2026-07-28 WS City Council Agenda
Richfield City Council Agenda
July 28, 2026 -- 5:30 PM
Richfield Municipal Center
Bartholomew Conference Room
6700 Portland Avenue South
1. Call to Order
2. Item Discussion
a. Hennepin County Penn Avenue Reconstruction Project Design and Budget Update
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 91
City Council Meeting 7/28/2026
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:
Hennepin County Penn Avenue Reconstruction Project Design and Budget
Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hennepin County is currently preparing for the fourth Penn Avenue open house in mid-
August. Following the third open house in May, the Transportation Commission has
provided recommendations for design items to include in the project.
This work session will discuss the recommended items and associated city budget
impacts:
These items are:
• Bikeway and sidewalk design
• Intersection Design - Currently signalized intersections (64th, 69th, 75th)
• Intersection Design - Unsignalized intersections
• Additional Pedestrian/Bike Safety items
Other topics of discussion will include street parking and potential value engineering
items proposed by Hennepin County.
Discussion will be led by city staff with county staff available to answer questions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Provide staff and county design team with direction on design and budget-related
items for the Penn Avenue Reconstruction Project.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
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 Richard Church; a second Open House was held in
November 2025 at Sheridan Hills Elementary School; and a third Open House was held
in May 2026 at Richfield Middle School. The fourth Open House is scheduled for August
19, 2026 at St Richard Church.
The Transportation Commission has been meeting with project staff approximately
Page 2 of 91
every other month since mid-2025, and has been working to develop preferred design
options. Prior to bringing forward some of these items at Open House 4 for public
feedback, they need to be vetted by the City Council due to right-of-way impacts and/or
cost implications for the city.
Hennepin County is currently revising their Cost Participation Policy. All cost
shares presented in this report are based on the current policy. The future policy
is expected to be adopted in 2027.
Street Parking
A feasibility study of street parking was requested during the March 10 City Council
Work Session. A memo is attached to this staff report with a more detailed discussion.
Staff recommendation: Street parking included south of 66th only.
Bikeway Design
The three options presented for bikeway design were one-way cycletracks with
sidewalks on both sides of the street, a two-way cycletrack with sidewalks on both sides
of the street, and shared use paths on both sides of the street. Surveys from in-person
and online open house attendees significantly favor the one-way cycletracks. One-way
cycletracks are known to bicyclists in Richfield and provide separation for all modes of
travel. One-way cycletracks are estimated to cost approximately $2.1 million more for
the length of the corridor compared to shared use paths (city share: $600,000).
Staff recommendation: One-way cycletracks
Transportation Commission recommendation: One-way cycletracks
Intersection Design - Currently Signalized Intersections
Signal and roundabout options were presented for the 64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th
Street intersections. At 75th Street, a two-way stop intersection with a pedestrian-
activated flashing yellow signal was also presented.
64th Street and 69th Street will require similar amounts of right-of-way acquisition for
both a signal and a roundabout; the comparable costs for roundabouts vs signals at
these intersections are similar. At 75th Street, the roundabout option has a larger
footprint than the signal, and is approximately $500,000 more expensive than the signal
option ($150,000 city share).
At 64th Street, county staff have engaged Fraser, Davanni's, and Mother Duck Learning
Center. Engineering staff have discussed concepts with Fire Department leadership and
Richfield Public Schools. Richfield Public Schools and Fraser support the roundabout.
The Fire Department has reasonable accommodation requests for a roundabout, and
these will be coordinated with Hennepin County. County staff are meeting with
Davanni's and Mother Duck the week prior to this Work Session, and staff will have an
update from those discussions at the meeting.
Staff Recommendation: Roundabouts
Transportation Recommendation: Roundabouts
Minor intersections
Options were presented for left turn lanes (with and without pedestrian medians),
pedestrian medians with left turns allowed but no dedicated lane, and closed medians
where left turns are not allowed.
Page 3 of 91
Public preference from the in-person open house had a strong preference for left turn
lanes with pedestrian medians and low support for closed medians. The online survey
had a split preference between left turn lanes with pedestrian medians and closed
medians.
Adding pedestrian medians to left turn lanes at intersections does require some
substantial right-of-way acquisition and impacts to both residential and commercial
properties. Where private parking lots are impacted, this may result in increased right-
of-way acquisition costs. Adding medians at all minor intersections is expected to cost
approximately $760,000 ($280,000 city share).
Staff recommendation:
• Left Turn Lanes with Pedestrian Median:
o 74th Street, 72nd Street, 70th Street
• Left Turn Lanes without any median:
o 70 1/2 Street (issues with driveways at the intersection), 68th Street
(impacts to gas station and adjacent parking lots), 65th Street
(impacts to adjacent parking lots), 63rd Street north leg* (issues with
driveways and impacts to adjacent parking lots)
▪ *63rd Street south leg can accommodate a pedestrian median
without a left turn lane since there are no driveways to turn left
into for northbound traffic between Aldi and the northern
Lunds driveway.
• Closed Medians:
o 73rd Street (Future Bike Route), 71st Street (T intersection at
cemetery), 67th Street (business district)
Transportation Commission Recommendation:
• Left Turn Lanes with Pedestrian Median:
o 74th Street, 72nd Street, 70 1/2 Street, 70th Street, 68th Street, 65th
Street, 63rd Street
• Closed Medians:
o 73rd Street (Future Bike Route), 71st Street (T intersection at
cemetery), 67th Street (business district)
Additional Items to consider:
• Pedestrian Activated Flashing Lights (RRFBs)
o Current concept assumes two intersections will have RRFBs with cost
split 50/50 between city and county (at 64th and 75th Streets)
o Any additional RRFBs would be entirely city cost and city maintenance
responsibility.
o RRFBs typically cost $15,000-$25,000 per leg of an intersection to
construct.
o For the 9 intersections with existing city-owned RRFBs, annual RRFB
maintenance takes a significant amount of staff time, averages $30,000 of
Page 4 of 91
materials and contractor time, and can cost $10,000 per incident to repair
a knockdown (3-4 citywide per year on average)
o Staff Recommendation: Include RRFB at all compact roundabouts
for corridor consistency. Include RRFB at any intersections north of
66th Street that do not have a pedestrian median constructed.
• Tabled Crosswalks along Penn Avenue
o Design feature was included in Nicollet Avenue design, intended to keep
bikeway relatively level when crossing side street intersections and
provide a traffic calming effect for vehicles turning on to the side streets
o Cost split would be 50/50 between city and county
o Adding tabled crosswalks along the entire corridor would cost
approximately $260,000 ($130,000 city share)
o Staff Recommendation: Include tabled crosswalks along Penn
Avenue
• Bikeway Connection between 75th and 76th Streets
o Current concept includes no construction south of the 75th Street
intersection tie-down
o Cost split would be 100% city
o Estimated cost is approximately $200,000
o Staff Recommendation: Include bikeway connection to 76th Street
EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
Strategic Considerations: This Penn Avenue redesign is an opportunity to provide city
infrastructure that supports service needs and is climate resilient, and design decisions
need to be made through a lens of sustainable infrastructure financing.
