HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.16.06TMobile presentation
Need and requirements
*Area residents that are T-Mobile customers have requested need for
service within their homes and basements. Currently have sector coverage
with lobe/cone coverage at 0º, 120º, 240 º (or 270º?).
th
*Why can’t go to northwest corner of 85 and Airport Rd.? Too close to
existing Blaine tower.
*Why can’t place at Arden and rotate existing towers to work? Still
wouldn’t get coverage they want. Even if put tower at Arden Park,
T-Mobile would come back looking for permission to construct a pole at
Groveland to improve service.
*Proposal wouldn’t provide solid coverage to Medtronic campus--not
T-Mobile’s motivation.
*Can’t put on Abiding Savior Church property due to city ordinance.
*Coordinating lights T-Mobile would run electricity to park building for
city to turn off and on. City would have access to pole for changing light
bulbs, etc.
*T-Mobile is willing to provide surveying results/topography maps as a
result of building this facility for future park improvements.
*T-Mobile would be responsible for any restoration of land due to trucks
coming to pole access.
*T-Mobile, if they own it, vs. city owned and leased, would remove any
graffiti as soon as possible.
Structure/cabinet/building
*Option 1: Building about 10 feeth north of basketball. Materials to meet
city requirements to match closely with existing building would then
require 12’ x 15’ building. Pole would align with existing lights at
basketball court. If incorporate ball field to older age students could be a
hazard for outfield
*Option 2: Could add to existing building on playground side and putting
in a “cabinet” on a cement slab with fencing and landscaping and be 10’ x
12’ rather than proposed 12’ x 15’. Cabinet could be shielded with
whatever city might require for hiding—cedar, fencing, etc. Then
construct pole within trees north of the playground and run coaxial cable
underground to cabinet.
*What about during skating season? If move “cabinet” around to north
side of building, access would go around backside of building. Shouldn’t
interfere with skating, however.
*If attach at north end of park building, ordinance requires 8 foot fencing
around cabinet if city wants fencing. Can just have equipment there
without shelter.
Pole
*Could build 80 foot pole with the possibility to extend to 100 feet.
*Diameter of pole: 34 inches at bottom, 18 inches at the top.
*Why changing from 100 feet to 80 feet? City ordinance—most they
could ask for was 100 feet. Need 80 feet to get above trees. Will lose
some coverage. Diameters of pole wouldn’t change if went to 100 feet.
*Requirements for lighting due to airport traffic? FAA has already given
clearance up to 105 feet without a beacon.
*Co-location requirements: 10 foot separation between components. (ex.
80’ pole could have co-location at 70’. Need to consider placement of
possible lighting for park.
*Would need to run additional co-locating coaxials on outside of the
pole—aesthetics?
*option of digging pole into ground, vs. sitting on concrete foundation.
*20 foot easement access. Dazenski didn’t feel gravel path was needed to
access pole. T-Mobile is willing to gravel or pave this path. Would need
to drive truck for initial installation and then not too often for
maintenance. Mostly walk-up maintenance.
*Climb pegs, if allowed by city, would start about 12 feet.