The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubsoil Study( '.=:JrL-- [l-; { I h¡l r nt lt-l¡:rrr'l¡r¡ ( ìcrttecl¡¡:ii ¡rl, h r... í()llC ( ì'rrrrrr ll.'r¡,1 I 5.1 (ì lcl¡r'r r',1 S¡ri¡¡ii, ( j'1,'nril,' ¡ì I ór.ì I I'l r¡ rnr : D?i).r)-15 -î()trfi .{ lj;rr: ()7i)-()+5.s4ì{ r:tn;til: hllgrrr{rilt|i.lr1 ìl c('l t-r'( }lrl September 28,2007 David Hunsicker 2665Balnmas Way Grand JunctiorL Colorado 81506 Job No. 107 Subsoil Study for Foundation Desþ and Percolation Test, Proposed Residence, County Road 3ll @ivide Creek Road), About 8 Miles of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Hunsicker: As requestd Hepworth-Paw¡ak Geotechnic{ Inc. performed a subsoil study for of foundations and percolation test for an on-site wastewat€r freatment system at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordanc€ with our agreement for engineering services to David Hrmsicker dated August 14,2007. The dataobtained our reconrmendations based on the proposed constn¡ction and subsr¡rface conditions encountered ar€ pres€nted in this r€,poft. Evaluation ofpotential geologic hazar.d to developmeirt of the site is beyond the scope of this study. Proposed Construction: The proposed residenc€ will be a single story modular building over a partial garden level basement with an attached garage located on the site as shown on Figure l. The basement floor will be slab-on-grade. Cut de'pths are expected to range between about 4 to 6 feet. Foundation loadings a¡e assumed to be relatively ligbt and typical of the proposed type of construction. fui on-site wastewater treament syste¡n is proposed to be located to the west, downhill of the proposed residence. If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different ûom those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report- P¡rl¡cr i03-tì4l-? t l9 o (.-'olt¡rnr-hr Splings 7lt)-(¡1i'5i62 c Silvcrtlt,rrtrc 970-161ì- l9fì9 HEPVúORTH - PAWLAK GEOTEC|ìNTCAL Subject ¡'d dgO:eo ¿O Oe JdU -2- Site Conditions: The lot was vacant at the time of our field exploration and is located on the sor¡th (downhill) side of County Road 311 (Divide Creek Road) approximately 8 rniles south of Silt. Divide Creek is located in a relatively shallow, steeply sided channel about 200 feet west of the proposd building area, The water level in the creek was on the order of 15 to 20 fú.below the proposed building rirea at the time ofor¡r field exploration and the creek sides were t¡,pically about 10 feet hrgh. A dry e,phemeral drainage is located roughly along the south propøty line. An existing water well is locatod just west ofthe proposed buitding area. The g¡ound zurface in the proposed buitding area is relatively flat ûo sliglrtly irregular and gently to moderately sloping down to the west. Vegøation consists mainly of weeds with scattered juniper trees and mature trees abng the creek sides. Large boulders are located along the creek channel. Subeurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by orcavating two exploratory pits in the area ofthe proposod building and one profile pit in the proposed on-site wastewaterfieatment site as sbown on Figure 1. The logs ofthe pits are preseirted on Figure 2, Thrc subsoils enoounterod, below aboutYz foot oftopsoil (root zone), t¡pically consist of medium stif[, sandy silty clay dov.'n to the maximum explored depth of 8 fu. A medium dense layer, approximateþ 2 feet thiclq of silty to clayey sandy gravel with cobbles and small boulders rÃ'as encountered at a dqth of 3 feet in Pit 2 and just below the topsoil (root zone) in P-3. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undistr¡rbed samples ofthe clay, presented on Figrnes 3 and 4, indicate low cornpressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading, and a low collapse potential (settlement under constant load) after \A'etting. The samples showed moderate to high compressibilþ with increased loading afrer wetting. No ftee water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist to moist. A well construction and test report for the water well drilled on the lot prepared by Shelton Drilling and provided by Mr. Hunsicker indicates Wasatch Formation bedrock at a depth of 20 feet below the site. Foundation Recommendaûons: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and the nature ofthe proposed mnstructior¡ it should be feasible to cå&ecrr ¿'d JobNo.1U70623 dgO:eO ¿O Oe JdU t. -3- support the propsed residence on spread footings or a mat foundation placed on the undisturbed natural soil desþed ôr an allowable soil bearing presr¡ure of 1,000 psf with a risk ofdifferential foundation settlement. A mat foundation a¡rd continuor¡s perimeter walls would make the fourdation more rigid and 'box-likd', and help to lirnit differential settleme¡rt across the building footprint. A dee,p foundatbn'systerr¡ such as helical piers or scrsw pileg that extend down into the rurderlying bedrock would provide npderate load capacity with arelatively low risk of differential settlement. 'We should be contac'ted to provide additional analysis and recommendations if a deep foundation s¡ntern is proposed. The upper clay soils tend to oompress under load afrer wetting and there oould be some post-construction differential settlement for the spread ñoting or mat foundation altematives. The settlement oould be on the order of I to 2 inches depending the depth and extent of any wetting. Footings should be a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Topsoil and loose or disturbed soils encounterod at the br¡ndation bearing level within the excavation should be removed and the foundation bearing level exte,lrded down to undisturbed natural soils. Exterior footings or edges ofmats should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost protectbn Placemeirt of for¡ndations at least 36 inches below the exterior grade is t¡pioally usd in this area- A shallow frost protection system consisting ofrigid foam insulation could be r.¡sed in the mat foundation altemative. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottomto span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 fú'. Foundation ¡nd Ret¡ining \ilalls: Foundation walls and retaining structures which are lateraþ 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 equivale'nt fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for backñtl consisting of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining stn¡ctures which are separate from the building and can be expected to deflect sufñcientlyto mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should bc designed for a a&ecrr e'd JobNo, 1070ó23 dBO:eO ¿O Oe JdU -4- lateral earth presstue computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid r¡nit weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting ofthe on-sÍte soils. All foundation and retaining struc'tures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, trafüg construction rnaterials and equipment. The pressures recornmended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal baokfill surface. The buildup ofwater behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining stn¡ctt¡re. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pres{¡ure buildup behindwalls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifrs and compactod to at least 90% of the maximum standa¡d Proctor deirsity at near optimum moisture contenl Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be cornpacted to at least 95% ofthe maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or Ì¡se large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressufe on the wall. Some settlement of dee,p for¡ndatbn wall backñll should be expected, even ifthe material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. The lateral resistance of for¡rdation or retaining wall footings will be a combinæion ofthe sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side ofthe footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of ûiction of 0.35. Passive pressì¡re of compacted backfill against the sides ofthe footings can be calculatod using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf. The coefficient of füction and passive pressure valuæ recommended above assume