Governmental Structure (Site Type Keyword)
Parent: Non-Domestic Structures
Locations, or the remains of buildings that were associated with governmental activities.
1,526-1,550 (1,805 Records)
Confirmation by Randolph Air Force Base that the Texas Historical Commission has determined No Adverse Effect for the proposed rehabilitation of Building 675's A Wing. This letter is part of a group of correspondence and documentation regarding the proposed rehabilitation of Building 675 "A" Wing at Randolph Air Force Base, a property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Response from Joseph Logan to Curtis Tunnell, Hangar 12 Interior Work, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
Correspondence concerning a question about the rehabilitation of the steel casement windows at Hangar 12, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. This letter is part of a group of correspondence concerning rehabilitation projects for Hangars 12, 13, and 64 at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. Proposed projects includes new entrance canopies, replacement of external doors, and interior rehabilitation.
Response from Joseph Logan to Curtis Tunnell, Interior Rehabilitation of Hangar 12, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
Randolph Air Force Base is writing the Texas Historical Commission to add an additional undertaking to the list of projects approved for Hangar 12. The information concerns the installation of a double set of glass front doors at the north and south ends of the west side of the Hangar. This letter is part of a group of correspondence concerning rehabilitation projects for Hangars 12, 13, and 64 at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. Proposed projects includes new entrance canopies, replacement of...
Response from Joseph Logan to Curtis Tunnell, Modifications Building 901, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
A letter with attachments that update plans and specifications to Building 901, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. This letter is part of a large group of correspondence and supportive material for the updated plans and specifications to Building 901, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas.
Response from Joseph Logan to Curtis Tunnell, Patio Tile Replacement Building 598, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
Randolph Air Force Base has reviewed the Texas Historical Commission's finding of Adverse Effect on the proposed project to replace the patio tiles at Building 598. As a result, the project is cancelled. This letter is part of a group of correspondence concerning the proposed patio tile replacement at Building 598, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. The historic structure is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and these letters discuss the possible effect the...
Response from Joseph Logan to Curtis Tunnell, Refurbishment of Building 900 Restroom, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
Randolph Air Force Base is considering an undertaking that may effect Building 900. This letter has attachments that include location maps, historic data, description and assessment, and photographs. This letter is part of correspondence on the refurbishment of bathrooms in Building 900, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas.
Response from Joseph Logan to Curtis Tunnell, Rehabilitation of Building 201 and Installation of New Fire Door in Original Opening, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
A letter from the Texas Historical Commission stating that the State Historic Preservation Office conducted a review of Building 201 at Randolph Air Force Base and the proposed undertaking to install a new fire door. The Commission has decided that a final determination of eligibility will be made following the completion of a comprehensive survey and contextual development schedule. This letter is part of a set of letters concerning the installation of a new fire door in Building 201, Randolph...
Response from Joseph Logan to Curtis Tunnell, Rehabilitation of Building 675 A Wing, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
A letter notifying that plans to remove windows and doors from Building 675 "A" Wing, at Randolph Air Force Base, have been halted. Doors and windows will not be removed from any building eligible for the National Register until the Section 106 process has been completed. This letter is part of a group of correspondence and documentation regarding the proposed rehabilitation of Building 675 "A" Wing at Randolph Air Force Base, a property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic...
Response from Joseph Logan to Curtis Tunnell, Rehabilitation of Building 901, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
Randolph Air Force Base writes this letter to the Texas Historical Commission on proposed modifications to the rehabilitation of Building 901. This letter is part of a large group of correspondence and supportive material for the updated plans and specifications to Building 901, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas.
Response from Joseph Logan to Curtis Tunnell, Rehabilitation of First Floor and Basement of Building 671, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
Correspondence stating Randolph Air Force Base's acceptance of the Texas Historical Commission's conditions concerning the lay-in ceilings of Building 671 at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas.
Response from Joseph Logan to Scott Shepherd, Building 526, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1993)
Email addressing specifics and concerns about a proposed demolition of Building 526, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. This letter is part of a packet of correspondence concerning the proposed demolition of Building 526, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. Attachments include engineering reports, description, and location map.
Response from Joseph Logan to Stanley Graves, Building 902, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
A letter from Randolph Air Force Base to the Texas Historical Commission that details a recent walkthrough of Building 902 and the needed repairs and rehabilitation of the historic structure. This letter is part of correspondence concerning the rehabilitation and replacement of windows and doors at Building 902, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. Also included are notes and discussion on organization and the process of gaining permission for the undertakings.
Response from Lee Keatinge to Douglas Biggerstaff, Adverse Effect Notice Regarding the Proposed Demolition of Building 330, Fort Sam Houston, Texas (2001)
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has reviewed Fort Sam Houston's notification and supporting documentation regarding the adverse effects of the proposed demolition of Building 330 at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. After review, the Council does not believe that their participation in the consultation to resolve adverse effects is needed.
