2026-03-10 WS City Council Agenda
Richfield City Council Agenda
March 10, 2026 -- 5:15 PM
Richfield Municipal Center
Bartholomew Conference Room
6700 Portland Avenue South
1. Call to Order
2. Item Discussion
a. Penn Avenue Reconstruction Update and Discussion
b. Proposed Traffic Calming Policy Discussion
3. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities 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 Council Chambers Agenda Packet book located by
the entrance. The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the City of Richfield website.
Page 1 of 93
City Council Meeting 3/10/2026
Agenda Section: Item Discussion
Agenda Item: 2.a.
Report Prepared By:
Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer
Department Director:
Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
Item for Consideration:
Penn Avenue Reconstruction Update and Discussion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hennepin County has programmed a full reconstruction of Penn Avenue from 75th
Street to Highway 62 for 2028. Public engagement for the project began in August 2025
with an Open House at St Richards Church; a second Open House was held in
November at Sheridan Hills Elementary School. During the work session, the County
team will provide a recap of the first two phases of public engagement and will be
seeking direction on design items that would require right of way acquisition in the Penn
Central area of the project.
Specifically, direction is needed on the following items:
• Intersection control options at 66th Street/Penn Avenue
• On-street parking on Penn Avenue
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Provide staff direction on design and engagement items for Penn Avenue.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Reconstruction of Penn Avenue has been a key City priority for many years. This
corridor has been studied multiple times over the past 20 years, including a 2008
revitalization plan and a 2021 corridor study. The Penn Central area poses particular
design challenges that come with trade-off discussions, due to a narrow right of way
(66') and the busy 66th Street/Penn Avenue intersection.
EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
For both discussion items, Council Members will need to evaluate what the acceptable
trade-offs are for strategic goals and equity goals. The City strives to build infrastructure
that is climate resilient and supports service needs.
Considerations at the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection include:
• Traffic Safety
• Cost
Page 2 of 93
• Right of way acquisition
Considerations for on-street parking include:
• Widths/Types of non-motorized paths
• Cost
• Right of way acquisition
POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.)
Richfield's Complete Streets Policy seeks to create safe, accessible, convenient, and
comfortable travel for all users of all ages and abilities. Penn Avenue is also identified
as a key route in the City's Active Transportation Action Plan.
CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
Council direction is needed to begin preparing materials for phase 3 of public
engagement, expected to begin in mid-April.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Cost share for Hennepin County projects is currently governed by their 2020 Cost
Participation Policy. This policy splits right of way acquisition costs 50/50 between the
City and the County for most purposes. Right of way required to accommodate on-street
parking is 100% a City cost.
This policy is currently being re-evaluated by a working group of County staff and staff
from several cities around the County.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
None at this time.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
None.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2026-03-10 WS Presentation Penn Ave Reconstruction
2. 20260119 Penn Ave Phase2 Eng Summary v1
Page 3 of 93
CSAH 32 (Penn Ave)ReconstructionCity Council UpdateMatt Huggins, PEProject ManagerMarch 10, 2026Page 4 of 93
Agenda Project engagement update 66thStreet intersection discussion Penn-Central parking discussion2Page 5 of 93
Project scope Reconstruction from 75thStreet 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 character3Page 6 of 93
Spring 2025 Project kick-offMarch2026 Phase 1: ExperiencesSummer 2026 City Council Update #1 Phase 3: Concept AlternativesFall 2026 City Council Resolution4Preliminary design engagement schedule City Council Update #2 Phase 2: Vision and Tools Phase 4: Recommendations * Start of construction tentatively planned for Spring 2028Page 7 of 93
Phase 1: Experiences5Engagement summary•Project outreach and promotion•Online survey + interactive mapping activity•Open house•Pop up events−PennFest−Farmers Market−St. Richards Food Drive•Results−2,500+ website visits−Approximately 400 survey participants−Approximately 100 open house attendees−250+ pop up event participantsPage 8 of 93
Phase 2: Vision and Tools6Engagement summary•Project outreach and promotion•Online survey + toolbox•Open house•Pop up event - Fare for All•Results−170+ website visits−Approximately 100 survey participants−70+ open house attendees−25 pop up event participantsPage 9 of 93
7Transportation 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 districtPage 10 of 93
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 experience8 Originally drafted as part of 2021 Penn Avenue study. Revised in collaboration with Transportation Commission. Community supports problem statement. Page 11 of 93
66thStreet intersectionExisting conditions Traffic signal replaced in 2018 No pedestrian or bicycle crashes No fatal or severe injury crashes9Page 12 of 93
66thStreet intersectionMulti-lane roundabout 160’ intersection diameter Reduce 66thStreet to 4-lanes Evaluated single and multi-lane Penn Avenue approaches Flashing beacons required on all legs10•Final bikeway / sidewalk design in developmentPage 13 of 93
66thStreet intersectionTraffic signal modification Existing traffic signal to remain Accessible pedestrian signal relocations Reduce Penn Avenue to 4-lanes Consideration of truck pillows11•Final bikeway / sidewalk design in developmentPage 14 of 93
Alternatives Roundabout and signalized intersections tools were offered as potential tools in Phase 2.Traffic signal modificationMulti-lane roundaboutExisting conditions0.73 / 0.002.18 / 0.000.73 / 0.00Crash frequency(Rate / FA) 44.6 sec13.5 sec46.8 secOperational delay+$0+$1.9 millionN/AConceptual construction cost delta+$0+$7 millionN/AConceptual right of way costs03N/ADisplaced businessesXN/APublic preference12Page 15 of 93
66thStreet intersectionCity Council discussion13Page 16 of 93
Penn-Central parkingExisting conditions 25 existing on-street parking stalls (west side)•10 stalls on 6600 block•15 stalls on the 6700 block•No parking north of 66thStreetDistrict parking counts collected in summer and fall 2025•Highest demand observed at restaurants•Adequate district parking for present demandOn-street parking priority for business communityGeneral public comments prioritized other design elements over providing on-street parking (boulevards, bikeways, etc.)14Page 17 of 93
Penn-Central parkingProject constraints15 Existing 6600 Block Proposed Existing 6300 Block ProposedPage 18 of 93
Penn-Central parkingCity Council discussion•On-street parking prioritization16Page 19 of 93
Next steps•Development of section alternatives •Initiate Phase 3 :: Concept Alternatives engagement•Richfield Transportation Commission Meeting #6•Open House #3•Pop-up events•Business owner small group meetings 17Page 20 of 93
Thank you Matt Huggins, PE Matt.huggins@hennepin.us 612-596-0326 https://beheardhennepin.org/penn-avenue18Page 21 of 93
Penn Avenue Safety Improvements—
Richfield
Phase 2 Engagement Summary
January 20, 2026
Page 22 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 2
Phase 2: Vision and Tools
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 2 of this
engagement process took place from October 2025 to January 2026. Construction is
scheduled to start in 2028.