ulti¡nate soil strengh. Suitable factots of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultirnate strengtb, particularly in the case of passive resistarice, Fill placed against the sides ofthe footings to resist lateral loads should be compactod to at least 95% ofthe maximum standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture @ntent. eä&ccrr ¡'d JobNo. lfil 0623 deO:eO ¿O OÊ JdU ( .5- Floor Sl¡bs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive oftopsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of sorne 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 r¡sed 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 intendd slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of freedraining gravel should be placed be'lreath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should oonsist of minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less tlw2o/o passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill rnaterials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of mæ<imum standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. Required fill can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. Underdrain System: Afthough ûee water \ras not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experie,nce in the area that local perched groundwater can develop dtning times of heavy precipitation or seasonal n¡noff Frozen ground during spring runoffcan create a perched condition, We recommend below-grade constructior¡ such as fetaining wallso crawlspace and basement areas, be protected ûom wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain systert The drains should consist ofdrainpipe placed in the bottom ofthe wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with ûee-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 lo/oto asuitable gravityoutlet. Freedraining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2o/o passtttgthe No. 200 sieve, less than 5tr/o passing the No. 4 sieve ard have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gfavel backfilt should be at least lYzfeet deep, An impervious membrang such as a 20 or 30 mil PVC liner, should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting ofthe bearing soils. e$tecfr s'd Job No- 107 0ó23 deO:eO ¿O Oe JdU { -6- Surf¡ce Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at alltimes afrer the residence has been completed: l) Inundation of the foundation excavations and r¡r¡derslab areas should be avo ided druing constn¡ction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moistwe and compacted to at least 95% ofthe maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% ofthe maximum standard proctor densþ in landscape areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet ofthe on-sitg finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltr*ion. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of tbe building should be sloped to drain away from the formdation in all directions. we recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum stope of 3 inches in the first l0 feet in pavement and walkrray areas. A swale may be needed uphill to direct sr¡rfaoe runof[ around the residence. 4) Roofdownspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Sprinkter heads and landscaping which requires regular heavy inigatiorL such as sod, should be located at leåst l0 feet from the buildìng. Consideration should be givento theuse of xeriscape to limit potential wetting of soils below the for¡ndation caused by irrigation' Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on Se'ptember 19,2007 to er¡aluate the feasibility of an on-site wastewater treatment system at'the site. One profile pit and tl¡ee percolation test holes were dug at the locations shown on Figure I' The test holes (nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposod in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Figure 2 and cstec¡'r g'd Job No. 107 0623 dSO:eO ¿O OÊ JdU t -7- typically consist of sandy silty clay with occasional gravel. A medium dense gtavel layer, about 2 feet thicþ was encountered just below the