Memo re antenna on billboardTO:
FROM:
Pete Smith, City Attorney
Pert Virtanen, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Services' ~~
SUBJECT:
AT&T Request to Place Cellular Antenna on Existing Billboard
DATE:
February 3, 1997
When Bob Hager was here last Friday to discuss our proposed ordinance changes regarding cell
sites, we talked a bit about this upcoming AT&T case. We were trying to decide if the sign
were non-conforming and if approval of the antenna would extend the life of the sign.
This is the background. The sign originally was an off-premise pole sign constructed prior to
enactment of the Sign Ordinance. The sign now refers to on-premise activities at Park 'N' Fly.
City Council approved a variance of the Sign Ordinance authorizing the pole sign to remain in
connection with Park 'N' Fly. Later, the Sign Ordinance was made a part of the Zoning
After thinking about it over the weekend, it seems to me that this scenario is no different from
many others in which a structure becomes a non-conforming building under a zoning ordinance.
For example, prior to enactment of zoning, a city may have issued a building permit for a
building that its new zoning ordinance now prohibits at that location. The building becomes
non-conforming. Or, a city may have issued a fence permit under a fence code prior to
incorporating fencing provision in its zoning ordinance. The permitted fence becomes non-
conforming. Similarly, it seem to me that as of January, 1996, the Park 'lq' Fly sign became
a non-conforming use under the Coppell Zoning Ordinance, because that type of sign
construction is now prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance.
All legal billboards have been in place either since 1979 or since annexation. In most cases their
investment has been amortized for many years. The Committee to Improve the Visual Image
of Coppell favors their removal. The Planning and Zoning Commission is likely to endorse that
recommendation at its next meeting. The Commission, therefore, probably will not favor
addition of a cell phone antenna to a sign it would like to see dismantled. Please let us know
if, under federal guidelines, this is sufficient justification for denial.
cc: Bob Hager