). The authority in paragraphs (b) and (c) that produces the tallest
2.27 development with the most number of affordable housina units on the parcel shall be apalied
2.28 to the affordable housing development.
2.29 (b) An affordable housing development may either:
2.30 (1) exceed the height requirement for the zoning district where the affordable housing
2.31 development will be located by 35 feet in height; or
2.32 (2) match the maximum allowed height in any zoning district within one mile of the
2.33 affordable housing development, so long as the maximum height is no more than 150 feet.
Section 1. 2
02/09/24 REVISOR KRB/HL 24-06741 as introduced
3.1 (c) An affordable housing development must be permitted to do one of the following,
3.2 whichever results in the largest development:
3.3 (1) exceed the maximum density as permitted by city standards or the city's
3.4 comprehensive plan by 30 percent;
3.5 (2) exceed the lot coverage ratio by 30 percent;
3.6 (3) exceed the floor area ratio by 30 percent; or
3.7 (4) exceed the maximum impervious lot coverage area by 30 percent.
3.8 Subd. 8. Administrative review process. (a) Notwithstanding any law, rule, or ordinance
3.9 to the contrary, a city must establish an administrative review process for building permit
3.10 applications for multifamily residential development projects. The administrative review
3.11 process must review and approve or deny such building permit applications based on the
3.12 application's conformity with the city's comprehensive plan, other applicable zoning
3.13 requirements, and state law. An application may not be approved contingent on the
3.14 development being a part of planned unit development, the approval of a conditional use
3,15 permit, the completion of a study, or other condition that is not related to conformity with
3.16 the city's comprehensive plan, zoning requirements, and state law.
3.17 (b) An application denial must be in writing and must describe the reasons for denial
3.18 and the ways the application or development design can be amended to receive approval at
3.19 a future date. Nothing in this subdivision prevents an applicant who received a denial from
3.20 submitting a new application for the same multifamily residential development, which shall
3.21 be treated by the city as a new submission.
3.22 (c) The administrative review process shall not involve a public hearing unless one is
3.23 required by state or federal law. Approval or denial of an application does not require
3.24 approval by the city council or a subcommittee of the council.
3.25 (d) An application subject to the administrative review process under this subdivision
3.26 must be approved or denied within 60 days following the receipt by the city of a completed
3.27 application by the applicant. If the city fails to approve or deny an application within 60
3.28 days, the application shall be deemed approved. The city may not request an extension for
3.29 review of the application from the applicant.
3.30 (e) A city may request that an applicant incorporate certain design elements into the
3.31 development that go beyond the criteria in state law and city official controls. The applicant
3.32 may incorporate those elements in the design of the development but is not required to do
3.33 so.
Section 1. 3
02/09/24 REVISOR KRB/HL 24-06741 as introduced
4.1 Subd. 9. Local funds. Notwithstanding any law, rule, or ordinance to the contrary, a
4.2 city may not impose requirements on a multifamily residential development that are more
4.3 restrictive than the requirements in this section if a multifamily residential development is
4.4 funded in whole, or in part, with local funds or is located in a tax increment financing district
4.5 or other special district created by the ci
4.6 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective January 1, 2025.
Section 1.
03/19/24 11:01 am HOUSE RESEARCH CG/RK H401ODE 1
1.1 .................... moves to amend H.F. No. 4010 as follows:
1.2 Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert:
1.3 "Section 1. 1462.35711 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.
1.4 Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have
1.5 the meanings given them.
1.6 (b) "Affordable housing development" means a multifamily residential development in
1.7 which:
1.8 (1) at least 20 percent of the residential units are for households whose incomes do not
1.9 exceed 50 percent of the greater of the statewide or area median income; or
1.10 (2) at least 40 percent of the residential units are for households whose incomes do not
1.11 exceed 60 percent of the greater of the statewide or area median income.
1.12 The deed or declaration for an affordable residential unit must also contain a restrictive
1.13 covenant requiring the property to remain affordable housing for at least 30 years.
1.14 (c) "City" means a home rule charter or statutory city.