Phase 2 Engagement Activities
• Online survey on Hennepin County’s website to poll for street design preferences
• 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 170 webpage visits and 95 survey submissions. Over 70
people attended the public meeting and 25 people provided feedback on the project at the
pop-up event. In total, Phase 2 had approximately 200 participants who voted on possible
street redesign tools on the project webpage and at in-person engagement events. There
have been over 950 individual interactions with the public throughout Phase 1 and Phase 2
of the public engagement process.
Engagement Goals
• Provide a project overview, existing conditions data, a current map, and other
relevant materials that help the public understand the project
• Confirm results of user experience data from Phase 1
• Present a draft problem statement and receive confirmation from the public
regarding its accuracy and completeness
• Share draft goals for the project
• Solicit input from the public on preferences for potential design tools
Project Promotion
The project team continued some components from the promotion and awareness
campaign from Phase 1 and produced another round of promotion for Phase 2. The project
team:
• Maintained the BeHeard website with information about upcoming project events
• Sent a postcard mailer promoting open house #2 to 3,867 residents living within a
half-mile radius of the project area (see figures 1 and 2)
Page 23 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 3
• Posted updates to Hennepin County’s social media channels to drive traffic to the
project website and attendees to the project events
• Kept in place the yard signs and sidewalk stickers from Phase 1 to drive traffic to
project website and attendees to the project events (see figures 3 and 4)
• 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 on the events conducted.
Event Organization/Location Date
Public Meeting #2 Sheridan Hills Elementary November 18, 2025
Pop-up Fare for All – Richfield Community Center December 16, 2025
Online Survey beheardhennepin.org/penn-avenue November 18, 2025 to
January 9, 2026
Business Outreach Penn Central district June 2025-ongoing
Table 1: Community Engagement Events
Engagement Activities
See Appendix A, figures 5-11, for more information about engagement activities.
Summary of Phase 2 Findings
Key Takeaways
The goal of public engagement in Phase 2 was to gather more focused feedback about
vision and tools for the project, rather than overall user experience like in Phase 1.
Participants in this phase were asked to evaluate a draft problem statement and to
indicate their preferred configurations and treatments that are available for this project.
This summary compiles feedback from online survey respondents, public meeting
attendees, pop-up participants, and business owners completed as part of the Vision and
Tools phase of community engagement.
Feedback on the draft problem statement
• The majority of reviewers confirmed the problem statement.
Page 24 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 4
o Respondents largely agreed that walkability and pedestrian infrastructure
should be a priority in the project.
• Several commentors said that parking does not need to be emphasized in the
problem statement.
• Multiple people mentioned slowing high-speed traffic and fixing the dangerous
pedestrian crossings by the Penn Avenue and 62nd Street intersection as statements
that could be added to the problem statement.
Tool preference activity feedback
• This activity was separated into two context zones: 62nd – 68th Street and 68th – 75th
Street. Voting results did not vary by wide margins between the two context zones.
o The exception to this rule is that online survey respondents were much more
in favor of roundabouts in the residential zone (71.1%) than in the
commercial zone (51%).
o In-person respondents were in equally favor of roundabouts in the
commercial zone as in the residential zone (roughly 70%).
• The current roadway configuration—3-lane roadway with two-way center turn
lane—was more popular than the 2-lane divided option by over 10% through every
engagement channel.
• Over 75% of all voters chose boulevards over on-street parking, expressing a clear
priority.
o Many people recommended that parking is only needed in specific areas
along the corridor, for example, between 66th and 67th streets.
o Voters in favor of parking wanted to support local small businesses.
• The most popular bikeway configuration was the cycle track (~37% of the online
vote and ~60% of the in-person vote).
o The least popular bikeway configuration by a wide margin was the buffered
on-street bike lane (~8% of the online vote and ~5% of the in-person vote).
• Voters both against and in favor of roundabouts had several concerns and
stipulations about what a successful roundabout on Penn Avenue would look like:
o Voters expressed concerns about roundabout construction cost, proper
lighting, consistent lanes, and visibility.
o Many pedestrians had concerns about pedestrian safety at high-traffic
roundabouts.
• Pedestrian lighting was the most popular intersection treatment (~45% of the online
vote and the in-person vote).
Page 25 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 5
Right-of-way activity feedback
• Most designs featured greenspace, either with dedicated boulevard space or with
lane-dividing medians.
• All participants in the ROW activity included bike infrastructure.
• When limited by available ROW space constraints, participants opted to prioritize
greenspace and pedestrian/bike infrastructure over parking.
o Some designs had parking on one side of the street. No designs had parking
on both sides of the street.
Page 26 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 6
Phase 2: Business Outreach
(See Appendix E)
The bulk of business outreach occurred during Phase I activities; initial outreach began in
August 2025 with door-to-door visits to introduce the project and gather contact
information for over 60 businesses in the Penn Central district.
Businesses who provided contact information now receive regular email updates. In-depth
conversations have taken place between business owners and the project business
liaison.
Business owners have been invited to public engagement events, and one-on-one
meetings continue with business owners who opted in to sustained project involvement.
Common themes from business outreach:
• Businesses and property owners expressed significant concerns about the
construction process. There is a strong desire to keep Penn Avenue open during
construction rather than a full or partial closure of the roadway.
• Roundabouts are not desired by most businesses and property owners located in
close proximity to the Penn Avenue and 66th Street intersection.
• There remains a consistent desire for enhancements to the aesthetic appearance of
the corridor. Project staff communicated that details like building facades and other
upgrades on private property are outside the scope of the project but that
landscaping and lighting improvements are possible.
Page 27 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 7
Phase 2: Vision and Tools Open House
(See Appendix C)
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 4:30 - 7 p.m.
Location: Sheridan Hills Elementary (6400 Sheridan Ave S, Richfield, MN)
Attendees: 70+
Materials/activities:
• Engagement process and existing conditions boards – the project team provided
background on the corridor and project process.
• Problem statement – the project team solicited confirmation from the public on the
draft problem statement that resulted from Phase 1 feedback.
• Tools preference activity – participants were asked to leave site-specific comments
on a large roll plot map of Penn Avenue (see figure 3).
• Right-of-way activity – participants were asked to imagine their own version of Penn
Avenue, making decisions about tradeoffs within the available ROW space.
• Comment station – participants left open-ended feedback.
Key messages from the public:
• Participants largely agreed with and confirmed the problem statement, with
especially vocal agreement about improving the walkability of Penn Avenue.
• When tasked with designing their own version of Penn Avenue, participants
prioritized greenspaces buffers separating pedestrian and bike infrastructure from
the street.
• As a compromise based on available right-of-way space, most participants decided
to forgo parking and prioritize other design elements.
• Attendees had mixed opinions on 3-lane roadway versus a 2-lane divided highway,
with a slight majority choosing the current configuration of a 3-lane roadway.
o Some opponents of the 2-lane divided highway did not want to see
medians in the business district because of the potential
impact to customers’ business access.
• Voters expressed a nearly unanimous preference for boulevards over parking.
• Cycle track was the most popular bikeway configuration.
• About 70% of voters preferred roundabouts over traffic signal improvements.
