Purchased for $532,000 in March 2003, in 2009 the single-family home at 172 Denslowe was remodeled and relandscaped with a makeover “featured on HGTV.”
Listed for sale a year ago asking $779,000, reduced to $749,000, and then withdrawn from the market earlier this year, the property is now back on the market listed as a short sale for $620,000. And yes, the seller and landscaper are one and the same.
UPDATE: As the property appears today (or at least as of 15 minutes ago):
∙ Listing: 172 Denslowe Drive (3/2) 1,523 sqft – “$620,000” (short sale) [Redfin]
∙ Getting Creative With a Cottage [hgtv.com]
Hat tip to the editor for finding this stuff. Can’t wait for the ensuing discussion of garage conversions!
Where did the garage go? What is there instead?
Seems cute, and pretty cheap, but why no pictures of the inside? and yes, what is up with the garage? Seems odd to ignore the interior the way they have…
from the sfgov site I can see a complaint in 9/2008 about the conversion:
Constant construction work, kitchen sink delivered, electric saws, hammering. Building illegal unit in basement.
Then building permits in 10/2010 apparently related to the addition:
COMPLY WITH NOV 2000873278/BID: REMOVE WALL AT GARAGE, NEW BEDROOM, FULL BATH, ADD UTILITY SINK FOR LAUNDRY. REPLACE SLIDING DOOR WITH FRENCH DOOR, INFILL WINDOW AT BATHROOM
God that white picket fence and pergola are hideous. Does not go with the property at all.
Did they really sacrifice off street parking for a bit more space? In SF? Maybe not that important in that hood?
The HOA is usually the first not to get paid: Notice Assessment Lien on 06/17/2011 filed by Lakeside Property Owners Association.
Ahh I get it – that little court yard is where you park your car.
And the picket fence has a gate that closes.
Just what everyone wants, a neighbor who parks their car in their front yard.
Oh look, a perfectly crappy “everything and the kitchen sink” TV remodel. It’s obvious that the TV reno’ers didn’t care a fig about maintenance or livability.
The HOA is usually the first not to get paid.
And then the HOA can’t afford to pay the landscaper. The irony!
UPDATE: We’ve added a photo of the property as it appears today (or at least as of 15 minutes ago).
What a hideous little crappy remodel. HGTV makeover series is a pure sham, with zero talent and honesty. It’s all for show and ratings.
And yes, wc1 has it right, just as I have said before: NO one wants a neighbor parking their car in the front yard. It’s ugly, it’s gross, it’s pure trailer trash.
Out there, no one is going to notice, let alone care, if you park your car in your front yard.
This property backs up onto the 19th avenue freeway, is foggy for much of the year, and is practically in Daly City. Definitely not the Real SF.
yup…looks like the landscaper just dropped his broom in the driveway and left
Disagree with you el bombero: You are just trying to justify bad behavior because the property is “out there” and no one is going to notice.
You really have no idea that others in the neighborhood do not like or care about this parking in the front yard.
Though the garage conversion increases the likelihood that a car will be parked in the driveway anyone could have parked a car there before when the garage was a garage.
^ It’s cool, futurist, I understand where you’re coming from. But I do know what I’m talking about. Take a quick look at the google maps overhead shot of the street and you’ll see no fewer than 8 cars parked in people’s “front yards” – and that’s just within the 15 or so nearest houses on the street. And that’s during the middle of the day. In the evening and morning? Approaching 70-80% car-yard saturation.
Different neighborhoods have different norms. No sense or use trying to project NV attitudes and norms onto Daly City. Celebrate diversity!
“8 cars parked in people’s “front yards””
I think those are actually called “driveways”
Its completely different when your car is parked in a driveway in front of the garage.
They way they have done the remodel is turn the garage into living space (so it no long exists) and landscaped the old driveway to look like a patio in the front of the house.
Therefore, when you park there you look like you’ve parked in your front yard.
And I’m sorry, but just because you aren’t in the ‘real’ SF – doesn’t mean you don’t want to live on a nice block and be proud of your neighborhood.
