Water at the vanishing edge wall is deeper than the pool code allows.
The hardscape set for a resort’s pools and spa draws water depths, stairs, entries and lighting that differ from the pool code and the accessibility standard the review cited.
Resort pool deck hardscape
A hardscape set for a resort’s pool deck: pool, spa and vanishing edge plans and sections, deck and paving details and schedules, boardwalk, fence and gate details, and coastal construction permit plans.
What the review compared
The review read the hardscape set for a resort’s pool deck: the pool, spa and vanishing edge plans and sections, the deck and paving details and schedules, the boardwalk, fence and gate details, and the coastal construction permit plans. Code checking was enabled, so the pools, stairs, entries, barrier and lighting were read against the pool code and the accessibility standard the review cited.
Where the pool deck misses the code
Water at the vanishing edge is deeper than the pool code allows, and the lowered deck beside it sits too far down. The pool stairs and the curved stairs to the lowered deck have no handrails, the pool has too few access points, and no lift or sloped entry is shown. The light table reads a minimum as a maximum, the fence details depart from their specification, the coastal construction permit plans lack required content, and the schedule and details name different pool edge materials.
What to verify next
The landscape architect should resolve the depth, handrail, access and accessible entry items before the pool plan review, then align the fence, lighting and edge material details with their specifications and complete the coastal construction permit plans. Examples that cite a requirement follow the codes the review cited, and every example is a question for the responsible designers.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Vanishing edge exceeds pool code limits
Edge-wall water is deeper than allowed, and the lowered deck sits too far below it.
Why it matters: Fixing it changes the pool floor and the deck grades.
What to check: Reduce the depth and raise the lowered deck.
LandscapePool stairs have no handrails
The pool stairs and their detail show no handrail; the pool code requires them.
Why it matters: Adding anchors after the coping is built means coring finished work.
What to check: Show handrails anchored in the bottom step and deck.
LandscapeToo few pool access points
Stair sets fall short of the pool code’s perimeter spacing, and none serves the deepest water.
Why it matters: Swimmers along the long side have no nearby way out.
What to check: Add access points, including one at the deep water.
LandscapeNo pool lift or sloped entry
The plan shows only stair entries; the accessibility standard requires a lift or sloped entry.
Why it matters: Adding one late reworks the deck or pool shell.
What to check: Show a lift and its anchor, or a sloped entry.
LandscapePool fence details depart from the specification
The gate footing is half the specified depth, and rail size and color also differ.
Why it matters: Bids and submittals for the pool barrier will differ.
What to check: Make the details and notes match the specification.
LandscapePool light minimum read as a maximum
The light table caps lighting at the level the pool code sets as a minimum.
Why it matters: The pool cannot be approved for night swimming as drawn.
What to check: Meet the minimum, or show a no-night-swimming sign.
LandscapeCoastal permit plans are incomplete
The coastal construction permit plans are drawn too small and omit control points and work limits.
Why it matters: The application can be found incomplete and the permit delayed.
What to check: Replot at the required scale; add the missing items.
LandscapePool edge materials differ from the schedule
The schedule lists marble for the gutter, coping and treads; details show precast or undecided stone.
Why it matters: Bidders cannot tell whether to price marble or precast.
What to check: Name one product, size and thickness everywhere.
LandscapeReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Landscape
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High and Medium priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Drawing coordination and code checking
Code checking was enabled alongside the review of plans, schedules, details, and notes.
Findings connected to their source context
Groundbook links each finding to the sheets it came from so the responsible designer can confirm or dismiss it.
Potential impacts describe the issue type. They are not verified outcomes from this project.
Follow the information across the complete set
Groundbook reads the documents you upload and reports where they disagree, where a reference does not resolve, and where a required value is absent.
See how a full set is reviewed or how interfaces are coordinated.
- 1Map the complete set
Identify sheets, disciplines, details, schedules, and notes.
- 2Connect repeated information
Follow tags, references, and requirements wherever they reappear.
- 3Check drawings and code references
Read the detected code references alongside the drawing evidence.
- 4Return findings for verification
Organize potential issues by severity, discipline, and supporting context.
Questions for professional verification
The output supports the responsible designers as they review the source documents and decide what needs to change.
What this result means
- Groundbook surfaced potential issues for professional review.
- Severity helps prioritize which questions to investigate.
- The findings describe coordination, completeness, and code-reference questions in the uploaded set.
- Each finding includes source context for verification.
What it does not mean
- Every potential finding is a confirmed error or violation.
- The project was unsafe, unbuildable, or ultimately noncompliant.
- Groundbook replaced the responsible professionals or authority.
- A correction was made, or any cost or delay was avoided.
About this review
Is this a real review?
Based on a Groundbook review completed in November 2026. Findings are summarized.
Are these findings confirmed defects?
No. Each one is a potential issue for the responsible designer to verify against the source documents. Groundbook reports what the documents say and where they disagree. It does not make design decisions, certify compliance, or replace the authority having jurisdiction.
How long did the review take?
Turnaround runs from 20 minutes to 24 hours depending on project size.
Which codes were checked?
Code checking was enabled for this review. Groundbook detects the codes a set references, reads the codes and amendments that governments publish online, and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report shows all 79 findings from one review of a drawing set and its specifications, with the cited excerpts.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or browse every published case study.
Give the next drawing set a connected first pass
Upload the project, choose the checks that matter, and receive structured potential findings with source context.