Document package

An evidence-first package. The historian should be able to reconstruct the house from 1949 to today and test the 2020 integrity conclusion without hunting for basics.

Historic-status record

The archive already documents the house’s 2001 survey, its 2004 Inventory status, the 2006–07 removal appeal, and the 2020 re-evaluation. The historian can begin with the separate records below.

Available now

2001 DPR 523 initial survey — the original four-page City record, dated 20 July 2001.
2006–07 appeal application and Council decision — Virginia Hayes’s application, the City Council staff report and grant, and the Clerk’s confirmation that the house was removed from the Inventory. The staff report also records the Inventory’s 2004 adoption.
2005–06 appeal evidence and property photographs — the supporting material gathered for the appeal.
2006 appeal correspondence and archive letter — Hayes’s October 2006 appeal letter and the related Thomas Church archive correspondence.
2020 DPR 523 intensive evaluation — prepared and evaluated by Meg Clovis in July 2020; it concludes that the house was eligible for the Inventory.
2020 Phase II evaluation and completeness review — Phase II evaluation by Margaret Clovis, enclosed with Evan Kort’s 4 December 2020 completeness review letter.

The original combined City historic-resource file remains available as a complete 16-page scan.

Original design evidence

The archive has useful period photographs and working publication scans, but not yet the original design drawings or a complete visual record of the house’s early interior.

Available now

Maynard Parker photographic set — eleven archival exterior and garden photographs associated with the Chapman House.
House Beautiful and Sunset working page photographs — photographed magazine pages associated with the house.
House Beautiful / Sunset publication scan — a combined working scan of the publication material currently in the archive.

The original magazine issues can be provided upon request.

Alteration history

The record identifies one major historic alteration—the 1994 conversion of the open carport—and later maintenance work. The acquisition photographs and current-condition survey should be used to establish the date of the interior losses more precisely.

Known changes and current condition

1994 · Carport enclosed. The original street-facing carport had a stucco wall; remaining paint chips indicate it was painted orange. Its enclosure as a garage and laundry room added wood-board walls and a garage door, substantially changing the public view of the house.
Roof finish changed. The magazine photographs appear to show a smooth-surfaced rolled roof. The 2020 DPR evaluation describes the roof as tar and gravel; the available record does not establish the date of that change.
By 2019 · Built-in furnishings and sliding partition removed. At acquisition, the original desk, bed, sofas, bedroom drawers, and sliding partition were already absent. Of the built-in furnishings, only the bookcase remains; the concrete slab floors also remain.
Entrance door replaced. The entrance door shown in the magazine photographs and visible from the street was replaced with a wood door, changing the house’s original modern street presence.
Landscape altered. The current garden no longer resembles the landscape shown in the magazine photographs. An earlier City record raised a possible Thomas Church connection, but City staff were unable to verify that he designed the garden; this attribution remains unconfirmed.
2021 · Roof replacement. A City permit records roof replacement work.
2022 · Water heater and gas line. A City permit records this mechanical work.
2022 · Side-yard fence. A City permit records fence replacement.
2026 · Electrical subpanel. A City permit records replacement of the electrical subpanel.
Current condition · Openings require attention. The sliding exterior doors are inoperable, and the casement windows need replacement. Any change in window size remains future work, not a documented past alteration.

Current-condition documentation

A complete photo survey today—street/public-right-of-way views, all exterior elevations, garage, roof, garden, every room, remaining bookcase, slab floors, sliding glass doors, casement windows, clerestories, siding, eaves, exposed structure. Add a marked floor plan showing what is original, altered, missing, or uncertain.

Still needed: a current, comprehensive photo survey and a marked floor plan distinguishing original, altered, missing, and uncertain fabric.

2019–2021 project record

This is the City review trail for the 2019–2021 proposal: the preliminary site assessment, the historic evaluation and completeness reviews, the revised submission, and the September 2021 withdrawal.

Project timeline

December 2019 · Preliminary Site Assessment. PSA 19-436 identifies the City’s initial planning, site-coverage, historic-status, archaeological, and neighborhood-input questions.
January 2020 · Archaeology before status determination. Evan Kort explains that a Phase I archaeological survey was required before the City would determine historic status or complete Track II review because the property is in the archaeological overlay.
April–July 2020 · Historic evaluation. A $1,570 City historic-evaluation deposit was requested; Meg Clovis prepared the DPR 523 intensive evaluation in July.
September 2020 · DS 20-285 application submitted. Daryl Woods submitted the Track 2 Design Study application and supporting design material for City and historic-consultant review.
October–December 2020 · First review and second completeness review. The City required consistency with the Secretary’s Standards. The rear addition was considered acceptable, while the roof deck remained the central issue. The review correspondence also outlines the City-retained, applicant-funded mediation path.
April 2021 · Revised Track 2 submission. Revised plans were sent to the City. A second Phase II historic review was required at a quoted $720 cost.
May 2021 · Phase II direction. The City allowed either revised plans addressing the evaluation or an HRB hearing with a staff recommendation of noncompliance. The practical alternative discussed was moving the roof deck above the new master-bedroom addition; story poles and a landscape plan were also requested for a June hearing.
21 September 2021 · Application withdrawn. Daryl Woods formally withdrew DS 20-285, and Evan Kort confirmed that the City would close the permit.

Future concept material

New design work should begin with Daryl Woods’s 2021 revised Track 2 proposal and the City’s related review material. It establishes useful starting points: a rear addition, conversion of the garage to an ADU, and roof access to the back addition from the yard. Any future roof deck should remain off the original Rowan Maiden portion of the house.