126%2027th%20Avenue.jpg
Behind the historic John Charles Flugger designed house at 126 27th Avenue, a non-historic garage was added to the rear, southeast corner of the double lot in 1917.
126%2027th%20Garage.jpg
Previously approved to be enlarged from 266 to 395 square feet and converted into a legal residence, a revised proposal calls for the existing garage to be demolished and a 502 square foot home “of similar height, form, and character as the existing garage” to be built in its place (click the floor plan to enlarge):


126%2027th%20Garage%20Facade.jpg

Noting that the existing garage structure “has no pre-existing historic rating,” and the new home “is de minimis in size and will not adversely impact the [historic] building’s setting as it will not be visible from the street,” the Planning Department supports the project which San Francsico’s Historic Preservation Commission will review this week.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by soccermom

    My god, what WILL THEY DO ABOUT THE PARKING RATIO!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

  2. Posted by Invented

    “of similar height, form, and character as the existing garage”
    The garage has character? Why not build a small 1500sf home there? Why bother with this silly & quaint and impractical scheme? (without being visible from street (g-d forbid)).
    PSST someone ripped out the front lawn and filled it in with cement. Although I think that’s a gingko planted in front which partially redeems such ugliness.

  3. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    And after they get the new residence approved, they’ll rent it out or they’ll come back for a lot split approval so they can sell it.
    The owner is just greedy and should have never bought a historic residence and if I were on the HPC I’d be sure to let them know that.

  4. Posted by jose

    Brahma, if you were on the HPC you would already be better informed. The house was the subject of a failed request for a demolition and lot split years ago that galvanized the neighbors into getting the house landmarked.

  5. Posted by Willow

    “The owner is just greedy and should have never bought a historic residence …”
    Hi Brahma. Can you elaborate? Why can’t the owner of the property be allowed to move forward within planning department guidelines? Sounds reasonable to me.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *