## 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