HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoil Studyl(+rliiffi lfi'.ffifi rui*r'YÊü**'
An Employcc Owncd Compqny
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
www'kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado
RECËIVED
F',Ëß [i $ ;lüti
G.ARFIELD COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOÞMENT
SUBSOIL STT]DY
FOR FOT]IIDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
2053 GRASS MESA ROAI)
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO.20-7-691
JANUARY 19,2021
PREPARED FOR:
MICIIAEL RITTER
P.O. BOX 423
SILT, COLORADO 81652
mcritter(Dlive.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS.....
FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS .......
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS .....
FLOOR SLABS
I.INDERDRAIN SYSTEM .......
SURFACE DRAINAGE
LIMITATIONS...........
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 &, 5 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 6 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
.........- 1 -
-1
1
.-6-
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Proiect No. 20-7-691
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results ofa subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located at
2053 Grass Mesa Road, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure 1. The
pu{pose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was
conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Michael
Ritter dated November 10,2020.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field
exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or
swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable
pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during
this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical
engineering considerations based on the proposed conskuction and the subsurface conditions
encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed residence will be a one-story wood frame strucfure with attached garage. Ground
floors will be a combination of structural over crawlspace and slab-on-grade for the garage.
Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about I to
5 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of
construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above,
we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site was vacant at the time of our field exploration. The ground surface is relatively
flat with a slight slope down to the north. Vegetation consists of grass, weeds, sage brush, and
pinyon trees.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 20.7-691
,l
F'IELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 15,2020. Two exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurface conditions.
The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-
mounted CME-458 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Kumar &
Associates,Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers
were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30
inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-l586.
The penetration resistance values îre an indication of the relative density or consistency of the
subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are
shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2, The samples were returned to our
laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils consist of about I foot of topsoil overlying hard, silty sandy clay soils to between 7 to
11 feet deep underlain by dense, silty sand and gravel to the maximum explored depth of 21 feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture
content, density, Atterberg limits testing and gradation anaþses. Results of swell-consolidation
testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay, presented on Figure 4,
indicate low to moderate compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading
and a low collapse to moderate swell potential when wetted. Results of gradation analyses
performed on small diameter drive samples (minus lYz-inch fraction) of the coarse granular
subsoils are shown on Figure 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
slightly moist to moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper clay soils possess low bearing capacity and low to moderate swell potential when
wetted. The underlying sand and gravel soils possess moderate bearing capacity and typically
low sefflement potential. Spread footings placed on a depth of compacted structural fill can be
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 20-7-691
-J-
used for support of the proposed residence with a risk of differential foundation movement
possibly resulting in distress to the residence if the bearing soils become wetted. The structural
fill should consist of a suitable granular imported material such as 34-inchroad base. If site
grading or excavations expose a suffîcient quantity of granular material it can be processed and
used as structural fitl. A lower risk option would be to extend the bearing level down to the
underlying gravel soils using a deep foundation system such as helical piers or by constructing a
basement level.
DESIGN RECOMMEI\DATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction, the building be founded with spread footings bearing on a minimum
of 3 feet of compacted structural fill.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1) Footings placed on 3 feet of compacted structural {ill should be designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect
movement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will
be about 1 inch or less. Additional, post conskuction, movement could occur if
the underlying clay soils become wetted. The magnitude of the additional
movement would depend on the depth and extent of wetting but could be on the
order of 1 inch.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and
2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement
of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this
atea.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local
anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining strucíres should also be designed to resist
lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section ofthis report.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 20-7-691
-4-
Topsoil and any loose disturbed soils should be removed and the footing areas
sub-excavated down 3 feet below proposed bearing grade and the sub-excavated
depth backfilled with compacted skuctural fill. The exposed soils should be
scarified to a depth of I inches moisture conditioned to near optimum and
compacted. Structural fill should extend laterally beyond the edges of the footing
a distance equal to the depth of fill below the footing.
A representative ofthe geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOTINDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to
undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-site fine-grained soils and at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of on-site or imported
granular materials. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and
can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should
be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight
of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site fine-grained soils and at least 35 pcf for
backfill consisting of on-site or imported granular materials.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment.
The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and ahonzontal
backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain
should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90o/o of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content slightly above optimum. Backfill in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least95%o of the maximum standard Proctor density.
Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since
this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall
backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to
facilities constructed on the backfill.
s)
6)
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 20-7-691
5
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the
sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against
the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated
based on a coeffìcient of friction of 0.45. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 325 pcf. The
coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil
strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will
occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against
the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a nonexpansive material compacted to at
IeastglYo of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade
construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained
vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage
cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the
designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of relatively
well graded gtavel should be placed beneath basement level slabs for support. This material
should consist of minus 2-inchaggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less
thanl2%o passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-
site granular soils or a suitable imported granular soil devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized
rock.