1.15 (d) "Commercial use" means the use of land or buildings, in whole or in part, for the
1.16 sale, lease, rental, or trade of products, goods, and services.
1.17 (e) "Cottage housing" means residential dwelling units on a lot with a common open
1.18 space that either:
1.19 (1) is owned in common; or
1.20 (2) has units owned as condominium units with property owned in common and a
1.21 minimum of 20 percent of the lot size as open space.
Section 1. 1
03/19/24 11:01 am HOUSE RESEARCH CG/RK H401 ODE
2.1 (f) "Courtyard apartment" means a building with up to four attached residential dwelling
2.2 units arranged on two or three sides of a yard or garden.
2.3 (g) "Duplex" means a two family home, classified as an IRC -2 in the State Building
2.4 Code and not meeting the definition of townhouse.
2.5 (h) "Fiveplex" means a building containing five residential dwelling units intended for
2.6 nontransient occupancy and not meeting the definition of townhouse.
2.7 (i) "Fourplex" means a building containing four residential dwelling units intended for
2.8 nontransient occupancy and not meeting the definition of townhouse.
2.9 (j) "Environmental justice area" has the meaning under section 116.065, subdivision 1.
2.10 (k) "Metropolitan area" has the meaning under section 473.121, subdivision 2.
2.11 (1) "Multifamily residential development" means a single residential building with at
2.12 least 13 units or a mixed-use building with commercial use on the ground floor and at least
2.13 half of the usable square footage is for residential use. "Multifamily residential development"
2.14 does not include the following housing types:
2.15 (1) duplexes;
2.16 (2) triplexes;
2.17 (3) fourplexes;
2.18 (4) fiveplexes;
2.19 (5) sixplexes;
2.20 (6) townhouses;
2.21 (7) stacked flats;
2.22 (8) courtyard apartments;
2.23 (9) cottage housing; and
2.24 (10) single-family detached homes.
2.25 (m) "Residential unit" means a residential dwelling for the use of a single owner or
2.26 tenant.
2.27 (n) "Single-family detached home" means any building that contains one residential
2.28 dwelling unit used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let, or hired out
2.29 to be occupied, or occupied for living purposes that is not attached to another structure.
Section 1. 2
03/19/24 11:01 am
HOUSE RESEARCH CG/RK H401ODE 1
3.1 (o) "Sixplex" means a building containing six residential dwelling units intended for
3.2 nontransient occupancy and not meeting the definition of townhouse.
3.3 (p) "Stacked flat" means a nontransient residential building of no more than three stories
3.4 on a lot zoned for residential development in which each floor is a residential dwelling unit.
3.5 (q) "Structure" means anything constructed or installed for residential or commercial
3.6 use which requires a location on a parcel of land. "Structure" does not include
3.7 nonconformities.
3.8 (r) "Townhouse" means a single-family residential dwelling unit constructed in a group
3.9 of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from the foundation to the roof
3.10 and with open space on at least two sides. Each single-family residential dwelling unit shall
3.11 be considered to be a separate building. Separate building service utilities shall be provided
3.12 to each single-familv residential dwelling unit when reauired by the Minnesota State Buildine
3.13 Code.
3.14 (s) "Triplex" means a building containing three residential dwelling units intended for
3.15 nontransient occupancy and not meeting the definition of townhouse.
3.16 Subd. 2. Multifamily residential developments. (a) Subject to compliance with all
117 municipal zoning standards, multifamily residential developments shall be a permitted use
3.18 in any zoning district that allows for a commercial use, except for:
3.19 (1) industrial zoning districts where a commercial use is not allowed; or
3.20 (2) industrial zoning districts that are located in an environmental iustice area.
3.21 (b) A multifamily residential development may not be constructed on a lot zoned for a
3.22 single-family detached home unless otherwise authorized by law, rule, or ordinance.
3.23 (c) A city may require a conditional use pennit for a multifamily residential development
3.24 only if the specific circumstances of the development raise concerns related to the public
3.25 health, safety, and general welfare.