topsoil (root zone) at P-3. The percolation test results are presented in Table 2. Peroolation test resuhs indicate a infiltration rate of 60 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the test area should be suitable for an on-site wastewater treatment systern 'We recommend the inñltration area be oversized due to the relativeþ slow percolation rate. A registerd professional engineer should design the infiltration se,ptic disposal systeÍt LÍmitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accçtod geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this trea atthis tima We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained ûom the exploratory pits excavated at the locations indicated on Figure I and to the depths shown on Figure 2, the proposed $pe of construction, laboratory and percolation test results and our experience in the a¡ea. Our services do not include determining the ptesencg prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. Ifthe client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field ofpractice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extapolation of the subsurface conditions identiñed at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident rmtil excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for desþ purposes- We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of oru information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recomme,lrdations, and to verifu that the recommendations have been appropriately interpretod. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations estecfr ¿'d JobNo.1070623 dSO:eO ¿O Oe JdU ((' -8- presented herein We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and tasting of stn¡ctural fill by a rqresentative ofthe geotechnical ørgineer. If you have airy questions, or if we may be of fi¡rther assistancg please let us know. Respectfirlly Submitted, HEPWORTH. PA INC. Trevor L. Reviewed by:Th/ Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. TLKJcay attaohments Figure 1 - Loc¿tions of Exploratory Pits and Percolation Test Holes Figtne 2 - Logs of Exploratory Pits Figrrres 3 and 4 - Swell-Consolidation Test Results Table 1 - Summary of Laboratory Test Results T able 2 - Peroolation Test Results ßi cstecfr s'd JobNo.1070623 deo:eO ¿O Oe JdU {'(' 1'-80 DRIVEWAY ESMT ri \ I I I +F I \ It{l' -'- --5lo-"ioTiffqzùe GATE ì AP-3 SEPTIC A DrsPosAL P-2 À AFEA PROFILE IPlr a p-., 172 gt m -l!az t {(t rOl{lôlÞ :(¿'()t(cl lrn u ia \- I I PIT 1 {<aWELLa455o TU'm{I PIT 2 ñrOñrû c! LOT 2 2.26 ACRES I N g6g17j E 354't6-I J t \I Ts 89"02'03" w 35.74 \ I ,,":l 107 0623 e&Ftecn HEPì¡'OFIH.PAWLAI( G:O'iECII|SCAT LOCATIONS OF Ð(PLORATOBY PITS AND PERCOTATION TEST HOLES FIGURE 1 s'd dSO¡eO ¿O Oe ¡dU {.i. PIT 1 PIT2 PROFILE PIT o 0 t-l¡lu¡IL IIÞo- r.uô WC-8,6 DD-!72 -200-59 t-u¡t¡¡lt IIl-o- l¡Jô 5 5 wC=9.6 DD=97 WC=ô.1 D0=98 -200-65 t0 10 LEGEND: n n ffi TOPSOIL; sandy s¡lty clay, root zonê, f¡rm, mo¡st, dark brou,m. CIAY (CL): sandy to very sandy, sÍlty, with occasional gravd, med¡um sl¡ff to st¡ff, sliglttly moist to moist, broun, low plaslicity. GRAVEL (GC-GM); silty to clayey, with cobUes and smâll boulders, medium dense, slighdy moist to moist, brown. þ Relatively undisturbed hard ddve sample. NOÏES: 1. Exploratory p¡ts were excavated on September 13,2007 with a backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory p¡ts were measured approximately by pacing from features sholvn on the site plan prwided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and the logs of exploratory p¡ts are dratrtn to depth. ¿. The exploratory pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines bdween materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between materialtypes and transitions may be grâdual. ô. No free water was encountered ¡n the pits at the time of digging. