Looks good to me.
As an extra thought, when laying out your IP addressing you usually want to group similar devices together. This helps with organization.
Network equipment - 172.16.x.250 - 254
Servers - 172.16.x.1 - 20
Workstations/end users - 172.16.x.50 - 150 (usually a DCHP range)
Printers - 172.16.x.200 - 210
I agree with this - almost..
I prefer to use binary-based ranges rather than decimal. If my servers were addressed at .1 through .20, I might have to work a bit harder to define ACLs or network ranges. If I defined a range of 32 addresses, for example, I could specify that servers were in the range 172.16.x.0/27. It isn't a "subnet" but a range of addresses that can be identified by standard subnet nomenclature and treated as such.
Since I'm involved in the server side as well, we often take it a bit further and divide our servers network up (usually one or more /24 subnets) and group common types of servers in their own IP ranges. In a small network, we might put all AD servers at 8-15, file/print at 16-31, and so on.. Again, this makes setting access and firewall rules easier. By allocating a larger block than we actually need, we have room to grow as well.
It's really personal preference, but establishing a standard that you understand early on is helpful to seeing the big picture.