Raymore council upholds denial of 7 Brew drive‑through site plan, citing traffic and plan goals

The Raymore City Council voted 5–2 on Feb. 9 to deny an appeal by 7 Brew Coffee and uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission’s December denial of a site plan for a drive‑through at the northwest corner of 58 Highway and Westgate Drive.

Council members who voted to reject the appeal cited staff findings that the proposed drive‑through would worsen traffic and circulation at an already heavily trafficked gateway to the city. Council members who opposed denying the appeal said the applicant met zoning‑code technical standards and argued the commission had exceeded its authority.

Planning staff outlined the review framework in the Unified Development Code, noting 11 findings of fact required for site‑plan approval. Staff said several findings—most notably those addressing alignment with the comprehensive plan, access management and safe on‑site vehicle and pedestrian circulation—were not met because the location already hosts high‑volume drive‑through uses and the road configuration limits mitigation options. "Finding number 2 is where the conflict arises in staff's review," Mr. Gress told the council, citing the city’s redevelopment and traffic studies.

The applicant’s representatives argued the site plan complies with the code. "We believe we have met every requirement," Jason Pullman said, adding the project exceeds setbacks, stacking and landscape requirements and includes off‑site improvements such as a sidewalk and lighting the applicant volunteered to provide at their expense. Attorney Wade Harden told council the proposal creates jobs and tax revenue and that the applicant is not requesting incentives.

A legal adviser associated with the Planning & Zoning Commission urged council members to base their decision on the findings of fact in the UDC rather than broader policy aims in the comprehensive plan. "Your findings of fact should guide your decision, not the 6 factors identified in the purpose portion of the code," Mr. Zerr said, and he explained that a vote in the negative would approve the appeal and allow the plan to proceed.

During discussion, Council Member Serco said traffic concerns weighed heavily on his decision. "My concern is the traffic," he said, describing short queuing space and the likelihood of morning backups that could extend to the intersection signal. Several council members agreed, and the council proceeded to a roll‑call vote: Abdelghawad, Burke, Serco, Engert and Holman voted to deny the appeal; Baker and Mills voted no; Barber was absent. The motion to deny carried 5–2.

The denial upholds the Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision and means the applicant cannot proceed with the site plan as presented. Council members encouraged the applicant to consider alternative Raymore locations that may better meet both code standards and the city’s redevelopment objectives.