Response from Lee Keatinge to Douglas Biggerstaff, Adverse Effect Notice Regarding the Proposed Demolition of Buildings 376, 377, and 4115 Fort Sam Houston and Buildings 5101, 5102, and 5002 Camp Bullis, Texas (2001)
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has reviewed Fort Sam Houston's notification and supporting documentation regarding the adverse effects of the proposed demolition of Buildings 376, 377, and 411 at Fort Sam Houston, and Buildings 5101, 5102 and 5002 at Camp Bullis, Texas. Based on the information provided the Council has concluded that their participation in the consultation to resolve adverse effects is needed.
Response from Leonard Patrick to F. Lawerence Oaks, Acceptance of Design for the Handicap Ramp at Building 901, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (2000)
Randolph Air Force Base has accepted the State Historical Preservation Office and the Texas Historical Commission's recommendations on the design of the handicap ramp at Building 901. Revised construction elevations are also included in a memo attached to this correspondence.
Response from Mario Sanchez to Richard Strimel, Repairs to Buildings 152 and 2791, Garage Replacement in 700 Area, Fort Sam Houston, Texas (1988)
The Texas Historical Commission is responding to Fort Sam Houston's projects concerning the repairs of Buildings 152 and 2791, as well as a garage replacement in the 700 area. After review in accordance with Section 106, the historical commission lists and details determinations for each project. Carbon copied to this letter of correspondence is Paul McGuff and Robert Fink.
Response from Mario Sanchez to Tad Stanley, Proposed Handicapped Access Chapel 1, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1989)
The Texas Historical Commission has received and reviewed plans submitted by Randolph Air Force Base regarding a proposed handicapped access for Chapel 1. The Commission has provided in this letter conditions to be met in order for a determination of "no adverse effect" to be met for the project. This letter is part of a large packet of correspondence addressing the proposed undertaking to grant handicapped access to Building 102, Main Chapel or Chapel 1, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas....
Response from Mark Wolfe to David Brigham, Project Review for Potential Demolition of Building 134, Fort Sam Houston, Texas (2011)
The Texas Historical Commission was contacted by Fort Sam Houston about the discussions related to potential demolition of historic Building 134. This letter serves as comment on the proposed undertaking from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical Commission. Copied to this correspondence is Joan Gaither (Society for the Preservation of Fort Sam Houston), Rolette Schreckenghost (San Antonio Conservation Society), and Shanon Peterson (City of San...
Response from Mark Wolfe to Richard Trevino, Project Review of Proposed New Elevators at Officer's Club Building 500, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (2011)
The Texas Historical Commission has completed its review of the documentation provided by Randolph Air Force Base for the proposed project of new elevators at the Officer's Club, Building 500. It was determined that the undertaking will have no adverse effect on the structure's historic district.
Response from Michael Grizer to Mark Wolfe, Rehabilitation of Building 133 Staff Judge Advocate Courthouse, Fort Sam Houston, Texas (2012)
This letter serves as a reply from Joint Base San Antonio at Fort Sam Houston regarding their proposal to rehabilitate Building 133 for the Staff Judge Advocate Courthouse. Included in this correspondence are salient issues given by the Texas Historical Commission and Joint Base San Antonio's responses to these issues.
Response from Ritch Woods to Scott Shepherd, Interior Painting Building 100 Taj Mahal, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1991)
Discussion of color options for the interior painting of the Taj Mahal, Building 100, at Randolph Air Force Base.
Response from Ronald Anzalone to Peter Walsh, World War II Temporary Buildings, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (1992)
A letter concerning the Air Force's completion of requirements under the Programmatic Agreement for World War II temporary buildings. This letter is part of a group of correspondence and supportive documentation concerning Building 156, a World War II temporary building at Randolph Air Force Base. Most of the documents focus on the building's status in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as a proposed undertaking to rehabilitate Building 156.
Response from Scott Shepherd III to Joshua Graham, Memorandum for Fitness Center Annex, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (2011)
An evaluation was conducted by Randolph Air Force Base on the proposed construction of the Fitness Center Annex. After reviewing the scope of work and discussing the proposed project, it was determined that the action will have "no adverse effect" on the landmark district and that the project may continue forward.
Response from Scott Shepherd III to Juan Pinon, Gator Field Observation Deck, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (2012)
An evaluation was conducted on the proposed Observation Deck for Gator Field, with the resulting determination that the action will have "no adverse effect" on the historic property or on the landmark district.
Response from Scott Shepherd to Antonio Matos, Internal Renovation Building 110, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas (2010)
Randolph Air Force Base conducted an evaluation on Building 110. After reviewing the proposed design changes it was determined that the action will have "no adverse effect" on the historic property or on the landmark district. This letter provides the conditions that must be met in order for the project to move forward.