Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Apple Valley council denies zoning change that would have exempted cannabis retailers from buffer rules

November 26, 2025 | Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Apple Valley council denies zoning change that would have exempted cannabis retailers from buffer rules
The Apple Valley City Council on Nov. 25 rejected a request to amend PD 290 Zone 4 that would have removed the citys required setback buffers for cannabis retailers.

City planner Carter told the council the Planning Commission held a Nov. 5 public hearing on the text amendment and unanimously recommended denial after receiving no public comments. Under the citys cannabis regulations adopted Oct. 24, 2024, cannabis businesses may not be located within 1,000 feet of schools or existing cannabis businesses, and 500 feet of parks, daycares and residential treatment facilities, Carter said.

The applicant, Mike Malick, the owner of a tobacco shop in the PD 290 Zone 4 area, said he opened his business in May and had secured a state retail cannabis license but learned the parcel was ineligible because of the buffers. Malick said he measured the parcel as roughly 300 feet from a nearby Spanish immersion academy and asked the council to grant an exemption or allow him to revisit the Planning Commission.

Council members noted the city adopted the buffer rules after a lengthy process involving staff, the Planning Commission and council hearings. Councilmember Melander moved to deny the proposed ordinance amendment and adopt a resolution to that effect; Councilmember Bergman seconded. The motion carried by voice vote.

The denial preserves the buffer protections in section 155.32 of the city code for PD 290 Zone 4. Carter said denial maintains consistency with adopted zoning regulations and retains protections for nearby sensitive uses. The applicant was advised he could pursue other administrative or planning avenues but that the council would not override the Planning Commissions recommendation on this request at tonights meeting.

No public comment was recorded at the councils hearing on this item.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Minnesota articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI