Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT
It has yet to be fully explained. Urbannizer subtracted 3' due to "lowest elevation point." However, that has not been clearly defined.
I would think 1034' (as indicated in the filing) would be the actual height.
|
I believe they said "we" had "elevations" for both 1022' and 1031'. I have not seen one for 1031'.
I too thought the arrived height of 1031' was by someone subtracting 3' from the 1034' FAA filing (for some reason). If so, that needs to be explained again.
At this point, I would go with either 1022' or 1034' for this tower - unless anyone wants to get confirmation from the GC on the project.
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 1,002,632 +4.64% - '20-'25 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,620,945 +14.78% - '20-'25
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,548,422 +8.03% - '20-'25 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,813,140 +9.97% - '20-'25
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,434,085 +12.24% - '20-'25 | *SRC: US Census*
|