• Pedestrian-activated lights were the most popular intersection treatment for
pedestrian safety, with all other options also receiving votes.
Page 28 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 8
o Pedestrian-activated lights were slightly more popular in the Penn Central
commercial zone than in the residential zone.
o Pedestrian medians were slightly more popular in the residential zone than
in the Penn Central commercial zone.
Phase 2: Pop-up – Fare for All, Richfield Community Center
(See Appendix D)
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 1 to 3 p.m.
Location: Richfield Community Center - 7000 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield, MN, 55423
Participants: 25 people voted in the tools preference activity.
Materials/activities: Materials included a drafted problem statement presented for public
feedback and a tools preference activity.
Key messages from the public:
• Participants preferred the current 3-lane roadway configuration to the 2-lane
divided roadway.
• Voters prioritized on-street parking to support small business along Penn Avenue.
• Voters preferred the two-way cycle track configuration, but votes among the other
four bikeway options were spread.
• Roundabouts were popular; voters both pro and against roundabouts had feedback
about what conditions and features make for a successful roundabout (cost,
lighting, consistent lanes, and safer pedestrian crossings).
• Pedestrian activated lighting was the most popular minor intersection treatment.
• Bumpouts were the most divisive tool option; some supporters said that they slow
cars and provide greenspace, some detractors said that they are hard to plow and
cause drivers to park poorly.
BeHeard Online Engagement
(See Appendix B)
Dates/Duration: The online survey and map were open from November 18, 2025 to
January 9, 2026
Location: https://beheardhennepin.org/penn-avenue
Page 29 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 9
Participants: 170 survey webpage visits, 95 survey participants
Materials/activities: Online survey questions and photo examples were taken directly
from the tools preference activity (see figures 9-11)
Demographic data summarized:
• See Appendix B for full survey data.
• Most respondents (72.6%) reside in the project area ZIP code: Richfield, 55423.
• 80% of participants were White/Caucasian.
Insights from survey data:
• The majority of participants (68.4%) agreed or fully agreed that the draft problem
statement accurately reflected the issues that the Penn Avenue safety
improvements project should prioritize.
• Roughly a quarter of participants (25.2%) disagreed or fully disagreed with the
problem statement.
• Participants were asked to evaluate the same design tools for two separate context
zones: the Penn Central commercial zone from 62nd to 68th and the residential zone
from 68th to 75th. The voting results did not vary widely between the two context
zones.
o The biggest difference between the commercial zone and the residential
zone voting was that roundabouts in the residential zone (71.7%) were much
more popular than roundabouts in the commercial zone (51%).
• 3-lane roadway with two-way center turn lanes was slightly more popular than the
2-lane divided roadway.
• Online voters prioritized boulevards over on-street parking about 80% of the time.
• Cycle track was the most popular bikeway configuration (37.5%) in the commercial
zone and (37.4%) in the residential zone.
o On-street buffered bike lane received less than 10% of the vote in both
context zones.
• Pedestrian-activated lights were the most popular intersection treatment (38% in
the commercial zone and 33.6% in the residential zone).
Key messages from online survey responses:
Many survey respondents left comments on the problem statement, regardless of whether
they fully agreed, agreed, disagreed, or fully disagreed with the problem statement.
Page 30 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 10
• 9 respondents disagreed with a focus on parking; some said that parking can be
removed from the problem statement and others said that parking is only needed in
specific sections of the project area.
o “Discontinuous parking and business access is not a concern for me. I don’t
want Penn Avenue to turn into strip malls!”
• At least 5 people identified the Penn Avenue and 62nd Street intersection, including
connections to the highway bridge, as a dangerous area that needs to be addressed
in the project.
o “Pedestrians, bikers, and vehicles have a difficult time seeing each other due
to the bridge’s barrier construction and narrow drive/walk lanes.”
• Some respondents wanted more emphasis on bike and pedestrian infrastructure
and safety.
• Some respondents wanted more emphasis on vehicle travel and to not prioritize
bike infrastructure on Penn Ave.
• Some residents took issue with the broad scope of the problem statement and the
taxpayer’s responsibility paying for some of the solutions to the problem statement.
Items identified in these comments as not being the taxpayer’s responsibility
included:
o Comfortable and positive walking experience.
o “A sense of place” for the business district.
o Increase greenspace and long-term maintenance. “Penn is a major
thoroughfare, not a park. Having a road as a road works.”
• Multiple residents mentioned lowering the speed limit or otherwise slowing high-
speed traffic.
• Some residents mentioned 66th Street as an example of a successful separation of
vehicle, bike, and pedestrian traffic.
• One person said, “There needs to be bus lanes on Penn for the future BRT project,
and that isn’t mentioned”
• One resident said, “Residents from 69th to 70th Street have no driveway exit onto
Penn. The only outlet is to use the alley. At present, there is a long wait to exit.
Adding roundabouts or increasing lane width of 69th and 70th streets would increase
traffic on those streets.”
• One person said “I would like the center island on Penn Ave. shortened so a
dedicated turn lane into Arc Value Village and CVS is created.”
Page 31 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 11
Appendix A: Figures and Engagement Activities
Figure 1: Mailer for open house #2, side 1
Figure 2: Mailer for open house #2, side 2
Page 32 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 12
Figure 3: Promotional yard sign
Page 33 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 13
Figure 4: Promotional sidewalk decal
Engagement Activities
Problem Statement Draft
Project staff presented a draft problem statement for the Penn Avenue safety
improvements project. The problem statement resulted from a prior corridor study and
input from Phase 1 of the public engagement process which included 750+ interactions
Page 34 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 14
with the public. Participants were asked to leave notes and to confirm whether the
problem statement aligned with their vision for a renewed Penn Avenue.
Figure 5: Draft problem statement
Right-of-Way Activity
For this activity, participants were asked to imagine their ideal Penn Avenue, within the
constraints of a set measurement of available ROW space. The activity basemaps provided
83 feet and 66 feet of space respectively, and the activity pieces represented vehicle travel
lanes, bikeways, sidewalks, and behind-the-curb configuration options. Participants
considered trade-offs as they tried to fit all of their preferred design options within the
ROW distance.
Page 35 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 15
Figure 6: ROW basemap 1 – residential zone
Page 36 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 16
Figure 7: ROW basemap 2 – commercial zone
Figure 8: Example of a completed ROW activity
Page 37 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 17
Tools Preference Activity
Participants were asked to vote for their preferred design tools in the following categories:
street layout configurations, curbside configurations, bikeway configurations, major
intersection treatments, and minor intersection treatments.
Figure 9: Tools preference activity – Penn Central commercial zone
Figure 10: Tools preference activity – residential zone
Page 38 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 18
Figure 11: Example of votes on the tools preference activity
Page 39 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 19
Appendix B: BeHeard Online Survey Data
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 40 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 20
Gender
Male: 44
Female: 39
Transgender: 2
Prefer not to answer: 12
Race/Ethnicity
White/Caucasian: 76
Hispanic or Latino: 4
American Indian or Alaska Native: 1
I prefer not to respond: 16
I prefer to self-describe: 1
Page 41 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 21
Survey respondent information:
Which best describes you?