3.26 Subd. 3. Applicable zoning standards. (a) A multifamily residential development must
3.27 comply with any standards, perforniance conditions, or requirements, including the adequacy
3.28 of existing public infrastructure, imposed by a city to promote the public health, safety, and
3.29 general welfare.
3.30 (b) A city must not impose a height requirement on a multifamily residential development
3.31 that is less than the following:
3.32 (1) in a city of the first class, 75 feet;
Section 1. 3
03/19/24 11:01 am HOUSE RESEARCH CG/RK H401 ODE
4.1 (2) in a city of the second class, 45 feet;
4.2 (3) in a city of the third class in the metropolitan area, 45 feet; or
4.3 (4) in a city of the third class outside of the metropolitan area, 35 feet.
4.4 (c) A city must not impose a setback requirement on a multifamily residential
4.5 development that is greater than the smallest required minimum setback distance of any
4.6 other structure in the same zoninta district of the parcel on which the development will be
4.7 built.
4.8 (d) A city may impose a height or setback requirement that is different from the
4.9 requirements in this subdivision if such requirements would result in a multifamily residential
4.10 development that would substantially vary in compatibility and scale with surrounding
4.11 properties.
4.12 (e) This subdivision does not apply to a city of the fourth class.
4.13 Subd. 4. Parking requirements limited. A city may not require more than one off-street
4.14 parking space per residential unit, except that additional disability parking spaces may be
4.15 required to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
4.16 Subd. 5. Affordable housing development; height and mass requirements. An
4.17 affordable housing development must be permitted to exceed one or more maximum
4.18 dimensional standards imposed by city official zoning controls as a zoning density bonus.
4.19 A zoning density bonus offered by a city for an affordable housing development may include
4.20 one or more of the following dimensional standards above the maximum base zoning
4.21 regulations:
4.22 (1) a building height increase of at least 35 feet;
4.23 (2) an increased floor area ratio;
4.24 (3) an increased number of units ver acre,
4.25 (4) an increased total number of units;
4.26 (5) a higher percentage of lot coverage; or
427 (6) other dimensional standards that increase building size by at least 30 percent more
4.28 than what is allowed for market -rate multifamily residential developments.
4.29 Subd. 6. Administrative review process. (a) Notwithstanding any law, rule, or ordinance
4.30 to the contrary, a city must establish an administrative review process subject to the
Section 1. 4
03/19/24 11:01 am HOUSE RESEARCH CG/RK H401ODE 1
5.1 procedures in section 15.99 for a multifamily residential development meeting the
5.2 requirements of this section.
5.3 (b) An application reviewed through an administrative review process or other process
5.4 may not be approved contingent on factors not related to the protection of public health,
5 5 safety, and welfare; the completion of a study; or the development being a part of a planned
5.6 unit development if the multifamily residential development complies with this section.
5.7 Subd. 7. Exceptions. (a) Nothing in this section authorizes a multifamily residential
5.8 development that is prohibited by state or federal law or rule, or is prohibited under an
5.9 ordinance adopted pursuant to such a state or federal law or rule, that protects floodplains,
5.10 areas of critical or historic concern, wild and scenic rivers, shore land, or that otherwise
5.11 restrict residential units to protect and preserve the public health, the environment, or scenic
5.12 areas.
5.13 (b) A multifamily residential development may not be inconsistent with approved plans
5.14 under chapter 103B.
5.15 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective January 1, 2025."
