## Richfield Transportation Commission Agenda August 5, 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. July 1, 2026 Minutes ## 5. Regular Business ## a. 69th Street Reconstruction - Existing Conditions Assessment b. Hennepin County Penn Avenue - Layout Review and Open House 4 Prep ## c. Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Member Appointment 6. Updates ## a. City Staff b. Liaisons ## 7. Future Agenda Items a. September 2, 2026: e-Bike discussion with BikeMN (tentative) ## 8. Upcoming Meetings a. Thursday, August 13th, 2026 - 69th Street Open House #1, Jefferson Park (6700 Thomas Ave), 4:30-7:00pm b. Wednesday, August 19th, 2026 - Penn Avenue Open House #4, St. Richard Catholic Church (7540 Penn Avenue), 4:30-7:00pm c. Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026 - Regular Meeting, Bartholomew Room, 7:00pm ## 9. Other Business ## a. Reschedule Bike Tour 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 80 ## Richfield Transportation Commission Minutes July 1, 2026 ## Richfield Municipal Center ## Bartholomew Conference Room ## 6700 Portland Avenue South 1. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Louis Dzierzak at 7:00 p.m. on July 1st, 2026, in the Bartholomew Room. Members Present: Louis Dzierzak (Chair), Adam Knosalla (Vice Chair), David Gepner, Josh ## Kloehn, Brinnon Kubista, Eli Straub ## Members Absent: Jacob Olsen, Jaz Warren, Stella Yang Liaisons Present: Tim Brackett (Richfield Public Schools), Sean Hayford Oleary (City Council), ## Husniyah Bradley (Community Services Commission) ## Staff Present: Matt Hardegger, Jake Whipple, Joe Powers ## Guest Presenters: None 2. ## Roll Call Staff noted that Commissioners Olsen, Warren, and Yang were absent 3. Approval of the Agenda MOTION: made by Comissioner Kubista, seconded by Comissioner Gepner to approve the agenda. ## Voting Aye: Dzierzak, Knosalla, Gepner, Kloehn, Kubista, Straub ## Voting Nay: Motion carried: 6-0 4. ## Approval of Minutes a. April 29th, 2026 Minutes Commissioner Gepner requested a correction to the April 29th minutes to define the acronym "RRFB" (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon). MOTION: made by Commissioner Gepner, seconded by Commissioner Straub to approve the meeting minutes as corrected above from April 29th, 2026. ## Voting Aye: Dzierzak, Knosalla, Gepner, Kloehn, Kubista, Straub ## Voting Nay: Motion carried: 6-0 5. ## Regular Business and Public Hearing Items a. ## Penn Avenue - Open House 3 Follow Up Transportation Engineer Matt Hardegger gave a recap of Open House 3 and ongoing public engagement for Hennepin County's Penn Avenue project. Topics included public preference for various bikeway, major intersection, and minor intersection designs and a request to determine Commission preferences for design items. Commissioners discussed preferences to send to the City Council about design features that had been presented to the public in Open House 3. Preferences were determined by general consent without any noted objections. ## Bikeway Preference: One-way cycletracks ## 64th Street intersection: Roundabout with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons ## 69th Street Intersection: Roundabout ## 75th Street Intersection: Roundabout with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons ## 67th Street, 71st Street, 73rd Street Intersections: Closed Medians ## All other Intersections: Full Access Left Turn Lanes with Medians Page 2 of 80 Other preferences: Raised crosswalks parallel to Penn Avenue b. ## 69th Street Safety and Utility Improvements Project Introduction Transportation Engineer Matt Hardegger provided an introduction and overview of the upcoming 69th Street Safety and Utility Improvements project. Topics included project background, existing conditions and challenges, and upcoming schedule. Commissioners discussed holding Open House #1 in August and potential coordination opportunities with Edina to extend the bikeway beyond the city limits. No formal action was taken by the Commission. 6. ## Updates a. ## City Staff Transporation Engineer Hardegger provided updates on MnDOT's I-494 project, Hennepin County's Nicollet Avenue, and the city's Sheridan Hills Safe Routes to School, 73rd Street Sidewalk, and 64th Street Sidewalk projects. City staff asked for a volunteer for the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee to represent the Transportation Commission. Commissioners Kubista and Straub volunteered. Decision was deferred to a future meeting. b. ## Liaisons Council Member Hayford-Oleary provided Council-related updates on park alcohol policy, the City Manager's retirement announcement and search process, and recent news about the property tax assessment for the Best Buy corporate campus. Commissioner Gepner praised Tim Brackett for his class to teach Richfield kids to bike. Liaison Bradley invited Commissioners to take the parks survey. 7. ## Future Agenda Items a. August 2026: Penn Avenue Design (with County) and 69th Street Open House #1 8. ## Upcoming Meetings a. ## Wednesday, July 29th (Time TBD): 2026 Bike Tour b. ## Wednesday, August 5th (7pm): Transportation Commission Regular Meeting c. Wednesday, August 19th (4:30-7:00pm): Penn Avenue Open House #4 - St. Richard's Catholic ## Church, 7540 Penn Ave S d. ## August (Date/Time/Location TBD): 69th Street Open House #1 9. ## Other Business a. ## 2026 Bike Tour Route Discussion The commission agreed to the proposed route and a start time of 6:30 PM for the Bike Tour for July 29th by general consent. 10. ## Adjournment MOTION TO ADJOURN: made by Comissioner Gepner, seconded by Comissioner Kubista to adjourn the meeting at Time 8:42 PM. ## Voting Aye: Dzierzak, Knosalla, Gepner, Kloehn, Kubista, Straub ## Voting Nay: Motion carried: 6- 0 The audio recording for this meeting is available at: https://youtu.be/-kaD-HxWZL8 Page 3 of 80 Page 4 of 80 ## Transportation Commission Meeting 8/5/2026 ## Agenda Section: Regular Business Agenda Item: 5.a. ## Report Prepared By: ## Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer ## Department Director: ## Item for Consideration: ## 69th Street Reconstruction - Existing Conditions Assessment ## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff provided an introduction to the 69th Street Reconstruction project at the July 1st Commission meeting. This meeting will serve as an introduction to Consultant staff, an existing conditions overview, and an assessment of the existing conditions using the slider bar method. ## RECOMMENDED ACTION Conduct slider bar assessment of existing conditions prior to Open House 1 ## HISTORICAL CONTEXT ## EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS ## POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) ## CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES ## FINANCIAL IMPACT ## LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ## ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ## ATTACHMENTS 1. 