2-Rev4 ET2024233 Meacham Airport - Drainage Study Report.pdf.pdf

City of Fort Worth, Texas Drainage Study for

Meacham Airport Maintenance Facility 504 NW 35TH STREET, Fort Worth, TX 76106

Evolving Texas Job #: 2024233

Prepared by:

Chandler Davis, P.E., CFM

August 6, 2026

Chandler Davis

08/06/2026

3000 Race Street, Suite 108 | Fort Worth, TX 76111 | 817-529-2700

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PAGE 2

HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS--------------------------------------------------------------------- PAGE 3

PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS------------------------------------------------------- PAGE 3

POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS------------------------------------------------------PAGE 6

CONCLUSION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PAGE 7

APPENDIX A

EXHIBIT 1 – EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA MAP

EXHIBIT 2 – PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA MAP

EXHIBIT 3 – DETENTION POND & DETENTION POND CALCULATIONS

EXHIBIT 4 – GRADING PLAN

EXHIBIT 5 – EROSION CONTROL PLAN

EXHIBIT 6 – EXISTING STORM MAP

EXHIBIT 7 – CITY OF FORT WORTH AS-BUILTS (K-0768)

EXHIBIT 8 – GEOTECH REPORT (CMJ ENGINEERING REPORT NO. 1705-25-04)

EXHIBIT 9 – FINAL PLAT

INTRODUCTION

Evolving Texas conducted a drainage study for the proposed Meacham Airport

Maintenance Facility, located at 504 NW 35TH Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76106. The site is bounded by NW 35th Street to the south, NW 36th Street to the north, 15-foot alley to the east and west. Reference Figure 1 below for the Vicinity Map. The site is currently a vacant lot. This report summarizes the pre- and post-development drainage conditions and evaluates the potential impacts of the future Meacham Airport Maintenance Facility on the surrounding drainage infrastructure.

Figure 1: Vicinity Map (N.T.S)

HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

The Rational Method was used to analyze stormwater runoff under pre-development and post-development conditions. For both scenarios, it is assumed that offsite areas remain unchanged surrounding the immediate site. Hydrology parameters, including the runoff coefficient, rainfall intensities, and maximum inlet times, were obtained from the City of

Fort Worth Stormwater Criteria Manual. The time of concentration for drainage areas is calculated as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 1 & Exhibit 2 for the unimproved and improved areas in both pre- and post-development conditions. Evolving Texas received the boundary survey and topographic data from the client produced by Shield Engineering

Group, which serves as the basis for the design work outlined in this study.

PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

The existing drainage area map is provided in Appendix A, Exhibit 1 of this report. The site is currently undeveloped and consists primarily of grass-covered areas with scattered trees. The site is not located within a FEMA-designated floodplain.

An offsite drainage area contributes runoff to the western portion of the site. A 10-foot curb inlet located along Ross Avenue, identified as Design Point #5, captures runoff from the western portion of the site as well as the contributing offsite area. The eastern portion of the site drains directly toward NW 36th Street and is identified as Design

Point #1. Design Point #2 is located along 35th Street and receives runoff from the northern half of the roadway. Upon development of the proposed site, this design point should not receive stormwater discharge from the project site. Design Point #3 is located along the southern portion of 35th Street and is outside the limits of the proposed improvements; existing drainage patterns at this location should remain undisturbed. Design Point #4 is located on 34th Street and is similarly outside the limits of the proposed improvements; existing drainage patterns at this location should remain undisturbed. Design Point #6 is located at an existing drop inlet at the western end of

NW 36th Street and is outside the limits of the proposed improvements; existing drainage patterns at this location should remain undisturbed. Design Point #7 is located at an existing 10-foot curb inlet on Ross Avenue at the northern intersection of NW 36th

Street and Ross Avenue and is outside the limits of the proposed improvements;

existing drainage patterns at this location should remain undisturbed. Modeled site runoff patterns and drainage areas are further explained below and reflected in

Appendix A, Exhibit 1, the Existing Drainage Area Map.

• Drainage Point #1 o Exist DA 1 is approximately 1.74 acres and flows approximately 5.65 cfs to an existing 10’ curb inlet at the south westerly corner of the intersection of Clinton Ave and NW 36th Street.

• Design Point #2 o Exist DA 3 is approximately 0.2 acres and flows approximately 1.42 cfs down NW 35th Street where the runoff is ultimately collected in a curb inlet located at the south westerly intersection of NW 36th Street and Clinton

Avenue.

• Design Point #3 o Exist DA 4 is approximately 1.22 acres and flows approximately 4.03 cfs down NW 35th Street where the runoff is ultimately collected in a curb inlet located at the intersection of NW 36th Street and N Main Street.

• Design Point #4 o Exist DA 5 is approximately 4.81 acres and approximately 11.59 cfs offsite to an existing and eventually captured at a curb inlet located in the northern side of W Long Ave. The area within the current drainage area is not planned to have any improvements at the time this report is written.

• Design Point #5 o Exist DA 2 is approximately 2.67 acres and flows approximately 9.28 cfs to an existing 10’ curb inlet at the south westerly corner of the intersection of Ross Avenue and NW 36th Street.

• Design Point #6 o Exist DA 6 is approximately 13.56 acres and flows approximately 40.98 cfs to an existing drop inlet at the western end of NW 36th Street.

• Design Point #7 o Exist DA 7 is approximately 2.61 acres and flows approximately 6.49 cfs to an existing 10’ curb inlet at the north westerly corner of the intersection of Ross Ave and NW 36th Street.

The pre-development storm flow calculations for the site adhere to the City of Fort

Worth Stormwater Criteria Manual. The existing runoff calculations for design storm frequencies (1-yr, 5-yr, and 100-yr) are detailed and summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Pre-Development Storm Water Runoff Computations

C Area

(ac) C

Area

(ac) C

Area

(ac)

E-DA 1 1.74 0.9 0.30 0.3 1.44 0.40

E-DA 2 2.67 0.9 0.50 0.3 1.95 0.95 0.22 0.47

E-DA 3 0.20 0.9 0.20 0.3 0.00 0.90

E-DA 4 1.22 0.9 0.26 0.3 0.96 0.43

E-DA 5 4.81 0.9 0.83 0.3 3.98 0.40

E-DA 6 13.56 0.9 5.20 0.3 8.13 0.95 0.23 0.54

E-DA 7 2.61 0.9 0.26 0.3 2.01 0.95 0.34 0.45

MEACHAM AIRPORT FIELD MAINTENANCE PRE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS

NOTES: ISWM TECHNICAL MANUAL USED TO FIND RUNOFF COEFFIECIENT VALUES

Drainage Area

ID

Total

Area

(ac)

Roadway (Concrete) Open Space Roofs Composite

C

1 5 6

E-DA 1 100 3.89 0.0428 0.30 11.41 497.91 0.0254 3.24 2.56 13.98 15.00

E-DA 2 100 3.89 0.0210 0.30 15.16 459.84 0.0373 3.12 2.46 17.62 17.62

E-DA 3 100 3.89 0.0288 0.30 13.37 358.85 0.0171 2.66 2.25 15.62 15.62

E-DA 4 100 3.89 0.0263 0.30 13.88 372.00 0.0140 2.41 2.57 16.45 16.45

E-DA 5 100 3.89 0.0075 0.30 22.91 483.47 0.0223 2.41 3.35 26.25 26.25

E-DA 6 100 3.89 0.0093 0.30 21.04 1296.48 0.0155 2.01 10.77 31.82 30.00

E-DA 7 100 3.89 0.0009 0.30 52.57 555.38 0.0252 2.56 3.62 56.18 30.00

Rational Method

Tc

(min) tshallow

(min) n

2 3 4

SHEET FLOW SHALLOW FLOW CHANNEL FLOW

Channel

Slope

(ft/ft) n

Sheet Flow

Length

(ft)