Equity Considerations: Penn Avenue is a very diverse corridor, with a high amount of
the city's affordable business space and naturally occurring affordable housing. Creating
safer non-motorized travel options while maintaining the existing vehicular level of
service allows for safer travel opportunities for residents both with and without access to
a car.
POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.)
• Applicable policies: Complete Streets Policy, Public Engagement Policy
• Additional planning documents: Active Transportation Action Plan, Safe Routes
to School Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan
• All documents can be found here: https://www.richfieldmn.gov/778/The-Big-
Picture---Bicycle-Pedestrian-Pla
CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• County consultant staff are preparing layouts and materials for Open House 4 on
August 19th.
• County staff intends to bring a layout to City Council for concurrence in October.
• An approved final layout is needed to begin the right-of-way acquisition process
Page 5 of 91
in advance of expected 2028 construction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
• The city's 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Plan estimates a city cost share of
$12.8 million. The current estimate based on the project design and city utility
needs is $11.4 million.
• There are up to $730,000 of additional consideration items that could be added,
and up to $1.07 million of value engineering cost reductions available.
• All cost share estimates are based on Hennepin County's current Cost
Participation Policy. That policy is currently being revised and will likely result in
changes to how cost splits are calculated. The new policy is expected to be
adopted in 2027.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
None at this time
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
None.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Slide Deck
2. Boards_OH4_PennAve_v0.5 (1)
3. Intersection Options Handout
4. Intersection Impacts with Pedestrian Medians
5. Parking Memo
6. Penn Ave_66th to 63rd_Layout_072426_v1
7. Penn Ave Phase 3 Engagement Summary
Page 6 of 91
Penn Avenue
City Council Work Session Matt Hardegger, PE
July 28th, 2026 Transportation Engineer
Page 7 of 91
To-Do List
• Confirm:
– Typical Section
– Major Intersection Designs
– Minor Intersection Designs
– Street Parking Approach
• Discuss:
– Current Project Cost
Page 8 of 91
Schedule
Page 9 of 91
Phase 3 Engagement Summary
• Activities:
– Open House 3 – Richfield Middle School
– Online Survey/Interactive Map
– Lunds Pop Up
• ~420 Interactions:
– 85 open house attendees
– 100 survey participants
– 200 website visits
– 20 pop up participants
– 15 business owner discussions
Page 10 of 91
Bikeway Options
One-way cycle track
• 70% public support in each segment
•Recommended by Transportation
Commission
Option 2: Dual shared-use path
• 8% support in each segment
• Lower cost alternative but does not
provide separated space for bicyclists
and pedestrians
Option 3: Two-way cycle track
• 22% support in each segment
Page 11 of 91
Major Intersections – 64
th, 69th,
75th
• * Crash frequencies entering intersection
• Rate = Overall per 1 million vehicles
• FA = Fatal and severe per 100 million vehicles
• Roundabouts reduce conflict points by 75%, reduce vehicle delay and travel time, reduce severe
crashes, and provide a traffic calming benefit by reducing vehicle speeds
Page 12 of 91
Major Intersections: 64th Street
•Recommended by
Transportation
Commission
• School District Preferred
Design
• Remaining questions:
– Property impacts,
especially to parking lot in
NE corner
– Design coordination with
Fire Department for
Station 2 exit
Page 13 of 91
Major Intersections: 69th Street
•Recommended by
Transportation
Commission
• Remaining questions:
– Property impacts,
especially retaining
wall in NW corner
Page 14 of 91
Major Intersections: 75th Street
•Recommended by
Transportation
Commission
• School District Preferred
Design
• Three Rivers Park
District Preferred Design
(Nine Mile Creek
Regional Trail)
• Remaining questions:
– Property impacts,
especially NW and NE
corners
Page 15 of 91
Minor Intersections
• Left Turn Lanes +
Pedestrian Median
– Public Preference
–Transportation
Commission
Recommendation at:
• 74
th, 72nd, 70 ½, 70th,
68th, 65th, and 63rd
– Requires 10-14’ of
additional right of way
acquisition at
intersections with 66-
foot right of way
• 74
th, 70 ½, 70th, 68th,
65th, 63rd
• Can substantially impact
parking lots north of 68th
Page 16 of 91
Minor Intersections
• Closed Medians
– Restricts left turns in and
out of minor streets
–Transportation
Commission
Recommendation at:
• 73
rd
– Future Bike Route
• 71
st
– Three-leg intersection
at cemetery
• 67
th
– increase pedestrian
crossing ability with
street parking within
business district
Page 17 of 91
Street Parking – South of 66th
6700 Block
Net Street Parking Change: 0
Existing: 15
Proposed: 15
1 off-street stall impacted
Estimated city cost: $176,500
Cost per On-street Space: $11,766
6600 Block
Net Street Parking Change: +14
Existing: 10
Proposed: 24
7 off-street stalls impacted
Estimated city cost: $371,250
Cost per On-street Space: $15,468
Page 18 of 91
Street Parking – North of 66th
6500 Block
Net Street Parking Change: Up to 8
Existing: 0
Proposed: Up to 8
No off-street stalls impacted
Estimated city cost: $20,000
6400 Block
Net Street Parking Change: 8
Existing: 0
Proposed: 8
20 off-street stalls impacted
Estimated city cost: $650,000
Cost per On-street Space: $81,250
6300 Block
Net Street Parking Change: 0
Existing: 0
Proposed: 11
11 off-street stalls impacted
Estimated city cost: $163,000
Page 19 of 91
Cost Discussion
•All following slides are based on
Hennepin County’s currently adopted
2020 Cost Share Policy
•Revisions to this policy are currently
ongoing and may be adopted in 2027
•Expected cost splits will likely change
from this presentation, but staff do not
know exactly how
Page 20 of 91
Current Cost Estimate
Notes:
• Hennepin County has applied for $10M in Regional Solicitation Funding
• In County’s 2025-2029 CIP, estimated split was $19.6M County and $6M
City. This did not include public utility costs.
