[PAGE 1]
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

[PAGE 2]
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes -1- March 4th, 2026
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
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: Adam Knosalla (Vice Chair), Eli Straub, Louis Dzierzak
(Chair), David Gepner, Stella Yang, Eli Straub, Josh Kloehn,
Jacob Olsen
Commission Absent: Brinnon Kubista
Staff Present: Matt Hardegger and Jake Whipple
Liaisons Present: 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 4th, 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.
Page 2 of 28

[PAGE 3]
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 1st meeting would be about Penn Avenue.
Page 3 of 28

[PAGE 4]
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
10th 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

[PAGE 5]
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

[PAGE 6]
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
ATTACHMENTS
1. 20260401_Penn_Ave_RTC_05
Page 6 of 28

[PAGE 7]
CSAH 32 (Penn Ave)
Reconstruction
Transportation
Commission Meeting #5
Matt Huggins, PE
Project Manager
April 12026
Page 7 of 28

[PAGE 8]
Agenda
City Council update
Bikeway discussion
Parking discussion
Page 8 of 228

[PAGE 9]
Commission actions
Action 1: Select bikeway alternatives
Action 2: Penn-Central parking approach
Page 9 of 238

[PAGE 10]
Preliminary design engagement schedule
Project kick-off City Council Update #1 City Council Update #2 City Council Resolution
Spring March Summer Fall
2025 2026 2026 2026
Phase 1: Experiences Phase 2: Vision and Tools Phase 3: Concept Alternatives Phase 4: Recommendations
* We are here
* Start of construction
tentatively planned for
Spring 2028
Page 10 of 248

[PAGE 11]
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 18th 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 – 3rd Weekend of September
• Transportation Commission Meeting #9 – October 7, 2026
• City Council Meeting (Layout concurrence) - October 27, 2026
Page 11 of 258

[PAGE 12]
City Council update
66th 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 66th Street
• Evaluate adding parking north of 66th Street
• Final bikeway /
• Prefer amenity zones over grass boulevards sidewalk design in
development
• Evaluate additional vehicle lane reductions
Page 12 of 268

[PAGE 13]
TH 62
Bikeway discussion
Map shows an overview of the bikeway
66th St
network along the Penn Ave project
corridor.
Are certain bikeway types appropriate
within different sections of Penn Avenue?
69th St
Is a single-sided bikeway on Penn Avenue
appropriate?
73rd St
75rd St
7
evA
nneP
East side of TH 62
bridge supports SUP
SUP Along South
side of TH62
66th St West of
66th St East of
Penn – SUP on
Penn – Cycle
North side
tracks
On-Street bollard
trail on North
side of 69th
TRPD Trail North
Side of 75th
Page 13 of 28

[PAGE 14]
Bikeway discussion
Option 1: One-way cycle track
Sidewalks on both sides
Bicyclists separated from
pedestrians
Bikeway on both sides
Ex. 66th 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)
Page 14 of 288

[PAGE 15]
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
Page 15 of 298

[PAGE 16]
Bikeway
Option 2
Option 1 Option 3 Option 4
Dual
discussion
One-way Two-way Shared-use
shared-use
cycle track cycle track path
path
How would you rate the
Most Positive Positive
four bike way options?
Phase 2 popular, opinion, opinion,
Engagement liked for bike bike
- High
Results mode crossing crossing
- Medium high
separation concerns concerns
- Medium
- Medium low Cost $$$$$ $$$ $$$$$ $$
- Low
Section
73’ 73’ 71’ 67’
Width
Are there option(s) that
Consultant
should be removed from
H MH M ML
team Rating
consideration?
Commission
Rating
Page 16 of 2108

[PAGE 17]
On-Street Parking Discussion
What We've Heard What We Know
1. The community has not prioritized 1. There is unused parking located throughout
on-street parking as a need. the corridor from a district-wide perspective
to meet needs.
2. The businesses between 68th and
66th St value on-street parking. 2. On-street parking is heavily used between
66th Street and 68th Street (25 total spaces)
3. There is a desire to keep on-street
parking by the City Council and 3. Side street parking is underutilized.
potentially expand it in other areas
4. All off-street parking is owned by private
north of 66th Street.
property owners or businesses.
Page 17 of 2118

[PAGE 18]
On-Street Parking Considerations (Draft Concepts 6700 Block)
12
tS
ht86
tS
ht86
tS
ht76
tS
ht76
*Bikeway (yellow) configuration to be determined. Assumed both sides of roadway
* On street parking shown in purple
Page 18 of 28

[PAGE 19]
On-Street Parking Considerations (Draft concepts 6600 Block)
13
tS
ht76
tS
ht76
tS
ht66
tS
ht66
*Bikeway (yellow) configuration to be determined. Assumed both sides of roadway
* On street parking shown in purple Page 19 of 28

[PAGE 20]
On-Street Parking Considerations (north of 66th Street)
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 2148

[PAGE 21]
On-Street Parking Considerations (north of 66th Street)
6300 Block
Available ROW : 72 ft
Existing ROW : 66 ft
6400 Block
Existing ROW : 66 ft
Page 21 of 2168

[PAGE 22]
Thank you
Matt Huggins, PE
Matt.huggins@hennepin.us
612-596-0326
https://beheardhennepin.org/penn-avenue
Page 22 of 2178

[PAGE 23]
Appendices
Page 23 of 2188

[PAGE 24]
Project scope
Reconstruction from 75th 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
Page 24 of 2198

[PAGE 25]
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 2208

[PAGE 26]
Problem statement
People need safe and reliable property access along Penn Avenue
• People can’t walk or bike safely or comfortably along Penn Avenue
Originally drafted as part
• It’s difficult to make left turns onto or off Penn Avenue
of 2021 Penn Avenue study.
• The pavement is in poor condition
• There are limited public parking opportunities along Penn Avenue
Revised in collaboration
• People need safe and reliable property access along Penn Avenue
with Transportation
Penn Avenue is dangerous to walk Commission.
• Penn Avenue is not safe to walk across
Community supports
• Penn Avenue is not comfortable to walk along
problem statement.
• 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
Page 26 of 2218

[PAGE 27]
66th Street intersection
Multi-lane roundabout
160’ intersection diameter
Reduce 66th Street to 4-lanes
Evaluated single and multi-lane Penn Avenue
approaches
Flashing beacons required on all legs
• Final bikeway /
sidewalk design in
development
Page 27 of 2228

[PAGE 28]
Existing Multi-lane Traffic signal
conditions roundabout modification
Crash
frequency 0.73 / 0.00 2.18 / 0.00 0.73 / 0.00
(Rate / FA)
Operational
46.8 sec 13.5 sec 44.6 sec
Alternatives delay
Conceptual
Roundabout and signalized construction N/A +$1.9 million +$0
intersections tools were offered cost delta
as potential tools in Phase 2.
Conceptual
right of way N/A +$7 million +$0
costs
Displaced
N/A 3 0
businesses
Public
N/A X
preference
Page 28 of 2238