P2

(in)

Average

Velocity

(ft/sec)

Shallow Flow

Length (ft)

Land

Slope

(ft/ft)

Drainage

Area

ID

Rational Method

Tc(used)

(min)

Cross

Sectional

Area

(sf)

Wetted

Perimeter

(ft)

Hydraulic

Radius

(ft)

Average

Velocity

(ft/sec) tchannel

(min)

Shallow Flow

Slope

(ft/ft) tsheet

(min)

Channel

Length

(ft)

EXISTING TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS TO OVERALL BASIN OUTLET

NOTE: COMPUTATIONS ARE BASED OFF OF THE ISWM MANUAL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

E-DA 1 1.74 Undeveloped 0.40 0.70 15.00 3.25 2.28 4.57 3.21 8.05 5.65 Design Point #1

E-DA 2 2.67 Developed 0.47 1.25 17.62 3.00 3.74 4.23 5.27 7.44 9.28 Design Point #5

E-DA 3 0.20 Developed 0.90 0.18 15.62 3.18 0.57 4.49 0.81 7.90 1.42 Design Point #2

E-DA 4 1.22 Undeveloped 0.43 0.52 16.45 3.10 1.62 4.37 2.29 7.70 4.03 Design Point #3

E-DA 5 4.81 Undeveloped 0.40 1.94 26.25 2.42 4.69 3.41 6.62 6.02 11.69 Design Point #4

E-DA 6 13.56 Developed 0.54 7.34 30.00 2.24 16.43 3.16 23.20 5.59 40.98 Design Point #6

E-DA 7 2.61 Developed 0.45 1.16 30.00 2.24 2.60 3.16 3.68 5.59 6.49 Design Point #7

MEACHAM AIRPORT FIELD MAINTENANCE PRE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY COMPUTATIONS

Runoff

Q5

(cfs)

I100 Runoff

Q100

(cfs)

Drainage Area

ID

Area

(ac)

Land Use

Description

(1, 5, and 100-Year Design Frequency)

I1 Runoff

Q1

(cfs)

NOTES: ISWM TECHNICAL MANUAL USED TO FIND RUNOFF COEFFIECIENT VALUES

Outfall

DesignPoint #

Runoff

Coefficient

C

CA

Total

Tc

(Min)

I5

POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

The developed site condition includes the construction of the Meacham Airport

Maintenance Facility and associated parking improvements. The site is designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns. The contributing offsite drainage area remains unchanged under post-development conditions. The post-development drainage area map is shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 2.

The drainage area, DA-2 encompasses 2.08 acres and drains to the existing 10-foot curb inlet located within Ross Avenue (Design Point #5). Under the Post Development

Conditions, these drainage areas contribute a total peak flow of 7.37 cfs to the existing

10-foot curb inlet (Design Point #5). The reference plans for the storm drain system within the City of Fort Worth Rights-of-Way is in Appendix A, Exhibit 7.

The onsite drainage area DA 1 encompasses approximately 2.08 acres and drains to the proposed detention pond located on the northern portion of the site. This drainage area contributes a total peak inflow of 12.19 cfs to the proposed detention pond. The detention pond then flows approximately 4.67 cfs into the existing storm network. DA 8 encompasses approximately 0.32 acres and contributes a peak inflow of 2.05 cfs. Both drainage areas ultimately flow 6.55 cfs into Design Point #1. Detention storage and outlet structures were sized in accordance with applicable city drainage criteria. Detention Pond

Plan and Calculations are provided in Appendix A, Exhibit 3. The hydrology calculations for various storm frequencies are detailed in Table 2 below. Parameters for the post-development storm flow calculations for the site adhere to the City of Fort Worth

Stormwater Criteria Manual.

Table 2: Post-Development Storm Water Runoff Computations

CONCLUSION

Based on the drainage analysis for Design Point #1, # 5, 6, and #7, proposed conditions initially resulted in an increase in runoff to the existing storm network in NW 36th Street.

Without detention, post-development peak discharge to Design Point #1 would increase due to increased impervious cover. A detention pond is therefore designed to attenuate runoff from development such that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed existing conditions for the storm network at Design Point #1. Detention storage and outlet structures were sized in accordance with applicable City of Fort Worth, TX drainage criteria. The pond provides controlled release of stormwater while maintaining positive drainage and acceptable drain-down time following storm events. Detention Pond Plan and Calculations are provided in Appendix A, Exhibit 3.

C Area

(ac) C

Area

(ac) C

Area

(ac)

DA 1 1.72 0.9 0.76 0.3 0.88 0.95 0.32 0.73

DA 2 2.08 0.9 0.28 0.3 1.80 0.95 0.21 0.48

DA 3 0.49 0.9 0.49 0.90

DA 4 1.22 0.9 0.26 0.3 0.96 0.43

DA 5 4.81 0.9 0.83 0.3 3.98 0.40

DA 6 13.56 0.9 5.20 0.3 8.13 0.95 0.23 0.54

DA 7 2.61 0.9 0.26 0.3 2.01 0.95 0.34 0.45

DA 8 0.32 0.9 0.26 0.3 0.06 0.80

MEACHAM AIRPORT FIELD MAINTENANCE POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS

NOTES: ISWM TECHNICAL MANUAL USED TO FIND RUNOFF COEFFIECIENT VALUES

Drainage Area

ID

Total

Area

(ac)

Roadway (Concrete) Open Space Roofs Composite

C

1 5 6

DA 1 50 3.89 0.0386 0.013 0.55 323.86 0.0694 4.25 1.27 1.82 15.00

DA 2 100 3.89 0.0210 0.30 15.16 459.84 0.0373 3.12 2.46 17.62 17.62

DA 3 100 3.89 0.0115 0.30 19.33 185.56 0.0136 3.24 0.95 20.28 20.28

DA 4 100 3.89 0.0263 0.30 13.88 372.00 0.0140 2.41 2.57 16.45 16.45

DA 5 100 3.89 0.0075 0.30 22.91 483.47 0.0223 2.41 3.35 26.25 26.25

DA 6 100 3.89 0.0093 0.30 21.04 1296.48 0.0155 2.01 10.77 31.82 30.00

DA 7 100 3.89 0.0009 0.30 52.57 555.38 0.0252 2.56 3.62 56.18 30.00

DA 8 100 3.89 0.0674 0.30 9.52 316.48 0.0307 3.56 1.48 11.00 15.00

Shallow Flow

Slope

(ft/ft)

Average

Velocity

(ft/sec) tshallow

(min)

Channel

Length

(ft)

Channel

Slope

(ft/ft) tchannel

(min) n

Cross

Sectional

Area

Wetted

Perimeter

(ft)

Hydraulic

Radius

(ft)

Average

Velocity

(ft/sec)

PROPOSED TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS TO OVERALL BASIN OUTLET

2 3 4

Drainage

Area

ID

SHEET FLOW SHALLOW FLOW CHANNEL FLOW

Rational Method

Tc

(min)

Sheet Flow

Length

(ft)

P2

(in)

Land

Slope

(ft/ft) n tsheet

(min)

Shallow Flow

Length (ft)

NOTE: COMPUTATIONS ARE BASED OFF OF THE ISWM MANUAL

Rational Method

Tc(used)

(min)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

DA 1 1.72 Developed 0.73 1.25 15.00 3.25 4.07 4.57 5.73 8.05 10.09 Design Point #1

DA 2 2.08 Developed 0.48 0.99 17.62 3.00 2.97 4.23 4.19 7.44 7.37 Design Point #5

DA 3 0.49 Developed 0.90 0.44 20.28 2.79 1.23 3.93 1.73 6.93 3.06 Design Point #2