Wow! el bombero you really are out in left field with that type of thinking and philosophy.
So google shows lots of cars in front yards. Ok, and?
So, since more of the neighborhood acts and lives that way means well, it must be right. Got it.
Diversity? please, you’re really twisting the definition of that word now.
How bout let’s just call it the way it is: Self entitled, some lazy neighbors in a lower class neighborhood want to park in their front yards, sorta you know, trailer trash style.
And, of course, this is not the “real SF” so it really doesn’t matter.
Got it.
Garages in the city are overrated to a large extent and even more so if street parking is ample. I don’t see any issue with eliminating the garage in favor of living space. Tough luck for neighbors.
Parking on your driveway is usually a symptom of something else. Often it indicates overcrowding (need the storage space / too many cars).
On my street we have ONE house with a car almost always on the driveway. The garage has only one car but there are 5 or 6 co-tenants living in a 2-unit building. No-one is ever sweeping the driveway, free Examiners stay untouched for weeks. The landlord is probably collecting 6K+/month and it’s only a question of time before neighbors 311 them.
Why do we park in a driveway, and drive, on a parkway???
and there should be a ordinance to prevent people from parking on their driveway.
A realtor told me this morning that parking in one’s own driveway, even if there’s enough space so that the vehicle isn’t blocking the sidewalk, is a ticketable DPT offense. I disagreed. Anybody have any info on that?
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Parking in a driveway is OK so long as the driveway leads to a garage. Even if the garage contains a model railroad and is crammed full with never opened packages of action figures, it is still OK to park in the driveway. But convert that garage into living space then it is not OK to park in the vestigial driveway.
My brain hurts. I think I need to lay down.
Anybody have any info on that?
Seems impossible and I’ve never heard anyone state that before; and I’ve never heard of anyone getting a ticket for parking in their driveway without blocking the sidewalk.
I have heard a similar tale of parking in front of curb cuts that I suspect may be a DPT ticketable offense even if you are the homeowner. I suspect that this is what the person is talking about, or has this issue confused with the driveway.
I’ve see 1000s of real estate listing include parking spots in a driveway including the recent Pop listing on Sutter that was much discussed. So I have to think that this would be more widely discussed if this was against DPT laws.
First of all, we know we should be careful listening to realtor advice. I don’t believe you can be ticketed for parking in your own “legal” driveway, provided you are not blocking the path of travel on the sidewalk.
@mod: I don’t think the essence of your comment is really about parking in a driveway with a garage full of crap or not. I think the sub-issue is that converting a garage to living space is non-code compliant for many reasons: egress, fire safety, light and air and not to forget: Living spaces (permitted and legal) require one off street parking space. Each unit must have one.
And I’m sure there are other thoughts and views.
@[anon.ed], I think this might answer your question (but there is a chance I’m barking up the wrong tree as I don’t have a black belt in SF Municode).
Section 136 OBSTRUCTIONS … IN REQUIRED SETBACKS, YARDS AND USABLE OPEN SPACE.
c. The permitted obstructions shall be as follows:
(30) Driveways, for use only to provide necessary access to required or permitted parking that is located in the buildable area of the subject property other than in a required open area, and where such driveway has only the minimum width needed for such access, and in no case shall parking be allowed in the setback;
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca
“First of all, we know we should be careful listening to realtor advice.”
Yeah, um, as I said it was more of an argument between two realtors. Just say things if you know them, OK? “You don’t believe” + “realtor barb apropos of zilch” can take a hike.
I think the before look was better.
Interesting find EBGuy. So it is technically illegal to park outside off street at houses configured like this where 100% of the drive lies in the setback. This would probably be a contender for the least enforced vehicle law right after failing to signal turns.
Like I said anon.ed: We should be pretty darn careful listening to realtors, esp when it comes to building and parking codes.
Cause, guess what?
They have NO idea what they are talking about…time and time again.
There I said it.
Sorry to hurt your feelings.
And EBguy is absolutely right. It is the code. Enforcing it is definitely another story.