20260731_RTC1_v2 Page 5 of 80 ## PRESENTATION ## TITLE ## Subtitle/Date 69 th ## Street Reconstruction ## Richfield Transportation Commission 1 August 5, 2026 Page 6 of 80 ## Agenda •Project scope •Design team •Schedule •Existing conditions •Community engagement •Next steps Meeting goals •Introduce the project •Existing conditions assessment •Community engagement brainstorm Page 7 of 80 ## Overview •69th Street, Xerxes to ## Penn Avenue •Demonstration project began in 2026 •Speeding •Protected space for walking/biking •Construction in 2028 •Sidewalk/trail •Intersections •Storm sewer Page 8 of 80 ## Context •Daily traffic: ~2,800 vehicles •Constrained ROW •60’ property line to property line •45’ retaining wall pinch point at Vincent ## Ave •36’ existing curb-to-curb •Vehicle speeds (2024) •Median: 32 mph •85%: 36 mph •44 crashes over a 10-year period •0 fatal •2 serious injury (Penn Ave, Update Ave) •6 minor injury •6 possible injury •30 property damage only •2 ped/bike (1 serious) Page 9 of 80 Schedule + engagement •Follow city’s four step engagement process •4 open houses (in person + virtual) •OH 1: Aug 13, 4:30 –7:00, Jefferson ## Park •2 pop-ups •Penn Fest •Jefferson Park (tentative) •Yard signs and mailings •Targeted stakeholder meetings •Transportation commission Page 10 of 80 Existing conditions review Page 11 of 80 Existing conditions assessment (slider bar) Workshop board (main screen) https://slider-bar- theta.vercel.app/p/69th-street Participants (mobile device) Page 12 of 80 Next steps •Open house 1 •In person: August 13, 4:30-7:00, Jefferson Park •Virtual (survey + map): August 13 –September 21 •Penn Fest: September 20 •Transportation Commission 2 (problem statement): October 7 (tentative) •Design layout: Spring 2027 Page 13 of 80 ## Transportation Commission Meeting 8/5/2026 ## Agenda Section: Regular Business Agenda Item: 5.b. ## Report Prepared By: ## Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer ## Department Director: ## Item for Consideration: Hennepin County Penn Avenue - Layout Review and Open House 4 Prep ## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Commission will receive an update following the July 28th Council work session, where Commission preferences for the project were discussed from a budget standpoint. Commissioners will have an opportunity to provide comments on the layout and will complete a slider bar exercise to evaluate whether the layout meets project goals. ## RECOMMENDED ACTION Provide comments and complete slider bar assessment about the full design layout prior to Open House 4 ## HISTORICAL CONTEXT ## EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS ## POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) ## CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES ## FINANCIAL IMPACT ## LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ## ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ## ATTACHMENTS ## 1. 032_2120700-RTC_08 2. PennAve_Phase3EngSummary_20260721 3. PennAve_Draft_Layout_20260731 Page 14 of 80 Page 15 of 80 CSAH 32 (Penn Ave) ## Reconstruction ## Transportation ## Commission Meeting #8 ## Matt Huggins, PE ## Project Manager August 5, 2026 Page 16 of 80 ## Agenda Preliminary design engagement schedule ## City Council Work Session summary Design feature discussion Design layout review / slider bar exercise 2 Page 17 of 80 Commission actions Action 1: Complete proposed conditions slider bar Action 2: Provide layout comments by August 10th 3 Page 18 of 80 ## Spring 2025 Project kick-off ## March 2026 ## Phase 1: Experiences ## July 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 19 of 80 ## Critical Path Schedule •Transportation Commission Meeting #8 – August 5, 2026 •Phase 4 virtual engagement opens – August 19, 2026 •Open House #4 – August 19, 2026 −St. Richard Catholic Church, 4:30 – 7:00 p.m. •Penn Fest – September 20, 2026 •Active Transportation Committee #3 – September 21, 2026 •Phase 4 virtual engagement closes – September 25, 2026 •Transportation Commission Meeting #9 – October 7, 2026 −Seeking final resolution on recommended design layout •City Council Meeting (Layout concurrence) - October 27, 2026 •Final design (tentative) – November 2026 to December 2027 •Construction (tentative) – Spring 2028 to Summer 2030 5 Page 20 of 80 ## City Council Work Session summary City staff presented project scope and budget items to City Council at the July 28 th work session 1 ## Roundabouts Proceed with roundabouts at 64 th , 69 th , and 75 th streets. Pedestrian activated crossing lights will be provided at 64 th and 75 th streets. 2 ## Bikeway Proceed with one-way cycle track option 3 Closed median Proceed with limited access intersections at 73 rd , 71 st , and 67 th streets 4 Median refuges Proceed with median refuges and left turn lanes at 74 th , 72 nd , 70 th , 65 th , and 63 rd streets. Median refuges not required at 70 ½ and 68 th streets. 6 Page 21 of 80 ## City Council Work Session summary City staff presented project scope and budget items to City Council at the July 28 th work session 5 Tabled crosswalks Proceed with tabled crosswalks where feasible 6 On-street parking Proceed with on-street parking on the west side between 66 th and 68 th streets, and east side between 65 th and 67 th streets. 7 76 th ## Street Bikeway Connection Not to proceed with bikeway extension to 76 th Street. 8 Aesthetic elements Proceed with adding corridor pedestrian scale lighting and underground overhead power lines along Penn Avenue. 7 Page 22 of 80 Design features 70 ½ Street Intersection •Recommend no median refuges •Accessible routes provided •Driveways located in PARs 68 th ## Street Intersection •Recommend no median refuges •Significant impacts to private business parking 8 ## 63rd Street Intersection •Recommend no north median refuge •Refuge provided on south side of intersection Page 23 of 80 Design features On-street parking (6600 block) 9 Page 24 of 80 Design features On-street parking (6500 block) 10 Page 25 of 80 Design features Lunds right turn lane 11 Page 26 of 80 Design layout review 12 Page 27 of 80 ## Slider Bar ## Proposed ## Condition ## Assessment South of 68 th Street through 75 th ## Street 13 Workshop board (main screen) https://slider-bar-theta.vercel.app/p/penn-avenue-s Participants (mobile device) Page 28 of 80 ## Slider Bar ## Proposed ## Condition ## Assessment Highway 62 through 68 th ## Street 14 Workshop board (main screen) https://slider-bar-theta.vercel.app/p/penn-avenue-n Participants (mobile device) Page 29 of 80 Thank you ## Matt Huggins, PE ## Matt.huggins@hennepin.us 612-596-0326 https://beheardhennepin.org/penn-avenue 15 Page 30 of 80 ## Appendices 16 Page 31 of 80 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 17 Page 32 of 80 18 ## 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 33 of 80 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 19 Originally drafted as part of 2021 Penn Avenue study. Revised in collaboration with Transportation Commission. Community supports problem statement. Page 34 of 80 ## Penn Avenue Safety Improvements— ## Richfield ## Phase 3 Engagement Summary July 21, 2026 Page 35 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 2 ## Phase 3: Concept Alternatives Hennepin County, in partnership with the City of Richfield, plans to reconstruct Penn Avenue (County Road 32) from Highway 62 to West 75th Street. During the design process, the project team conducted community and stakeholder engagement; phase 3 of this engagement process took place from February 2026 to July 2026. Construction is scheduled to start in 2028. ## Phase 3 Engagement Activities • Online survey on Hennepin County’s website about concept alternatives for bikeway concepts and specific intersection designs • One open-house-style public meeting • One local pop-up event • Project outreach and promotion directing people to the project webpage The online survey registered 199 webpage visits and 100 survey submissions. Over 80 people attended the public meeting, and 21 people provided feedback on the project at the pop-up event. This adds up to a total of over 200 participants in Phase 3 of engagement who provided feedback on either bikeway options, intersection design alternatives, or both. To this point, over 1,100 people