As built vs proposed terrain

[SHCanada2]

Some DAs require proposed and existing ASL elevations to be on the site plan. For flat lots this is not that big of a deal, and sometimes requires some math on sloping (ex: 4% driveway slope, would require a calculation of taking the ASL at the sidewalk, and calculating the elevation change over the length of the driveway @4%). On flat lots, I just put in markers and color them different for existing vs proposed (or leave out the existing if I can get away with it), and neither is actually an elevation terrain point

 

It is more of a PIA for walkout lots, or split walkout lots as one has to continually ensure drainage is away from the house.

 

My question is, what are people doing to show the existing condition and the proposed elevation condition. Is the existing condition a separate plan file with just the terrain, and then the proposed is on the proposed building plan, and use a reference display to show both on the same? if so how to you ensure the ASL labels for each point do not overlap?

 

Ideally I would like:

1. be able to show a cross section showing visually how much fill would be needed, and as such required retaining walls

2. on the site plan show something like below, but really this below shows two different point markers at different physical points, where the message to be conveyed is they are the same point (I suppose I could overlap them and angle the text for the proposed to be away from the existing, or just put in angled text for one of them):

 

It just all seems to be a lot of manual work. Any ideas would be appreciated

[Mark3D]

I would make 2 terrains one would be existing then convert to symbol then edit existing to proposed and merge with symbol sometimes I give the symbol a semi transparent material so you can see through it in 3d

[mattyt12]

you can also save a copy of the original terrain and link it to the modified terrain plan using the reference tool

[JiAngelo]

2 hours ago, Mark3D said:

I would make 2 terrains one would be existing then convert to symbol then edit existing to proposed and merge with symbol sometimes I give the symbol a semi transparent material so you can see through it in 3d

That's a great idea.  I'm wondering if we subtract the original from proposed would it give us all the fill volume required.  And if we subtracted the proposed from the original would we determine the volume of cut required.