Forget the parking. This is a “makeover”?!
The picket fence & pergola: retarded, formulaic, anti-design. Just what SF needs more of…
“Like I said anon.ed: We should be pretty darn careful listening to realtors, esp when it comes to building and parking codes.
Cause, guess what?
They have NO idea what they are talking about…time and time again.
There I said it.
Sorry to hurt your feelings.
”
Feelings intact. I advised nobody. I had a discussion with another human being, and I was unconvinced. So I asked this forum because I know people are keen to look up this sort of thing.
You? You’re funny, “futurist.” I asked a question. You weighed in for all to see with the following, ““I don’t believe you can be ticketed for parking in your own “legal” driveway, provided you are not blocking the path of travel on the sidewalk “ answering incorrectly. (AND of course simultaneously lobbing a barb for no reason.) And now, guess what? here you are, you’re still talking. Great one. Am I to infer, “Never ask an architect anything about DPT issues?”
No, of course I’m not. Grow up, pal. If you know something, then fine. Say it. If you don’t know something, then hold your peace, and save your pithy little barbs until they’re appropriate whil you’re at it, too.
And then there’s this, which (I think?!) applies to driveway curbcuts as it’s referenced from SEC. 7.2.24 ON-STREET PARKING (but IANAL, you folks are crazy over there in the big city). This is in reply to eddy at December 12, 2011 4:02 PM
San Francisco Transportation Code
DIVISION II.
ARTICLE 1000: MISCELLANEOUS PARKING AND TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
Section 1004 PARKING OF VEHICLES ACROSS PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS.
The owner or lessee of property shall be permitted to Park the owner’s or lessee’s vehicle across the private driveway of said property, provided that such vehicle displays a valid license plate registered to the address of that property with the Department of Motor Vehicles, and provided that such driveway serves no more than two family dwelling units. This Section does not permit the Parking of vehicles across sidewalks or in red zones.
(SFMTA Bd. Res. No. 08-151, 8/19/2008)
As for parking in the driveway, the code I cited in the earlier post says that its not legal, but we haven’t answered [anon.ed]’s question of whether the DPT can ticket for this offense as it is part of the San Francisco Planning Code (ARTICLE 1.2: DIMENSIONS, AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES), not the Transportation Code…
Thanks EBGuy. So it looks to me like DPT is OK with it, municode not so much although with somewhat incongruent language, and planning’s stance is unknown. Probably it is three different answers, to be honest. DPT is the everyday one. Nobody is gonna get a drive-by ticket from a meter maid for parking in their own drive without blocking the sidewalk, seemingly. But can someone drop a dime to a DBI inspector? We don’t know that. And that’s the point my colleague made earlier today, that indeed people are of the opinion that they can do that.
Hey anon.ed…I just love how you get all fired up.
And, y’all can infer whatever ya want. And, I do love lobbing barbs from time to time. For sure.
But I still stand by what I said about you CAN be ticketed in your drive IF you are blocking the sidewalk. Doesn’t mean you WILL.
But I’ve seen it happen more times than one. And it does happen. Be very, very careful with HOW you state something.
Even EBguy is clear that it “looks” ok with DPT and Muni code has “somewhat in-congruent language”.
“I still stand by what I said about you CAN be ticketed in your drive IF you are blocking the sidewalk.”
No, that was never even part of the discussion. That’s a given that we all know and understand.
Then you’re on about “how” I should state things, when you didn’t read correctly, nor did you state correctly. And for that matter, you’re confusing EBGuy with myself.
Look man. Three, four glasses of vino in = don’t post. Capiche?
Planning’s stance is crystal clear. Section 136, referenced by EBguy is actually from the Planning Code.
“Municode” is short for Municipal Code, which is a general term encompasing all SF codes.
Yes, you can be ticketed for parking in your driveway even if you’re not blocking the sidewalk.
http://www.sfdsp.org/2010/01/driveway-myth.html
In the case of this particular property, you can get away with parking in the driveway because you’re not blocking the public right of way.