• City’s 2027-2030 CIP sets budget of $12.8M for city share
• *Undergrounding is eligible for partial county cost share through a county
grant program
Total ProjectRichfield –
Water/Sewer
Richfield –
Road/Storm
Hennepin
County
$20.95M$2.75M$3.4M$14.8MConstruction
$5.35M$0.75M$0.9M$3.7MContingency
$3M$1.5M$1.5MROW
$4.85M$0.6M$0.75M$3.5MEngineering
$0.75M$0.75M*Undergrounding
Overhead Power
$34.9M$4.1M$7.3M$23.5MTotals
Page 21 of 91
Additional Items to Consider
TotalCity of RichfieldHennepin County
$0.12M$0.12MPed Activated Crossing
Lights at 69th Street*
$0.26M$0.13M$0.13MTabled Crosswalks along
Penn*
$0.2MConnect Bikeway between
75th and 76th Streets
$0.76M$0.28M$0.48M
Pedestrian Medians with
Left Turn Bays at Minor
Intersections*
#Additional Parking north of
66th Street
TBD (100%)Boulevard Trees
TBD (66%)TBD (33%)Enhanced
Landscaping/Streetscaping
$1.14M$0.73M (#)$0.61MTotal
*Transportation Commission Recommendation
#Cost per on-street stall is approximately $10-15k in the 6500 and 6300 blocks and $80k in the
6400 block
On-street parking south of 66th Street is included in the current base cost estimate
Page 22 of 91
Potential Value Engineering
Items
TotalCity of RichfieldHennepin County
-$0.4M-$0.2M-$0.2MNo Ped Scale
Lighting
-$2.1M-$0.6M-$1.5M
Shared Use Paths
instead of One-Way
Cycletrack
-$0.5M-$0.15M-$0.35M
75th Street - Signal
instead of compact
roundabout
-$0.24M-$0.12M-$0.12M
No Ped Activated
Crossing Lights at
64th and 75th
-$3.24M-$1.07M-$2.17MTotal
Page 23 of 91
Discussion
Page 24 of 91
Appendix – Design Item
Examples
Page 25 of 91
One-Way Cycletrack
66th Street at 12th Ave
Page 26 of 91
Two-Way Cycletrack
3700 block of Bryant Ave
Page 27 of 91
Dual Shared Use Path
Minnetonka Blvd at St Louis Park City Hall
Page 28 of 91
Compact Roundabout
Lyndale Avenue at 67th Street
Page 29 of 91
Left Turn Lanes With Pedestrian
Median
Portland Avenue at 73rd Street
Page 30 of 91
Left Turn Lanes Without
Pedestrian Median
66th Street at 11th Ave
Page 31 of 91
Closed Median
66th Street at 10th Ave
Page 32 of 91
Pedestrian Activated Crossing
Light (RRFB*)
*Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Lyndale Avenue at 75th Street
Page 33 of 91
Tabled Crosswalk
73rd Street at Bloomington Avenue
Page 34 of 91
Page 35 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvementsCounty Road 32 in RichfieldThings to consider about intersectionsIntersection control in which traffic flows in one direction, around a circle.Potential applicability64th, 69th, 75th StreetsIntersection control in which traffic flow is controlled by traffic lights.Potential applicability62nd, 64th, 66th, 69th, 75th StreetsRoundabout Traffic signalConsiderations:Encourages safer vehicle speeds and reduces crash severityImproves traffic flowShorter crossing distances for pedestriansRequires additional design considerations for bike facilitiesConsiderations:Efficient traffic operationsHigher crash severity compared to roundaboutsCan lead to more vehicle delayPedestrian crossings designatedPage 36 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvementsCounty Road 32 in RichfieldThings to consider about intersectionsRaised center median extending through an intersection and limiting left turns.Potential applicability67th, 68th, 70 1/2, 71st, 72nd, 73rd, 74th StreetsRaised center medians at intersections/crosswalks with a space wide enough to stop in the middle.Potential applicability63rd, 65th, 67th, 68th, 70th, 70 1/2, 71st, 72nd, 73rd, 74th StreetsRight-in/Right-out(closed median)Median crossing(pedestrian refuge median)Considerations:Improves safety by minimizing potential crash pointsRestricts vehicle access at cross streets and driveways (right-in/right-out only)Shorter crossing distances for pedestriansOpportunity to add plantingsConsiderations:Better manages vehicle speedsOpportunity to add left turn lanesShorter crossing distances for pedestriansOpportunity to add plantingsPage 37 of 91
W 72ND STLEGEND
PAVED ROADWAY
SIDEWALK
RAISED MEDIANS, CURBS &
BICYCLE FACILITY
BOULEVARDS
DRIVEWAYS MEDIAN REFUGE
BAYS WITHOUT
LEFT-TURN
OUTSIDE LIMITS OF
EXISTING R/W
PROPERTY LINE
72nd Street
100050
SCALE IN FEET
20-JUL-2026
193807375\07_Preliminary Design\05_Design\Figures\0322120700_Penn Intersections.dgn
DRAFT INTERSECTION CONCEPT
Penn Avenue (CSAH 32) Safety Improvements
Job #032_2120700
Page 38 of 91
W 70 1/2 STW 70TH STLEGEND
PAVED ROADWAY
SIDEWALK
RAISED MEDIANS, CURBS &
BICYCLE FACILITY
BOULEVARDS
DRIVEWAYS MEDIAN REFUGE
BAYS WITHOUT
LEFT-TURN
OUTSIDE LIMITS OF
EXISTING R/W
PROPERTY LINE
70th Street
100050
SCALE IN FEET
DRAFT INTERSECTION CONCEPT
Penn Avenue (CSAH 32) Safety Improvements
21-JUL-2026
193807375\07_Preliminary Design\05_Design\Figures\0322120700_Penn Intersections.dgn
Job #032_2120700 Page 39 of 91
W 68TH STLEGEND
PAVED ROADWAY
SIDEWALK
RAISED MEDIANS, CURBS &
BICYCLE FACILITY
BOULEVARDS
DRIVEWAYS MEDIAN REFUGE
BAYS WITHOUT
LEFT-TURN
OUTSIDE LIMITS OF
EXISTING R/W
PROPERTY LINE
68th Street
100050
SCALE IN FEET
DRAFT INTERSECTION CONCEPT
Penn Avenue (CSAH 32) Safety Improvements
20-JUL-2026
193807375\07_Preliminary Design\05_Design\Figures\0322120700_Penn Intersections.dgn
Job #032_2120700 Page 40 of 91
W 65TH STLEGEND
PAVED ROADWAY
SIDEWALK
RAISED MEDIANS, CURBS &
BICYCLE FACILITY
BOULEVARDS
DRIVEWAYS MEDIAN REFUGE
BAYS WITHOUT
LEFT-TURN
OUTSIDE LIMITS OF
EXISTING R/W
PROPERTY LINE
65th Street
100050
SCALE IN FEET
DRAFT INTERSECTION CONCEPT
Penn Avenue (CSAH 32) Safety Improvements
20-JUL-2026
193807375\07_Preliminary Design\05_Design\Figures\0322120700_Penn Intersections.dgn
Job #032_2120700 Page 41 of 91
City Council Memorandum
Date: July 21, 2026 Item No. 11 To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager CC: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director
Subject: Penn Avenue Reconstruction – Penn Central Parking Purpose
Provide City Council Members with updates on the feasibility to maintain street parking on Penn Avenue south of 66th Street and add street parking north of 66th Street. This is
a follow up to discussions at the March 10th, 2026, City Council Work Session in
advance of the July 28th, 2026, City Council Work Session. Staff are confident moving forward with expanding the on-street parking availability south of 66th Street, but want to ensure that Council Members understand the tradeoffs
in the 6600 block. Staff are requesting feedback on how to proceed with the limited
options available north of 66th Street. Background
Hennepin County is currently in the process of designing a reconstruction project on Penn Avenue between Highway 62 and 75th Street. As part of the public engagement phase, the project team presented at the March 10th, 2026 Work Session. At that meeting, City Council directed the project team to explore the possibility of expanding
on-street parking options between Highway 62 and 68th Street. Currently, there are spaces for 10 (approximately) legally parked vehicles between 66th and 67th Street and 15 legally parked vehicles between 67th Street and 68th Street. There are no legal on-street spaces north of 66th Street at this time.