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC : WaterContent (% ) DD = DU Density ( pcl) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 107 0623 e&Ftecrr Hatr.rôÊ?H-ralflLÂf eidâclii¡rcr¡L LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PTS FIGURE 2 ord dot:eo ¿o oe JdU cogoCLbo-9¡--.ororaır ¿ãıË àûËrEEc) Èc -EHËTgÃo--Ë å.F .F\\\.oE=Po o-=ı_ gttE-=ot)Ioctc,o€t.D.xl¡læ=U'(t,t¡JÉÈolr¡Jo-o-os'ro(ooAIç)(ø)Hoss¡udltocool(Ðo¡(o0¡\ocJ'td&!uL¡Þótdt,sFtEo*Þ-htÈU'bfU)l¡JÉF-U'lllþzot-Êioq)zooJuJ3ü)g)UJEfoILT!'t(,clo\:o(¡¡o!! ËoeoCLco('oÉLbCLI(orr..@o)(o 6'ıil 6ıË à'flP u FP8å 3ñ-ur9¡Ë,Q n å-*Ë åF å Ft__I,,ìVco'8.9or o .-=b. g6E"ìoo¡octoooatt.Yt¡lÉ,lU'(r,t¡¡Ê.Èot¡JJÈÈctG¡(r:tr0l()oC\Igls( zo ) Holssaudyroc@olclÂ¡(oooc$ft¡îiï¿ú27ttE,h(t-5fr+EoÊl¡¡IØIfq,u¡É,l-frzot-kô=oU)zo()IJt¡l=CNçu¡ÉfoILÐ!'t(¡tc,cl{o(¡to!!lu HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECH NICAL, INC.TABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSJob No. 107 0623oÈ8()lLTYPESandy silty clay withSandy silty claySandy silty cþUI{OONFINEDcoitPREssrvESlRENGTH(PSF}A TERBERG LIT¡llÏSPLASTþINDÊXlo/olL|QUTOLllrllT(oÁlPEROENTPASSINGNO.2@SIEVE5965SANDeh,GRAVELlo/olNATURALDRYOENSITYlocfì929798NATURALI,IOISTURECONÏÉNTl%ol8.69.6I1SATIPLE LOCATIONDEPTHtñl265PITNO.12ÈoG¡oFoooLÈfE {'(" HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 2 PERCOI.ATION TEST RESU LTS Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soakedon September 19, 2oo7. Percolation-tests were conducted "n däpt"rber lg,2oo7. The average percolation rates were based on the las[tr"ã ieadings ofeach tesL JOB NO. 107 0623 HOLENO HOLE DEPTH (rNcHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (frilN) WATER DEPTH AT STARTOF INTERVAL (rNcHES) WATER DEPTH AT ENDOF INTERVAL (rNcHEs) OROP ¡N WATER LEVEL (rNcHES) AVERAGE PERCOTâTþN RATE (MtN.flNCH) P-1 ß 16 7 6t/t % 60 6t/t 6Y2 Y. 6%6%% 6%6 Y. 6 6t/¿Y. ít/t l/t % íYz ı%% ï/t 5 % P-2 52 l5 8 V/t Y. 60 VA T/¿Y1 7Yz 7 Yz 7 6r/.1A 6tÁ 6Y2 Yl 6Y.6 Yz 6 5%Y. 5t/.5Y2 % P€38 l5 I 8Y.,/. 60 8Y.7t/¿Y. Vlt 6tÁ 1 8A 6 .A 6 8/¿% 5%5 Y. 5 4t/t Y1 4.À 4/z % 'I'd dol:eo ¿o nc ¿du rcrf åffi,*ffiffilil$i*" An Emdoyac Oryned Compsny 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: (970) 945-7988 fax: (970) 945-8454 email : kaglenwood@kumarusa.com www.kumarusa.com Office L¡cations: Denver (HQ), Parke¡ Colorado Springs, Fon Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado December 15,2021 Trevor Ruonavaara 160 Spring Ridge Drive Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 trfinishes@gmail.com Project No.2I-7-923 Subject: Update of Subsoil Study Report, Proposed Residence, TBD County Road 311, 8 Miles South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado Trevor: As requested, a representative of Kumar & Associates reviewed the subject site conditions and the current proposed development plans for geotechnical conditions. The findings of our review and recommendations for design of the residence are presented in this report. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (now Kumar & Associates) previously conducted a subsoil study for a proposed residence at the subject site and presented the findings in a report dated September 28,2007, Job No. 107 623. The findings presented in the previous report have been used as the basis for the current review and report update. The update was conducted in accordance with our professional services agreement with you dated December 9,2021. Development Plans and Site Conditions: Current development plans are for a single-family residence located within the area evaluated for geotechnical conditions by the previous subsurface study, see attached location plan from the previous subsoil study report. Based on our literature review and recent site visit, the proposed development area conditions appear similar to those when the previous subsoil study report was provided in Septernber 2007. The property is currently vacant with relatively natural ground surface of weeds and scattered juniper trees. The subsurface conditions identified at the site by the previous exploratory pits to the depth excavated of about 8 feet, below the topsoil, consisted mainly of sandy silty clays with silty clayey gravel with cobbles layers and no groundwater level. Conclusions and Recommendations: The current site conditions are generally consistent with those described in the previous report and we anticipate the subsurface conditions to also be essentially the same in the current proposed building area to those described in the previous report. Therefore, the recommendations presented in the September 28,2007 report can be used for the current proposed site development and building foundation design. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, Kumar & Associates, Inc. Steven L. Pawlak, P SLPlkac 1r,ßn2 Attachment: Building 2007 Report) DRIVEWAY ESMT \ I I I +O- I \ I,lJ'ro l-åtÞl(¿:ot(c) lm Ð ìB \- t t ,'' i;,/': 7ô GATE ^P'3 tnnI SEPI]C ^orsPosAL P-2 ^ AFEq PHOFLEIPrr ^ 172 ı âl{'qr 1 (aWELL 45.g o TqP-1 PIT 2 Ë u? $t\tñt LOT 2 2.26 ACRES N 96"4012 E -354't6'- ¿i s 89"0203" w 35.74'T l"=80 107 0623 LOCATIONS OF Ð(PLORATORY PITS AND PERCOI.ATION TEST HOLES FIGUBE 1 Ruonavaara PropertyWrite a description for your mapDivideCreek GDqPublic,nef" Garfield County, CO Account Number Parcel Number Acres Land SqFt Tax Area 2019 Mill levy R042346 240172400263 2 o 023 73.8920 Physical Address Owner Address 0 srLT 81652 RUONAVAARATREVOR 483óAPUUWAIROAD KALAHEO HI9674t 2019Total Actual Value Overuiew Legend ! Parcels Roads Parcel/Account Numbers Highways : LimitedAccess - Highway ' Major Road - ' Local Road '' Minor Road Other Road Ramp -- Ferry Pedestrian Way Owner Name I i Lakes&Rivers - CountyBoundary Line $125,000 Last2Sales Date Price 77/2U2O27 $1ós,oo0 7O/18/2O1O $s0,000 Date üeatediu23/2022 Last Data Uploaded 2/23/2022 2:O7 :24 AM Devero'edotC)F."¡F""^,rqRI 2123122, 11:26 AM Account Parcel Property Address Legal Descrlptlon Acres Land SqFt Tax Area MillLew Subdlvision qPublic.net - Garfield County, CO - Property Record Card: R042346 G)qPublic,nef" Garfield County, CO Summary RO42346 2407724ñ263 _srLT.co 81ó52 Section: 12 Township: 7 Range: 92 A PCL OF LAND lN THE NWSE. AKA LOT 2 JOSEF P LANGEGGER SUB.DIV EXEMPTION 2.259 0 23 73.8920 @,llep Owner RUONAVAARA,TREVOR 483óA PUUWAI ROAD KALAHEO HI 9ó741 Land UnitType 1AC TO t-lT 5 AC - 0520 (VACANT LAND) Square Feet 0 Actual Values Assessed Year Land Actual lmprovement Actual Total Actual Assessed Values Assessed Year Land Assessed lmprovement Assessed Total Assessed Tax History TaxYear Taxes BÌlled 202L $2,678.60 2020 2079 $r,282.28 2027 $125,000.00 $o.oo $125,000.00 202t $3ó,250.00 $o.oo $3ó,2s0.q) 20ta $7,032.76 2020 $70,000.00 $o.oo $70,æ0.00 2020 $20,300.00 $o.oo $20,3æ.00 2077 $923.96$7,361,.96 Clìck here to v¡ew the tax information for this Þarcel on the Garñeld Countv Treasurer's website. Transfers Sele Date 17/22/2027 to/78/20ro 6/77/2æ9 5/30/2006 5/30/20o6 5/U2005 70/70/2004 4/5/2004 3t8/2004 9/11/2003 7t24/1986 r/7/7900 7/t/1900 7/1.tLgoo 7/U79æ Reception Number 967198 793103 787898 699647 699646 673466 662069 649785 649786 ó3803ó Book - Page Sale Price $1ós,000 $so,ooo $o $o $1¿10,000 $7o,ooo $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o Deed Type SPECIALWARRANTY DEED Warranty Deed QuitClaim Deed WARRANTYDEED WARRANWDEED WARRANTYDEED DECLARATION RESOLUTION EASEMENT AGREEMENT Deeds Deeds Deeds Deeds Deeds 1808-ó9ó 1808-ó95 1684-672 7632-785 7575-667 7575-672 7526-277 0692-æO2 0564-0025 o54r'-O343 0544-0057 os47-o669 Property Related Public Documents Click here to view PropS!!y lCj¡!ed.¡CþIç_89çCmgn'þ No data available for thefollowing modules: Buildings, Photos, Sketches. https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1038&LayerlD=22381&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9447&KeyValue=R042346 1t2 2123122,11:26 AM qPublic.net - Garfield County, CO - Propefi Record Card: R042346 The Garfield County Assessor's Offrce makes every effort to produce the most accur¿te irìformation possible. No warranties, expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use or interpretation. Data is subject to constant change and its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. User Privacy Policy GDPR PrÌvacy Notice LastDataUpþ31!!/23/!p2!ZÙ7;þiþ! Version2.3.177 Developed by C)9""t'gtEdçf https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1038&LayerlD=22381&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9447&KeyValue=R042346 2t2