## Richfield Transportation Commission Agenda April 1, 2026 -- 7:00 PM ## Richfield Municipal Center ## Bartholomew Conference Room ## 6700 Portland Avenue South 1. Call to Order ## 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. March 4th, 2026 Minutes ## 5. Regular Business and Public Hearing Items ## a. Penn Avenue - Parking and Bikeways 6. Updates ## a. City Staff b. Liaisons ## 7. Future Agenda Items ## a. May 6th: Penn Avenue Phase 3 ## 8. Upcoming Meetings a. Wednesday, May 6th - 7pm, Regular Meeting ## 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with accessibility needs are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9739. Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the Transportation Commission agenda packet located by the entrance. The complete Transportation Commission agenda packet is available electronically on the City of Richfield’s website. Page 1 of 28 ## Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes -1- March 4th, 2026 ## 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Louis Dzierzak at 7:00 p.m. on March 4th, 2026, in the Bartholomew Room. ## Commission Present: ## Commission Absent: ## Adam Knosalla (Vice Chair), Eli Straub, Louis Dzierzak ## (Chair), David Gepner, Stella Yang, Eli Straub, Josh Kloehn, ## Jacob Olsen ## Brinnon Kubista ## Staff Present: ## Liaisons Present: ## Matt Hardegger and Jake Whipple ## Sean Hayford Oleary (City Council), Tim Brackett (RPS), Jan Matheus (Bike/Walk) ## 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: made by Gepner, seconded by Olsen to approve the agenda. ## Voting Aye: Knosalla, Straub, Dzierzak, Gepner, Yang, Straub, Kloehn, Olsen Motion carried: 8-0 ## 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: made by Straub, seconded by Knosalla to approve the minutes of the Transportation ## Commission Regular Meeting from February 4 th , 2026. ## Voting Aye: Knosalla, Straub, Dzierzak, Gepner, Yang, Straub, Kloehn, Olsen Motion carried: 8-0 ## 4. REGULAR BUSINESS AND PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ## a. Metro Transit BRT Study Update – K Line Metro Transit Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Planning Manager Kyle O’Donnell Burrows presented on Metro Transit’s update to their BRT line study and their process on selecting the next arterial BRT lines. Metro Transit recommended the Nicollet Ave corridor through Richfield be part of the new K Line running from American Blvd in Bloomington to Downtown Minneapolis. Commissioners discussed coordination with other roadway projects, route alignment and connectivity with other bus routes, current ridership trends and plans to increase ridership, and physical ride quality on busses. ## TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ## MEETING MINUTES ## Richfield, Minnesota March 4th, 2026 Page 2 of 28 ## Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes -2- March 4th, 2026 MOTION: made by Yang, seconded by Straub to recommend the City Council support Metro Transit’s proposed K Line alignment. ## Voting Aye: Knosalla, Straub, Dzierzak, Gepner, Yang, Straub, Kloehn, Olsen Motion carried: 8-0 ## b. Public Engagement Strategies Transportation Engineer Matt Hardegger asked the commission how staff should approach outreach/engagement within the context of Operation Metro Surge. Staff discussed current participation trends and potential strategies to engage more people. Commissioners discussed reaching out to community based organizations, working closely with schools and churches, limiting time and effort needed to respond, and using multiple methods to get information distributed outside of a public meeting. Commissioners were asked if engagement should move fully online, but suggested a hybrid approach that still has an in person open house component. ## 5. UPDATES ## a. City Staff – Project Updates 1. 494 – Estimated completion date is currently around Labor Day. Nicollet Ave bridge demolished, 12th Ave bridge to be demolished weekend of March 7th. Portland Ave work over 494 will be finished this spring. i. Project 2 work will begin in late 2026 or early 2027. Council voting on Municipal Consent at March 10 meeting. 2. Nicollet – Construction expected to start June 1st, bids were opened recently. 3. Penn Ave – An open house for the project is planned to occur in April. 4. 2026 Sidewalk Projects – Projects are in final design, bids expected to be opened in April with summer construction. 5. Metro Transit – L Line identification study will include evaluating Penn Ave route. C Line extension study will evaluate ending at Cedar Point Commons. ## b. City Council Council Member Hayford Oleary summarized the City’s response to the Transportation Commission’s previous recommendation about towing cars. The city does not want to completely stop towing due to concerns with leaving vehicles abandoned on the street. Instead, the City provided an alternative solution by working with their contracted tow company to reduce the fee to the vehicle owner. Council has also been working with the Richfield Leadership Network to assist with reimbursement for fees from vehicles towed due to ICE operations. ## c. Bike Walk Richfield Jan Matheus noted that the 4th Annual Learn to Ride will be in May/April and they are looking to start a Youth Learn to Ride. ## d. Richfield Public Schools Tim Brackett has started a Family Learn to Ride with Richfield Public Schools. Attendees will get a donated bike after the learning session. ## 6. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Staff informed the Commission that the April 1 st meeting would be about Penn Avenue. Page 3 of 28 ## Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes -3- March 4th, 2026 ## 7. UPCOMING MEETINGS Staff informed the Commission that the scheduled joint work session with City Council on March 10 th would be a Council-only meeting instead. Staff informed the Commission of two upcoming training opportunities for Commissioners and Commission Chairs. ## 8. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting is scheduled for April 1, 2026. MOTION: made by Gepner, seconded by Straub to adjourn the meeting. ## Voting Aye: Knosalla, Straub, Dzierzak, Gepner, Yang, Straub, Kloehn, Olsen Motion carried: 8-0 Page 4 of 28 ## Transportation Commission Meeting 4/1/2026 ## Agenda Section: Regular Business and Public Hearing Items Agenda Item: 5.a. ## Report Prepared By: ## Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer ## Department Director: ## Item for Consideration: ## Penn Avenue - Parking and Bikeways ## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hennepin County and Consultant project staff will be providing an update on topics related to the Penn Avenue preliminary design and is looking for direction to proceed with preliminary design tasks. ## 1. Recap of 3/10 City Council Work Session ## 2. Bikeway Types and Discussion 3. On-Street Parking in Penn-Central district ## RECOMMENDED ACTION Provide direction to staff on concepts to bring forward to Phase 3 Public Engagement related to: ## 1. Bikeway Design ## 2. On-Street Parking ## HISTORICAL CONTEXT ## EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS ## POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) ## CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES ## FINANCIAL IMPACT ## LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Page 5 of 28 ## ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ## ATTACHMENTS 1. 20260401_Penn_Ave_RTC_05 Page 6 of 28 CSAH 32 (Penn Ave) ## Reconstruction ## Transportation ## Commission Meeting #5 ## Matt Huggins, PE ## Project Manager April 12026 Page 7 of 28 ## Agenda ## City Council update Bikeway discussion Parking discussion 2 Page 8 of 28 Commission actions Action 1: Select bikeway alternatives ## Action 2: Penn -Central parking approach 3 Page 9 of 28 ## Spring 2025 Project kick-off ## March 2026 ## Phase 1: Experiences ## Summer 2026 ## City Council Update #1 ## Phase 3: Concept Alternatives ## Fall 2026 ## City Council Resolution 4 Preliminary design engagement schedule ## City Council Update #2 ## Phase 2: Vision and ToolsPhase 4: Recommendations * Start of construction tentatively planned for Spring 2028 * We are here Page 10 of 28 ## Critical Path Schedule •Transportation Commission #6 – April 27, 2026 •Penn-Central business group meetings – May 2026 •County Active Transportation Committee – May 18, 2026 •Initiate Phase 3 virtual engagement – May 25, 2026 •Open House #3 – Week of May 18 th 2026 •Pop-up events •Close Phase 3 virtual engagement – July 10, 2026 •Joint Council / Commission Work Session #2 - July 28, 2026 •Transportation Commission Meeting #8 – August 5, 2026 •Open House #4 – September 2026 •Penn Fest – 3 rd ## Weekend of September •Transportation Commission Meeting #9 – October 7, 2026 •City Council Meeting (Layout concurrence) - October 27, 2026 5 Page 11 of 28 ## City Council update 66 th Street roundabout alternative dismissed •Requires acquisition of 3 properties Traffic signal modifications •Existing signal poles to remain •Reduce Penn Avenue to 4-lanes •Evaluating pedestrian stress reduction strategies Penn-Central direction •Maintain on-street parking south of 66 th ## Street •Evaluate adding parking north of 66 th ## Street •Prefer amenity zones over grass boulevards •Evaluate additional vehicle lane reductions 6 •Final bikeway / sidewalk design in development Page 12 of 28 Bikeway discussion Map shows an overview of the bikeway network along the Penn Ave project corridor. Are certain bikeway types appropriate within different sections of Penn Avenue? Is a single-sided bikeway on Penn Avenue appropriate? 7 ## TH 62 66 th ## St 69 th ## St 73 rd ## St 75 rd ## St ## Penn Ave ## TRPD Trail North Side of 75th On-Street bollard trail on North side of 69th ## SUP Along South side of TH62 66 th ## St West of Penn – SUP on North side 66 th ## St East of ## Penn – Cycle tracks East side of TH 62 bridge supports SUP Page 13 of 28 Bikeway discussion Option 1: One-way cycle track Sidewalks on both sides Bicyclists separated from pedestrians Bikeway on both sides Ex. 66 th ## St, Nicollet Ave Option 2: Dual shared-use path No sidewalks Bicyclists and pedestrians mixed Bikeway on both sides ## Ex. Minnetonka Blvd (St. Louis ## Park) 8 Page 14 of 28 Bikeway discussion Option 3: Two-way cycle track Sidewalks on both sides Bicyclists separated from pedestrians Bikeway on one side ## Ex. West River Pkwy (Downtown ## Minneapolis) Option 4: Shared-use path Sidewalk on one side Bicyclists and pedestrians mixed Bikeway on one side ## Ex. Richfield Pkwy 9 Page 15 of 28 ## Bikeway discussion How would you rate the four bike way options? -High -Medium high -Medium -Medium low -Low Are there option(s) that should be removed from consideration? Option 1 ## One-way cycle track Option 2 ## Dual shared-use path Option 3 ## Two-way cycle track Option 4 ## Shared-use path Phase 2 ## Engagement ## Results ## Most popular, liked for mode separation ## Positive opinion, bike crossing concerns ## Positive opinion, bike crossing concerns Cost $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ## Section ## Width 73’73’71’67’ ## Consultant team Rating ## HMHMML ## Commission ## Rating 10 Page 16 of 28 ## On-Street Parking Discussion 11 ## What We've Heard 1.The community has not prioritized on-street parkingas a need. 2.The businesses between 68 th and 66 th St value on-street parking. 