have engaged directly with the project engagement activities, and several hundred more have learned about the project through mailers, the project website, and other communications. ## Engagement Goals • Provide project background and summaries of earlier engagement phases • Confirm results of tool preference from Phase 2 • Solicit feedback on bikeway options (one-way cycle track, two-way cycle track, and dual shared-use path) • Share confirmed designs for the Penn Avenue intersections at 62nd Street and 66th ## Street • Share intersection design concept alternatives and gauge public preference ## Project Promotion The project team continued some components from the promotion and awareness campaigns from Phases 1 and 2. The project team: • Maintained the BeHeard website with information about upcoming project events Page 36 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 3 • Sent a postcard mailer promoting public meeting #3 to 3,867 residents living within a half-mile radius of the project area (see figures 1 and 2) • Posted updates to Hennepin County’s social media channels to drive traffic to the project website and attendees to the project events • Reinstalled yard signs and sidewalk stickers from Phases 1 and 2 to drive traffic to project website and attendees to the project events • Continued personalized business outreach to new businesses and businesses that opted in to regular project engagement By offering virtual engagement options and personalized business outreach, the project team ensured that residents and business owners who were unable to attend the in- person events for various reasons still had the opportunity to provide input. Table 1 includes details of the events conducted. ## Event Organization/Location Date ## Public Meeting #3 Richfield Middle School May 19, 2026 ## Pop-up Lunds & Byerlys June 30, 2026 Online Survey beheardhennepin.org/penn-avenue May 19, 2026, to July 10, 2026 ## Business Outreach Penn Central district June 2025-ongoing ## Table 1: Community Engagement Events ## Engagement Activities See Appendix A, figures 3-12, for more information about engagement activities. ## Summary of Phase 3 Findings ## Key Takeaways Feedback on intersection design alternatives • The public preferred roundabouts over traffic signals at the major intersections (64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street) with over 70% of the total vote. Minor intersections • For intersections where closed medians were not a proposed alternative, pedestrian medians with left-turn lanes won over 70% of the vote; in cases where Page 37 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 4 close medians were an option, the majority of participants were split between those two options. • Respondents slightly favored closed medians over pedestrian medians with left- turn lanes at 67th Street, 68th Street, 70 ½ Street, and 71st Street. • Respondents slightly favored pedestrian medians with left-turn lanes over closed median at 72nd Street and 73rd Street. • Online survey respondents were much more in favor of closed medians than in- person respondents. Bikeway options preferences • One-way cycle tracks were the preferred option across all three context zones. • The public is generally excited for better crossing options for improved bike and pedestrian safety. Miscellaneous takeaways • Many people requested improved greenery along the corridor. Requests included shade trees, shrubbery, boulevard plants, and native plants. • Road users have specific concerns about key conflict points, including the northbound slip lane onto eastbound Highway 62, parking lot entrances between 62nd Street and 66th Street, the crosswalks at 75th Street, and the intersections near the new housing development by 65th Street. Page 38 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 5 ## Phase 3: Concept Alternatives Public Meeting ## (See Appendix C) Date: Tuesday, May 19, 4:30 - 7 p.m. Location: Richfield Middle School – 7461 Oliver Avenue S, Richfield, MN 55423 Attendees: Over 80 people attended the public meeting. ## Materials/activities: • Bikeway options activity—participants were asked to provide feedback on three different proposed bikeway layouts (see figures 6-8). • Intersection design concept alternatives activity—participants were shown alternative designs for specific intersections along the corridor and were asked to provide feedback. • Initial layout roll plot (parking and bikeway)—participants could review an initial layout of the project area between 66th Street and 69th Street that showed the project’s intention to keep parking, as well as potential bikeway layouts. • Comment station—participants left open-ended feedback. Key messages from the public: Intersection design • Attendees were glad to hear that 66th Street will remain a signalized intersection. • For the major intersections—64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street—the public preferred roundabouts over traffic signals. • For the minor (local) intersections the public preferred pedestrian medians with left-turn lanes and did not favor either open medians without left-turn lanes or the closed median concepts. • Several event attendees requested more intersections with crosswalks in the residential section of the project. o Many do not feel safe crossing Penn Avenue currently and want more options to cross. o Multiple people wanted safer crossings for students at Richfield Middle School to use. • Many residents want an improved crossing at the 64th Street intersection to travel from east of Penn Avenue to the grocery stores. Page 39 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 6 General takeaways • People requested more greenspace along the corridor, including specific requests for native plants. ## Phase 3: Pop-up – Lunds & Byerlys ## (See Appendix D) Date: Tuesday, June 30, 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. Location: Lunds & Byerlys - 6228 Penn Avenue S, Richfield, MN, 55423 Participants: 21 people interacted with the pop-up Materials/activities: Materials included a bikeway options activity and table-top intersection concept alternatives activity. Key messages from the public: • The public at this pop-up expressed equal support for the one-way cycle track and two-way cycle track options. • No members of the public chose shared-use path as their most-preferred option. o Participants viewed the lack of separation between bikers and pedestrians as a drawback. • Many participants were excited about future bikeway improvements for their daily commute and for better crossings over Highway 62. • A few people suggested improved driver education programs aimed at teaching roundabout usage or navigating intersections with separated bikeways. • One biker was very concerned about conflict points with bikers and private driveways, and with maintaining sight lines. • The public at this pop-up showed a preference for roundabouts at major intersections along Penn Avenue. ## BeHeard Online Engagement ## (See Appendix B) Dates/Duration: The online survey and map were open from May 19, 2026, to July 10, 2026 Location: https://beheardhennepin.org/penn-avenue Page 40 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 7 Participants: 199 survey webpage visits, 100 survey participants Materials/activities: Online survey questions were closely related to the intersection design alternatives activity (see figures 9-12) Demographic data summarized: • See Appendix B for full survey data. • 77% of participants were White/Caucasian. • 72% of respondents were between 25-44 years old. Insights