Grant City council denies amended CUP for Two Silos Farmhouse Resort over after‑the‑fact illuminated sign and intensification requests

Grant City Council voted to deny an amended conditional‑use permit (CUP) application from Two Silos Farmhouse Resort, concluding that an after‑the‑fact illuminated wall sign and related requests to expand occupancy, parking and outdoor amplified sound are not in compliance with the city's zoning and CUP conditions.

City planner Jennifer Swanson told the council staff’s review found an internally lit wall sign mounted on the east elevation that is approximately 55 square feet and located about 15–16 feet above ground, exceeding A1‑district dimensional limits and the code’s prohibition on electrically illuminated signs in residential/agricultural zoning. Swanson said staff evaluated the CUP criteria and found the installation did not meet multiple standards and therefore recommended denial and removal of the sign and its electrical components.

The recommendation was based on the CUP’s terms (the 2020 permit and a 2021 amendment) and the city sign code for the A1 district. Swanson also summarized the applicant’s additional requests — increasing on‑site occupancy from 75 to 140, expanding parking from 22 to 56 stalls, allowing outdoor amplified sound, and use of an east crush pad for gatherings — and said staff recommended denial of those requests while the property remains out of compliance.

Neighbors and emailed correspondents told the council the illuminated sign is visible from adjacent homes and road curves, creates light pollution, and has been a repeated source of complaints. Ken Kramer, who said he shares a property line with the winery, described a pattern of after‑the‑fact actions: "do it first and ask for forgiveness later," and urged denial. Another neighbor said the illuminated façade sign is "a large commercial sign in a residential area" and described the sign as overly bright and disruptive to the night sky.

Council members cited the city’s rural and dark‑sky goals and the record of complaints in concluding the installed sign and the pending intensification requests were incompatible with the neighborhood and the CUP conditions. After public testimony and discussion, the council moved to deny the amended CUP and directed staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings for consideration at the next council meeting; the motion carried.

Next steps: staff will prepare formal findings for the denial resolution and return the item to the council for a final action; the denial includes staff’s recommendation that the sign and electrical components be removed unless a separate, compliant application is approved.