I visit places along or near Penn Avenue: 65
I travel along Penn Avenue: 64
I live in Richfield: 62
I live along or within one block of Penn Avenue from Hwy 62 to W 75th St: 16
I own, manage, or work at a business on Penn Avenue: 1
Other: 4 (these responses include: I used to live in Richfield, I am a property owner
on Penn Avenue)
Page 42 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 22
What is your ZIP code?
Richfield 55423: 61
Minneapolis 55419: 8
Minneapolis 55408: 2
Saint Paul 55101, Minneapolis 55418, Minneapolis 55417, Minneapolis 55403,
Minneapolis 55410, Minneapolis 55407, Bloomington 55420, Minneapolis 55415,
Bloomington 55437, Saint Paul 55102, Lakeville 55044, Edina 55410,
Bloomington 55431: 1
Page 43 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 23
To what extent do you agree with the following: The Problem Statement accurately
describes the issues that the Penn Avenue safety improvements project should address.
Fully agree: 34 (35.8%)
Agree: 31 (32.6%)
Disagree: 12 (12.6%)
Fully disagree: 12 (12.6%)
Neutral: 6 (6.3%)
Questions about Penn Avenue between 62nd and 68th streets
Which street layout configuration do you prefer for Penn Avenue between 62nd and 68th
streets?
Page 44 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 24
3-lane roadway with two-way center turn lanes. One travel lane in each
direction with a two-way center turn lane: 59 (62.8%)
2-lane divided roadway (with raised median). One travel lane in each direction
with a raised median in the center: 35 (37.2%)
Which curbside configuration is your highest priority for Penn Avenue between 62nd and 68th
streets?
Boulevards. Planted or concrete boulevard between the sidewalk and curb: 76
(81.7%)
On-street parking. Parking lane on the street next to the curb: 17 (18.3%)
Which bikeway configurations do you prefer for Penn Avenue between 62nd and 68th
streets?
Cycle track. Bikeway behind curb at sidewalk level: 42 (37.5%)
Sidewalk and trail. Multiuse trail on one side and sidewalk on the other: 34
(30.4%)
Page 45 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 25
Two-way cycle track. Two-way bikeway behind curb at sidewalk level on one
side only: 27 (24.1%)
On-street bike lane (buffered). Bike lane on the street separated by a painted
buffer: 9 (8.0%)
Which intersection treatment do you prefer for major intersections that are signalized today
between 62nd and 68th streets?
Roundabout. Single or multi-lane roundabout at the intersection: 47 (51%)
Traffic signal improvements. Signal improvements for better traffic flow and
safety: 45 (48.9%)
Which intersection treatments do you prefer for minor intersections that are not signalized
today between 62nd and 68th streets?
Pedestrian-activated lights. Flashing lights at crossings with a person-activated
button: 49 (38.0%)
Page 46 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 26
Pedestrian medians. Raised center medians at crossing: 33 (25.6%)
Bumpouts. Extension of pedestrian zone into street: 26 (20.2%)
Raised crossing. Crosswalks are raised to the level of the adjacent sidewalks:
21 (16.3%)
Questions about Penn Avenue between 68th and 75th streets
Which street layout configuration do you prefer for Penn Avenue between 68th and 75th
streets?
3-lane roadway with two-way center turn lanes. One travel lane in each
direction with a two-way center turn lane: 49 (52.7%)
2-lane divided roadway (with raised median). One travel lane in each direction
with a raised median in the center: 44 (47.3%)
Which curbside configuration is your highest priority for Penn Avenue between 68th and 75th
streets?
Page 47 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 27
Boulevards. Planted or concrete boulevard between the sidewalk and curb: 73
(79.3%)
On-street parking. Parking lane on the street next to the curb: 19 (20.7%)
Which bikeway configurations do you prefer for Penn Avenue between 68th and 75th streets?
Cycle track. Bikeway behind curb at sidewalk level: 43 (37.4%)
Sidewalk and trail. Multiuse trail on one side and sidewalk on the other: 36
(31.3%)
Two-way cycle track. Two-way bikeway behind curb at sidewalk level on one
side only: 28 (24.3%)
On-street bike lane (buffered). Bike lane on the street separated by a painted
buffer: 8 (7.0%)
Which intersection treatment do you prefer for major intersections that are signalized today
between 68th and 75th streets?
Page 48 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 28
Roundabout. Single or multi-lane roundabout at the intersection: 66 (71.7%)
Traffic signal improvements. Signal improvements for better traffic flow and
safety: 26 (28.2%)
Which intersection treatments do you prefer for minor intersections that are not signalized
today between 68th and 75th streets?
Pedestrian-activated lights. Flashing lights at crossings with a person-activated
button: 43 (33.6%)
Pedestrian medians. Raised center medians at crossing: 35 (27.3%)
Bumpouts. Extension of pedestrian zone into street: 29 (22.7%)
Raised crossing. Crosswalks are raised to the level of the adjacent sidewalks:
21 (16.4%)
Page 49 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 29
Appendix C: Public Meeting #2 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.
The roadway recently underwent a conversion from four lanes to three lanes in 2021,
resulting in a 30% reduction in crashes. Additional improvements are being considered to
make the corridor function better for all users, whether driving, walking, rolling, biking, or
otherwise. The project will also remove and replace outdated infrastructure, evaluate
improvements to intersection design, and consider aesthetic improvements to enhance
the character of the corridor.
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.
Project goals include:
• Create safe, secure, and comfortable places for everyone to travel, regardless of
their age or ability.
• Provide a safer experience for people walking, rolling, and biking.
• Improve bus travel and create more comfortable bus stops.
• Support the needs of nearby neighborhoods, local businesses, and institutions.
• Enhance the character of the Penn Central district.
Open House Details
As part of the project, an open house was held to confirm the findings of Phase 1 of
engagement, assess the problem statement for the project, and measure the public’s
preferences for the use of certain street design tools over others. The data and feedback
collected will be used to help select the appropriate design options for each section and
intersection of the new design.
Project: Penn Avenue safety improvements - Richfield
Event Name: Open House 2: Sheridan Hills Elementary
Event Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Page 50 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 30
4:30 p.m. – 7 p.m.
Event Location: Sheridan Hills Elementary is located one block west of the project
area. The Phase 2 open house took place in the cafeteria during after-school pickup
hours. Many families that are part of the Sheridan Hills Community are also Richfield
residents residing near Penn Avenue.
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 1
• Present and confirm problem statement
• Collect additional input on existing community experiences
• Collect feedback on project toolkit
• Discuss next steps
Event Summary
How many people participated: Over 70 people attended the Phase 2 Open House, not
including elementary school children.
The event's start time was listed as 4:30 p.m., and attendance tallied over 30 people by
4:40 p.m. A few of the attendees were parents who had come to pick up their children from
school and decided to participate in the open house.