3.There is a desire to keep on-street parking by the City Council and potentially expand it in other areas north of 66th Street. ## What We Know 1.There is unused parking located throughout the corridor from a district-wide perspective to meet needs. 2.On-street parking is heavily used between 66th Street and 68th Street (25 total spaces) 3.Side street parking is underutilized. 4.All off-street parking is owned by private property owners or businesses. Page 17 of 28 ## On-Street Parking Considerations (Draft Concepts 6700 Block) 12 68 th ## St 68 th ## St 67 th ## St 67 th ## St *Bikeway (yellow) configuration to be determined. Assumed both sides of roadway * On street parking shown in purple Page 18 of 28 ## On-Street Parking Considerations (Draft concepts 6600 Block) 13 67 th ## St 67 th ## St 66 th ## St 66 th ## St *Bikeway (yellow) configuration to be determined. Assumed both sides of roadway * On street parking shown in purple Page 19 of 28 ## On-Street Parking Considerations (north of 66th Street) 14 ## Add On-Street Parking 1.ROW constraints to accommodate other prioritized design elements (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle facilities, and amenity zone). 2.Number of driveways limit space for on street parking. 3.Impacts to off-street parking to add on-street parking. Page 20 of 28 ## On-Street Parking Considerations (north of 66th Street) 16 6300 Block 6400 Block Existing ROW : 66 ft Existing ROW : 66 ft Available ROW : 72 ft Page 21 of 28 Thank you ## Matt Huggins, PE ## Matt.huggins@hennepin.us 612-596-0326 https://beheardhennepin.org/penn-avenue 17 Page 22 of 28 ## Appendices 18 Page 23 of 28 Project scope Reconstruction from 75 th Street to Highway 62 ## INITIAL PROJECT GOALS •Replace deteriorating pavement surfaces and walks •Enhance mobility to regional destinations •Implement bikeway •Improvements to existing public utilities •Traffic control upgrades and implementation of traffic calming and safety measures •Improving transit stops for current and future transit routes •Leverage green infrastructure to achieve storm water goals and enhance visual character 19 Page 24 of 28 20 ## Transportation Commission Priorities ## Transportation Commission assessment •Existing conditions discussed prior to Phase 1 activities •Desired conditions led to development of Problem Statement •Difference between conditions establishes priorities Desired outcomes •Improve experiences for those walking, biking, and rolling •People walking, biking, rolling, and taking transit prioritized over vehicle and truck travel and on-street parking •On-street parking low priority outside of Penn-Central district Page 25 of 28 Problem statement People need safe and reliable property access along Penn Avenue •People can’t walk or bike safely or comfortably along Penn Avenue •It’s difficult to make left turns onto or off Penn Avenue •The pavement is in poor condition •There are limited public parking opportunities along Penn Avenue •People need safe and reliable property access along Penn Avenue Penn Avenue is dangerous to walk •Penn Avenue is not safe to walk across •Penn Avenue is not comfortable to walk along •There are no features to create a positive walking experience Biking on Penn Avenue is not safe •There are no dedicated bike facilities on Penn Avenue •It is difficult to cross Penn Avenue when traveling on nearby trails There isn’t enough green space on Penn Avenue •The lack of green infrastructure doesn’t support sustainability and maintenance •The lack of greenspace detracts from the visual quality of the neighborhood Penn Avenue does not fully support the needs of a vibrant business district •The lack of walkability discourages pedestrian activity to businesses along Penn Avenue •The existing street doesn’t support businesses as destinations, lacking a sense of place •The lack of convenient public parking and consistent access detracts from the user experience 21 Originally drafted as part of 2021 Penn Avenue study. Revised in collaboration with Transportation Commission. Community supports problem statement. Page 26 of 28 66 th Street intersection Multi-lane roundabout 160’ intersection diameter Reduce 66 th Street to 4-lanes Evaluated single and multi-lane Penn Avenue approaches Flashing beacons required on all legs 22 •Final bikeway / sidewalk design in development Page 27 of 28 ## Alternatives Roundabout and signalized intersections tools were offered as potential tools in Phase 2. ## Existing conditions ## Multi-lane roundabout Traffic signal modification ## Crash frequency (Rate / FA) 0.73 / 0.002.18 / 0.000.73 / 0.00 ## Operational delay 46.8 sec13.5 sec44.6 sec ## Conceptual construction cost delta N/A+$1.9 million+$0 ## Conceptual right of way costs N/A+$7 million+$0 ## Displaced businesses ## N/A30 ## Public preference ## N/AX 23 Page 28 of 28