My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11.16.06TMobile presentation
MoundsView
>
City Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
12-21-2006
>
11.16.06TMobile presentation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2023 3:04:10 PM
Creation date
8/21/2024 3:03:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
Documnet Type
Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Need and requirements <br />*Area residents that are T-Mobile customers have requested need for <br />service within their homes and basements. Currently have sector coverage <br />with lobe/cone coverage at 0º, 120º, 240 º (or 270º?). <br />th <br />*Why can’t go to northwest corner of 85 and Airport Rd.? Too close to <br />existing Blaine tower. <br />*Why can’t place at Arden and rotate existing towers to work? Still <br />wouldn’t get coverage they want. Even if put tower at Arden Park, <br />T-Mobile would come back looking for permission to construct a pole at <br />Groveland to improve service. <br />*Proposal wouldn’t provide solid coverage to Medtronic campus--not <br />T-Mobile’s motivation. <br />*Can’t put on Abiding Savior Church property due to city ordinance. <br />*Coordinating lights T-Mobile would run electricity to park building for <br />city to turn off and on. City would have access to pole for changing light <br />bulbs, etc. <br />*T-Mobile is willing to provide surveying results/topography maps as a <br />result of building this facility for future park improvements. <br />*T-Mobile would be responsible for any restoration of land due to trucks <br />coming to pole access. <br />*T-Mobile, if they own it, vs. city owned and leased, would remove any <br />graffiti as soon as possible. <br /> <br />Structure/cabinet/building <br />*Option 1: Building about 10 feeth north of basketball. Materials to meet <br />city requirements to match closely with existing building would then <br />require 12’ x 15’ building. Pole would align with existing lights at <br />basketball court. If incorporate ball field to older age students could be a <br />hazard for outfield <br /> <br />*Option 2: Could add to existing building on playground side and putting <br />in a “cabinet” on a cement slab with fencing and landscaping and be 10’ x <br />12’ rather than proposed 12’ x 15’. Cabinet could be shielded with <br />whatever city might require for hiding—cedar, fencing, etc. Then <br />construct pole within trees north of the playground and run coaxial cable <br />underground to cabinet. <br />*What about during skating season? If move “cabinet” around to north <br />side of building, access would go around backside of building. Shouldn’t <br />interfere with skating, however. <br />*If attach at north end of park building, ordinance requires 8 foot fencing <br />around cabinet if city wants fencing. Can just have equipment there <br />without shelter. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.