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:
General themes
• Participants largely agreed with and confirmed the problem statement, with
especially vocal agreement about improving the walkability of Penn Avenue.
• When tasked with designing their own version of Penn Avenue, participants
prioritized greenspaces buffers separating pedestrian and bike infrastructure from
the street.
Page 51 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 31
• As a compromise based on available right-of-way space, most participants decided
to forgo parking and prioritize other design elements.
Tool preferences
• Attendees had mixed opinions on 3-lane roadway versus a 2-lane divided highway,
with a slight majority choosing the current configuration of a 3-lane roadway.
o Some opponents of the 2-lane divided highway did not want to see
medians in the business district because of the potential
impact to customers’ business access.
• Voters expressed a nearly unanimous preference for boulevards over parking.
• Cycle track was the most popular bikeway configuration.
• About 70% of voters preferred roundabouts over traffic signal improvements.
• Pedestrian-activated lights were the most popular intersection treatment for
pedestrian safety, with all other options also receiving votes.
o Pedestrian-activated lights were slightly more popular in the Penn Central
commercial zone than in the residential zone.
o Pedestrian medians were slightly more popular in the residential zone than
in the Penn Central commercial zone.
Problem Statement Comments
The project team drafted a Problem Statement for the Penn Avenue safety improvements
based on information gathered from the 2021 corridor study and from Phase 1 of the
project. Event attendees were asked to respond to the Problem Statement by the following
prompts: Does this Problem Statement match your vision for the future of Penn Avenue?
What do you like and what would you change?
Page 52 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 32
This board was printed and shown to attendees as part of the open house. The
board shows the finalized problem statement and some context about how it was created.
Key Takeaways – Problem Statement Responses
• Five people wanted more language about improving walkability added to the
problem statement
o Two people wanted the problem statement to specifically mention planting
trees for walkability
o One participant said walkability generally would improve the neighborhood
o One participant said they wanted more businesses near the center of the
project area, within biking range of their family
o One person wants this project to turn Penn Central from “just plain ugly”
to “user-friendly and visually appealing”
• Two people confirmed the problem statement with no additional comments
Page 53 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 33
Right-of-Way Activity Comments
Participants were asked to imagine their own version of Penn Avenue within the constraints
of the available right-of-way space. This activity consisted of two tablemats:
one representing the Penn Central Commercial Zone between 62nd Street and
68th Street and 66 feet of ROW space, and one representing the residential zone between
68th Street and 75th Street and 83 feet of ROW space. Within the ROW area participants
could place different “pieces” of street design including sidewalks, bike lanes, vehicle
lanes, parking lanes, and greenspace.
More than ten people participated in the ROW Activity and five participants allowed us to
photograph the result of their design. (See the photo section at the end of this summary for
photos of results).
Key Takeaways – Right-of-Way Activity
• The vast majority of participants prioritized greenspace. Most designs had tree-lined
boulevards separating the street and the pedestrian/bike infrastructure. Some also
included boulevards or central medians between the opposing vehicle lanes, in
addition to the behind-the-curb boulevards.
• All participants demonstrated a desire for bike infrastructure along Penn, including
sidewalks and bike lanes in their designs.
• When limited by space constraints, participants opted for greenspace
and pedestrian/bike infrastructure over parking. Some designs had parking on one
side of the street, but none had parking on both sides of the street.
Toolkit Activity Comments
Participants were asked to evaluate street design tools that are under consideration for
this project. Respondents were asked to vote for either one or two options in each of the
following categories: street layout configurations, curbside configurations, bikeway
configurations, major intersections, and minor intersections. This activity aids the project
team in evaluating the demand for each potential design tool and public support behind
certain design choices.
The following summarizes the data from the activity, as well as some general
comments from the public on the tools themselves.
Penn Central (62nd – 68th)
Page 54 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 34
Tool Votes
3-lane roadway 19 (66%)
2-lane divided roadway 10 (34%)
Boulevards 20 (80%)
On-street parking 5 (20%)
Sidewalk and trail 3 (7%)
Cycle track 28 (64%)
On-street bike lane 2 (4%)
Two-way cycle track 11 (25%)
Roundabout 21 (70%)
Traffic signal improvements 9 (30%)
Pedestrian medians 12 (22%)
Bumpouts 8 (14%)
Raised crossings 8 (14%)
Pedestrian-activated lights 28 (50%)
Residential Zone (68th – 75th)
Tool Votes
3-lane roadway 13 (57%)
2-lane divided roadway 10 (43%)
Boulevards 24 (96%)
On-street parking 1 (4%)
Sidewalk and trail 6 (12%)
Cycle track 29 (58%)
Page 55 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 35
On-street bike lane 1 (2%)
Two-way cycle track 14 (28%)
Roundabout 20 (69%)
Traffic signal improvements 9 (31%)
Pedestrian medians 17 (35%)
Bumpouts 4 (8%)
Raised crossings 9 (19%)
Pedestrian-activated lights 18 (38%)
Street layout configurations
• Voters preferred 3-lane roadway (the current configuration) over the 2-lane
divided roadway, however, both options received several votes.
• Multiple respondents stated that they want “no medians in the business area.”
o One person said they feel that the two-lane divided option is not practical for
the amount of traffic that Penn Avenue regularly experiences.
• One participant noted that traffic flows much better since the road re-striping in
2021.
Curbside configurations
• Voters had a strong preference for prioritizing boulevards over parking.
• A few participants wanted parking specifically included for certain businesses. One
person mentioned the section on the west side of Penn between 66th and
68th streets.
Bikeway configurations
• Cycle track was the most popular option by a wide margin, with two-way cycle track
and sidewalk and trail also receiving votes.
• On-street buffered bike lanes were not preferred and received less than a handful of
votes.
• One person commented that the bike bollards are not effective.
• Multiple people wanted distance between the bikers and the road.
• One person said that the two-way cycle track (like the one on 66th) is difficult for
bikers since they have to cross the street to get to their destination.
Page 56 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 36
• A few people requested that bike infrastructure not be included on Penn Avenue to
encourage bikers to use other parallel streets.
Major intersections (signalized today)
• For both Penn Central and the residential zone roundabouts were preferred over
traffic signal improvements by a ratio of about 2 to 1.
• A few people said that the intersection at Penn Avenue and 66th Street is too heavily-
trafficked for a roundabout, and needs to remain a signaled intersection.
• One person asked for the inclusion of “flashing lights” (RRFBs) at any potential
future roundabout for better bike safety.
• One person asked for improved crossings at 64th Street by Davanni’s.
• One person said that planners should keep in mind the blind spot caused by the
CVS retaining wall if building a roundabout.
• One driver wanted a left-turn signal added to the 69th Street intersection.
• One pedestrian wanted a longer walk signal at the 66th Street intersection.
Minor intersections (unsignalized today)
• Pedestrian-activated lights were the most popular safety improvement in this
category, with all other options (pedestrian medians, bumpouts, raised crossings)
also receiving several votes.
• Pedestrian medians were more popular in the residential zone than in the business
district.
• Two people suggested pairing raised crossings with pedestrian-activated lights.
Other
• One resident was worried about right-of-way acquisition during this project,
specifically near the 69th and 75th Street intersections.
Comment Card Comments
Open house attendees were invited to leave open-ended feedback on project comment
cards. The following are the comments submitted at the event.
• Looking forward to improved biking and walking opportunities. Like the flow with the
4/3 restriping.
• Can hardly wait to see it completed. When I have to visit a business on that part of
Penn, I bike on the sidewalk. There usually are only 1 or 2 pedestrians, so this isn’t a
huge problem. But at least one bike lane (preferably path) on one side of the road
would be awesome.
Page 57 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 37
• Thank you for taking pedestrians/cyclists into consideration! I primarily navigate
Richfield by foot, bike, or bus, so infrastructure that helps me be visible to cars and
cross distances efficiently is very valuable.
• Will there be native pollinators grown in green spaces please? More dividers in
streets? I’m disabled from a stroke in my 40s. Dividers to assist disabled (and
families with kids) to cross and stop safely. As our population ages, disabilities
increase. Safe and green!
• The best way to cross 62 is via the sidewalk of Penn Avenue. When I commute, I use
the west sidewalk of the street, and routinely run into other cyclists doing
something similar.
• Bury power lines. Currently poles are on the street! 2. 62th-67th mixed use bike/walk
path makes sense from a space perspective. 3. How does a planned
apartment building on 65th+66th (old bumper to bumper) tie into the project?
Page 58 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 38
Photos
Jan Youngquist, Tyler McLeete, and Matt Huggins discuss the ROW/design your own Penn
Avenue activity with three event attendees.
Page 59 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 39
Event guests vote with stickers for their preferred design tools.
Page 60 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 40
Steven Voelker and Joe Powers walk event attendees through the toolkit activity.
Page 61 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 41
Javier Whitaker-Castañeda provides a project overview in Spanish to an attendee at the
welcome table.
Page 62 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 42
Right-of-Way Activity Photos
Below are examples of the Penn Avenue designs that event attendees created using the
Right-of-Way activity. Participants were challenged to work within the constraints of the
right-of-way space available and weigh options including vehicle travel lanes, bike lanes,
pedestrian infrastructure, and greenspace.
A street design with a boulevard and a left-turn lane between the vehicle lanes, and
boulevards as buffers between cars and bikers/pedestrians.
A street design with a center turn lane, shoulder on one side of the road, and boulevards
between the road and the pedestrian and bike infrastructure.
Page 63 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 43
A right-of-way design that includes the road offset from the center of the right-of-way and a
two-way cycle track on one side of the road.
Page 64 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 44
A street design with boulevards, bike lanes, and sidewalks on both sides of the road.
The participant wanted the central channel to be used for both left-turn lanes and green
medians.
Page 65 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 45
A street design that considers incorporating parking into the design and recommends
adding greenspace wherever possible in the medians and around the parking areas.
Page 66 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 46
Appendix D: Phase 2 Pop-up Summary – Fare for All
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.
The roadway recently underwent a conversion from 4-lanes to 3-lanes in 2021, resulting in
a 30% reduction in crashes. Additional improvements are being considered to make the
corridor function better for all users, whether driving, walking, rolling, biking, or otherwise.
The project will also remove and replace outdated infrastructure, evaluate improvements
to intersection design, and consider aesthetic improvements to enhance the character of
the corridor.
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.
Project goals include:
• Create safe, secure, and comfortable places for everyone to travel, regardless of
their age or ability.
• Provide a safer experience for people walking, rolling, and biking.
• Improve bus travel and create more comfortable bus stops.
• Support the needs of nearby neighborhoods, local businesses, and institutions.
• Enhance the character of the Penn Central district.
Public Meeting Details
Project: Penn Avenue safety improvements - Richfield
Event Name: Pop-up 4: Richfield Fare for All
Event Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025
1 p.m. – 3 p.m.
Event Location: The Richfield Fare for All grocery discount event is held at Richfield
Community Center at 7000 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield, MN, 55423. The Penn
Page 67 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 47
Avenue engagement team set up a table near the entrance to the food sale event, in the
basement of the building. The team was able to engage about 50% of attendees of the Fare
for All event.
Public Meeting Goals
The goals of this engagement were to:
• Provide a project overview
• Inform public about what to expect
• Confirm public input from Phase 1: Experiences
• Collect more input on user experience
• Share draft goals and gather public input on priorities and trade-offs
• Discuss next steps
Event summary
How many people participated: 25 people participated in the engagement activity and
provided feedback.
Key Takeaways
During the event, residents voted for their preferences for different options for traffic
configuration, bikeway configurations, minor intersection treatments, major intersection
treatments, and curbside configurations. The following key takeaways summarize the
most common themes and priorities that emerged from public input:
• Participants preferred the current 3-lane roadway configuration to the 2-lane
divided roadway.
• Voters at this pop-up prioritized on-street parking to support small businesses on
Penn Ave.
• Voters preferred the two-way cycle track configuration, but bikeway votes were
spread.
• Roundabouts were popular; voters both pro and against had feedback about what
conditions and features make for a successful roundabout (cost, lighting,
consistent lanes, and safer pedestrian crossings.
• Pedestrian-activated lighting was the most popular minor intersection treatment.
• Bumpouts were the most divisive tool option; some supporters said that they slow
cars and provide greenspace, some detractors said that they are hard to plow
and cause people to park poorly.
Page 68 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 48
Toolkit Activity Comments
Participants were asked to evaluate street design tools that are under consideration for
this project. Respondents were asked to vote for either one or two options in each of the
following categories: street layout configurations, curbside configurations, bikeway
configurations, major intersections, and minor intersections. This activity aids the project
team in evaluating the demand for each potential design tool and public support behind
certain design choices.
The following summarizes the data from the activity, as well as some general comments
from the public on the tools themselves.
Penn Central (62nd – 68th)
Tool Votes
3-lane roadway 10 (71%)
2-lane divided roadway 4 (29%)
Boulevards 6 (37.5%)
On-street parking 10 (62.5%)
Sidewalk and trail 6 (26%)
Cycle track 4 (17%)
On-street bike lane 5 (22%)
Two-way cycle track 8 (35%)
Roundabout 11 (65%)
Traffic signal improvements 6 (35%)
Pedestrian medians 7 (22%)
Bumpouts 7 (22%)
Raised crossings 5 (16%)
Pedestrian-activated lights 13 (40%)
Page 69 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 49
Street layout configurations
• Voters greatly preferred the 3-lane roadway (71%), the current configuration, to the
2-lane divided roadway (29%).
• A few participants commented that the 3-lane roadway is “definitely better for
drivers and traffic flow.”
• One person asked for clear lines for right-turn lanes or left-turn lanes, to lessen the
danger from drivers who don’t use turn signals. The project team explained that
right-turn lanes are unlikely to be within the scope of the project, but that the design
team will be intentional about clearly marking lane divisions.
• One participant who voted for 2-lane divided roadway said they preferred
that option for the greenspace potential.