DA 4 1.22 Undeveloped 0.43 0.52 16.45 3.10 1.62 4.37 2.28 7.70 4.03 Design Point #3

DA 5 4.81 Undeveloped 0.40 1.94 26.25 2.42 4.70 3.41 6.63 6.02 11.69 Design Point #4

DA 6 13.56 Developed 0.54 7.34 30.00 2.24 16.43 3.16 23.20 5.59 40.98 Design Point #6

DA 7 2.61 Developed 0.45 1.16 30.00 2.24 2.60 3.16 3.68 5.59 6.49 Design Point #7

DA 8 0.32 Developed 0.80 0.25 15.00 3.25 0.83 4.57 1.16 8.05 2.05 Design Point #1

Runoff

Q100

(cfs)

NOTES: ISWM TECHNICAL MANUAL USED TO FIND RUNOFF COEFFIECIENT VALUES

MEACHAM AIRPORT FIELD MAINTENANCE POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY COMPUTATIONS (1, 5, and 100-Year Design Frequency)

Drainage Area

ID

Area

(ac)

Land Use

Description

Runoff

Coefficient

C

CA

Total

Tc

(Min)

I1 Runoff

Q1

(cfs)

Outfall

DesignPoint # I5

Runoff

Q5

(cfs)

I100

With the detention pond in place, peak total discharge at Design Point #1 decreases from 62.41 cfs under existing conditions to 59.52 cfs under proposed conditions, resulting in an approximate net decrease of 2.89 cfs. Accordingly, the proposed project design should improve the existing drainage conditions at Design Point #1 and is not anticipated to adversely affect hydrologic or hydraulic influences on adjacent or downstream properties. The comparison calculations are detailed in Table 3 below. The overall development reduced the runoff burden to existing City of Fort Worth stormwater infrastructure by an approximate total of 9.83 cfs.

Table 3: Storm Water Runoff Comparison Computations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Design Point #1 (Sheet Flow) 2.28 0.83 -1.45 3.21 1.16 -2.05 5.65 2.05 -3.60

Design Point #1 (Pipe Flow) 25.05 25.38 0.33 35.36 34.89 -0.46 62.41 59.52 -2.89

Design Point #2 0.57 0.00 -0.57 0.81 0.00 -0.81 1.42 0.00 -1.42

Design Point #3 1.62 1.62 0.00 2.29 2.28 0.00 4.03 4.03 0.00

Design Point #4 4.69 4.70 0.00 6.62 6.63 0.00 11.69 11.69 0.00

Design Point #5 3.74 2.97 -0.77 5.27 4.19 -1.08 9.28 7.37 -1.91

Design Point #6 16.43 16.43 0.00 23.20 23.20 0.00 40.98 40.98 0.00

Design Point #7 2.60 2.60 0.00 3.68 3.68 0.00 6.49 6.49 0.00

Total ∆ -9.83

Q1

Difference

Q100

Difference Outfall Design Point #

Pre-Development

Runoff Q100 (cfs)

Post-Development

Runoff Q100 (cfs)

(1, 5, and 100-Year Design Frequency)

Q5

Difference

Pre-Development

Runoff Q1 (cfs)

Post-Development

Runoff Q1 (cfs)

Pre-Development

Runoff Q5 (cfs)

Post-Development

Runoff Q5 (cfs)

MEACHAM AIRPORT FIELD MAINTENANCE PRE/POST COMPARISON

NW 34TH ST.

(55' ROW)

V O

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

R O

SS

A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

C

LI

N

TO

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

LA

K

E A

V E

NW 36TH ST.

(55' ROW)

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

V O

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

NW 35TH ST.

(55' ROW)

R O

SS

A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

C

LI

N

TO

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

)A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

A

LL

EY

(1 5'

R O

W

NW 37TH ST.

(55' ROW)

C

LI

N

TO

N A

V E

(6 0'

R O

W

LA

K

E A

V E

(6 0'

R O

W

A

LL

EY

(2

0' R

O W

A

LL

EY

(2

0' R

O W

8 666

EX-DA 6

13.56 AC

EX-DA 5

4.81 AC

C

LI

N

TO

N A

V E

(6 0'

R O

W

A

LL

EY

(2

0' R

O W

NW 35TH ST.

(55' ROW)

NW 34TH ST.

(55' ROW)

A

LL

EY

(2

0' R

O W

V O

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

NW 36TH ST.

(55' ROW)

V O

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

NW 37TH ST.

(55' ROW)

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

C

LI

N

TO

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

C

LI

N

TO

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

EX-DA 2

2.67 AC

EX-DA 4

1.22 AC

EX-DA 1

1.74 AC

EX-DA 7

2.61 AC

EX-DA 3

0.20 AC

DRAINAGE ID

AREA (ACRES)

DRAINAGE FLOW

DIRECTION

EXISTING DRAINAGE DIVIDE

PROPOSED. CONTOURS

EXISTING CONTOURS

UTILITY LEGEND

100 YR FLOODPLAIN LIMIT

EXISTING STORM LINE

1) FORT WORTH DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

STANDARDS SHALL APPLY ON THESE PLANS.

2) RAINFALL INTENSITY ARE FROM ATLAS 14

RAINFALL DATA.

NOTES

Feet 0 150 300

BM-1: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92182

ELEVATION=641.49

N: 6980281.39 E: 2320960.61

BM-2: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92183

ELEVATION=642.63

N: 6978524.77 E: 2320932.52

BENCHMARK

MEACHAM MAINTENANCE DISPATCH

& VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

CITY OF FORT WORTH

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

2570 RIVER PARK PLAZA

SUITE 100

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

76116

PHONE #: (817) 529-2700

FIRM NO. 12452

PL

EA

SE

R

EC

YC

LE

NO. DATE REVISION

PROJECT #DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE SHEET

REVIEWER: PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA MAP

C10.1ET

MW

ET2024233

ET

SCALE: 1" = 150'

PROPERTY LINE

TIME OF CONCENTRATION

JULY

7/13/20262 ADDENDUM 02

EXHIBIT 1

Chandler

07/13/2026

8 666

C

LI

N

TO

N A

V E

(6 0'

R O

W

A

LL

EY

(2

0' R

O W

NW 35TH ST.

(55' ROW)

NW 34TH ST.

(55' ROW)

A

LL

EY

(2

0' R

O W

V O

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

NW 36TH ST.

(55' ROW)

V O

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

NW 37TH ST.

(55' ROW)

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

C

LI

N

TO

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

C

LI

N

TO

N A

V E

(5 5'

R O

W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

DA 6

13.56 AC

DA 5

4.81 AC

DA 1

1.72 AC

DA 2

2.08 AC

DA 7

2.61 AC

DA 8

0.32 AC

DA 4

1.22 AC

DA 3

0.49 AC

PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIVIDE

DRAINAGE ID

AREA (ACRES)

SCALE: 1" = 150'

EXISTING CONTOURS

PROPOSED Y-INLET

EXISTING GRATE INLET

EXISTING JUNCTION BOX

EXISTING CURB INLET

UTILITY LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

PROPOSED GRATE INLET

PROPOSED. JUNCTION BOX

PROPOSED CURB INLET

PROPOSED STORM LINE

EXISTING STORM LINE

EXISTING Y-INLET

Feet 0 150 300

1) REFER TO GENERAL NOTES SHEET FOR CITY STANDARD

GENERAL NOTES, UTILITY NOTES AND CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN NOTES.

2) THE CITY OF FORT WORTH DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

STANDARDS APPLY WHETHER INDICATED ON THESE PLANS

OR NOT.

