Planning commission recommends Arbor Pointe PUD change to allow single cannabis retailer; moves to city council

The Inver Grove Heights Planning Commission voted 7-2 on Sept. 3, 2025 to recommend amending the Arbor Pointe planned unit development (PUD) to allow a state‑licensed cannabis retail dispensary at 9082 Buchanan Trail. The commission’s recommendation is advisory; the proposal is scheduled for consideration by the Inver Grove Heights City Council on Sept. 22, 2025.

The amendment would add cannabis retail as a permitted use in the community shopping center development district portion of the Arbor Pointe PUD. Planning staff said the specific tenant space proposed would meet the city’s local buffer requirements, leaving the site more than 1,000 feet from the closest middle school and, because of the buffers, functionally limiting the area to a single dispensary location within the red‑outlined district shown in staff materials.

Planning staff member Schneider told the commission that the request “satisfies the buffer requirements” and that the community shopping center district is largely consistent with the city’s B‑3 general business zoning, where retail cannabis is already permitted. The applicant, Dylan Stuttler, said he represents Grand Grape Generation LLC and described his role as a consultant helping local operators navigate licensing and zoning. “We were just hoping that we could get this amended so that it can fit into this space and we can be a part of your community,” Stuttler said.

Commission discussion addressed how PUD amendments interact with the city licensing rules. Staff noted the city’s licensing chapter (the local licensing section of city code) contains the buffering rules and a city limit on total retail cannabis licenses; staff said the city is currently capping cannabis licenses at four. Commissioners asked whether the PUD amendment should expressly limit the district to only one allowed dispensary; staff said the licensing requirements and buffering provisions would, in practice, limit the number of locations and that specifying “one” in the PUD could be cumbersome to draft.

Commissioner Wipperman registered a formal objection on policy grounds. “Legalization of marijuana has been very controversial,” Wipperman said, and added, “I frankly, in good conscience, cannot vote to support this.” Several other commissioners raised questions about square‑footage limits tied to zoning districts — staff explained the B‑3 district allows larger retail footprints while other zones may limit dispensary floor area to under 1,000 square feet — and reiterated that state and local licensing remain required after any zoning approval.

A motion to approve the PUD amendment carried on a voice/roll call vote of 7 in favor and 2 opposed. Roll call as recorded: Wendy (Aye); Weber (Aye); Clancy (Aye); Heidenreich (Aye); Hunting (Aye); Liquorman (No); Schaffer (No); Gazelle (Aye); Tyken (Aye). The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for a tentative hearing on Sept. 22, 2025.

If the City Council approves the PUD amendment, the applicant would still need to obtain the city and state cannabis licenses before opening. Staff also noted that, should the middle school referenced in staff materials cease operation in the future, buffering calculations could change and potentially affect where additional dispensaries might locate within the PUD.

Acknowledging remaining procedural steps, the commission closed public comment and forwarded its recommendation to council for final action.