The Dawsonville City Council opened a public hearing July 21 on a variance request from McDonald’s to allow wall signage on all four sides of a planned restaurant, then postponed a final decision until the council’s Aug. 4 meeting. Will Marshall of Integrity Engineering, the applicant’s representative, told the council the request responds to visibility challenges created by surrounding road grades and multiple frontages.

The request seeks relief from Section 105‑40(b)(4) of the city sign code to permit a combination of arch (“M”) signs and word‑mark signs on the front, sides and rear of a roughly 3,500‑square‑foot building on a 1.1‑acre PUD site. Marshall said the proposed front arch sign is 14 square feet, the word mark is 32.83 square feet, and the non‑drive‑through side would carry both signs for a combined 46.83 square feet (about 2.4% of that façade). He also said a monument sign roughly 10 feet tall and 25 square feet would be located along Highway 53 to improve identification from the roadway.

A city planning staff member summarized the staff analysis and recommended approval with two conditions: (1) installed signs must match the submitted application materials and (2) the variance, if granted, would apply only to this applicant and not become an automatic entitlement for future owners. Staff noted permitted wall signage and said internal illumination must meet the city’s brightness standards.

No members of the public signed up to speak either for or against the request. Council member Mark French moved to open the public hearing; Council member Caleb Phillips seconded. The council voted to open the hearing and then voted to defer a final decision to the Aug. 4 meeting, giving council members additional time to review the application and conditions.

Discussion at the hearing focused on sightlines from multiple road frontages and whether additional rear and side identification would aid driver safety and wayfinding. The applicant argued the building sits below road grade on Highway 53 and that signage on more than one façade plus a monument sign would mitigate visibility problems. Staff reiterated that the request is a variance from the ordinance and stressed the recommended limitation to this applicant.

The council did not approve or deny the variance on July 21; it set the matter for final action at its next regular meeting on Aug. 4.