from survey data: • For the major intersections (64 th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street) respondents favored roundabouts over traffic signals, with over 70% of the total vote across those three intersections. • For the minor intersections, respondents favored pedestrian medians with left- turn lanes and closed medians (right-in/right-out) over no median and open medians. o In each case where closed medians were not an option, pedestrian median with left-turn lanes won roughly 70% of the vote. o In cases where closed median was one of the options, pedestrian median with left-turn lanes and closed median were always within a few percentage points of each other. o Respondents slightly favored pedestrian median with left-turn lanes over closed median at 72nd Street and 73rd Street. o Respondents slightly favored closed median over pedestrian median with left-turn lanes at 67th Street, 68th Street, 70 ½ Street, and 71st Street. • The public favored one-way cycle tracks over two-way cycle tracks and dual shared-use paths with 63% of the total vote across all context zones. Key messages from online survey comments: Many survey respondents left comments on the online survey. • Many people were very excited for improved bike and pedestrian crossings. • One person was concerned that the new construction apartment building isn’t being considered in the design; says traffic control and safety measures are needed at 66th Street and 65th Street intersections. Page 41 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 8 • A few people were in favor of closed medians north of 66th to limit vehicle conflicts for cars pulling in to/out of business driveways. • Multiple people encouraged narrower lanes and narrower roundabouts lanes to slow vehicle traffic to safer speeds. • A few people asked for better shade trees and more attractive plantings. • Danny McCullough from Three Rivers Park District advocated for a roundabout design at the 75th Street intersection where the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail crosses Penn Avenue. • One person recommended the removal of the slip lanes onto Highway 62 for safer pedestrian crossings. • There were mixed opinions about roundabouts in the comments. Page 42 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 9 ## Appendix A: Figures and Engagement Activities Figure 1: Mailer for public meeting #3, side 1 Figure 2: Mailer for public meeting #3, side 2 ## Engagement Activities Parking boards Page 43 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 10 Two boards provided public meeting attendees with key analysis from parking studies. Figure 3: Parking analysis board 1 Figure 4: Parking analysis board 2 Design concepts board This board showed the design of two intersections already determined to be traffic signals. Page 44 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 11 Figure 5: 66th Street and 62nd Street layouts Page 45 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 12 Bikeway options activity Participants were asked to provide feedback on bikeway options for three different context zones along the project area: Highway 62 to 66th Street, 66th Street to 69th Street, and 69th Street to 75th Street. Figures 6-8: Bikeway options engagement activity Page 46 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 13 Concept alternatives activity Public meeting attendees were asked to provide feedback on intersection design alternatives for key intersections (64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street) and minor intersections along the corridor. For context, the project team provided information about features and benefits of specific intersection design tools. Figure 9: Intersection design considerations board 1 Figure 10: Intersection design considerations board 2 Page 47 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 14 Figures 11-12: Intersection design alternatives roll plot activity Page 48 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 15 ## Appendix B: Data from BeHeard Online Survey #3 ## Demographics: ## Age 35-44: 24 45-54: 20 25-34: 18 55-64: 11 65+: 10 18-24: 4 Prefer not to answer: 8 Page 49 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 16 ## Gender Male: 67 Female: 22 Nonbinary: 3 Transgender: 1 Prefer not to answer: 2 Page 50 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 17 ## Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian: 75 ## Asian or Asian American: 6 Hispanic or Latino: 5 ## Black or African American: 2 I prefer not to respond: 9 Intersection concept alternatives: What option would you like to see at 64th Street and Penn Avenue? Roundabout: 64 Page 51 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 18 ## Traffic Signal: 23 What option would you like to see at 69th Street and Penn Avenue? Roundabout: 73 ## Traffic Signal: 16 What option would you like to see at 75th Street and Penn Avenue? Roundabout: 55 ## Traffic Signal: 20 ## Pedestrian-Activated Crossing Signal: 20 Page 52 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 19 What option would you like to see at 63rd Street and Penn Avenue? ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 76 ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 13 What option would you like to see at 65th Street and Penn Avenue? ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 62 ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 11 ## Open Median: 16 Page 53 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 20 What option would you like to see at 67th Street and Penn Avenue? ## Closed Median: 41 ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 32 ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 9 ## Open Median: 6 What option would you like to see at 68th Street and Penn Avenue? ## Closed Median: 39 ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 35 ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 8 ## Open Median: 5 Page 54 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 21 What option would you like to see at 70th Street and Penn Avenue? ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 61 ## Open Median: 16 ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 10 What option would you like to see at 70 ½ Street and Penn Avenue? ## Closed Median: 41 ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 32 ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 11 ## Open Median: 4 Page 55 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 22 What option would you like to see at 71st Street and Penn Avenue? ## Closed Median: 36 ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 33 ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 12 ## Open Median: 5 What option would you like to see at 72nd Street and Penn Avenue? ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 36 ## Closed Median: 34 ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 10 ## Open Median: 5 Page 56 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 23 What option would you like to see at 73rd Street and Penn Avenue? ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 37 ## Closed Median: 35 ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 7 ## Open Median: 5 Page 57 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 24 Bikeway options: Which option do you prefer for the Penn Central Commercial Zone (Highway 62 to 66th Street)? ## One-way Cycle Track: 59 ## Two-way Cycle Track: 21 ## Dual Shared-Use Path: 12 Which option do you prefer for the residential zone (66th Street to 69th Street)? ## One-way Cycle Track: 58 ## Two-way Cycle Track: 22 ## Dual Shared-Use Path: 12 Page 58 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 25 Which option do you prefer for the residential zone (69th Street to 75th Street)? ## One-way Cycle Track: 58 ## Two-way Cycle Track: 21 ## Dual Shared-Use Path: 13 Page 59 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 26 ## Appendix C: Public Meeting #3 Summary ## Introduction Hennepin County, in partnership with the City of Richfield, plans to reconstruct Penn Avenue (County Road 32) from Highway 62 to West 75th Street. During the design process, the project team will conduct community and stakeholder engagement to inform the project design in 2025 and 2026. Construction is scheduled to start in 2028. As part of the engagement process, the county and city have hosted a series of public meetings to collect input from community members. This document is a summary of the third public meeting. ## Public Meeting Details The Phase 3 public meeting was held to confirm the findings of Phase 2, and to assess preferences for initial concepts relating to bikeway design and intersection treatments. The data and feedback collected will support decisions in the final design process, as the project team works towards a full design. ## Project: Penn Avenue safety improvements - Richfield ## Event Name: Public meeting 3: Richfield Middle School Event Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026. 4:30 p.m. – 7 p.m. Event Location: Richfield Middle School. ## Public meeting Goals The goals of this engagement were to: • Provide a project overview • Provide project timing information • Provide a summary of the feedback collected in Phase 2 • Survey the public for bikeway configuration preferences • Provide initial intersection design concepts and solicit public feedback • Share key decisions made for 62nd Street and 66th Street intersections • Discuss next steps Event summary How many people participated: Between 80-85 people attended. Page 60 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 27 Nearly half of attendees arrived within the first half hour of the two-and-a-half-hour event. Several stayed for a full hour to engage with the project. ## Key Takeaways During the event, residents provided feedback on preferences for potential safety improvements and street design tools that will be considered for this project. The following key takeaways summarize the most common themes and priorities that emerged from public input: Bikeway configuration • One-way cycle tracks were the most popular option, earning 70% of the vote across all three context zones. • Attendees did not favor dual shared-use paths. • People requested better connections to adjacent bikeways (i.e. 66th Street) and better bike crossings across Penn Avenue. Intersection design • Attendees were glad to hear that 66th Street will remain a signalized intersection. • For the major intersections – 64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street – the public preferred roundabouts over traffic signals. • For the minor (local) intersections the public preferred pedestrian medians with left-turn lanes, and did not favor either open medians without left-turn lanes or the closed median concepts. • Several event attendees requested more intersections with crosswalks in the residential section of the project. o Many do not feel safe crossing Penn Avenue currently and want more options to cross. o Multiple people wanted safer crossings for Richfield Middle School students to use. • Many residents want an improved crossing at the 64th Street intersection to travel from east of Penn Avenue to the grocery stores. General takeaways • People requested more greenspace along the corridor, including specific requests for native plants. • None of the event attendees spoke a language other than English. The project team has and will continue to pursue other event types to reach communities speaking other languages. Page 61 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 28 ## Demographics Table 1 shows a summary of participant demographics, based on a voluntary activity asking people to self-identify. ## Table 1: Participant Demographics ## Demographics ## Age Under 18 5 18-35 13 36-50 7 51-65 11 66+ 7 Do you have a disability? Yes 4 No 25 ## Pronouns She/Her 18 He/Him 15 They/Them 1 ## Languages English 28 All other languages 0 ## Race/Ethnicity White 22 Asian 3 More than one race 4 ## Alaskan Native or American Indian, Black or ## African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native ## Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 ## Bikeway Configuration Activity Comments Participants were asked to indicate their preference between three different bikeway configuration options: one-way cycle track, dual shared-use path, and two-way cycle track. The activity was divided into three context zones, giving participants the opportunity to indicate a different configuration preference for different sections of the project. The context zones were Hwy 62 to 66th Street, 66th Street to 69th Street, and 69th Street to 75th Street. Table 2 summarizes the data from the activity, with some general comments from the public highlighted below. Page 62 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 29 ## Table 2: Bikeway Configuration Activity ## Bikeway Configuration Activity ## Hwy 62 to 66th Street (Penn Central Business District) One-way cycle track 41 (73%) Dual shared-use path 0 Two-way cycle track 15 (27%) 66th Street to 69th Street One-way cycle track 47 (73.5%) Dual shared-use path 0 Two-way cycle track 15 (23.5%) Street-level cycle track 2 (3%) 69th Street to 75th Street One-way cycle track 43 (78%) Dual shared-use path 0 Two-way cycle track 10 (18%) Street-level cycle track 2 (4%) Key bikeway takeaways • One-way cycle track was the most popular option, earning over 70% of the vote in all three context zones. • Dual shared-use path received 0% of the vote across all three context zones and is clearly the least-preferred option. • Multiple people wanted more separation between bikers and pedestrians. • Two people did not want a sidewalk-level bikeway and added their own option for street-level cycle track between 66th Street and 75th Street. Additional comments • One person said that the one-way cycle track has the most harmony with the bikeways on 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue. • One attendee said that two-way bikeways make bike crossing difficult and requested improved crossing infrastructure. • One person said two-way cycle track is safer because drivers know where to look for bikers. • One person said two-way cycle tracks are safer for parking lot entrances. ## Intersection Design Alternatives Comments Participants were shown intersection design alternatives for intersections along Penn Avenue. Intersection options varied between major signalized intersections and minor Page 63 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 30 unsignalized intersections. The public had an opportunity to indicate their preferred design and provide written feedback. Table 3 represents the public’s preferences for intersection design alternatives. ## Table 3:Intersection Design Alternatives Activity ## Intersection Design Alternatives ## 64th Street and Penn Avenue Intersection Roundabout 38 (72%) Traffic Signal 15 (28%) ## 69th Street and Penn Avenue Intersection Roundabout 33 (73%) Traffic Signal 12 (27%) ## 75th Street and Penn Avenue Intersection Roundabout 25 (48%) Traffic Signal 20 (38.5%) ## Pedestrian-Activated Crossing Signal 7 (13.5%) 63rd, 65th, and 70th Street Intersections ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes 31 (60%) ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes 18 (34%) Open Median 3 (6%) Local Streets – 67th, 68th, 70 ½, 71st, 72nd, 73rd, 74th Street Intersections ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes 36 (57%) ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes 18 (29%) Open Median 5 (8%) Closed Median 4 (6%) Major intersections • For all three major intersections on the corridor—64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street—roundabouts were preferred over traffic signals. o For the 64th Street and 69th Street intersections, roundabouts received over 70% of the votes. o The feedback for the 75th Street intersection showed a more balanced distribution; roundabout received 48% of the votes and traffic signal received 38.5% of the votes, with pedestrian-activated crossing signal holding the remaining 13.5%. • People are generally in favor of traffic signals at the 66th Street intersection. • Desire for a pedestrian connection between Oliver Avenue and Penn Avenue at 64th Street. Page 64 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 31 • Request to add “No Turn on Red” sign to the 62nd Street and Penn Avenue intersection. Minor intersections • Intersection alternatives with left-turn lanes were more popular than those without. o Pedestrian medians + left-turn lanes obtained ~60% of the votes for both minor intersections and local streets. o No median + left-turn lanes obtained ~30% of the votes for both minor intersections and local streets. o The two options without left-turn lanes, closed median and open median, received less than 10% of the votes each. • Attendees requested more frequent and safer crossings at the minor intersections. o Multiple people requested more intersections with pedestrian-activated crossing signals. The intersection of 68th Street and Penn Avenue was specifically mentioned. o A few people requested safer crossings specifically near the schools (Sheridan Hills Elementary and Richfield Middle School). o One person said “Add at least one more controlled intersection in this section (between 69th Street and 75th Street)” • The intersection of 67th Street and Penn Avenue was marked as very dangerous to cross. o 67th Street has poor sightlines for drivers because of vehicles in the parking lanes. ## Additional Comments—Parking Configuration Roll Plot/Comment Cards Attendees were invited to leave open-ended feedback on a roll plot of initial parking and bikeway layout between 65th and 69th and on project comment cards. The following are comments submitted at the event: • One person asked that the project plans for bus stops to eventually convert to BRT stations with this project. • Request for a better connection to the 66th Street bikeway. • Requests for more trees, plantings, and native plants. Concerns about greenspace maintenance. • One person asked for crosswalk stripes at all intersections. • “It is almost impossible to turn left (southbound) from 63rd Street onto Penn ## Avenue.” • One person suggested diagonal parking instead of parallel parking where possible. Page 65 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 32 • Concerns about snow storage. • Consider adding more accessible street parking spots in the final design. • Request for “continuous and harmonized infrastructure.” • One person wanted to keep striped, street-level bikeways for better bike/ped separation. • One person asked if initial sidewalk improvements could begin before the project starts in 2028. This person cited the Park and Portland project in Minneapolis as an example of a project that had some sidewalk work installed before full project construction started. • One driver said buses cause congestion with the current lane configuration. ## Photos Javier Whitaker-Castañeda welcomes visitors at the event entrance. Page 66 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 33 Matt Hardegger walks an attendee through the bikeway options engagement activity. Page 67 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 34 Event attendees visit the bikeway layout roll plot and chat with project staff. Page 68 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 35 Erika Kreiger-Miller discusses proposed intersection design alternatives with an event participant. Page 69 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 36 ## Appendix D: Phase 3 Pop-up Summary—Lunds & Byerlys ## Introduction Hennepin County, in partnership with the City of Richfield, plans to reconstruct Penn Avenue (County Road 32) from Highway 62 to West 75th Street. During the design process, the project team will conduct community and stakeholder engagement to inform the project design in 2025 and 2026. Construction is scheduled to start in 2028. As part of the engagement process, the county and city have hosted several pop-ups at key locations along the corridor. This document is a summary of the Phase #3 pop-up at Lunds & Byerlys grocery store. ## Pop-up Details ## Project: Penn Avenue safety improvements - Richfield ## Event Name: Phase #3 pop-up: Lunds & Byerlys Event Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026, 3:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. Event Location: Lunds & Byerlys – 6228 Penn Avenue S. Lunds & Byerlys is one of the two grocery stores in the project area. There are major access and driveway considerations for Lunds & Byerlys due to high traffic volumes and proximity to both parking entrances and exits. Each are major destinations along the corridor for people coming from both Richfield and Minneapolis. ## Pop-up Goals The goals of this engagement were to: • Provide a project overview • Collect input on bikeway preferences • Seek feedback on proposed intersection design alternatives • Share results from the Phase #3 public meeting and from earlier phases of engagement • Discuss next steps Page 70 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 37 Event summary How many people participated: 21 people interacted with the project pop-up. ## Key Takeaways At the pop-up, the public was asked for their preferences regarding bikeway configuration and intersection design alternatives. The following key takeaways summarize the most common themes and priorities that emerged from public input: • The public at this pop-up expressed equal support for the one-way cycle track and two-way cycle track options. • No members of the public chose shared-use path as their most-preferred option. o Participants viewed the lack of separation between bikers and pedestrians as a drawback. • Many participants were excited about future bikeway improvements for their daily commute and for better crossings over Highway 62. • A few people suggested improved drivers’ education programs aimed at teaching roundabout usage or navigating intersections with separated bikeways. • One biker was very concerned about conflict points with bikers and private driveways, and with maintaining sight lines. • The public at this pop-up showed a preference for roundabouts at major intersections along Penn Avenue. ## Bikeway Options Comments Participants were asked to provide feedback on the three bikeway designs in consideration for this project: one-way cycle track, shared-use path, and two-way cycle track. Engagement staff asked participants to indicate their preference with a sticker and to verbalize their reasoning. Table 1: Bikeway option preferences. Bikeway options ## Bikeway option Votes One-way cycle track 10 (50%) Shared-use path 0 (0%) Two-way cycle track 10 (50%) Page 71 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 