Hennepin County Cost Participation Policy Considerations
Under the County’s current policy, all costs associated with on-street parking are 100% borne by municipalities. The city cost is based off the increase from a “base” concept without any parking. This includes any additional pavement width (including dirt work beneath the pavement),
right of way acquisition, and if any retaining walls become necessary due to the wider roadway. The costs for additional pavement are typically low, the costs for additional
Page 42 of 91
retaining walls are typically moderate, and the costs for additional right of way are typically high.
For example, if the “base concept” does not require any additional right of way, and the
addition of parking requires a 10-foot easement, the city is responsible for the cost of that 10-foot easement. If the base concept requires acquiring a 5-foot strip of right of way, and the addition of parking requires an additional 10-foot easement (for a total of 15 feet), the City and County would split the cost 50/50 for the first 5-foot easement, and
the City would be 100% responsible for the additional 10-foot easement.
Design Analysis – 6700, 6600, 6400 Blocks Project staff have developed design concepts that include and omit parking.
Block
Existing
On
Street
Spaces
Potential On
Street
Spaces
Net Street
Parking
Change
Lost Off
Street
Spaces
Net
Total
Parking
Change
Total
Construction/ROW
Cost1
Cost Per On
Street Space1
6700 15 15 0 1 -1 $176,500.00 $11,766.67
6600 10 24 14 7 7 $371,250.00 $15,468.75
6400 0 8 8 20 -12 $650,000.00 $81,250.00
1. 100% city cost per current Hennepin County Cost Participation Policy
6700 block Project staff estimate that the new road can be constructed to accommodate 15 on-street parking stalls on the west side of Penn Avenue. The project will require the removal of one off-street parking stall (XXXX Penn Avenue).
6600 block Project staff estimate that the project can accommodate 24 parking stalls combined between the east and west side of the roadway. This is an increase of 14 on-street stalls, but does require the elimination of 7 off-street stalls (6621-6637 Penn Avenue).
6500 block Parking on the 6500 block has not been considered to date due to the turn lane needs for southbound traffic and the potential for a future BRT platform on the east side of
Penn, north of the intersection.
6400 block Project staff estimate that up to 8 on-street stalls could be added in this block, however this would require eliminating 20 off-street stalls. This would decrease the block’s
available parking by 12 stalls.
Design Analysis – 6300 Block
Street parking availability is dependent on the intersection configuration at 64th Street and access consolidation of the multiple driveways on the block. Driveway combinations would increase the potential number of on-street spaces
available but would decrease the total number of off-street spaces. Similarly, a
Page 43 of 91
roundabout at the 64th Street intersection would decrease the number of off-street spaces.
A full build out of on-street spaces and driveway combinations would result in a net-zero
change in parking on the block, with 11 new on-street spaces offsetting the loss of 11 off-street spaces. Without any driveway combinations, a maximum of 4 on-street spaces can be added without the loss of any off-street spaces. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommend constructing on-street parking on the 6600 and 6700 blocks of Penn.
This would maintain the existing street parking on the 6700 block and expand the available street parking on the 6600 block. Staff do not recommend adding street parking on the 6500 and 6400 blocks of Penn.
Any street parking added in the 6500 block would likely be removed if Penn is selected
for a BRT line, and the 6400 block is too cost-prohibitive to consider. On the 6300 block, staff also do not recommend adding street parking. Moving 11 parking spaces from small, private lots to on-street, public parking at city cost would
provide a shared public parking area that has been discussed as a desire at previous
Council Work Sessions, but has potential to add significant cost to the project since the right of way acquisition would require compensating property owners for the loss of any off-street parking spaces they previously had. This could also result in some businesses losing all their exclusive off-street parking.
Staff will also note that while parked cars can have a traffic calming effect on a roadway, empty parking stalls can increase vehicle speeds by creating a wider travel surface. Questions
Any questions can be directed to Transportation Engineer Matt Hardegger at mhardegger@richfieldmn.gov or 612-861-9792.
Page 44 of 91
Page 45 of 91
Page 46 of 91
Page 47 of 91
No Street Parking Concept - 66th St - 63rd St | Hennepin County Public Works
CSAH 32 - Penn Ave Safety Improvements
MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTYPRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
c:\pw_working\infra01\miswanson\d0227233\0322120700_cl001.dgnmiswanson7/24/2026 N
engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this map.��
This map (i) is furnished "AS IS" with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal,Disclaimer:
Publication date:
W 65TH STW 64TH STW 63RD STW 66TH STPage 48 of 91
Penn Avenue Safety
Improvements—Richfield
Phase 3 Engagement Summary
July 21, 2026
Page 49 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 2
Phase 3: Concept Alternatives
Hennepin County, in partnership with the City of Richfield, plans to reconstruct Penn
Avenue (County Road 32) from Highway 62 to West 75th Street. During the design process,
the project team conducted community and stakeholder engagement; phase 3 of this
engagement process took place from February 2026 to July 2026. Construction is
scheduled to start in 2028.
Phase 3 Engagement Activities
• Online survey on Hennepin County’s website about concept alternatives for
bikeway concepts and specific intersection designs
• One open-house-style public meeting
• One local pop-up event
• Project outreach and promotion directing people to the project webpage
The online survey registered 199 webpage visits and 100 survey submissions. Over 80
people attended the public meeting, and 21 people provided feedback on the project at the
pop-up event. This adds up to a total of over 200 participants in Phase 3 of engagement
who provided feedback on either bikeway options, intersection design alternatives, or
both. To this point, over 1,100 people have engaged directly with the project engagement
activities, and several hundred more have learned about the project through mailers, the
project website, and other communications.