NOTES

BM-1: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92182

ELEVATION=641.49

N: 6980281.39 E: 2320960.61

BM-2: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92183

ELEVATION=642.63

N: 6978524.77 E: 2320932.52

BENCHMARK

MEACHAM MAINTENANCE DISPATCH

& VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

CITY OF FORT WORTH

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

2570 RIVER PARK PLAZA

SUITE 100

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

76116

PHONE #: (817) 529-2700

FIRM NO. 12452

PL

EA

SE

R

EC

YC

LE

NO. DATE REVISION

PROJECT #DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE SHEET

REVIEWER: PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA MAP

C10.2ET

MW

ET2024233

ET

TIME OF CONCENTRATIO

133 PROPOSED CONTOURS

DRAINAGE FLOW

DIRECTION

7/13/20262 ADDENDUM 02

7/30/20263 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

8/06/20264 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

EXHIBIT 2

AUGUST

Chandler

NW 36TH ST

(55' RIGHT-OF-WAY)

R O

SS

A

VE

(5

5' R

IG

H

T- O

F- W

AY

STA 0+54-DETENTION POND

CONSTRUCT

18" 45° HORIZ. BEND

STA 0+10-DETENTION POND

CONSTRUCT

STD. 5' SQUARE JUNCTION BOX

RIM 650.3±

(RIM ELEV. TO BE FIELD VERIFIED)

EXIST. 36" FL 640.98 (IN)

18" FL 641.73 (IN)

EXIST. 36" FL 640.98 (OUT)

30 LF

Concrete

Pipe @ 0.20%

41 LF

Concrete Pipe @ 0.20%

STA 0+95-DETENTION POND

CONSTRUCT

3X3 JUNCTION BOX

OUTFALL STRUCTURE

DETAILS ON SHEET C11.1

FG 643.78

BW 646.40

BW 651.50

BW 653.00

BW 653.00 BW 648.00

BW 647.10

BW 644.00

TW 653.38

TW 652.64

TW 647.40

TW 653.00 TW 652.00

TW 650.25

TW 644.00FG 644.00

1.0% SLOPE

10.0'

PROPOSED 10'

RAMP @ 10% MAX

11.0'

STA 0+40-DETENTION POND

CONSTRUCT

3X3 JUNCTION BOX

19.0"19 .0

H:1"=20' V:1"=5'

STORM SEWER LINE "DETENTION POND"

0+001+002+002+30

ST

A

0+

.0

LI

N

E "D

ET

EN

TI

O

N P

O N

D

C O

N

ST

. S

TD

. 5 ' S

Q U

AR

E

JU

N

C

TI

O N

B O

X (C

O N

TR

AC

TO

R

T O

V

ER

IF

Y

D

EP

TH

PR

IO

R

T O

C O

N

ST

R U

C

TI

O N

R

IM

=6

.4

1±

ST

A

0+

.4

LI

N

E "D

ET

EN

TI

O

N P

O N

D

IN

ST

AL

L:

1-

" 4 5°

H O

R

IZ

. B

EN

D

ST

A

0+

.1

LI

N

E "D

ET

EN

TI

O

N P

O N

D

C O

N N

EC

T

TO

E

X.

1" S

TO

R

M S

EW

ER

(C O

N

TR

AC

TO

R T

O V

ER

IF

Y D

EP

TH

PR

IO

R T

O C

O N

ST

R

U C

TI

O

N

R

IM

=6

.6

FL

(O

U T)

=6

.1

FL

(O

U T)

=6

.0

FL

(I

N

2.

FL

(O

U T)

=6

.9

FL

(I

N

1.

FL

(I N

0.

30 LF 21" CLASS III

RCP @ 0.20%

(PUBLIC)

41 LF 21" CLASS III

RCP @ 0.20%

(CoFW AVIATION

DEPT)

1.

0'

EXIST.

SEWER CROSSING

639.98

ST

A

0+

.9

LI

N

E "D

ET

EN

TI

O

N P

O N

D

IN

ST

AL

L:

1- 3'

X3 ' J

U N

C

TI

O N

B O

X

14 LF 21" CLASS III

RCP @ 0.20%

(CoFW AVIATION

DEPT)

GRADING NOTES

1. ALL PROPOSED AND EXISTING GRADES IN

NON-PAVED AREAS ARE "FINISHED GRADE" (i.e. IN

LANDSCAPE BEDS, TOP OF MULCH/BEDDING

MATERIAL).

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FORM SIDEWALK AND VERIFY

SLOPES PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE.

CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT CROSS SLOPES

AREA NO GREATER THAN 2% ALONG THE

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND RUNNING SLOPE IS NOT

GREATER THAN 5%, UNLESS THE RUNNING SLOPE

MATCHES THE EXISTING STREET SLOPE. IF ANY

DISCREPANCY ARISES, CONTRACTOR SHALL

CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR SOLUTION.

3. LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION AREA SHOWN ON THE

EROSION CONTROL PLAN.

4. AREAS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING(S)

SHALL E AT A POSITIVE SLOPE AWAY FROM THE

BUILDING TO ENSURE PROPER DRAINAGE AWAY

FROM THE FOUNDATION.

5. THE CONTRACTOR MUST REFER TO THE

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, FOUNDATION PLANS, AND

LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR 1) ALL BACKFILL AND

COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS, 2) FOUNDATION

WATER PROOFING AND 3) UNDERDRAINS AND

LANDSCAPE DRAINS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF

THE BUILDINGS(S).

6. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL

REPORT DATED OCTOBER 31, 2025, PREPARED BY

CMJ ENGINEERING.

7. PROPOSED DETENTION POND MAINTENANCE

RESPONSIBILITY SHALL BE ASSUMED BY THE CITY OF

FORT WORTH AVIATION DEPARTMENT. MAINTENANCE

ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED AS NEEDED TO

ENSURE PROPER POND FUNCTION AND DRAINAGE

CAPACITY.

Feet 0 20 40

BM-1: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92182

ELEVATION=641.49

N: 6980281.39 E: 2320960.61

BM-2: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92183

ELEVATION=642.63

N: 6978524.77 E: 2320932.52

BENCHMARK

MEACHAM MAINTENANCE DISPATCH

& VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

CITY OF FORT WORTH

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

2570 RIVER PARK PLAZA

SUITE 100

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

76116

PHONE #: (817) 529-2700

FIRM NO. 12452

PL

EA

SE

R

EC

YC

LE

NO. DATE REVISION

PROJECT #DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE SHEET

REVIEWER: PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

DETENTION POND PLAN

C11.1ET

MW

ET2024233

ET

6/4/20261 ADDENDUM 01

GRADING LEGEND

PROPOSED. CONTOUR

PROPSOED DRAINAGE SWALE

TOP OF CURB

GUTTER

TOP OF PAVEMENT

PROPOSED GRADE BREAK

FINISHED GRADE

EXISTING SPOT GRADE

EXISTING CONTOUR

FINISHED FLOOR

TG 132.50

G 132.00

TP 132.50

FG 132.50

132.50

FF=132.50

TOP OF INLETTG 132.50

LOW POINTLP 132.50

HIGH POINTHP 132.50

TOP OF WALLTW 132.50

BW 132.00 BOTTOM OF WALL

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

100 YEAR FLOODPAIN LINE

AUGUST

7/13/20262 ADDENDUM 02

7/30/20263 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

7" ORIFICE 1 OPENING

FL 643.78 (IN)

1' WEIR 1

FL 650.00' (IN)

21" CLASS III RCP

FL 942.37 (OUT)

21" CLASS III RCP

@ 0.2 % SLOPE

RIM 651.60

1' WEIR 1

TOP 651.10'

8/06/20264 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

4 EXHIBIT 3

Chandler

NW 36TH ST

(55' RIGHT-OF-WAY)

R O

SS

A

VE

(5

5' R

IG

H

T- O

F- W

AY

STA 0+54-DETENTION POND

CONSTRUCT

18" 45° HORIZ. BEND

STA 0+10-DETENTION POND

CONSTRUCT

STD. 5' SQUARE JUNCTION BOX

RIM 650.3±

(RIM ELEV. TO BE FIELD VERIFIED)

EXIST. 36" FL 640.98 (IN)

18" FL 641.73 (IN)

EXIST. 36" FL 640.98 (OUT)

30 LF

Concrete

Pipe @ 0.20%

41 LF

Concrete Pipe @ 0.20%

STA 0+95-DETENTION POND

CONSTRUCT

3X3 JUNCTION BOX

OUTFALL STRUCTURE

DETAILS ON SHEET C11.1

FG 643.78

BW 646.40

BW 651.50

BW 653.00

BW 653.00 BW 648.00

BW 647.10

BW 644.00

TW 653.38

TW 652.64

TW 647.40

TW 653.00 TW 652.00

TW 650.25

TW 644.00FG 644.00

1.0% SLOPE

10.0'

PROPOSED 10'

RAMP @ 10% MAX

11.0'

STA 0+40-DETENTION POND

CONSTRUCT

3X3 JUNCTION BOX

19.0"19 .0

GRADING NOTES

Feet 0 20 40

BM-1: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92182

ELEVATION=641.49

N: 6980281.39 E: 2320960.61

BM-2: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92183

ELEVATION=642.63

N: 6978524.77 E: 2320932.52

BENCHMARK

MEACHAM MAINTENANCE DISPATCH

& VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

CITY OF FORT WORTH

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

2570 RIVER PARK PLAZA

SUITE 100

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

76116

PHONE #: (817) 529-2700

FIRM NO. 12452

PL

EA

SE

R

EC

YC

LE

NO. DATE REVISION

PROJECT #DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE SHEET

REVIEWER: PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

DETENTION POND PLAN

C11.2ET

MW

ET2024233

ET

GRADING LEGEND

PROPOSED. CONTOUR

PROPSOED DRAINAGE SWALE

TOP OF CURB

GUTTER

TOP OF PAVEMENT

PROPOSED GRADE BREAK

FINISHED GRADE

EXISTING SPOT GRADE

EXISTING CONTOUR

FINISHED FLOOR

TG 132.50

G 132.00

TP 132.50

FG 132.50

132.50

FF=132.50

TOP OF INLETTG 132.50

LOW POINTLP 132.50

HIGH POINTHP 132.50

TOP OF WALLTW 132.50

BW 132.00 BOTTOM OF WALL

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

100 YEAR FLOODPAIN LINE

PR

O

PE

R

TY

L

IN

E

LO

T

LI

N

E

B

B

LO

T

LI

N

E

A

A

B B

R .O

.W

" 18

AUGUST

7/13/20262 ADDENDUM 02

6/4/20261 ADDENDUM 01

1. ALL PROPOSED AND EXISTING GRADES IN

NON-PAVED AREAS ARE "FINISHED GRADE" (i.e. IN

LANDSCAPE BEDS, TOP OF MULCH/BEDDING

MATERIAL).

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FORM SIDEWALK AND VERIFY

SLOPES PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE.

CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT CROSS SLOPES

AREA NO GREATER THAN 2% ALONG THE

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND RUNNING SLOPE IS NOT

GREATER THAN 5%, UNLESS THE RUNNING SLOPE

MATCHES THE EXISTING STREET SLOPE. IF ANY

DISCREPANCY ARISES, CONTRACTOR SHALL

CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR SOLUTION.

3. LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION AREA SHOWN ON THE

EROSION CONTROL PLAN.

4. AREAS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING(S)

SHALL E AT A POSITIVE SLOPE AWAY FROM THE

BUILDING TO ENSURE PROPER DRAINAGE AWAY

FROM THE FOUNDATION.

5. THE CONTRACTOR MUST REFER TO THE

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, FOUNDATION PLANS, AND

LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR 1) ALL BACKFILL AND

COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS, 2) FOUNDATION

WATER PROOFING AND 3) UNDERDRAINS AND

LANDSCAPE DRAINS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF

THE BUILDINGS(S).

6. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL

REPORT DATED OCTOBER 31, 2025, PREPARED BY

CMJ ENGINEERING.

7. PROPOSED DETENTION POND MAINTENANCE

RESPONSIBILITY SHALL BE ASSUMED BY THE CITY OF

FORT WORTH AVIATION DEPARTMENT. MAINTENANCE

ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED AS NEEDED TO

ENSURE PROPER POND FUNCTION AND DRAINAGE

CAPACITY.

7/30/20263 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

8/06/20264 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

EXHIBIT 3

Chandler

BM-1: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92182

ELEVATION=641.49

N: 6980281.39 E: 2320960.61

BM-2: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92183

ELEVATION=642.63

N: 6978524.77 E: 2320932.52

BENCHMARK

MEACHAM MAINTENANCE DISPATCH

& VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

CITY OF FORT WORTH

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

2570 RIVER PARK PLAZA

SUITE 100

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

76116

PHONE #: (817) 529-2700

FIRM NO. 12452

PL

EA

SE

R

EC

YC

LE

NO. DATE REVISION

PROJECT #DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE SHEET

REVIEWER: PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

DETENTION POND CALCULATIONS

ET

MW

ET2024233

ET

AUGUST

2026 C11.3

7/13/20262 ADDENDUM 02

6/4/20261 ADDENDUM 01

PROPOSED FLOW TO GRATE INLET IS FROM DRAINAGE AREA DA 3 WHICH EQUATES TO 3.55 CFS IN THE 100-YR, WITH A 50% CLOGGING FACTOR, THE INLET CAPACITY OF THE NEENAH FRAME 3297-1, GRATE L IS 6.98 CFS AT

0.57' OF DEPTH.

7/30/20263 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

8/06/20264 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

THE UPPER NOTCH WEIR

OPERATES UNDER FREE WEIR

FLOW CONDITIONS UNTIL

TAILWATER REACHES

APPROXIMATELY EL. 661.67.

WITH THE 100-YEAR PEAK POND

ELEVATION AT 651.10 FT (DESIGN

MAXIMUM), THE NOTCH WEIR

WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE

SUBMERGED WEIR FLOW.

FREE WEIR FLOW EQUATION:

Q = C × L × H^(3 2)

EXHIBIT 3

ELEVATION=641.49

N: 6980281.39 E: 2320960.61

BM-2: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92183

ELEVATION=642.63

N: 6978524.77 E: 2320932.52

BENCHMARK

MEACHAM MAINTENANCE DISPATCH

& VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

CITY OF FORT WORTH

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

2570 RIVER PARK PLAZA

SUITE 100

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

76116

PHONE #: (817) 529-2700

FIRM NO. 12452

PL

EA

SE

R

EC

YC

LE

NO. DATE REVISION

PROJECT #DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE SHEET

REVIEWER: PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

STORM DETAILS

C11.4ET

MW

ET202423JUNE

ET

6/4/20261 ADDENDUM 01

EXHIBIT 3

ELEVATION=641.49

N: 6980281.39 E: 2320960.61

BM-2: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92183

ELEVATION=642.63

N: 6978524.77 E: 2320932.52

BENCHMARK

MEACHAM MAINTENANCE DISPATCH

& VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

CITY OF FORT WORTH

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

2570 RIVER PARK PLAZA

SUITE 100

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

76116

PHONE #: (817) 529-2700

FIRM NO. 12452

PL

EA

SE

R

EC

YC

LE

NO. DATE REVISION

PROJECT #DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE SHEET

REVIEWER: PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

STORM DETAILS

C11.5ET

MW

ET2024233APRIL

ET

GRATE INLET DETAIL

6/4/20261 ADDENDUM 01

8/06/20264 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

EXHIBIT 3

AUGUSTJULY

APRIL

APRIL

AUGUST

ABSTRACT No. 1605

NW 35TH ST

(55' RIGHT-OF-WAY)

R O

SS

A

VE

(5

5' R

IG

H

T- O

F- W

AY

NW 36TH ST.

