Pearland council rejects McDonald’s drive‑through proposal near Dixie Farm Road after residents cite traffic, safety fears

Pearland — After more than an hour of public testimony and a staff presentation, the Pearland City Council decisively rejected a conditional use permit for a proposed McDonald’s restaurant with drive‑through at 3203 Dixie Farm Road.

Planning staff introduced the application during the Nov. 17 meeting, saying the proposal would place a 4,439‑square‑foot fast‑food restaurant with two drive‑through lanes on a 1.189‑acre lot in the neighborhood services district. Staff said the developer had submitted a traffic impact analysis (TIA) and that, because restaurants with drive‑throughs are allowed only by CUP in that zone, council review was required. Staff recommended approval with conditions including façade conformance, side‑lot screening, cross‑access to an adjacent lot and that any required infrastructure resulting from the TIA be provided by the developer.

Connor McBride, the civil engineer representing the applicant, told the council the applicant had provided a TIA for staff review, planned two drive‑through lanes, 50 parking spaces and a 35‑percent parking‑lot hedgerow. He emphasized mitigation measures such as lighting and an access road that would not connect to neighborhoods.

But testimony from neighbors dominated the hearing. Chris Puente, who said his home appears on the site vicinity map, summarized residents’ objections as three major concerns: existing congestion at the Dixie Farm/518 intersection, anticipated cut‑through traffic into adjacent neighborhoods and quality‑of‑life impacts such as odors and late‑night activity. “Adding a high‑volume, high‑turnover drive‑through there is going to exacerbate an already overwhelmed area,” Puente said.

Other neighborhood speakers recounted years of heavy traffic at peak hours, near misses at the nearby Home Depot and Walmart drives, and worries about children’s safety on neighborhood streets used as shortcuts. Pat Lopez, who described the site’s history as once proposed for senior housing, called the current proposal “spot zoning” by CUP and urged the council to slow down and demand more study of the full nine‑acre development.

Council members expressed similar concerns. Several said they were sympathetic to the development goals but worried the location was not appropriate for a drive‑through because of safety and traffic impacts. Following discussion, the council voted on resolution R2025‑UP2025‑0449; the roll call showed seven ‘no’ votes and the motion failed 0–7.

The denial means the applicant would need to either reconsider the site plan, pursue an alternate site, or return to the council with additional analysis and modified mitigation measures if they choose to reapply. The public hearing record showed 19 written comments posted against the request and one in favor as of the staff report cutoff.

The council closed the docketed public hearing at the meeting’s conclusion and moved on to the next agenda item.