5.16 Amend the title accordingly
Section 1. 5
Savanna Vista Apartments
Residential
Southeast area of The Pointes at Cedar
2 100 unit multi -family apartments
12/13/2021
Under Construction - First Building Ant. Complete in Summer
Twin Pines Apartments
Residential
South Side of School Blvd. East of Wal-Mart
96 multi -family unit apartment building
2/28/2022
Yet to Break Ground/Received Plat Ext. on 1/22/24
Block 52 Redevelopment
Mixed -Use
NE Corner of Highway 25 and Broadway St
87 multi -family units with rougly 30,000 sq ft of 1st floor commercial
9/30/2022
Received Temporary CO/Residenial Units Being Rented
Featherstone 6th Addition
Residential
North of 85th St NE and West of Highway 25
21 Single-family lots with commercially guided outlets for future development
8/24/2022
Under Construction (Last New Const. Permit Pulled)
Tesla Stations at Cub Foods
Commercial
206 7th St W
Installation of 8 charging ports in the Cub Foods parking lot
7/12/2022
Completed
Taco Bell Remodel
Commercial
124 7th St E
Remodel of existing building and expansion of 724 sq ft
9/30/2022
Completed
Haven Ridge 2nd Addition
Residential
South of Farmstead Ave and West of Fallon Ave NE
59 Single -Family Lot Development
Reapproved 8/28/2023
Site Grading Commenced (Building Permits Being Issued)
Headwaters West Development
Residential
Along South side of 7th St W between Elm St and Golf Course Rd
82 Twinhomes Senior 55+ Development
Prelim Plat - 3/25/2024
Under Construction
Sunny Days Therapy
Commercial
Along South side of 7th St E West of Old McDonald's Location
Development of an Occupational Child Therapy Facility
8/22/2022
Completed - Ribbon Cutting was held on 11/16/2023
Camping World
Commercial
3801 Chelsea Rd W
Installation of an attached paint booth (1,100 sq ft)
8/22/2022
Nearing Completion
Wiha Tools USA
Industrial
Along South Side of 7th St E across from Wright St and Ramsey St
New construction light manufacturing (72,540 sq ft)
11/28/2022
Under Construction - Ribbon Cutting on 4/9/2024
Kwik Trip #345
Commercial
9440 State Highway 25
Expansion of current facility (520 sq ft)
1/23/2023
Completed
Scooter's Coffee
Commercial
100 7th St W.
New Construction of Drive -Through Coffee Shop
1/23/2023
Completed
Cargill Kitchens Solutions
Industrial
206 W. 4th St.
Replacement of Outdoor Storage Tanks
4/24/2023
Completed
Deephaven 3 (Lot 2)
Commercial
Southeast corner of Cedar St and Chelsea Rd
New Construction of a Clinic/Medical Service Facility (10,000 sq ft)
N/A (Permitted Use)
Nearing Completion
Culver's 2nd Drive Through Aisle
Commercial
9395 State Highway 25
Addition of a 2nd Drive Through Aisle along the South Property Line
7/24/2023
Completed
Jimmy Johns/Baskin Robbins
Commercial
Southeast Corner of Oakwood Drive E and Cedar Street
New Construction of Quick Service Restaurant with Drive -Through Service
1/22/2024
Not Started
Concept Stage PUD for expansion of existing site of potentially two additional buildings, with
Post Concept Stage PUD, Pre -Development Stage PUD Application
StorageLink(Dundas Site) PUD
Commercial
36 Dundas Road (Southeast corner of Dundas Road and Cedar Street)
the removal of temporary buildings along the South property line.
Submittal
1.46 acre vacant lot along the West side of Fallon Ave NE between Washburn
Post Concept Stage PUD, Pre -Development Stage PUD Application
Mastercraft Outdoors PUD
Industrial
Computer Group and Norland Truck Sales
Concept Stage PUD for development ofa vacant site for an Industrial Service use
Submittal
Near the Southeast corner of 85th Street NE and Fallon Ave NE, Also South of
Concept Stage PUD for a 298 -unit residential development with various lot sizes and
Post Concept Stage PUD, Pre -Development Stage PUD Application
Haven Ridge West
Residential
85th Street NE between Eislele Ave NE and Edmonson Ave NE
townhome section
Submittal
88 acres parcel bounded by The Meadows to the North, Highway 25 to the
West, 85th Street NE to the South, and the Featherston Residential
Concept Stage PUD for a multi -phase Medical Office Buildings on roughly 25 acres, with
Post Concept Stage PUD, Pre -Development Stage PUD Application
Project
Commercial/Light Industrial
neighbohood to the East
subsequent phases of private development to follow.
Submittal