ASCE Surveying Competition

2026 ASCE UESI Surveying Society-wide Competition RFI#1

 

1. Section 9.2 - What is the exact focus of content for the new presentation task, and is there a deadline for submitting presentation slides?

 

The presentation should focus on your subdivision and site design. For example, what is the vision for your design complying to the requirements.

 

2. Section 9.1 - Can aesthetic modifications be made to text fonts, symbols, linetypes, and lineweights in the provided topographic drawing?

 

Maps will be judged based on the rubric, you are open to make any modifications to address the design criteria.

 

3. Section 9.1 - The final project narrative states that "all designs shall comply with the applicable Zoning Ordinances and Subdivision Regulations available through the Cerebus website." Other than what is described in the final project narrative, will any other development regulations be shared via Cerebus or the ASCE Surveying Competition website?

 

Grading rubric and sample plan set are available. Teams should research local regulations and standards for additional information.

 

4. Section 9.1 - There is an existing residential building within the northwest corner of the property, as seen in Detail A of the provided ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey. Please clarify if this building is currently occupied, and whether it is to be preserved or demolished in this site development?

 

This will be part of the design problem teams will have to consider. Teams should be able to justify their design decisions in their plan set and presentation.

 

5. Section 9.1 - The General Subdivision Requirements of the final project narrative asks teams to "provide a minimum of 250 parking spaces for each industrial lot". However, parking layout is not listed as a requirement for the tract map (record plat), and the narrative states that a site plan is to be prepared for only one lot. Please clarify whether parking needs to be laid out for all four lots or just one.

 

Teams are required to subdivide the site into 4 lots, and only 1 lot will be required for site plan and rough grading plan. The other 3 lots will be a designated remainder.

 

6. Section 9.1 - It is stated that the tract map may contain "optional utility easements", but that the site plan must have "utility connections" and "minimum 10-foot utility easements". Please clarify whether utility easements are required for both deliverables, and the level of detail required for any proposed utility design.

 

Depending on teams' design, easements can be added to tract maps to justify design. It will be the teams' responsibility to decide what is needed for the tract map and site plan.

 

7. Section 9.1 - What is the existing capacity for utilities (water, storm sewer, etc.) adjacent to and within the site? Are they able to meet the projected demands of a distribution center and the future development of the entire industrial subdivision?

 

Teams can make the assumption the existing utilities are sufficient for this development. Teams can focus on design within the site.

 

8. Section 9.1 - If available, can boring logs or other available geotechnical information about the soil on-site be shared? If not, is there any evidence of soil being contaminated or needing remediation?

 

Boring log will not be available. Teams can make reasonable assumptions for site condition.

 

9. Section 9.1 - Please describe any preliminary grading and site clearing that has already been done within the property, if applicable.

 

The site has not been graded nor cleared.

 

10. Section 9.1 - Wetland boundaries and topographic information within adjoining lots are visible on the provided CAD file, but not plotted on the ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey PDF. Can these features be plotted onto a team's tract map and site plan deliverables?

 

Teams should decide what is appropriate based on your design. Teams can also discuss in the presentation about these assumptions.

 

11. Section 9.1 - Are the investors planning to work with any particular set of architectural plans from which building footprints can be selected? If not, please specify the investors' preferences for building shapes and the number of buildings within a lot.

 

Teams should decide what is appropriate based on your design. Teams can also discuss in the presentation about these assumptions.

 

12. Section 9.1 - The provided ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey introduces an unknown linetype that cuts across adjoining properties owned by "Paul F & Lois A. Anderson Co Trustees" and "Danny Ray & Teresa L. Anderson". The line appears to have a few Zs going through it, and it is not identified in the legend. What does this represent?

 

This line shows that there are two original tracts and the owner on each side of the line are the same owner.

 

13. Section 9.1 - In addition to the requested four lots, are the investors considering future development and expansion of this industrial subdivision into adjacent properties?

 

No, not for the scope of this project.

 

14. Section 9.1 - What traffic considerations must be made for this subdivision design?

 

Please see Final Project Narrative and grading rubric for more information. Teams should decide what is appropriate based on your design. Teams can also discuss in the presentation about these assumptions.

 

15. Section 9.1 - Is the gas service line running east through the property currently serving anything? Does it extend beyond the easterly survey limits?

 

Teams can make the assumption the existing gas line is active and can be used for this development if needed.

 

16. Section 9.1 - Do the "minimum of 250 parking spots" and "1 parking space per 500 sq. ft." requirements include truck parking/loading stalls in the count, or is this requirement exclusively for passenger vehicles? If not included, what is the requirement for truck/loading stalls?

This requirement is for passenger vehicles. For truck parking and loading dock, it will be based on teams' building design. Teams can check local design manual and make assumptions for this project.

 

17. Please clarify the intended parking distribution for the proposed parking area. Specifically, how many spaces are designated for standard passenger vehicles versus trucks or larger vehicles? Additionally, please provide the required dimensions for both standard vehicle parking spaces and tractor-trailer parking spaces.

 

This requirement is for passenger vehicles. For truck parking and loading dock, it will be based on teams' building design. Teams can check local design manuals and make assumptions for this project.

 

18. Please confirm whether the wetland areas identified on the site are jurisdictionally protected wetlands or simply low-lying drainage areas/topographic depressions.

 

Teams can make an assumption this is a local depression. It is NOT a protected wetland.

 

19. Please provide the square footage (SF) for the remaining three buildings not receiving a detailed site design and conceptual grading plan. Following the same 1 parking space/500SF principle, are the buildings to be at least 125,000 SF?

You can make the same assumption as lot 1.

------------------------------
Christopher Chiu M.ASCE
Civil Engineer (Hydraulics)
Fort Worth TX
------------------------------