Engagement Goals
• Provide project background and summaries of earlier engagement phases
• Confirm results of tool preference from Phase 2
• Solicit feedback on bikeway options (one-way cycle track, two-way cycle track, and
dual shared-use path)
• Share confirmed designs for the Penn Avenue intersections at 62nd Street and 66th
Street
• Share intersection design concept alternatives and gauge public preference
Project Promotion
The project team continued some components from the promotion and awareness
campaigns from Phases 1 and 2. The project team:
• Maintained the BeHeard website with information about upcoming project events
Page 50 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 3
• Sent a postcard mailer promoting public meeting #3 to 3,867 residents living within
a half-mile radius of the project area (see figures 1 and 2)
• Posted updates to Hennepin County’s social media channels to drive traffic to the
project website and attendees to the project events
• Reinstalled yard signs and sidewalk stickers from Phases 1 and 2 to drive traffic to
project website and attendees to the project events
• Continued personalized business outreach to new businesses and businesses that
opted in to regular project engagement
By offering virtual engagement options and personalized business outreach, the project
team ensured that residents and business owners who were unable to attend the in-
person events for various reasons still had the opportunity to provide input. Table 1
includes details of the events conducted.
Event Organization/Location Date
Public Meeting #3 Richfield Middle School May 19, 2026
Pop-up Lunds & Byerlys June 30, 2026
Online Survey beheardhennepin.org/penn-avenue May 19, 2026, to July
10, 2026
Business Outreach Penn Central district June 2025-ongoing
Table 1: Community Engagement Events
Engagement Activities
See Appendix A, figures 3-12, for more information about engagement activities.
Summary of Phase 3 Findings
Key Takeaways
Feedback on intersection design alternatives
• The public preferred roundabouts over traffic signals at the major intersections
(64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street) with over 70% of the total vote.
Minor intersections
• For intersections where closed medians were not a proposed alternative,
pedestrian medians with left-turn lanes won over 70% of the vote; in cases where
Page 51 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 4
close medians were an option, the majority of participants were split between those
two options.
• Respondents slightly favored closed medians over pedestrian medians with left-
turn lanes at 67th Street, 68th Street, 70 ½ Street, and 71st Street.
• Respondents slightly favored pedestrian medians with left-turn lanes over closed
median at 72nd Street and 73rd Street.
• Online survey respondents were much more in favor of closed medians than in-
person respondents.
Bikeway options preferences
• One-way cycle tracks were the preferred option across all three context zones.
• The public is generally excited for better crossing options for improved bike and
pedestrian safety.
Miscellaneous takeaways
• Many people requested improved greenery along the corridor. Requests included
shade trees, shrubbery, boulevard plants, and native plants.
• Road users have specific concerns about key conflict points, including the
northbound slip lane onto eastbound Highway 62, parking lot entrances between
62nd Street and 66th Street, the crosswalks at 75th Street, and the intersections
near the new housing development by 65th Street.
Page 52 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 5
Phase 3: Concept Alternatives Public Meeting
(See Appendix C)
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 4:30 - 7 p.m.
Location: Richfield Middle School – 7461 Oliver Avenue S, Richfield, MN 55423
Attendees: Over 80 people attended the public meeting.
Materials/activities:
• Bikeway options activity—participants were asked to provide feedback on three
different proposed bikeway layouts (see figures 6-8).
• Intersection design concept alternatives activity—participants were shown
alternative designs for specific intersections along the corridor and were asked to
provide feedback.
• Initial layout roll plot (parking and bikeway)—participants could review an initial
layout of the project area between 66th Street and 69th Street that showed the
project’s intention to keep parking, as well as potential bikeway layouts.
• Comment station—participants left open-ended feedback.
Key messages from the public:
Intersection design
• Attendees were glad to hear that 66th Street will remain a signalized intersection.
• For the major intersections—64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street—the public
preferred roundabouts over traffic signals.
• For the minor (local) intersections the public preferred pedestrian medians with
left-turn lanes and did not favor either open medians without left-turn lanes or the
closed median concepts.
• Several event attendees requested more intersections with crosswalks in the
residential section of the project.
o Many do not feel safe crossing Penn Avenue currently and want more options
to cross.
o Multiple people wanted safer crossings for students at Richfield Middle
School to use.
• Many residents want an improved crossing at the 64th Street intersection to travel
from east of Penn Avenue to the grocery stores.
Page 53 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 6
General takeaways
• People requested more greenspace along the corridor, including specific requests
for native plants.
Phase 3: Pop-up – Lunds & Byerlys
(See Appendix D)
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 3:30 to 6:30 p.m.
Location: Lunds & Byerlys - 6228 Penn Avenue S, Richfield, MN, 55423
Participants: 21 people interacted with the pop-up
Materials/activities: Materials included a bikeway options activity and table-top
intersection concept alternatives activity.
Key messages from the public:
• The public at this pop-up expressed equal support for the one-way cycle track and
two-way cycle track options.
• No members of the public chose shared-use path as their most-preferred option.
o Participants viewed the lack of separation between bikers and pedestrians
as a drawback.
• Many participants were excited about future bikeway improvements for their daily
commute and for better crossings over Highway 62.
• A few people suggested improved driver education programs aimed at teaching
roundabout usage or navigating intersections with separated bikeways.
• One biker was very concerned about conflict points with bikers and private
driveways, and with maintaining sight lines.
• The public at this pop-up showed a preference for roundabouts at major
intersections along Penn Avenue.
BeHeard Online Engagement
(See Appendix B)
Dates/Duration: The online survey and map were open from May 19, 2026, to July 10, 2026
Location: https://beheardhennepin.org/penn-avenue
Page 54 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 7
Participants: 199 survey webpage visits, 100 survey participants
Materials/activities: Online survey questions were closely related to the intersection
design alternatives activity (see figures 9-12)
Demographic data summarized:
• See Appendix B for full survey data.
• 77% of participants were White/Caucasian.
• 72% of respondents were between 25-44 years old.
Insights from survey data:
• For the major intersections (64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street) respondents
favored roundabouts over traffic signals, with over 70% of the total vote across
those three intersections.
• For the minor intersections, respondents favored pedestrian medians with left-turn
lanes and closed medians (right-in/right-out) over no median and open medians.
o In each case where closed medians were not an option, pedestrian median
with left-turn lanes won roughly 70% of the vote.
o In cases where closed median was one of the options, pedestrian median
with left-turn lanes and closed median were always within a few percentage
points of each other.
o Respondents slightly favored pedestrian median with left-turn lanes over
closed median at 72nd Street and 73rd Street.
o Respondents slightly favored closed median over pedestrian median with
left-turn lanes at 67th Street, 68th Street, 70 ½ Street, and 71st Street.