38 ## Comments • Pop-up participants expressed equal preference between the one-way cycle track and the two-way cycle track options. o A few people indicated separation between pedestrians and bikers as a reason why they chose either the one-way cycle track or two-way cycle track over the shared-use path. o One person said that a two-way cycle track “provides a wide space and a pleasant ride for bikers.” • No participants indicated a preference for a shared-use path along Penn Avenue. • Some people were concerned about high-speed e-bikes sharing the path with pedestrians. • A few people expressed support for any of the three options and said they would use any type of protected bikeway on Penn Avenue once it is constructed. • One biker preferred an on-street bikeway over any of the options listed. o This biker said that protected bikeways don’t reduce conflict points with intersections and driveways, and cause visibility issues for higher-speed bikers. o This participant said that drivers will always back out of their driveways carelessly, regardless of educational campaigns or near-misses. • Participants requested better bike and pedestrian crossings across Penn Avenue at the 62nd Street intersection, and across Highway 62. • One parent was excited to use a future protected bikeway to transport their kids to school. ## Intersection Design Alternatives Comments Participants were shown alternatives for intersection design along Penn Avenue, including call-outs for specific intersections including 64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street. Pop-up participants were less engaged by this activity, and some people opted out of leaving feedback because they had trouble distinguishing the options for minor intersection treatment (pedestrian median + left-turn lanes, no median + left-turn lanes, open median, closed median). ## Table 2: Intersection Design Alternatives Intersection design alternatives ## Total Total Votes Roundabout 11 ## Traffic Signal 1 ## Pedestrian-Activated Crossing Signal 2 Page 72 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 39 ## W 64th Street Intersection Votes Roundabout 5 ## Traffic Signal 0 ## W 69th Street Intersection Votes Roundabout 5 ## Traffic Signal 1 ## W 75th Street Intersection Votes Roundabout 1 ## Traffic Signal 0 ## Pedestrian-Activated Crossing Signal 2 ## Minor Intersections Votes ## Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes 3 ## No Median + Left-Turn Lanes 0 ## Open Median 0 ## Closed Median 1 ## Comments • Participants expressed a preference for roundabouts at major intersections along the project. o Multiple people cited traffic flow as their reason for supporting roundabouts. o A few people expressed mild concern about pedestrian crossing safety at roundabouts. o One person was strongly against roundabouts because “drivers are careless and don’t know how to use [roundabouts]” • One participant pointed out that the merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane can be a choke point for drivers who are not familiar with the area. o Project staff mentioned that the project will cover safety improvements at key lane merge points near 62nd Street and 66th Street. Page 73 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 40 ## Photos Javier Whitaker-Castañeda listens to two members of the public share their opinions about intersection design. Page 74 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 41 Javier Whitaker-Castañeda asks a participant for their feedback on Penn Avenue existing conditions. Page 75 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 42 Project staff used this pop-up to collect data about bikeway option preferences. Page 76 of 80 Penn Avenue safety improvements 43 Lunds & Byerlys names its grocery aisles after local roads. You can find spices and baking needs in the Penn Avenue aisle. Page 77 of 80 7533 ## 7527 PENN AVE LLC 7527 ## 7527 PENN AVE LLC 7521 ## PRIME PROPERTIES PENN LLC 7545 ## FLOYD C SJOSTRAND 7515 ## PENN APARTMENTS LLC 7501 ## PENN APARTMENTS LLC 7540 ## CHURCH OF ST RICHARDS 7450 ## INTERMEDIATE DIST NO 287 7445 ## CHAD SPOOLMAN 7435 ## BESTPENN PROPERTIES LLC 7427 ## BESTPENN PROPERTIES LLC 7521 ## AKINS WUEST APARTMENTS LLC 7413 ## AKINS WUEST APTS LLC 7500 ## ALAN & LEE PROPERTIES LLC 7444 ## CHRISPROP-OLIE LLC 7413 ## PENN OLIVER REC INC 2215 ## CENTRALPENN PROPERTIES LLC 7349 ## ROSALIA ATENCO BARAJAS 7344 ## D E WALLACE & J WALLACE 7339 ## AMZAD ALLY & THERESA ALLY 7335 ## PRIYANTHI SUNDARAM 7329 ## M A MURCIA & R I MURCIA 7325 ## MANUEL ARIZA & ALINA JULIAN 7321 ## RYAN FOSSEN 7315 ## CHARLES AMAND & H ROUNER TR 7301 ## SLEEK VENTURES LLC 7227 ## ST NICHOLAS EPISCOPAL CHURCH 7300 ## STEFANIE ADAMS 7244 ## A THURIK & C ROLLWAGEN 2221 ## KATHERINE D EMERICK 2215 ## A RODRIGUEZ-BENITEZ ET AL 7200 ## REBECCA ANN O'CONNOR 7145 ## JEANNE VERDICK/RITA PETERSON 7144 ## JULIE COSTELLO & T COSTELLO 7133 ## JOSE LUIS DOMINGUEZ ZAMORA 7129 ## D HENDRICKSON & E BIXBY 7123 ## JOSE ZUMBA BUENO 7117 ## J M GOOD & O B GOOD JR 7109 ## A ALVARADO & A M RIERA ## SUSAN N BJORKLUND 7101 7100 ## TRYSTAN M/MICHAEL P HOFFMAN 7044 ## MICHAEL E AND MARY SMITH 7045 ## M R JOHNSON & H C N JOHNSON 7039 ## MICHAEL R JOHNSON ET AL 7033 ## M R JOHNSON & H NIESEN 7021 ## KAITLIN KASPRICK 7017 ## SAMUEL A ODURO 7015 ## S MULDOON & B SCHWAMBERGER 7011 ## SHOUA NOU XIONG 7005 ## V C CHAVEZ & M R LEMUS 7001 ## REID PEDERSON 7000 ## BENJAMIN CRUSE 6944 ## W R & K P SHEPARD 6945 ## CKA INVESTMENTS LLC 6929 ## CITY OF RICHFIELD 6925 6921 6915 6913 ## CITY OF RICHFIELD ## CITY OF RICHFIELD ## CITY OF RICHFIELD ## CITY OF RICHFIELD 6901-104 ## TONY LOPEZ 6901-101 ## JANA DOLORES RILEY 6901-102 ## RUDY S ROEPKE 6901-103 ## LOU-ANN BENETT TRUST 6901-105 ## JEFFREY J BOLT 6901-106 ## LAIBA SAQIB & QAISER SHAHAN 6901-107 ## AARON L BORMET 6901-108 ## JESSICA K WEST/BROOKS R WEST 2201 ## THE SULLIVAN LIVING TRUST ## MARGARET ANN SCHEIRMAN 6856 ## B R BERTRAM & J P GELLE 6843 ## DAVID GEPNER 6845 6845 ## PENN PLACE TWNHOUSE COM ASSC 6841 ## JEREMY GEPNER 6839 ## E D ZAPATA/M N MAHER 6837 ## ELLE RAE EDBERG 6833 ## KELLEN COUNE DAVIS 6827 ## DONALD DAVID BUTLER ET AL 6821 ## JERRY O STORDAHL ETAL 6817 ## MARIA ELENA MATIAS 6813 ## W H CIPALA JR & P A CIPALA 6835 ## JOANETTE CINTRON RODRIGUEZ 6809 ## DAVID M TOMKO 6805 ## KIMBERLY FRANZ & MARIA MAINE 6801 ## DERRICK E ANDERSON ## DAVID M BRISTOL 6800 2208 ## RICHARD ALAN ERICKSON & WIFE 2200 ## KELLY M & DANIEL HELGESON 6768 ## MAXINE & LEAH POLDOSKI 6745 ## DAVE CULLEN 6725 ## AKINS 6725 PENN LLC 6721 ## GREGORY LOUIS BARON TRUST 6717 ## S M LAKE & B S LAKE 6715 ## PENN AVENUE APARTMENTS LLC 6701 ## PENN6701 LLC 6700 ## SCOTT T STONE 6648 ## JEREMIAH KANE WUNDERLICH 6645 ## VSB EQUITIES LLP 6621 ## PENN CENTER 6613 ## 6613 PENN LLC 6601 ## JLD PROPERTIES LLC 6600 ## CITY OF RICHFIELD 2200 ## RPLAHN LLC 2208 ## WALTER CHAN & JOY CHAN 6545 ## WALTER CHAN & JOY CHAN 6529 ## SAMARA 6529 PENN AVE S LLC 6525 ## PENN STATION APTS LLLP 6501 ## PENN STATION APTS LLLP 6500 ## CITY OF RICHFIELD 6444 ## TODD ANTHONY 6445 ## R M FISCHER/LOLITA A FISCHER 6433 ## TEN JEANNIE LLP 6427 ## RICHFIELD RETAIL CENTER LLC 6417 ## VMG PENN ESTATES LLC 6407 ## VMG PENN ESTATES LLC 6401 ## CITY OF RICHFIELD 6345 ## RICH D LLC 6341 ## F & M MOIN 6337 ## TARSHISH PROPERTIES LLC 6333 ## CHARLES V WHITNEY 6325 ## MELEYCO PARTNERSHIP NO 2 6315 ## SWETALA HOLDING L L C 6301 ## FARHAD & MICHELE M MOIN 6321 ## H R A CITY OF RICHFIELD 6319 ## MSLT PROPERTIES LLC 6244 ## PROGRESS VALLEY INC 6253 ## MICHAEL SOLAC & ROBIN SOLAC 6237 ## LARK PROPERTIES LLC 6221 ## J J SHEARER