Curbside configurations
• Voters at this event had a preference for on-street
parking (62.5%) over boulevards (37.5%). (This deviates from the open house
results).
• Many participants referenced business impacts as a reason to prioritize keeping on-
street parking over boulevard space.
• One person said they voted for boulevards because they are in favor of anything that
creates space between cars and walkers.
• One person said they voted for boulevards because they give someone a job
(landscape maintenance), and parking does not.
Bikeway configurations
• The votes for bikeway configurations were spread across all four options; two-way
cycle track (35%) received the most votes.
• Multiple people said that they prefer an option where bikers are separated from
drivers.
• One couple wanted to choose an option with bikeways on the same level
as sidewalks but hesitated because of concerns about e-bikes hitting pedestrians.
They ultimately voted for on-street bike lanes.
• One person wanted to keep costs low for the bikeway portion of the project.
• One person wondered if the city could ticket bikers who don’t stay on the cycle
track.
Major intersections (signalized today)
• Roundabouts (65%) were more popular than traffic signal improvements.
Page 70 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 50
o Some voters said that they are in favor of roundabouts generally but that the
design team should be very selective about which intersections are
converted to roundabouts.
o One person selected traffic signal improvements because he did not want
the additional cost of constructing a roundabout to be added to the project.
o One person said that roundabouts cause problems when there is a 2-lane to
1-lane merge before or after the roundabout.
o One person said that their friend got hit at a roundabout by a driver who was
looking left towards approaching vehicles and didn’t look right to check for
pedestrians at the crosswalk. This person questioned why pedestrian
crossings are usually so close to the roundabouts.
o One person said that roundabouts need proper lighting for night driving or
driving in snowy conditions.
o A few people commented that roundabouts only work if people know how to
use them.
Minor intersections (unsignalized today)
• Pedestrian-activated lights (40%) were the most popular intersection treatment.
• Bumpouts (22%) were the most divisive intersection treatment, with strong
opinions both positive and negative
o One person said they love pedestrian bumpouts and that cars need to slow
down.
o One voter liked pedestrian bumpouts because of the potential for
greenspace.
o Two drivers who were adamantly against bumpouts said
that bumpouts result in cars parking at an angle instead of against
the curb, challenges for snowplows, and that they catch and hold debris
from storms.
• One voter said that pedestrian medians are bad for drivers; that
they don’t necessarily make it easier to see pedestrians and that it’s hard to make
a U-turn or a sharp left turn.
• One participant said that it’s “very essential to have the [pedestrian-activated]
lights.”
• One person said, “we need more speed bumps,” and that any improvements to
walkability would be good for the project.
Page 71 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 51
Other
• One driver said that there are too many street signs; that they clutter drivers’ view
and “it’s dangerous, it’s too much to focus on.”
• One participant said that regardless of the final design, it is important to keep the
street looking clean and sanitary.
• One resident said that people aren’t salting sidewalks, and that it gets slippery
by the Penn Avenue and 66th Street intersection.
Page 72 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 52
Photos
Project staff set up engagement materials near the entrance to the Fare for All event.
Page 73 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 53
Javier Whitaker-Castañeda records comments from two participants about bikeway
configuration options.
Page 74 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 54
Javier Whitaker-Castañeda walks a Fare for All attendee through the engagement activity
instructions.
Page 75 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 55
Appendix E: Business Outreach Summary – November
2026
Introduction
Hennepin County, in partnership with the City of Richfield, plans to reconstruct Penn
Avenue (CSAH 32) from Trunk Highway 62 to West 75th Street in 2028. As part of the design
process, the County is leading a comprehensive community and stakeholder engagement
process to better understand local needs, identify issues, and gather input to inform
roadway design elements.
Business engagement is an integral part of this broader effort. Through direct collaboration
with businesses along the corridor, the County and City is working to gather meaningful
feedback, address concerns early in the process, and build a sense of shared ownership in
the final design.
To support this work, Lance Bernard of TC2 has been assigned as the project’s dedicated
business liaison. Lance is available at any time to connect with businesses and property
owners to discuss the project, answer questions, and ensure their perspectives are
reflected throughout the planning process.
This document summarizes the business engagement strategies and feedback gathered
during Phases I and II.
Business engagement and communication goals
Engagement goals for businesses and property owners include:
• Share project information in timely and effective ways throughout the life of
the project.
• Provide all businesses along the corridor with the opportunity to share their
vision, experiences, and concerns using a range of communication and
engagement tools.
• Enhance collaboration between Hennepin County, the City of Richfield, and
businesses and property owners through ongoing coordination and
transparent communication.
Page 76 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 56
Email and phone outreach
Before engagement began, the project team compiled a contact list for businesses and
property owners. This list is being used to share project updates, reminders about ways to
participate, and how to get in touch with project staff. The contact list is a shared
document with Penn Central staff to ensure it is as comprehensive as possible, capturing a
wide range of relevant contacts.
Engagement Activities
Phases I and II of engagement incorporated a combination of online and in-person
activities. The business engagement activities are detailed below.
Door-to-door outreach
Date: August 4, 2025
Contacts made: Approximately 55 doors knocked
The project team visited approximately 55 businesses by walking the corridor. While door-
knocking, business owners were given a paper-copy of the project fact sheet and a QR
code/link to complete a business survey online. While door-knocking along the corridor,
the project team successfully verified contact information for businesses and property
owners and engaged in brief conversations to better understand their needs and concerns.
Business office hours
Date: October 22 and 23, 2025
Attendees: Eight
The project team was available for in-person meetings with businesses and property
owners to gather input and feedback. Office hours were held on Wednesday, October 22,
and Thursday, October 23, from 2 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Karl Herman’s State Farm Insurance
Office on Penn Avenue. Businesses were notified via email. Office hours offered
businesses and property owners an additional opportunity to participate in the planning
process.
One-on-one meetings
Date: Ongoing
Interviews: Nine
Outside of planned engagement activities, businesses and property owners were able to
set up one-on-one meetings to discuss the project in more detail and to share their
Page 77 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 57
feedback directly. Several one-on-one meetings were conducted both on-site and virtually.
This option remains an ongoing effort and is available to businesses and property owners
throughout the duration of the project.
Business survey
Date: August – October 2025
Responses: Seven
The project team utilized a project contact list to email businesses and property owners an
online survey. The business survey was designed to capture how businesses currently
utilize Penn Avenue and their vision for the future. Information collected through the survey
is being used to better understand business operations and needs. The online survey
received seven responses. Feedback closely aligned with what project staff heard through
door-to-door outreach, one-on-one meetings, and office hours.
Feedback summary
The project team engaged with approximately 55 businesses and property owners through
various engagement activities, including those who have participated in broader
community engagement events (e.g., pop-ups and open houses). Below is a summary of
common themes from their participation and input.
Construction concerns: Businesses and property owners expressed significant concerns
about whether construction of Penn Avenue would be done in phases, or if it would require
a closure of the street. They’ve expressed a strong desire to keep Penn Avenue open during
construction.