Plus,there is plenty of street paring on Denslowe.
Lakeside is generally considered to be a nice neighborhood. anyone who makes a comment like “this is practically in Daly City” doesnt really know that much about this part of San Francisco.
“Planning’s stance is crystal clear. Section 136, referenced by EBguy is actually from the Planning Code.”
Stance, regarding consequence or enforcement? No, it does not specifically talk about the initial question I posed, inmycountry. Nor does it allow for consequence of violation. It also inserts other terminology that might cloud the issue as far as practical enforcement is concerned, such as width, setback, and buildable area. Do you happen to know offhand? Also, what of larger properties where there are longer drives?
It’s state law as well. Section 22500 of the Cal. Vehicle Code:
22500. No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device, in any of the following places:
. . .
(e) In front of a public or private driveway, except that a bus engaged as a common carrier, schoolbus, or a taxicab may stop to load or unload passengers when authorized by local authorities pursuant to an ordinance.
So you CAN be ticketed for parking in front of your own driveway. Doesn’t mean you will.
EssEffGerard,
Right. But there’s blocking the sidewalk entirely, blocking it partially, and not blocking it one bit because your property is set back far enough that you can fit a car without blocking the drive at all. I was talking about the situation presented in the thread, where one is not blocking the sidewalk at all. We can all understand the reasons behind the blocking rule, blind citizens springing to mind first and foremost. No, the question is what are the consequences from parking the car up on your own driveway. Does planning consider it buildable space to potentially build forward across a setback? Does it truly? “It’s buildable, but you’d need a variance” or something. come on. That’s a grey area if ever there was one.
I mean think about it in terms of Pacific Heights or SFW, or other areas with big lots and drives that go up and even to the side of the homes. Where do you draw the line? Somebody on the sidewalk can see a car that’s parked on the side of the garage, on the side of the house, 30 feet off the property line, and they get to blow the whistle? Then every dinner party at an estate in Pac Heights is liable. No, I doubt that’s the case.
EssEffGerard,
Right. But there’s blocking the sidewalk entirely, blocking it partially, and not blocking it one bit because your property is set back far enough that you can fit a car without blocking the sidewalk at all. I was talking about the situation presented in the thread, where one is not blocking the sidewalk at all. We can all understand the reasons behind the blocking rule, blind citizens springing to mind first and foremost. No, the question is what are the consequences from parking the car up on your own driveway. Does planning consider it buildable space to potentially build forward across a setback? Does it truly? “It’s buildable, but you’d need a variance” or something. come on. That’s a grey area if ever there was one.
I mean think about it in terms of Pacific Heights or SFW, or other areas with big lots and drives that go up and even to the side of the homes. Where do you draw the line? Somebody on the sidewalk can see a car that’s parked on the side of the garage, on the side of the house, 30 feet off the property line, and they get to blow the whistle? Then every dinner party at an estate in Pac Heights is liable. No, I doubt that’s the case.
annon.ed
Like I stated, in the case of this particular property, at least before it was modified, you could park in your driveway because you’re not blocking the public right of way.
It may not be fair but if you have a deeper setback and therefor a longer driveway you can park without being ticketed.
And I dont think you can build in front of your property line under any circumstances. However, I think in may cases in SF your setback is not always your property line.
I guess there is no definitive answer to your question.
Stance, regarding the regulations. As used by people applying for a permit. The Planning Dept. doesn’t drive around and police the city for violations. They can’t even get Academy of Art to clean up their act.
On another note, purchased for $532k, short sale at $620k? Did these fools need $100k to do this remodel, or are we back to the circa 2005 home-as-ATM thing again? Has anyone seen a new Harley or jet ski in the “driveway”???
First, http://www.sfdsp.org is not an official city website and that link clearly indicates that the issue is with blocking a sidewalk. I think we’re all clear on that point.
Until someone cites a law, or regulation, indicating that parking in your driveway, clear of any setbacks and not blocking any public right of way / sidewalk — is a ticket-able offense, which up to this point no one has done; then we’re dealing with hearsay.
