At its May 1 meeting, the Marco Island Planning Board voted to revisit a previously approved site development plan for Rose Marina and declined to recommend an alcohol sales variance for a new cafe on Winterberry Drive.
Board members raised concerns about earlier approvals tied to the marina expansion, citing what they described as misinformation in the application, significant parking issues and a possible error in the variance notification sent to nearby property owners. Board member Hayden Dublois said some vendor capacity figures used to justify parking availability may have been inaccurate, with some numbers off by nearly 50 percent.
The proposed expansion has drawn attention from residents concerned it could lead to increased cruise ship activity along with a significant change in the area’s character. Plans include a 220-seat restaurant near the former Jack’s Lookout site. Residents have raised concerns about increased traffic and limited parking in an area that is already heavily congested during season.
Dublois said the previously approved variances should also be reconsidered and that the full site development plan warranted a careful review. The board voted unanimously to bring the site plan back for reconsideration at its next meeting, which is scheduled for 9:00 AM on June 5, 2026, in the Community Room at City Hall. When given the opportunity to respond, the attorney for Rose Marina made no objection.
In a separate matter, the board voted not to recommend a requested variance for alcohol sales at a new cafe at 989 Winterberry Drive, which is within 500 feet of the Jewish Congregation of Marco Island. The applicant sought a 94 percent variance to allow alcohol sales, which requires approval due to the proximity to a house of worship.
Board members then expressed disapproval of how the process had been handled, noting that when the site development plan was approved, there was no indication the cafe would serve alcohol. Members said they had assumed it would operate as a coffee shop. The board ultimately voted against recommending the variance for City Council approval.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here