T]NDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Atthough free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our expenence ln
the area, and where clay soils are present, that local perched groundwater can develop during
times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a
perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls,
crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by
an underdrain system.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 20-7-691
-6-
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above
the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of
excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 17o to
a suitable gfavity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should
contain less than 2o/opassingthe No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a
maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least lYzfeet deep. An
impervious membrane such as 20 mllPVC should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough
shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the bearing soils
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the residence has been completed:
1) lnundation ofthe foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided
during construction.
2) Exterior backfrll should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas
and to at least 90Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to
drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum
slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be
capped with about 2 feet of the on-site finer-graded soils to reduce surface water
infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
' backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least
l0 feet from foundation walls.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed fype of
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 20-7-69'l
1
construction and our experience in the area. Our selices do not include determining the
presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing
in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of
practice should be consulted. Our finclings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not
respo¡sible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we
should provide contin'ued consultation and field selices during construction to review and
monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verifo that the recommendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site obseruation
of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Subrnitted,
l{us¡rar & AssceiaÉcs, årae.
James H. Parsons, E.I.
Reviewed by:
Daniel E.
JHPlkac
Kumar & Associates, lnc. ii Project No, 20-7-691
.?'
"t {
¡
I
r.f. r
û
¡
Í.f,t
tíç
f'r
!.{;.i
*
*
1 50 300
APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET
MESA ROAD
s
20-7 -691 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1
Ê
ö
è
BORING I
EL. 1 00'
BORING 2
EL. 98'
o 48/12
tNC=12.7
DD=83
-200=56
LL=81
Pl=46
0
48/ 12
WC=13.5
DD=81
5 5
50/12
WC=12.4
DD= 1 00
41/12
WC=19.0
DD=84
-200= l 8
10 10
FtJ
L¡J
LL
I-Fo-
t¡Jo
36/12
WC=6.3
50/ 1 ¡-]JLIt¡-
I-F(L
t¡JÕ
+4=24
-2OO=32
15 50/ 4
15
50/ 4
20 20
so/1
25 25
20-7-691 Kumar & Associates LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2
3
LEGEND
N
TOPSOIL; CLAY, SANDY, ORGANICS, FIRM, MOIST, BROWN.
CLAY (CL); SANDY, SILTY, HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST, PALE BROWN.
W
SAND AND GRAVEL (GM-SM); SILTY, DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST' GRAY AND BROWN.
F
i
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2_INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
DRTVE SAMPLE, 1 S/8-INCH l.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
,.T.^ DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 48 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER4c'/ t¿ FALLTNc 30 TNCHES WERE REQUIRED To DRIVE THE SAMPLER f 2 lNcHES.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON DECEMBER 15,2O2O WITH A 4-INCH-DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS_FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. lHE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED BY HAND LEVEL AND REFER
TO BORING 1 AS ASSUMED lOO' BENCHMARK.
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE
ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (PCt) (ASTU D2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM 06913);
_2OO= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 2OO SIEVE (ASTM D1 1 4O);
LL = LIQUID LIMIT (ASTM DA318);
Pl = PLASTICITY INDEX (ASTM D4318).
20-7 -691 Kumar & Associates LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 5
E
SAMPLE OF; Sondy Cloy
FROM:Boringl@5'
WC = 1 2.4 %, DD = 100 pcf
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
t€#. ft.
5
4
JJ
l¿¡
=Ø
I
zo
t-
â
=oØzoo
3
2
1
0
-z
-3
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 100
2A-7 -691 Kumar & Associates SWELL_CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
€
È
SAMPLE OF: Very Sondy Cloy
FROM:Boring2@2.5'
WC = 13.5 %, DD = 81 pcf
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
Èndidotid
1
0
-1
às
JJ
¡¡¡
=an
I
zotr
Õ
=oØzoc)
2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF t00
Fig. 5SWELL_CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT20-7-691 Kumar & Associates
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
ÎUÊ ffi^Dtf,Gs
24 HRS 7 HRS ttt¡at
U.S. INDARO SEMES
aia ¡to ¡a
CLAR SOUARE OPENINGS
afr. .t^- ,1tt'
l
I
l
l
1
l I
IÍ
I
a
roo
90
ao
,o
60
50
10
30
20
to
o
o
to
20
30
æ
s
æ
70
EO
90
roo
=tr
-125
I
DIAMETER OF IN MILLI
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 21 % SAND
LIOUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Sllty Sond ond Grovel
11 %
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 32 %
FROM:8oring1O10'
lh.6c lcsl ¡.sulls opply only lo lhr
somplês whlch w€ru lcsl.d. lh.
tesllng rrport sholl nol bo r.produc€d,
oxc.pf ln full, ullhout lh. wrlllon
opprovol of Kuñor & AsÉocioloÊ, lnc.
si.vâ ondlysls l.l¡ng ls pcrfomod ¡n
occordonci rllh
^sTil
D69f3, ASTM D7928,
ASIM Cl!6 ond/or ASTM otl,ao.