(55' ROW)

VO

N

A

VE

(5 5'

R O

W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

TP 666.64

TP 666.65

TP 666.14

TP 665.75

TP 666.57

TP 667.32TP 667.57

TP 666.44

TP 665.70

TP 667.40

TP 667.70

TP 667.07

TP 666.82

TP 666.94TP 667.30

TP 668.00

TP 668.00

EW 668.00

TP 668.00 TP 668.00

TC 667.54

TP 667.40

TC 667.90

TC 666.73

TC 667.90

TC 667.90

TP 667.03

TP 667.31

TC 667.35

TC 667.82

TC 667.90

TC 666.55

TP 666.05

TP 667.40

TP 666.70

TP 666.37

EW 668.00

EW 668.00

TW 664.14

TW 666.21

TW 666.52

TW 665.77

TW 664.90

BW 658.82

BW 659.30

BW 660.22

BW 663.11

BW 663.90

BW 667.63

TC 668.20

TC 667.57

TC 667.32

TC 667.06

TC 666.96

TC 666.65

TP 666.46

TW 666.92

BW 661.98

HP 666.66

TP 667.40

TP 667.40

TP 667.09

TP 667.04

TP 666.85

TP 666.25

TP 666.87

TC 667.90

TC 666.59

TP 666.11

TP 666.16

TP 666.26

TP 666.34

TP 666.23

TP 665.96 TP 665.77

TP 668.76

TC 669.25

EW 668.00

TP 666.92

TC 655.23

TP 654.73 TP 654.14

TC 654.64

FG 654.87

FG 666.20

FG 666.54

FG 655.13

TW 653.38

TW 652.64

TW 647.40

TW 653.00 TW 652.00

TW 650.25

TW 644.00

BW 644.00

BW 647.10

BW 648.00BW 653.00

BW 653.00

BW 651.50

BW 646.40

667 666

652651

2 65

TW 659.50

BW 658.50

TP 665.51

666668

TP 666.97

TW 668.10

BW 666.65

TW 668.10

FG 663.40

FG 658.00

TG 664.00

TC 664.58

TG 664.00

TC 664.50

EX TC 664.73±

CONTRACTOR TO MATCH

EXIST TOP OF CURB

TC 664.70

EX 664.71

GRADING NOTES

1. ALL PROPOSED AND EXISTING GRADES IN

NON-PAVED AREAS ARE "FINISHED GRADE" (i.e. IN

LANDSCAPE BEDS, TOP OF MULCH/BEDDING

MATERIAL).

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FORM SIDEWALK AND VERIFY

SLOPES PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE.

CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT CROSS SLOPES

AREA NO GREATER THAN 2% ALONG THE

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND RUNNING SLOPE IS NOT

GREATER THAN 5%, UNLESS THE RUNNING SLOPE

MATCHES THE EXISTING STREET SLOPE. IF ANY

DISCREPANCY ARISES, CONTRACTOR SHALL

CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR SOLUTION.

3. LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION AREA SHOWN ON THE

EROSION CONTROL PLAN.

4. AREAS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING(S)

SHALL E AT A POSITIVE SLOPE AWAY FROM THE

BUILDING TO ENSURE PROPER DRAINAGE AWAY

FROM THE FOUNDATION.

5. THE CONTRACTOR MUST REFER TO THE

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, FOUNDATION PLANS, AND

LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR 1) ALL BACKFILL AND

COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS, 2) FOUNDATION

WATER PROOFING AND 3) UNDERDRAINS AND

LANDSCAPE DRAINS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF

THE BUILDINGS(S).

6. PROPOSED DETENTION POND MAINTENANCE

RESPONSIBILITY SHALL BE ASSUMED BY THE CITY OF

FORT WORTH AVIATION DEPARTMENT. MAINTENANCE

ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED AS NEEDED TO

ENSURE PROPER POND FUNCTION AND DRAINAGE

CAPACITY.

TOP OF INLETTG 132.50

Feet 0 30 60

BM-1: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92182

ELEVATION=641.49

N: 6980281.39 E: 2320960.61

BM-2: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92183

ELEVATION=642.63

N: 6978524.77 E: 2320932.52

BENCHMARK

MEACHAM MAINTENANCE DISPATCH

& VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

CITY OF FORT WORTH

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

2570 RIVER PARK PLAZA

SUITE 100

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

76116

PHONE #: (817) 529-2700

FIRM NO. 12452

PL

EA

SE

R

EC

YC

LE

NO. DATE REVISION

PROJECT #DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE SHEET

REVIEWER: PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

GRADING PLAN

C08.0ET

MW

ET2024233APRIL

ET

GRADING LEGEND

PROPOSED. CONTOUR

PROPSOED DRAINAGE SWALE

TOP OF CURB

GUTTER

TOP OF PAVEMENT

PROPOSED GRADE BREAK

FINISHED GRADE

EXISTING SPOT GRADE

EXISTING CONTOUR

FINISHED FLOOR

TG 132.50

G 132.00

TP 132.50

FG 132.50

132.50

FF=132.50

SWALESW 132.50

LOW POINTLP 132.50

HIGH POINTHP 132.50

TOP OF WALLTW 132.50

BW 132.00 BOTTOM OF WALL

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

100 YEAR FLOODPAIN LINE

5'

LANDSCAPE

BUFFER

5'

LANDSCAPE

BUFFER

DETENTION

POND

Q100 = 0.7 cfs n = 0.3 A = 0.490 sqft s = 3.56 % yc = 0.12 ft d = 0.27 ft

A A

4:1 (MAX)

7/13/20262 ADDENDUM 02

6/4/20261 ADDENDUM 014

7/30/20263 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

PROPOSED

GRADE BREAK

Capacity Check Q100 = 0.7 cfs n = 0.05 A = 0.436 sqft s = 3.56 % yc = 0.29 ft d = 0.33 ft

8/06/20264 REVISED GRADING & POND FROM SDS COMMENTS

5.0'

6.5'

EXHIBIT 4

Chandler Davis

08/06/2026

APRIL

AUGUST

PROPOSED

DETENTION

POND

CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

665666

651652

667 667

NW 35TH ST.

(55' ROW)

NW 36TH ST.

(55' ROW)

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

A

LL

EY

(1

5' R

O W

PROPOSED INLET

PROTECTION

PROPOSED INLET

PROTECTION

PROPOSED INLET

PROTECTION

PROPOSED

ROCK CHECK

PROPOSED EROSION

CONTROL LOG IN GUTTER

LIMITS ON NORTH SIDE OF

35TH STREET

NOTES

1. THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN MEASURES MAY ONLY

BE PLACED IN FRONT OF INLETS, OR IN CHANNELS,

DRAINAGE WAYS OR BORROW DITCHES AT THE RISK

OF CONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMAIN

LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE

MEASURES, INCLUDING FLOODING DAMAGE, WHICH

MAY OCCUR DUE TO BLOCKED DRAINAGE.

2. AT THE CONCLUSION OF ANY PROJECT, ALL

CHANNELS, DRAINAGE WAYS, AND BORROW

DITCHES IN THE WORK ZONE SHALL BE DREDGED OF

ANY SEDIMENT GENERATED BY THE PROJECT AND

DEPOSITED AS A RESULT OF EROSION CONTROL

MEASURE.

3. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE

PROVIDED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE CITY OF FORT WORTH STANDARD

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. SEE STORM WATER

POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN PREPARED

SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROJECT FOR ADDITIONAL

DETAIL REGARDING EROSION CONTROL AND

MONITORING.

4. TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE = 1.17 ACRES

Feet 0 30 60

BM-1: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92182

ELEVATION=641.49

N: 6980281.39 E: 2320960.61

BM-2: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92183

ELEVATION=642.63

N: 6978524.77 E: 2320932.52

BENCHMARK

MEACHAM MAINTENANCE DISPATCH

& VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

CITY OF FORT WORTH

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

T R C

P

TYPE

CHA

DATE

03/3

2570 RIVER PARK PLAZA

SUITE 100

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

76116

PHONE #: (817) 529-2700

FIRM NO. 12452

PL

EA

SE

R

EC

YC

LE

NO. DATE REVISION

PROJECT #DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE SHEET

REVIEWER: PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

EROSION CONTROL PLAN

C12.1ET

MW

ET2024233

ET

LEGEND

PROPOSED SILT FENCE

INLET

PROTECTION

EX. CONTOUR

PR. CONTOUR

PROPOSED LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED SILT FENCE AT L.O.C

PROPOSED CHECK DAM

PROPOSED ROCK BERM

PROPOSED STABILIZED

CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

PROPOSED TEMPORARY ROCK

RIPRAP

100 YR FLOODPLAIN LIMIT

PROPERTY LINE

EASEMENT LINE

PROPOSED VEGETATIVE FILTER

STRIP

PROPOSED SOIL RETENTION

BLANKET

JULY

2 ADDENDUM 02

6/4/20261 ADDENDUM 01

SDS REVISIONSEXHIBIT 5 7/13/2026

Chandler

07/13/2026

ELEVATION=641.49

N: 6980281.39 E: 2320960.61

BM-2: CITY OF FORT WORTH

BM #92183

ELEVATION=642.63

N: 6978524.77 E: 2320932.52

BENCHMARK

MEACHAM MAINTENANCE DISPATCH

& VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

CITY OF FORT WORTH

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

2570 RIVER PARK PLAZA

SUITE 100

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

76116

PHONE #: (817) 529-2700

FIRM NO. 12452

PL

EA

SE

R

EC

YC

LE

NO. DATE REVISION

PROJECT #DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE SHEET

REVIEWER: PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

EROSION CONTROL DETAILS

C12.2ET

MW

ET2024233JUNE

ET

EXHIBIT 5

6 6

6 6

E

E

E E

E

E

E

E

E

EEE

WASHINGTON

HEIGHTS

WASHINGTON

MEACHAM AIRPORT

M.G. ELLIS

FOSTEPCO HEIGHTS

HTS

119117

THIRTY FIFITH ST

THIRTY SIXTH

STEET

36TH ST

VON AVE

VON

COMMERCE

ROSS AVE

CLINTON

N HOUSTON AVE

N. HOUSTON

ELLIS

ROSS

37 TH.

ELLIS AVE

N. MAIN

CLINTON AVE

CLOSED

TED BY CITY ORD. 17915

1R

1A1

7 7

9 9

10 13

12 11

2A

2B

10 10 10

1R

14 14

11B

11R

W-0652_001.tif

C-0800-899_139.tif

A-0111_140.tif

A-0173_029.tif

A-0127_005.tif

C-0800-899_128.tif

C-0

0-8

_19 2.t if

1-M -00

_00

1c.

tif

A-0

3_0

.tif

A-0119_001.tif

S-2

3_0

.tif

K-0768_006.tif

S-2253_005.tif

K-0768_004.tif

K-1468_004.tif

K-0768_005.tif

S-2

3_0

.tif

S-2238_004.tif

K-0

2_0

.tif A-0173_032.tif K-0405_014.tif

C-1261-1280_016.tif

S-2253_004.tif

D-1101_001.tif

C-2200-2300_045.tif

C-1700-1799_149.tif

W-

_01

7.t if S-2253_007.tif

Un kn ow n G rav ity Ma in

30 RCP Gravity Main

72 RCP Gravity Main 6 PVC Lateral

Concrete Culvert

60 RCP Gravity Main

78 RCP Gravity Main

30 RCP Gravity Main

N

MA

IN

S

TR

EE

T

NW 35TH STREET

RO

SS

A

VE

NU

E

N

CO

MM

ER

CE

S

TR

EE

T

NW 36TH STREET

NW 37TH STREET

CL

IN

TO

N

A

VE

NU

E

N

HO

US

TO

N S

TR

EE

T

EL

LIS

A

VE

NU

E

NE 34TH STREET

EL

LIS

A

VE

NU

E

CL

IN

TO

N

A

VE

NU

E

RO

SS

A

VE

NU

E

N

HO

US

TO

N S

TR

EE

T

Disclaimer Copyright 2011 City of Fort Worth.Unauthrized reproduction is a violation of applicable laws.

This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. The City of Fort Worth assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of said data. .

EXHIBIT 6

PROJECT LOCATION

EXHIBIT 7

Proposed total Q @100yr

=109.1 CFS

Approximate tie in location.

Approximate Location of proposed storm tie in.

641.3'(+/-)

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY

FIELD MAINTENANCE FACILITY

MEACHAM AIRPORT

ROSS AVENUE AT NW 35TH STREET

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

Presented To:

Evolving Texas

October 2025

PROJECT NO. 1705-25-04

EXHIBIT 8

October 31, 2025 Report No. 1705-25-04

Evolving Texas 2570 River Park Plaza, Suite 100 Fort Worth, Texas 76116

Attn: Mr. Ron Ramirez, P.E., President

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY

FIELD MAINTENANCE FACILITY

MEACHAM AIRPORT

ROSS AVENUE AT NW 35TH STREET

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

Dear Mr. Ramirez:

Submitted here are the results of a geotechnical engineering study for the referenced project.

This study was performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. 24-9830 dated November 1, 2024. The geotechnical services were authorized on September 4, 2025 by Mr. Ron Ramirez, P.E., President of Evolving Texas.

Engineering analyses and recommendations are contained in the text section of the report.

Results of our field and laboratory services are included in the appendix of the report. We would appreciate the opportunity to be considered for providing the materials engineering and geotechnical observation services during the construction phase of this project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Evolving Texas. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further service at this time.

Respectfully submitted, CMJ ENGINEERING, INC.

TEXAS FIRM REGISTRATION NO. F-9177

James P. Sappington IV, P.E President Texas No. 97402 copies submitted: (1) Mr. Ron Ramirez, P.E.; Evolving Texas (email & mail)

(1) Mr. Joseph Williams, E.I.T.; Evolving Texas (email)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ------------------------------------------------------ 2

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

4.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

5.0 FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8

6.0 EXPANSIVE SOIL CONSIDERATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

7.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

8.0 EARTHWORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

9.0 PAVEMENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

10.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21

11.0 REPORT CLOSURE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22

Plate Plan of Borings --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.1 Unified Soil Classification System --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.2 Key to Classification and Symbols -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.3 Logs of Borings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A.4 – A.9 Free Swell Test Results --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.10

Report No. 1705-25-04 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

The project site is located within Meacham Airpot, north of NW 35th Street, on the east and west sides of Ross Avenue in Fort Worth, Texas. The project, as currently planned, consists of a new field maintenance facility. The project is anticipated to consist of a 1- or 2-story building situated on the approximate 1-acre site. The building location(s) on the site has not been determined. It is assumed the building footprint will be on the order of 20,000 square feet or less. The existing Ross

Avenue roadway will be removed. No basements are anticipated. Parking and access driveways are also planned. Plate A.1, Plan of Borings, presents the approximate locations of the exploration borings.

1.2 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this geotechnical engineering study has been to determine the general subsurface conditions, evaluate the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered, and develop recommendations for the type or types of foundations suitable for the project.

