Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Wexford/Draper microelectronics building at 256 Market Street with conditions on fencing and screening
Summary
Wexford Development presented a three‑story research/manufacturing building for Draper Laboratory at 256 Market Street; the historic board approved the design, praising its mill‑inspired brick and terracotta detailing, but required detailed fencing, roof screening and loading‑door materials for final sign‑off.
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Joe Regan, a principal of Wexford Science and Technology, and the project team presented a three‑story microelectronics laboratory and manufacturing building at 256 Market Street with Draper Laboratory named as the tenant. Project managers and architects described an insulated precast panel system with thin brick cast into panels, terracotta inlays, punched openings meant to recall adjacent mill buildings, a rooftop mechanical penthouse and an exterior equipment yard with a screened enclosure.
Stephanie Valerio, program manager for Draper's buildout, and lead designers said environmental and security requirements drive the facade treatment on production floors; the team described "faux window" panels — concrete‑backed glazed recesses — intended to meet temperature and humidity controls while providing a streetscape rhythm. The applicants indicated certain façades would include an 8‑foot black rod‑iron style security fence near the building to prevent close contact with sensitive equipment and to preserve intrusion‑protection layers.
Board members generally praised the design's contextual response to mill buildings and the terracotta details but asked for more precise fence details, roof and generator screening materials, loading‑bay door designs and specs for maintenance and groundskeeping in narrow fenced areas. Members emphasized the need to avoid a fortress‑like streetscape and asked for material and detail reviews before final administrative sign‑off. The board made a motion to approve the application with conditions requiring submittal of the listed details; the motion passed by voice vote.