• The public favored one-way cycle tracks over two-way cycle tracks and dual shared-
use paths with 63% of the total vote across all context zones.
Key messages from online survey comments:
Many survey respondents left comments on the online survey.
• Many people were very excited for improved bike and pedestrian crossings.
• One person was concerned that the new construction apartment building isn’t
being considered in the design; says traffic control and safety measures are needed
at 66th Street and 65th Street intersections.
• A few people were in favor of closed medians north of 66th to limit vehicle conflicts
for cars pulling in to/out of business driveways.
Page 55 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 8
• Multiple people encouraged narrower lanes and narrower roundabouts lanes to
slow vehicle traffic to safer speeds.
• A few people asked for better shade trees and more attractive plantings.
• Danny McCullough from Three Rivers Park District advocated for a roundabout
design at the 75th Street intersection where the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
crosses Penn Avenue.
• One person recommended the removal of the slip lanes onto Highway 62 for safer
pedestrian crossings.
• There were mixed opinions about roundabouts in the comments.
Page 56 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 9
Appendix A: Figures and Engagement Activities
Figure 1: Mailer for public meeting #3, side 1
Figure 2: Mailer for public meeting #3, side 2
Engagement Activities
Parking boards
Page 57 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 10
Two boards provided public meeting attendees with key analysis from parking studies.
Figure 3: Parking analysis board 1
Figure 4: Parking analysis board 2
Design concepts board
This board showed the design of two intersections already determined to be traffic signals.
Page 58 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 11
Figure 5: 66th Street and 62nd Street layouts
Page 59 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 12
Bikeway options activity
Participants were asked to provide feedback on bikeway options for three different context
zones along the project area: Highway 62 to 66th Street, 66th Street to 69th Street, and
69th Street to 75th Street.
Figures 6-8: Bikeway options engagement activity
Page 60 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 13
Concept alternatives activity
Public meeting attendees were asked to provide feedback on intersection design
alternatives for key intersections (64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street) and minor
intersections along the corridor. For context, the project team provided information about
features and benefits of specific intersection design tools.
Figure 9: Intersection design considerations board 1
Figure 10: Intersection design considerations board 2
Page 61 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 14
Figures 11-12: Intersection design alternatives roll plot activity
Page 62 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 15
Appendix B: Data from BeHeard Online Survey #3
Demographics:
Age
35-44: 24
45-54: 20
25-34: 18
55-64: 11
65+: 10
18-24: 4
Prefer not to answer: 8
Page 63 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 16
Gender
Male: 67
Female: 22
Nonbinary: 3
Transgender: 1
Prefer not to answer: 2
Page 64 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 17
Race/Ethnicity
White/Caucasian: 75
Asian or Asian American: 6
Hispanic or Latino: 5
Black or African American: 2
I prefer not to respond: 9
Intersection concept alternatives:
What option would you like to see at 64th Street and Penn Avenue?
Roundabout: 64
Page 65 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 18
Traffic Signal: 23
What option would you like to see at 69th Street and Penn Avenue?
Roundabout: 73
Traffic Signal: 16
What option would you like to see at 75th Street and Penn Avenue?
Roundabout: 55
Traffic Signal: 20
Pedestrian-Activated Crossing Signal: 20
Page 66 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 19
What option would you like to see at 63rd Street and Penn Avenue?
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 76
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 13
What option would you like to see at 65th Street and Penn Avenue?
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 62
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 11
Open Median: 16
Page 67 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 20
What option would you like to see at 67th Street and Penn Avenue?
Closed Median: 41
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 32
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 9
Open Median: 6
What option would you like to see at 68th Street and Penn Avenue?
Closed Median: 39
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 35
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 8
Open Median: 5
Page 68 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 21
What option would you like to see at 70th Street and Penn Avenue?
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 61
Open Median: 16
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 10
What option would you like to see at 70 ½ Street and Penn Avenue?
Closed Median: 41
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 32
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 11
Open Median: 4
Page 69 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 22
What option would you like to see at 71st Street and Penn Avenue?
Closed Median: 36
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 33
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 12
Open Median: 5
What option would you like to see at 72nd Street and Penn Avenue?
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 36
Closed Median: 34
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 10
Open Median: 5
Page 70 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 23
What option would you like to see at 73rd Street and Penn Avenue?
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 37
Closed Median: 35
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes: 7
Open Median: 5
Bikeway options:
Which option do you prefer for the Penn Central Commercial Zone (Highway 62 to 66th
Street)?
Page 71 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 24
One-way Cycle Track: 59
Two-way Cycle Track: 21
Dual Shared-Use Path: 12
Which option do you prefer for the residential zone (66th Street to 69th Street)?
One-way Cycle Track: 58
Two-way Cycle Track: 22
Dual Shared-Use Path: 12
Which option do you prefer for the residential zone (69th Street to 75th Street)?
One-way Cycle Track: 58
Two-way Cycle Track: 21
Page 72 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 25
Dual Shared-Use Path: 13
Page 73 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 26
Appendix C: Public Meeting #3 Summary
Introduction
Hennepin County, in partnership with the City of Richfield, plans to reconstruct Penn
Avenue (County Road 32) from Highway 62 to West 75th Street. During the design process,
the project team will conduct community and stakeholder engagement to inform the
project design in 2025 and 2026. Construction is scheduled to start in 2028.
As part of the engagement process, the county and city have hosted a series of public
meetings to collect input from community members. This document is a summary of the
third public meeting.
Public Meeting Details
The Phase 3 public meeting was held to confirm the findings of Phase 2, and to assess
preferences for initial concepts relating to bikeway design and intersection treatments. The
data and feedback collected will support decisions in the final design process, as the
project team works towards a full design.
Project: Penn Avenue safety improvements - Richfield
Event Name: Public meeting 3: Richfield Middle School
Event Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026. 4:30 p.m. – 7 p.m.
Event Location: Richfield Middle School.
Public meeting Goals
The goals of this engagement were to:
• Provide a project overview
• Provide project timing information
• Provide a summary of the feedback collected in Phase 2
• Survey the public for bikeway configuration preferences
• Provide initial intersection design concepts and solicit public feedback
• Share key decisions made for 62nd Street and 66th Street intersections
• Discuss next steps
Event summary
How many people participated: Between 80-85 people attended.
Page 74 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 27
Nearly half of attendees arrived within the first half hour of the two-and-a-half-hour event.
Several stayed for a full hour to engage with the project.
Key Takeaways
During the event, residents provided feedback on preferences for potential safety
improvements and street design tools that will be considered for this project. The following
key takeaways summarize the most common themes and priorities that emerged from
public input:
Bikeway configuration
• One-way cycle tracks were the most popular option, earning 70% of the vote across
all three context zones.
