Developers seek to reuse Marion Hall as hotel annex, board urges historic corridor restoration

Developers for the Drury Hotel presented a preliminary design on April 8 to rehabilitate Marion Hall (the former St. Vincent sanatorium) at 224 and 228 East Palace Avenue as an annex to the existing hotel, adding roughly 38–39 rooms and re‑establishing a corridor between the two buildings.

The applicant, architect Tjo Dimitrapt, said the 3‑story Marion Hall would be adapted for guestrooms and serviced by the existing hotel rather than operating as a separate hotel. The plan includes rehabbing the exterior, repairing historic fabric, re‑establishing a connection where a corridor once stood, and limited alterations on secondary elevations: a small stairwell footprint increase for code egress, converting one window to a door for an egress, and infilling two non‑original windows on a later (1950s) portion of the building.

The proposal asks the Historic Districts Review Board for exceptions to the code on three items: (1) re‑establishing an addition to a primary façade (the connecting corridor), (2) converting a window to a door on a primary façade, and (3) permitting windows with glazing panes wider than the 30‑inch “divided‑light” rule used in district standards. Dimitrapt said the corridor’s design would be differentiated from the original but compatible and that some windows were replaced in the 1980s with nonhistoric sash and would be repaired or replaced where appropriate.

Board members and staff responded with a mix of support and recommendations. Acting Chair John Bienvenu and several board members said the project showed sensitivity to the historic fabric and praised adaptive reuse over continued vacancy. Multiple commissioners recommended restoring the original corridor form rather than introducing a clearly new design: Director Lamboy and members noted that restoring the historic corridor, which archival photos show as a U‑shaped connection between Marion Hall and the later hospital/hotel building, could eliminate two of the requested exceptions (corridor and window division), because reconstruction of a documented historic feature is permitted under the standards for significant structures. Director Lamboy and others also discussed whether the corridor should intentionally differentiate new work from old or instead reproduce the earlier corridor to reinstate a lost historic feature.

Several members supported the applicant’s request for modest changes to meet building and egress codes — particularly enlarging the existing stair footprint so it meets rise/run requirements — but emphasized that the board will expect detailed drawings showing how the corridor is sited relative to character‑defining facades and how materials will read against the original masonry and window patterns. Board members repeatedly asked the applicant to return with a design that either (a) recreates the earlier corridor precedent shown in historic photographs or (b) clearly explains why a differentiated modern intervention would not degrade the building’s significance.

Members of the public who spoke at the informational presentation were generally supportive of reuse. Public commenter Stephanie Benonato said she was “happy that this building is going to be used,” urged recreation of the original corridor rather than the proposed modern breezeway and asked the board to consider approving the project only if no exceptions were required. Catherine Rivera, who worked near the building for many years, said the structure holds many memories for local families and supported rehabilitation.

The presentation was informational only; the applicant and board agreed to return with refined drawings. The applicant indicated willingness to explore a reconstructed corridor that more closely resembles archival photos; staff said recreating the documented corridor could obviate some exceptions and reduce the design exceptions to only those strictly necessary for code compliance.