Recognizing the need for improvements: Businesses and property owners are generally
supportive of the project, citing poor infrastructure needs, access issues, site line
obstructions, and concerns for pedestrian and bicycle safety. Businesses and property
owners are eager to view and react to design options.
Common themes regarding infrastructure improvements include:
• There are mixed feelings for reducing the number of travel lanes, and a few
businesses still prefer a four-lane configuration. As future design options are
considered, it will be important to maintain efficient turning movements in
and out of businesses and to minimize any impacts to driveways.
• Roundabouts are not desired by most businesses and property owners
located in proximity to the Penn Avenue and 66th Street intersection.
Page 78 of 93
Penn Avenue safety improvements 58
However, there is support from the community who recognize their safety
and traffic management benefits.
• On-street parking along Penn Avenue where permitted, specifically in front
of businesses, is viewed as an important amenity that should be retained.
The desire to expand on-street parking was also voiced by business owners
operating in areas where on-street parking is currently available.
• Poor visibility and obstructed site lines are concerns for businesses who
have direct access to Penn Avenue. This issue was largely expressed by
businesses that rely on service vehicles (e.g., plumbers), frequent staff
movement, and regular deliveries (e.g., gas stations and grocery stores) that
come and go throughout the day.
• Businesses and property owners are concerned about potential impacts to
off-street parking that may result in a loss.
• The impact or the removal of business signs is a concern for many
businesses. They would like to know who will replace their signs if they are
removed.
Neighborhood and commercial aesthetic: Some of the businesses expressed a strong
interest in enhancing the overall appearance and aesthetic of the area (e.g., building
facades), while preserving its neighborhood character. Project staff communicated that
building improvements fall outside the scope of the roadway project. However, there
remains a consistent desire for enhanced landscaping and lighting along the corridor that
could enhance the aesthetics of the corridor.
Page 79 of 93
City Council Meeting 3/10/2026
Agenda Section: Item Discussion
Agenda Item: 2.b.
Report Prepared By:
Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer
Department Director:
Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
Item for Consideration:
Proposed Traffic Calming Policy Discussion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Traffic Calming Policy was submitted by Council Member Burk during the 2025
policy cycle, and was determined to be a top priority of the Council as a whole. Staff is
looking for clarity on the purpose and scope of the policy and funding options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Provide direction on the proposed development of a traffic calming policy.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Reducing vehicle speed on neighborhood streets has been a frequent request of the
City since its incorporation in 1950. Historically, the City has managed requests like this
through the City's Traffic Control Committee.
Generally, the City has focused traffic-calming efforts on arterial streets as they have
been reconstructed, through reductions in roadway width, addition of medians,
roundabouts, vertical elements, and lane reductions. These efforts have largely led to
reduced speeds on these roads (although many do have design speeds of 35 mph due
to County and state requirements). The upcoming Nicollet Avenue project includes
several measures intended to slow traffic both on Nicollet Avenue and as drivers turn
onto side streets.
Recent reconstructions have piloted new designs and concepts to attempt to slow traffic
around local schools, including both Safe Routes to School projects constructed in
2025. The project outside of Centennial Elementary School has the City's first raised
crosswalks. Data collected by the City and reports from school district staff have
indicated that these raised crosswalks did slow vehicles down, with the average vehicle
speed dropping from 24 mph to 20 mph in front of the school and reduced the
percentage of drivers exceeding 25 mph from 35% to 15%.
Other past examples of traffic-calming exploration in the City include the 2001 70th
Street Traffic Calming Study, where City staff piloted multiple options for the
neighborhood, but consensus was not reached on how to proceed. Corner bumpouts,
intended to slow traffic approaching residential intersections, have also been installed in
several locations as part of the metro sewer construction project (mid-2010s) in
southeast Richfield.
Page 80 of 93
EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
Strategic considerations: The City strives to build infrastructure that is climate resilient
and supports service needs. Potential benefits of a successful program include
increases in ped-bike mode share and reduced traffic speed and noise in
neighborhoods. Depending on implementation tools, potential challenges include
increased emergency response time, additional hindrances to removing snow from
residential streets, and additional maintenance required on any new infrastructure.
Equitable considerations: A potential challenge in developing a traffic-calming policy
is creating a policy that allows residents to participate in the process, benefits those who
are most at risk, and does not create a cost or time burden for residents who want to
participate.
POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.)
Richfield's Complete Streets Policy seeks to create safe, accessible, convenient, and
comfortable travel for all users of all ages and abilities. Neighborhood Traffic Calming is
also identified as a key goal in the City's Active Transportation Action Plan.
CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
Staff is seeking to understand the desired outcomes and potential funding for a policy
before moving into a process to develop a Traffic Calming Policy.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for policy implementation has yet to be determined. Council Member Burk had
originally suggested the residents petition for the projects and provide a percentage of
the funding. Funding details need to be discussed and determined, ideally before effort
is put into developing a policy.
Depending on the scale of the policy, a consultant may be needed to manage the
program annually.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
None at this time.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
None.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2026-03-10 Traffic Calming Presentation
Page 81 of 93
Traffic Calming DiscussionCity Council Work Session Matt Hardegger, PEMarch 10th, 2026 Transportation EngineerPage 82 of 93
Background• 2025 Policy Proposal Review– Petition system with assessments• Previous Council Discussion– Currently utilize Traffic Control Committee– Need to identify a funding source and set an annual budget.Page 83 of 93
Richfield’s Reality• Richfield was built out in the 1950s, during an era where sprawl was enabled by cars• As a result, Richfield’s local streets:– Are wide (32’-36’)– Have low traffic volumes– Do not have sidewalks– Have low street parking utilizationWhy are residents contacting the City Council about speeding?Page 84 of 93
Richfield’s RealityPage 85 of 93
Existing Conditions – Median Speeds Page 86 of 93
Crashes: 2021-2025Page 87 of 93
Where We Focus Traffic Calming• School Areas– Grant-funded SRTS Projects• Reconstruction Projects• Traffic Control Committee– Enforcement– Speed Feedback SignsPage 88 of 93
Additional Considerations• Scale vs cost– ~100 miles of local roads in the city– ~950 long blocks– ~950 short blocks– ~1000 intersections• Driver familiarity• Traffic Displacement/Unintended ConsequencesPage 89 of 93
What are other cities doing?• Minneapolis• Rochester• Brooklyn Center• Bloomington• Woodbury• MoorheadPage 90 of 93
Typical Costs• Mini Traffic Circle: $15k to $30k• Speed Hump – Asphalt: $6k to $7k– Concrete: $35k to $40k• Raised Crossing: $45k to $100k• Curb Extension: $40k to $80k• Plastic Bollard: ~$50-100/bollardPage 91 of 93
Budget• Current Active Transportation allocations (Franchise Fees)– ADA Improvements: $200,000– Bicycle Improvements: $40,000– Pedestrian Improvements: $40,000Page 92 of 93
Discussion• Problem Statement?• How should staff proceed? • What should we be prioritizing?• How could it be funded?Page 93 of 93