GRAVELSAND
FINE COARSEFINEMEDTUM ICOARSE
Fig. 6GRADATION TTST RESULTSKumar & Associates20-7-691
l(+rtiiçlå',ffifËtr*'"nË;*""'TABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSNo. 20-7-691Very Sandy ClayClayey SandVery Sandy ClaySOIL WPESandy ClaySilty Sand and Gravel3.9(%lSWELLlosflEXPANSIONPRESSURE461817,000MIPLASTICINDEXATTERBERG LIMITSt%ìLIQUID LIMIT81PERCENTPASSING NO,200 slR/E563244(%)SANDGRADATIONt%lGRAVEL24831001I84NATURALDRYDENSIWlncfl13.519.0t%)NATURALMOISTURECONTENT12.712.46.32Y25lfr)DEPTH2Y,50112SAMPLE LOCATIONBORING
Ð qPublic.net'" Garfield County, CO
Physical
Address
Owner
Address
2053 GRASS MESA RD
RIFLE 81ó50
RITTER, MICHAEL C & KENDRA
M
414N GOLDEN DRIVE
stLTco 81ó52
2O19Total Actual
Value
Overview
Legend
i ! earcels
Roads
Parcel/Account
Numbers
Highways
- Limited Access
- Híghway
Major Road
Local Road
Minor Road
Other Road
Ramp
*-. Ferry
Pedestrian WaY
Owner Name
{ i Lakes&Rivers
- CountyBoundary
Line
$100,000 Last2Sales
Date Price
6/t5/202O $100,000
3/27/2073 $O
Account R247O24
Number
Parcel 2177263æ324
Number
Acres 40
LandSqFt O
TaxArea I54
2019Mill Levy 67.0920
Date geated: 6/27 12O27
Lâst Data Uploaded: 6/2U2O27 2:Q2:21' lÙl
Deve rooed bvGì
F,"þg!"^idçt
6t2712021 qPubl¡c.net - Garfield County, CO - Property Record Card: R247O24
(ÐqPublic.net'"' Garfield County, CO
5ummary
Account
Parcel
Property
Address
Legal
Descr¡pt¡on
Acres
Land SqFt
Tax Areâ
MillLew
SuMivision
R247024
277726300324
2053 GRASS MESA RD, RIFLE,CO 81ó50
Section:2óTownship: ó Range: 93 SWSWSubdivision: GRASS MESA
RANCH Lot: 22 39.9 ACRES
39.9
o
l'54
67.0920
GRASS MESA RANCH
View Map
Owner
RITTER, MICHAEL C & KENDRA M
414 N GOLDEÑ DRIVE
stLï co 81ó52
Land
Unit Type 35 AC TO L/T 100 AC - 0550 {VACANT LAND}
Squâre Feet 0
Actual Values
Assessed Year
Land Aqtual
lmprovement Actual
Totãl Actual
Assessed Values
Assessed Year
Land Assessed
lmprovement Assessed
Total Assessed
Tax History
Tax Year
Taxes Billed
20.20
s479.72
CIick here to view the tax information for this parcel on the Garfreld Countv lleêlul€tbwþlilq
Transfers
20.27
$100,000.00
$o.oo
$100,000.00
202!
$29.000.00
$o.oo
$29,000.00
2079
$4s7.64
Grântor
ANDERSON, GARLAND E; ANDERSON,
DIANAM
ANDERSON, GARLAND E; ANDERSON,
DIANAM;...
GRASS MESA HOA; GRASS MEsA RANCH
ANDERSON, GARLAND E. & SAMMON,
DIANAM.
Grantee
RITTER, MICHAEL C: RITTER, KENDRA M
ANDERSON, GARLAND E; ANDERSON,
DIANAM
GRASS MESA RANCH
GRASS MESA HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
GRASS MESA RÀNCH
ANDERSON, GARLAND E; ANDERSON,
DIANAM
20.20
$1oo,o0o.oo
$o.oo
$1æ,000.(x)
2020
$7,1so.oo
$o.oo
$7,150.O0
2018
$387.20
2019
$100,000.00
$o.oo
$100,000.(x)
20t9
$7,15O.0o
$o.oo
$¿150.o0
2077
$346.4O
Sale Date
6/15/2020
Deed Type
WARRANTY
DEED
QUITCLAIM
DEED
DECLARATION
DECLARAT¡ON
Reception
Number
93ó839
83341s
Book
Page
1522-A32
1352-962
0765-
0314
07a9-
0223
Sale
Price
$100,000
$o3/27/2013
2/27t20,09
8/t5/2003
787491
637370
$o
$o
5/6/20'02 DECLARATION
70/6/7990 WARRANTY
DEED
10/ó/79A9 QUtTCLA|M
DEED
QUITCLAIM
DEED
602916
406698
4L7204
863997
$O ANDER5ON,GARLANDE.&SAMMON,
DIANAM.
$5o,ooo
$o
$0 ANDERSON,GARLAND E;ANDERSON,
DIANAM;...
No data avaílablefor the following modules: Buildings, Photos, Sketches.
https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Appl¡cation.aspx?ApplD=1038&LayerlD=22381&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9447&Q=2136400991&KeyValue=R247O24 112