COMPANY 6215 ## MAJID T MASHAD 6200 ## 6200 PENN LLC 6228 ## LB RICHFIELD LLC 6310 ## ALDI INC 6320 ## FRASER 6328 ## FRASER 6344 ## FRASER 6400 ## 6400 PENN LLC 2400 ## WHITBECK FRASER SCH 6444 ## QUEEN STANLEY APARTMENTS LLP 6444 ## CITY OF RICHFIELD 6436 ## MSP RICHFIELD LLC 6420 ## DJLERUM LLC 6445 ## GREENBRIER TERRACE LLC 6500 ## NFB LLC 6528 ## BW PROPERTY MGMT LLC ET AL 6540 ## BW PROPERTY MGMT LLC ET AL 2321 ## 2ND AND SEVENTY LLC ET AL 6600 ## GLOBAL REAL ESTATE MGMT LLC 6608 ## SCOTT T LINDEBERG 6612 ## ARBOR SANDY'S PROPERTIES LLC 6620 ## KARL HERMAN/CATHERINE HERMAN 6644 ## F P & L S VEIT 6636 ## L W & D C VEIT 6630 ## TCA HOLDINGS LLC 6628 ## SOUTHTOWN INVESTMENTS ## 6645 QUEEN L L C 6645 6701 ## TERRY M SMITH 6700 ## 6700 PENN LLC 6708 ## ESTATE OF K A YOUNGBERG 6722 ## 6700 PENN LLC 6724 ## LENNON PROPERTIES LLC 6736 ## RICHARD BRUCE THOMPSON 6744 ## JKCC LLC 6745 ## D C KNUTH JR/K M TREFETHEN 6801 ## REGINA D MEIER 6800 ## KYLO ENTERPRISES LLC 6810 ## JOHNSON-HOARE TRUST 6820 ## S R P PINOS 6816 ## S C JIRIK & K A JIRIK 6824 ## FREEWHEEL INCORPORATED 6832 ## FREEWHEEL INCORPORATED 6854 ## C ENGEL & S ENGEL 6838 ## D E COCHRAN & R S COCHRAN 6845 ## J A KALUZA & T R SHEEHAN 6901 ## P AMUNDSON & S AMUNDSON 6900 ## GBE PROPERTIES LLC 6908 ## KENNETH D & JOYCE A RILEY 6912 ## J R PREISEN & M H PREISEN 6916 ## EVAN PRESLICKA 6920 ## LIONSGATE HOMES LLC 6924 ## LIONSGATE HOMES LLC 6928 ## B A DAHL & K L DAHL 6936 ## 6936 PENN AVE LLC 6944 ## 6944 PENN AVE LLC 6945 ## R E LUCE & D A ENGELBARTS 2309 ## DONNA J KAAVANAUGH 7004 ## KK PENN LLC 2313 ## BRIANNE REGINATO 7008 ## DANIELLE S SNELLING 7010 ## G A PETERSON & M WEBER 7016 ## JULIE A HAIGHT-CURRAN 7032 ## MPLS JEWISH CEMETERY ASSN 2500 ## MPLS JEWISH CEM ASSN 7150 ## B NAI ABRAM CEMETERY ASSN 7201 ## MARY A BRACKETT 7200 ## LARS HEPOLA 7208 ## JORGE ENRIQUEZ 7214 ## OSCAR SANCHEZ FERNANDEZ 7220 ## LORIE ANN VALLEY 7226 ## DAVID ADKINS & LAURIE ADKINS 7232 ## MYRNA LU SWENSON 7238 ## GREGORY S PETERSON SUBJ/L E 7244 ## DIANE SAMIS DALBY 7245 ## M TITZER & K J VANMOORLEHEM 7301 ## N L ANDERSON & A ANDERSON 7300 ## M & M PULS 7308 ## R J LEON & R M ACOSTA 7314 ## M H CALLEJA & A E CALLEJA 7320 ## HEATHER SCHLOSSER 7326 ## C A P BONILLA & E GONZALEZ 7332 ## MALEENA & TAGE NARINE GANPAT 7348 ## SHARMAN K EBINGER 7400 ## CHRISPROP-PENN LLC 2314 ## BENJAMIN C NIELSEN 2317 ## C M FORET & J C EYVINDSSON 7420 ## CHRISPROP-PENN LLC 7413 ## PENN OLIVER REC INC x x x x x x x x x x x ## HENNEPIN COUNTY ## MINNESOTA ## INDEX MAP ## AUGUST 6, 2026 ## SUBJECT TO CHANGE ## PRELIMINARY ## 193807375_Penn_Open House 4 Layout.dgnFILE NAME: miswansonPRINTED BY: 7/31/2026PRINTED ON: ## BLOOMINGTON ## EDEN PRAIRIE ## MINNETRISTA ## INDEPENDENCE ## GREENFIELD ## ROGERS ## DAYTON ## CHAMPLIN ## CORCORAN ## MAPLE GROVE ## BROOKLYN PARK ## MINNEAPOLIS ## PLYMOUTH ## ANTHONY ## ST ## WOODLAND ## WAYZATA ## TONKA BAY ## BONIFACIOUS ## ST. ## PARK ## SPRING ## SHOREWOOD ## ST LOUIS PARK ## ROCKFORD ## ROBINSDALE ## RICHFIELD ## OSSEO ## ORONO ## HOPE ## NEW ## MOUND ## BEACH ## MINNETONKA ## MINNETONKA ## MEDINA ## LAKE ## MEDICINE ## MAPLE PLAIN ## LORETTO ## LONG LAKE ## HOPKINS ## HANDOVER ## GREENWOOD ## GOLDEN VALLEY ## EXCELSIOR ## EDINA ## DEEPHAVEN ## CRYSTAL ## CHANHASSEN ## BROOKLY CENTER ## MSP ## SNELLING ## FT ## LEGEND ## TYPICAL SECTION ## MEDIANS) ## SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, ## CONCRETE (CURB & GUTTER, ## BOULEVARD (BLVD) ## ROADWAY ## BIKE LANE ## EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ## METRO TRANSIT STOP ## TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW ## FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB) ## RECTANGULAR RAPID ## RETAINING WALL ## EXISTING PROPERTY LINES ## EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 0' ## SCALE 50' 25' ## SIDEWALK ## BIKE LANE ## DRIVING LANE ## CENTER TURN LANE ## BIKE LANE ## SIDEWALK ## DRIVING LANE ## BLVD ## BLVD ## GUTTER ## GUTTER ## DRIVEWAY/ACCESS CLOSURE x ## Project ## CSAH 32 - PENN AVENUE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ## PRELIMINARY LAYOUT ## CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ## HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT 2120700 ## PENN AVE ## PENN AVE ## EDINA ## RICHFIELD ## RICHFIELD ## BLOOMINGTON ## MINNEAPOLIS ## RICHFIELD ## PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ## W 7 5 ## T ## H ## S ## T ## W 7 4 ## T ## H ## S ## T ## W 7 3 ## R ## D ## S ## T ## W 7 2 ## N ## D ## S ## T ## W 7 0 1 / 2 ## S ## T ## W 7 0 ## T ## H ## S ## T ( ## M ## S ## A ## S 3 60 ) ## W 6 9 ## T ## H ## S ## T ( ## M ## S ## A ## S 3 5 3 ) ## W 68 ## T ## H ## S ## T ## W 6 7 ## T ## H ## S ## T ## W 6 6 ## T ## H ## S ## T ( ## C ## S ## A ## H 5 3 ) ## W 6 5 ## T ## H ## S ## T ( ## M ## S ## A ## S 1 02 ) ## W 6 4 ## T ## H ## S ## T ( ## M ## S ## A ## S 3 6 4 ) ## T ## H 6 2 ## E ## B ## O ## F ## F ## R ## A ## M ## P ## T ## H 6 2 ## E ## B ## O ## N ## R ## A ## M ## P ## W 6 3 ## R ## D ## S ## T ( ## M ## S ## A ## S 3 73 ) ## W 7 1 ## S ## T ## S ## T ## W 7 5 ## T ## H ## S ## T ( ## M ## S ## A ## S 3 7 4 ) ## W 7 4 ## T ## H ## S ## T ## W 7 3 ## R ## D ## S ## T ## W 7 2 ## N ## D ## S ## T ## W 7 0 ## T ## H ## S ## T ## W 6 9 ## T ## H ## S ## T ( ## M ## S ## A ## S 3 5 3 ) ## W 68 ## T ## H ## S ## T ## W 6 7 ## T ## H ## S ## T ## W 66 ## T ## H ## S ## T ( ## C ## S ## A ## H 5 3 ) ## W 6 5 ## T ## H ## S ## T ## EXISTING ## REVISE ## NEW ## CITY OF RICHFIELDCITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Page 78 of 80 ## Transportation Commission Meeting 8/5/2026 ## Agenda Section: Regular Business Agenda Item: 5.c. ## Report Prepared By: ## Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer ## Department Director: ## Item for Consideration: ## Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Member Appointment ## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the July 1 meeting, two commissioners expressed interest in the steering committee role (Commissioners Straub and Kubista). Commissioners will select one individual to represent the Commission on the steering committee. ## RECOMMENDED ACTION Select a Commission member to serve on a Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee for the Richfield 2050 Plan. ## HISTORICAL CONTEXT ## EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS ## POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) ## CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES ## FINANCIAL IMPACT ## LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ## ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ## ATTACHMENTS ## None Page 79 of 80 ## Transportation Commission Meeting 8/5/2026 ## Agenda Section: Other Business Agenda Item: 9.a. ## Report Prepared By: ## Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer ## Department Director: ## Item for Consideration: ## Reschedule Bike Tour ## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The bike tour scheduled for July 29th was cancelled due to weather. The September 2nd regular meeting could be converted to a bike tour, otherwise a different Wednesday in late August or September could be used either in lieu of the regular meeting or in addition to it. ## RECOMMENDED ACTION ## HISTORICAL CONTEXT ## EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS ## POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) ## CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES ## FINANCIAL IMPACT ## LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ## ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ## ATTACHMENTS ## None Page 80 of 80