As long as we are collecting opinions, I believe that you cannot be ticketed for parking in your driveway based solely on the fact that it is your private property. Can the DPT walk into your garage and give you a ticket for having an out dated registration. I don’t think so.
It would be good to get a clear answer if DPT has the authority to ticket you on this situation.
Futurist: “And yes, wc1 has it right, just as I have said before: NO one wants a neighbor parking their car in the front yard.”
El Bombero: “Different neighborhoods have different norms. No sense or use trying to project NV attitudes and norms onto Daly City. Celebrate diversity!”
Futurist: “So, since more of the neighborhood acts and lives that way means well, it must be right. Got it.”
Way to go Futurist, you make a statement that “NO one wants” people parking in the front yard/driveway then when it is shown to be incorrect since parking in front yard driveways is pretty much the norm in most of the US you suddenly switch to pretending you are arguing if it is right or not to do so. Then equate the people that disagree with you as being trailer trash. Nice.
Regardless of how you feel about it many people don’t care where their neighbors are parking as long as it doesn’t take parking away from them. In fact many people are probably glad to have more cars in front drives as it means more parking is available on the street. So your statement was wrong, there are some people that don’t care if their neighbors park in the front yard. Changing the argument to if it is right or wrong doesn’t make El Bombero incorrect for disagreeing with your ridiculous statement
Huh?
Huh? Did you forget saying that no one wants a neighbor parking their car on the front yard? Or did you forget arguing with El Bombero when he pointed out that in that neighborhood it is common? Or are you just in shock that not everyone thinks parking a car in a front yard is a sign of trailer trash? If you had limited it to cars that aren’t running I might have agreed with you.
your guys’ argument boils down to “nobody wants front-yard parking” vs. “it’s ok in daly city!” overgeneralization vs. irrelevance, commence talking past each other.
I have walked by this place many times and it is hella pretty.
No.
No.
No.
It looks like trailer trash.
fyi y’all: the space in front of the garage (ie in the front setback between the sidewalk and the building facade) is not a legal parking space. The Planning Code requires that all parking spaces on residential property be screened from the street by solid walls. Seems like the owners slipped one by the Planning Dept. Not that the Planning Dept will ever devote resources or political capital to enforcing the rule and addressing this behavior.
On the block I live on there are regularly cars parked in 50% of the driveways, many with their butts protruding into the sidewalk — not so much that it blocks the sidewalk but enough that it’s obnoxious and unsightly. It makes the street look kinda like a junk yard/parking lot, even with Beemers parked in front of the houses. I don’t want to look down the sidewalk and see a row a car bumpers on both sides of the sidewalk. People need to either stop stuffing their garages with so much crap that they can’t fit their car(s) or stop buying cars that they don’t have space to store.
@ intheknow: Great comments and yes, you echoed exactly what I have been saying. It is pretty ugly and obnoxious. And yea, it does look like a junk yard parking lot.
And yes, people should stop buying so much endless crap that they cannot park in the garage, which is what a garage is for.
People should go out to some of the outer avenues in the Sunset district and really see just how obnoxious this really looks. NOT parking in front yards or over the sidewalk is about neighborhood pride and respect for all.
We know planning would not consider this a legal parking spot. The rules state that the parking spot not be visible fronm the street. Nothing about solid walls. No one seems to be able to cite code/law indicating that you cannot legally (as in DPT can issue a citation) park in your driveway that is not blocking a right of way.
DPT, as in Department of PUBLIC Transportation, can only issue citations to vehicles that are in violation on PUBLIC property.
^^^Exactly. This is what I said above about your property being “Private Property” where DPT has no authority.
And thus, I believe the question posed by [anon.ed] at December 12, 2011 3:45 PM is answered.
So now that DPT has changed their name to SFMTA, thereby removing “PUBLIC” from their name, I guess it’s OK then?
So now that DPT has changed their name to SFMTA, thereby removing “PUBLIC” from their name, I guess it’s OK then?
