Opinion ID: 2977905
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The sign-ordinance appeal

Text: In January 2004, shortly after the resolution of the first federal lawsuit, K&P changed its operating name to “Deja Vu.” K&P and 415 East Congress then began the process of obtaining the City’s approval to erect new signage on the Premises. They contracted with MLS Signs, Inc., a sign installation company, to construct the permanent signs. MLS Signs submitted a sign application (the initial application) to the B&SE. The initial application requested one wall sign measuring eight feet by two feet that would read “Deja Vu” and that complied with all code provisions. While the initial application was pending with the B&SE, K&P obtained a series of temporary sign permits from the City to allow for temporary signs on the Premises announcing the new name of the business. In May 2004, before it had taken any action on the initial application, the B&SE issued a violation notice demanding that K&P take down a cloth/vinyl banner that it was using as a sign pursuant to the temporary sign permit then in place. In response, and in the absence of any action by the B&SE on the initial application, K&P filed another application for a temporary sign stating “Deja Vu Now Open.” The request was granted, thus allowing a temporary sign for 15 days. K&P learned in August 2004 from a City building inspector that one reason for the delay in acting on the initial application was that the B&SE was waiting for a BZA decision letter arising from a hearing regarding the Premises. That BZA hearing, discussed in Part I.A.1. above, dealt with K&P’s alleged “expansion” of its nonconforming use. The BZA ruled unanimously in K&P’s favor, but no sign application was discussed at the hearing. Believing that its business was being damaged by its zoning and sign-ordinance issues with the City, K&P decided in late 2004 to change the name of the establishment operating at the Premises to “Hustler.” With the original application still pending, MLS Signs submitted a Revised Application for Permit for Erection of Signs and Poster Boards Nos. 08-1329/1361 H.D.V.-Greektown, LLC, et al. Page 7 v. City of Detroit (the revised application) to the B&SE in December 2004. The revised application requested permission to erect two wall signs. One sign would be 51 feet, 3 inches long and 13 feet high, and would read “Hustler.” The other would be 12 feet, 7.5 inches long and 6 feet, 6.5 inches wide, would read “Hustler” on the top portion of the sign, and would have an electronic message center below it. These proposed signs complied with all code provisions. As of April 2007, no action had been taken on either the initial or revised sign applications. K&P, seeking to avoid any economic harm to its trademarked and copyrighted trade names, temporarily changed the name of its establishment to “Zoo Bar” pending future developments.
The plaintiffs’ 2006 lawsuit, in addition to challenging the constitutionality of the City’s adult-use zoning ordinances, also alleged that the City’s sign ordinances were unconstitutional. By April 2007, four years had passed since the filing of the initial sign application, and three since the revised application, without any action by the City. The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment that month, arguing that the City’s sign ordinances were unconstitutional both facially and as applied. They requested that the district court (a) enjoin the City from enforcing the challenged provisions, (b) declare that the plaintiffs were legally entitled to erect the signs described in the revised application, and (c) permanently enjoin the City from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs’ erection of the signs. The district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion. It held that the City’s sign ordinances were not unconstitutional on their face, and therefore declined to permanently enjoin enforcement of those ordinances. The court did, however, hold that the City’s failure to act on the applications within a reasonable time was unconstitutional as applied, and thus enjoined the City from preventing the plaintiffs’ erection of their desired signs. In March 2008, the plaintiffs timely appealed the portions of the district court’s ruling on the second motion for partial summary judgment that were unfavorable to them. Nos. 08-1329/1361 H.D.V.-Greektown, LLC, et al. Page 8 v. City of Detroit That appeal is docketed as Case Number 08-1361 and has been consolidated with the plaintiffs’ zoning-ordinance appeal.