• Attendees did not favor dual shared-use paths.
• People requested better connections to adjacent bikeways (i.e. 66th Street) and
better bike crossings across Penn Avenue.
Intersection design
• Attendees were glad to hear that 66th Street will remain a signalized intersection.
• For the major intersections – 64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street – the public
preferred roundabouts over traffic signals.
• For the minor (local) intersections the public preferred pedestrian medians with
left-turn lanes, and did not favor either open medians without left-turn lanes or the
closed median concepts.
• Several event attendees requested more intersections with crosswalks in the
residential section of the project.
o Many do not feel safe crossing Penn Avenue currently and want more options
to cross.
o Multiple people wanted safer crossings for Richfield Middle School students
to use.
• Many residents want an improved crossing at the 64th Street intersection to travel
from east of Penn Avenue to the grocery stores.
General takeaways
• People requested more greenspace along the corridor, including specific requests
for native plants.
• None of the event attendees spoke a language other than English. The project team
has and will continue to pursue other event types to reach communities speaking
other languages.
Page 75 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 28
Demographics
Table 1 shows a summary of participant demographics, based on a voluntary activity
asking people to self-identify.
Table 1: Participant Demographics
Demographics
Age
Under 18 5
18-35 13
36-50 7
51-65 11
66+ 7
Do you have a disability?
Yes 4
No 25
Pronouns
She/Her 18
He/Him 15
They/Them 1
Languages
English 28
All other languages 0
Race/Ethnicity
White 22
Asian 3
More than one race 4
Alaskan Native or American Indian, Black or
African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
Bikeway Configuration Activity Comments
Participants were asked to indicate their preference between three different bikeway
configuration options: one-way cycle track, dual shared-use path, and two-way cycle
track. The activity was divided into three context zones, giving participants the opportunity
to indicate a different configuration preference for different sections of the project. The
context zones were Hwy 62 to 66th Street, 66th Street to 69th Street, and 69th Street to
75th Street.
Table 2 summarizes the data from the activity, with some general comments from the
public highlighted below.
Page 76 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 29
Table 2: Bikeway Configuration Activity
Bikeway Configuration Activity
Hwy 62 to 66th Street (Penn Central Business District)
One-way cycle track 41 (73%)
Dual shared-use path 0
Two-way cycle track 15 (27%)
66th Street to 69th Street
One-way cycle track 47 (73.5%)
Dual shared-use path 0
Two-way cycle track 15 (23.5%)
Street-level cycle track 2 (3%)
69th Street to 75th Street
One-way cycle track 43 (78%)
Dual shared-use path 0
Two-way cycle track 10 (18%)
Street-level cycle track 2 (4%)
Key bikeway takeaways
• One-way cycle track was the most popular option, earning over 70% of the vote in
all three context zones.
• Dual shared-use path received 0% of the vote across all three context zones and is
clearly the least-preferred option.
• Multiple people wanted more separation between bikers and pedestrians.
• Two people did not want a sidewalk-level bikeway and added their own option for
street-level cycle track between 66th Street and 75th Street.
Additional comments
• One person said that the one-way cycle track has the most harmony with the
bikeways on 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue.
• One attendee said that two-way bikeways make bike crossing difficult and
requested improved crossing infrastructure.
• One person said two-way cycle track is safer because drivers know where to look
for bikers.
• One person said two-way cycle tracks are safer for parking lot entrances.
Intersection Design Alternatives Comments
Participants were shown intersection design alternatives for intersections along Penn
Avenue. Intersection options varied between major signalized intersections and minor
Page 77 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 30
unsignalized intersections. The public had an opportunity to indicate their preferred design
and provide written feedback.
Table 3 represents the public’s preferences for intersection design alternatives.
Table 3:Intersection Design Alternatives Activity
Intersection Design Alternatives
64th Street and Penn Avenue Intersection
Roundabout 38 (72%)
Traffic Signal 15 (28%)
69th Street and Penn Avenue Intersection
Roundabout 33 (73%)
Traffic Signal 12 (27%)
75th Street and Penn Avenue Intersection
Roundabout 25 (48%)
Traffic Signal 20 (38.5%)
Pedestrian-Activated Crossing Signal 7 (13.5%)
63rd, 65th, and 70th Street Intersections
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes 31 (60%)
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes 18 (34%)
Open Median 3 (6%)
Local Streets – 67th, 68th, 70 ½, 71st, 72nd, 73rd, 74th Street Intersections
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes 36 (57%)
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes 18 (29%)
Open Median 5 (8%)
Closed Median 4 (6%)
Major intersections
• For all three major intersections on the corridor—64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th
Street—roundabouts were preferred over traffic signals.
o For the 64th Street and 69th Street intersections, roundabouts received over
70% of the votes.
o The feedback for the 75th Street intersection showed a more balanced
distribution; roundabout received 48% of the votes and traffic signal received
38.5% of the votes, with pedestrian-activated crossing signal holding the
remaining 13.5%.
• People are generally in favor of traffic signals at the 66th Street intersection.
• Desire for a pedestrian connection between Oliver Avenue and Penn Avenue at 64th
Street.
Page 78 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 31
• Request to add “No Turn on Red” sign to the 62nd Street and Penn Avenue
intersection.
Minor intersections
• Intersection alternatives with left-turn lanes were more popular than those without.
o Pedestrian medians + left-turn lanes obtained ~60% of the votes for both
minor intersections and local streets.
o No median + left-turn lanes obtained ~30% of the votes for both minor
intersections and local streets.
o The two options without left-turn lanes, closed median and open median,
received less than 10% of the votes each.
• Attendees requested more frequent and safer crossings at the minor intersections.
o Multiple people requested more intersections with pedestrian-activated
crossing signals. The intersection of 68th Street and Penn Avenue was
specifically mentioned.
o A few people requested safer crossings specifically near the schools
(Sheridan Hills Elementary and Richfield Middle School).
o One person said “Add at least one more controlled intersection in this
section (between 69th Street and 75th Street)”
• The intersection of 67th Street and Penn Avenue was marked as very dangerous to
cross.
o 67th Street has poor sightlines for drivers because of vehicles in the parking
lanes.
Additional Comments—Parking Configuration Roll Plot/Comment
Cards
Attendees were invited to leave open-ended feedback on a roll plot of initial parking and
bikeway layout between 65th and 69th and on project comment cards. The following are
comments submitted at the event:
• One person asked that the project plans for bus stops to eventually convert to BRT
stations with this project.
• Request for a better connection to the 66th Street bikeway.
• Requests for more trees, plantings, and native plants. Concerns about greenspace
maintenance.
• One person asked for crosswalk stripes at all intersections.
• “It is almost impossible to turn left (southbound) from 63rd Street onto Penn
Avenue.”