Uhh….. Department of Parking and Traffic actually.
The name is not relavant but it is the point. Trolling but not adding value is of little help.
Here is the complete list of fines that DPT/SFMTA can issue and the respective code, and there is only one fine related to “Driveway” and it the code (VC22500E) relates to blocking someone elses driveway and is only issued upon a complaint.
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca
Cheers.
“your property being “Private Property” where DPT has no authority.”
So you can’t get a handicapped parking ticket or expired tags in a private mall parking lot?
I’m not 100%, but I seem to recall hearing of the above happening.
Well at least a couple posters got 1 out of 3 correct with D = Department.
***
While some may consider parking in front set-backs “trailer trash” the reality is that it is the default for most of the country, particularly more suburban areas.
tc_sf – most private mall parking lots have signs posted on them that indicate that they are subject to enforcement. Now if you owned the mall parking lot and did not want vehicle codes to be enforced on YOUR property you could make that choice.
Found the relevant code regarding “private” lots.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21107_8.htm
“no ordinance or resolution enacted thereunder shall apply to any offstreet parking facility described therein unless the owner or operator has caused to be posted in a conspicuous place at each entrance to that offstreet parking facility a notice not less than 17 by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than one inch in height, to the effect that the offstreet parking facility is subject to public traffic regulations and control.”
I’m not 100%,
We know.
Anyone interested in the ticketable offenses as noted by eddy, you can find them in:
San Francisco Transportation Code
DIVISION II. ARTICLE 300: FINES AND FEES
This does lead me to believe that if you don’t like that your neighbor is parking in their driveway, you can contact the folks at the Planning Department: Each year, the Planning Department responds to over 500 inquiries pertaining to potential land use violations. In most cases, investigation of code violations happens when a citizen reports a potential violation… The types of violations that are typically reported include:… Obstruction in Front or Rear Setback See San Francisco Planning Code (ARTICLE 1.2: DIMENSIONS, AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES) Section 136 (30). Anyone out there on unfriendly terms with their neighbor?
I hate myself for how much I’ve enjoyed all the comments on this thread!
But yeah, it’s totally ok to park in your driveway. Everybody does it. Americans could care less about the aesthics of a city landscape. And referring to this part of town as being in the city is a stretch anyway since this neighborhood form is suburban.
My two cents on front yard parking:
On front yard non-pavement: trailer trash.
On front driveway and partially or completely blocking sidewalk: extremely inconsiderate and very ugly.
On front driveway where distance between back of vehicle and sidewalk is less than one car length: ugly.
On front driveway where distance between back of vehicle and sidewalk is greater than or equal to one car length but less than two car lengths: somewhat ugly.
On front driveway where distance between back of vehicle and sidewalk is greater than or equal to two car lengths: aesthetically fine.
Finally! We get the real, authorized, official answers for front yard parking from the High Priestess of American Parking; VancouverJones:
1. It’s officially ok to park in your driveway.
2. EVERYBODY does it.
3. Americans don’t care about the aesthetics of city landscapes.
4. This neighborhood is suburban.
Finally, the answers we have all been looking for. I feel much better now.
Good to see you finally accepting reality. I know it can be hard to learn that not everyone shares your opinion, particularly when you lead with the comment that everyone agrees with you.
Yes, and I know I’m being sarcastic, and you know I’m being sarcastic, and I know you know I’m being sarcastic.
And I could probably even stretch this out to say that YOU know I know you know I’m being sarcastic.
Which, of course, at some point becomes rather meaningless.
But what matters to me is my opinion. And that I would not want to live next to trailer trash like this.
Would you?
Well I’m in SF I’m in a condo and there are no set backs on our block while across the street is a school so it isn’t an issue here, but in my place up in the sierras our neighbor has 5 cars, 2 of which don’t run and only 1 of which is parked under a carport. I consider myself lucky to have him as a neighbor. Of course I judge him on the content of his character and not the location of his cars.
After 238 days on the market, the listing for 172 Denslowe has been withdrawn from the MLS without a reported sale.