To accomplish its intended purposes, the study has been conducted in the following phases: (1) drilling sample borings to determine the general subsurface conditions and to obtain samples for testing; (2) performing laboratory tests on appropriate samples to determine pertinent engineering properties of the subsurface materials; and (3) performing engineering analyses, using the field and laboratory data to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed construction.

The design is currently in progress and the location and/or elevation of the structure could change.

Once the final design is near completion (80-percent to 90-percent stage), it is recommended that

CMJ Engineering, Inc. be retained to review those portions of the construction documents pertaining to the geotechnical recommendations, as a means to determine that our recommendations have been interpreted as intended.

1.3 Report Format

The text of the report is contained in Sections 1 through 11. All plates and large tables are contained in Appendix A. The alpha-numeric plate and table numbers identify the appendix in which they appear. Small tables of less than one page in length may appear in the body of the text and are numbered according to the section in which they occur.

Units used in the report are based on the English system and may include tons per square foot (tsf), kips (1 kip = 1,000 pounds), kips per square foot (ksf), pounds per square foot (psf), pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and pounds per square inch (psi).

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

Subsurface materials at the project site were explored by six (6) vertical soil borings. Borings B-1 through B-4 are associated with the proposed building and were extended to depths of 20 to 25 feet.

Borings B-5 and B-6 are associated with area paving and were extended to a depth of 5 feet. The borings were drilled using continuous flight augers at the approximate locations shown on the Plan of Borings, Plate A.1. The boring logs are included on Plates A.4 through A.9 and keys to classifications and symbols used on the logs are provided on Plates A.2 and A.3.

Undisturbed samples of cohesive soils were obtained with nominal 3-inch diameter thin-walled

(Shelby) tube samplers at the locations shown on the logs of borings. The Shelby tube sampler consists of a thin-walled steel tube with a sharp cutting edge connected to a head equipped with a ball valve threaded for rod connection. The tube is pushed into the soil by the hydraulic pulldown of the drilling rig. The soil specimens were extruded from the tube in the field, logged, tested for consistency with a hand penetrometer, sealed, and packaged to limit loss of moisture.

The consistency of cohesive soil samples was evaluated in the field using a calibrated hand penetrometer. In this test a 0.25-inch diameter piston is pushed into the relatively undisturbed sample at a constant rate to a depth of 0.25 inch. The results of these tests, in tsf, are tabulated at respective sample depths on the logs. When the capacity of the penetrometer is exceeded, the value is tabulated as 4.5+.

To evaluate the relative density and consistency of the harder formations, a modified version of the

Texas Cone Penetration test was performed at selected locations. Texas Department of

Transportation (TxDOT) Test Method Tex-132-E specifies driving a 3-inch diameter cone with a 170-pound hammer freely falling 24 inches. This results in 340 foot-pounds of energy for each blow.

This method was modified by utilizing a 140-pound hammer freely falling 30 inches. This results in

350 foot-pounds of energy for each hammer blow. In relatively soft materials, the penetrometer cone is driven 1 foot and the number of blows required for each 6-inch penetration is tabulated at respective test depths, as blows per 6 inches on the log. In hard materials (rock or rock-like), the penetrometer cone is driven with the resulting penetrations, in inches, recorded for the first and second 50 blows, a total of 100 blows. The penetration for the total 100 blows is recorded at the respective testing depths on the boring logs.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory soil tests were performed on selected representative samples recovered from the borings. In addition to the classification tests (liquid limits and plastic limits), moisture content, unit weight, and unconfined compressive strength tests were performed. Results of the laboratory classification tests, moisture content, unit weight, and unconfined compressive strength tests conducted for this project are included on the boring logs.

Swell tests were performed on specimens from selected samples of the clays. These tests were performed to help in evaluating the swell potential of soils in the area of the proposed structure. The results of the swell tests are presented on Plate A.10.

The above laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM procedures, or generally accepted practice.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil Conditions

Specific types and depths of subsurface strata encountered at the boring locations are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. The generalized subsurface stratigraphy encountered in the borings is discussed below. Note that depths on the borings refer to the depth from the existing grade or ground surface present at the time of the investigation, and the boundaries between the various soil types are approximate.

Soils encountered in the borings consist of dark brown, brown, and light brown silty clays and clays of moderate to high plasticity. The clayey soils contain calcareous nodules, calcareous deposits, calcareous seams, and occasionally contain ironstone nodules and limestone fragments. Tan weathered limestone layers with thicknesses of 3 to 6 feet are present within the clay soils in Borings

B-2 and B-4 at depths of 2 to 5 feet. The tan weathered limestone is considered moderately hard

(rock basis), with a Texas Cone Penetrometer (THD) test value of 6¼ inches of penetration for 100 hammer blows. Borings B-5 and B-6 were terminated within the clay soils at a depth of 5 feet.

The various clays encountered in the borings had Liquid Limits (LL) ranging from 43 to 68 with

Plasticity Indices (PI) ranging from 24 to 42 and classify as CL and CH by the USCS. The clayey soils are generally hard (soil basis) in consistency with pocket penetrometer readings of over 4.5 tsf.

Tested unit weight values varied from 102 to 121 pcf and tested unconfined compressive strength values were 8,860 to 40,300 psf.

Tan limestone was next encountered in Borings B-1 through B-4 below depths of 8 to 15 feet. The tan limestone occasionally contains clay seams and is considered moderately hard to hard (rock basis) with Texas Cone Penetrometer (THD) values of 2 to 2½ inches of penetration for 100 hammer blows.

Gray limestone containing occasional shale seams is next present in Borings B-1 through B-4 at depths of 14 to 18 feet, extending through boring termination at depths of 20 to 25 feet below existing grade. The gray limestone is considered moderately hard to hard (rock basis) with Texas Cone

Penetrometer (THD) values of 1⅜ to 2 inches of penetration for 100 hammer blows.

The Atterberg Limits tests indicate the various clays encountered at this site are active to highly active with respect to moisture induced volume changes. Active clays can experience volume changes (expansion or contraction) with fluctuations in their moisture content. Free swell test results indicate a very high potential for moisture-induced volume change from present in-situ moisture levels.

3.2 Groundwater Observations

The borings were drilled using continuous flight augers in order to observe groundwater seepage during drilling. No seepage was encountered during drilling and the borings were dry at completion.

While it is not possible to accurately predict the magnitude of subsurface water fluctuation that might occur based upon these short-term observations, it should be recognized that groundwater conditions will vary with fluctuations in rainfall.

Fluctuations of the groundwater level can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall;

site topography and runoff; hydraulic conductivity of soil strata; and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. During wet periods of the year, seepage can occur in joints in the clays or atop/within the limestones. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

4.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 General Foundation Considerations

Two independent design criteria must be satisfied in the selection of the type of foundation to support the proposed structure. First, the ultimate bearing capacity, reduced by a sufficient factor of safety, must not be exceeded by the bearing pressure transferred to the foundation soils. Second, due to consolidation or expansion of the underlying soils during the operating life of the structure, total and differential vertical movements must be within tolerable limits. The recommended foundation alternatives for the proposed structure are discussed below.

The moisture induced volume changes associated with the active to highly active clays present at this site indicate that shallow or near surface footings could be subject to differential movements of a potentially detrimental magnitude. The most positive foundation system for the proposed building would be situated below the zone of most significant seasonal moisture variations. A deep foundation system transferring column loads to a suitable bearing stratum is considered the most positive foundation system. Straight drilled reinforced concrete shafts penetrating the gray limestone offer a positive foundation system and are recommended. Recommendations for this system are presented below.

4.2 Straight Shaft Design Parameters

4.2.1 Pier Depth and Allowable…