Page 79 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 32
• One person suggested diagonal parking instead of parallel parking where possible.
• Concerns about snow storage.
• Consider adding more accessible street parking spots in the final design.
• Request for “continuous and harmonized infrastructure.”
• One person wanted to keep striped, street-level bikeways for better bike/ped
separation.
• One person asked if initial sidewalk improvements could begin before the project
starts in 2028. This person cited the Park and Portland project in Minneapolis as an
example of a project that had some sidewalk work installed before full project
construction started.
• One driver said buses cause congestion with the current lane configuration.
Photos
Javier Whitaker-Castañeda welcomes visitors at the event entrance.
Page 80 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 33
Matt Hardegger walks an attendee through the bikeway options engagement activity.
Page 81 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 34
Event attendees visit the bikeway layout roll plot and chat with project staff.
Page 82 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 35
Erika Kreiger-Miller discusses proposed intersection design alternatives with an event participant.
Page 83 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 36
Appendix D: Phase 3 Pop-up Summary—Lunds &
Byerlys
Introduction
Hennepin County, in partnership with the City of Richfield, plans to
reconstruct Penn Avenue (County Road 32) from Highway 62 to West 75th Street. During
the design process, the project team will conduct community and stakeholder
engagement to inform the project design in 2025 and 2026. Construction is scheduled to
start in 2028.
As part of the engagement process, the county and city have hosted several pop-ups at key
locations along the corridor. This document is a summary of the Phase #3 pop-up at Lunds
& Byerlys grocery store.
Pop-up Details
Project: Penn Avenue safety improvements - Richfield
Event Name: Phase #3 pop-up: Lunds & Byerlys
Event Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026, 3:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
Event Location: Lunds & Byerlys – 6228 Penn Avenue S.
Lunds & Byerlys is one of the two grocery stores in the project area. There are major access
and driveway considerations for Lunds & Byerlys due to high traffic volumes and proximity
to both parking entrances and exits. Each are major destinations along the corridor for
people coming from both Richfield and Minneapolis.
Pop-up Goals
The goals of this engagement were to:
• Provide a project overview
• Collect input on bikeway preferences
• Seek feedback on proposed intersection design alternatives
• Share results from the Phase #3 public meeting and from earlier phases of
engagement
• Discuss next steps
Page 84 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 37
Event summary
How many people participated: 21 people interacted with the project pop-up.
Key Takeaways
At the pop-up, the public was asked for their preferences regarding bikeway configuration
and intersection design alternatives. The following key takeaways summarize the most
common themes and priorities that emerged from public input:
• The public at this pop-up expressed equal support for the one-way cycle track and
two-way cycle track options.
• No members of the public chose shared-use path as their most-preferred option.
o Participants viewed the lack of separation between bikers and pedestrians
as a drawback.
• Many participants were excited about future bikeway improvements for their daily
commute and for better crossings over Highway 62.
• A few people suggested improved drivers’ education programs aimed at teaching
roundabout usage or navigating intersections with separated bikeways.
• One biker was very concerned about conflict points with bikers and private
driveways, and with maintaining sight lines.
• The public at this pop-up showed a preference for roundabouts at major
intersections along Penn Avenue.
Bikeway Options Comments
Participants were asked to provide feedback on the three bikeway designs in consideration
for this project: one-way cycle track, shared-use path, and two-way cycle track.
Engagement staff asked participants to indicate their preference with a sticker and to
verbalize their reasoning.
Table 1: Bikeway option preferences.
Bikeway options
Bikeway option Votes
One-way cycle track 10 (50%)
Shared-use path 0 (0%)
Two-way cycle track 10 (50%)
Comments
• Pop-up participants expressed equal preference between the one-way cycle track
and the two-way cycle track options.
Page 85 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 38
o A few people indicated separation between pedestrians and bikers as a
reason why they chose either the one-way cycle track or two-way cycle track
over the shared-use path.
o One person said that a two-way cycle track “provides a wide space and a
pleasant ride for bikers.”
• No participants indicated a preference for a shared-use path along Penn Avenue.
• Some people were concerned about high-speed e-bikes sharing the path with
pedestrians.
• A few people expressed support for any of the three options and said they would
use any type of protected bikeway on Penn Avenue once it is constructed.
• One biker preferred an on-street bikeway over any of the options listed.
o This biker said that protected bikeways don’t reduce conflict points with
intersections and driveways, and cause visibility issues for higher-speed
bikers.
o This participant said that drivers will always back out of their driveways
carelessly, regardless of educational campaigns or near-misses.
• Participants requested better bike and pedestrian crossings across Penn Avenue at
the 62nd Street intersection, and across Highway 62.
• One parent was excited to use a future protected bikeway to transport their kids to
school.
Intersection Design Alternatives Comments
Participants were shown alternatives for intersection design along Penn Avenue, including
call-outs for specific intersections including 64th Street, 69th Street, and 75th Street.
Pop-up participants were less engaged by this activity, and some people opted out of
leaving feedback because they had trouble distinguishing the options for minor
intersection treatment (pedestrian median + left-turn lanes, no median + left-turn lanes,
open median, closed median).
Table 2: Intersection Design Alternatives
Intersection design alternatives
Total Total Votes
Roundabout 11
Traffic Signal 1
Pedestrian-Activated Crossing Signal 2
W 64th Street Intersection Votes
Roundabout 5
Traffic Signal 0
Page 86 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 39
W 69th Street Intersection Votes
Roundabout 5
Traffic Signal 1
W 75th Street Intersection Votes
Roundabout 1
Traffic Signal 0
Pedestrian-Activated Crossing Signal 2
Minor Intersections Votes
Pedestrian Median + Left-Turn Lanes 3
No Median + Left-Turn Lanes 0
Open Median 0
Closed Median 1
Comments
• Participants expressed a preference for roundabouts at major intersections along
the project.
o Multiple people cited traffic flow as their reason for supporting roundabouts.
o A few people expressed mild concern about pedestrian crossing safety at
roundabouts.
o One person was strongly against roundabouts because “drivers are careless
and don’t know how to use [roundabouts]”
• One participant pointed out that the merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane can be a choke
point for drivers who are not familiar with the area.
o Project staff mentioned that the project will cover safety improvements at
key lane merge points near 62nd Street and 66th Street.
Page 87 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 40
Photos
Javier Whitaker-Castañeda listens to two members of the public share their opinions about intersection design.
Page 88 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 41
Javier Whitaker-Castañeda asks a participant for their feedback on Penn Avenue existing conditions.
Page 89 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 42
Project staff used this pop-up to collect data about bikeway option preferences.
Page 90 of 91
Penn Avenue safety improvements 43
Lunds & Byerlys names its grocery aisles after local roads. You can find spices and baking needs in the Penn Avenue
aisle.
Page 91 of 91