Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the White Castle Painting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
White Castle’s request to paint brick prompts council debate, resident opposition
Summary
White Castle representatives sought permission to paint the brick exterior of their Florissant restaurant as part of a national rebrand; council members raised maintenance and moisture concerns, and a planning‑and‑zoning commissioner urged denial. The council closed the public hearing and deferred final ordinance readings for later review.
White Castle representatives told the Florissant City Council on July 13 that the company is applying to paint the brick exterior of its restaurant at 840 North Highway 67 as part of a national rebranding.
Darren Cotton, director of operations for White Castle, said the work is a home‑office initiative to improve building appearance nationwide. "It's a national project," Cotton said, adding the company considers the Florissant locations among its busiest and intends to keep the property maintained.
Council members pressed the petitioner on long‑term maintenance and the effect of painting brick. A council member questioned durability and the potential for paint blistering; Haley Barnes of SmithPro Commercial Painting said the contractor plans to use Loxon XP, which she described as a primer and finish formulated for masonry that provides moisture resistance and, in typical practice, may require repainting in about seven to 15 years.
Lou Jearls, a planning‑and‑zoning commissioner and resident, urged the council to deny the request. Jearls said painting brick shortens the lifespan of masonry, traps moisture, increases maintenance burdens for owners and the city, and runs counter to earlier council preferences about leaving that White Castle unpainted. "Painting a brick building is a needless and senseless problem for the owner and the city," he said.
Council members also raised site‑specific concerns including fencing, erosion control near Coldwater Creek and visible trash on adjacent property; the White Castle representative said the company will work with MSD and the home office on a permanent solution and committed to address the trash.
The council closed the public hearing. Because the second reading of the ordinance was not completed during the meeting, the city will resume formal consideration at a future session. No final ordinance vote was taken on July 13.
What happens next: The council will review the ordinance language and the planning‑and‑zoning record at a later meeting before taking further action.
