New brewpub design receives a resounding no

The Port Washington Plan Commission on Monday turned down a proposal for a redesigned Inventors Brewpub on the north marina slip, saying the new design does not reflect the prominence of the location.

“To me it’s not a lifetime design,” Mayor Ted Neitzke, chairman of the Plan Commission, said. “I don’t believe we should put up a building that doesn’t meet the highest standards in one of the best spots literally in the country.

“If this was on the west side of Port Washington, so be it. But this is the No. 1 destination in the city and the state. It’s got to look like something that in 100 years will still be respectful and representative of what the city deserves.

“The adjustments don’t make the building better.”

Commission member Mike Ehrlich, an architect, concurred, saying “I’m a little disappointed. I really feel like some of the sexiness and the really interesting pieces of the design you’ve stripped away.

“I bought into the last design. I’m having a hard time buying into this. It really feels stripped down.”

Ald. Paul Neumyer, a member of the commission, added that while he “still supports this project 100%,” the proposed new design isn’t right.

“What was presented the first time made it important for that area,” he said. “It’s disappointing.”

Commission member Kyle Knop, who is also an architect, said the proposed changes felt like a bait-and-switch move, adding the city has worked with the developer of the project to get to this point.

“If you don’t have your act together, it is not a city issue. It is a you issue,” he said. “We’ve done quite a bit for you.”

The commission voted unanimously, with member Chad Mach abstaining, to retain the original design for the building. However, members said, they have no problems with a proposed 2-1/2-foot reduction in the height of the building or changes in materials as long as the structure retains its original look.

Neitzke, who said he wants the project to move ahead, said the city is willing to consider another plan revision with one caveat.

“The original design is the base,” Neitzke said. “It can’t look different. Our city deserves the absolute best down there. I’m not going to go backward.”

Two residents urged the commission to take a hard look at the revisions.

Rose Eichenhofer, 321 N. Montgomery St., asked the commission to “not be afraid to send things back to the developer and say this is not good enough.

“When these changes come forth where the plan is changed dramatically and we’re looking at making concessions, (I ask) that we continue to keep in mind the character of Port.”

Tom Miller, 1365 Spinnaker Dr., noted that the Inventors proposal was “a very controversial project to begin with.

“Why would we consider a change unless it really benefited Port Washington or make the project a better project?” he asked.

On Tuesday, Inventors owner Adam Draeger and Gertjan van den Broek of TBF Inc., which is constructing the brewpub, said they are working to determine what changes can be made within the parameters set by the commission with the goal of presenting a new plan for the building within the next month.

“We know what the ideal design is,” van den Broek said, referring the original plan. “Is there another variant that is acceptable? That’s what we have to find out.

“We want to figure out the most efficient way to get to Plan Commission approval, financial approval, construction approval. We should be able to figure this out.”

Draeger said, “We will get it as close as possible.”

The original building plan isn’t going to work, van den Broek said, noting that the financial and construction professionals involved in the project nixed that proposal.

“We have to find a way for all three to say yes. That’s the work before us,” he said. “We’ll try to take a fresh set of eyes and see what’s significantly different and work from there.”

Although some commission members said they felt the redesigned building was a radical change, Draeger said that wasn’t the intent.

“It’s the same building in our eyes,” he said, adding that they have been tweaking the plan throughout the last year to adapt to changing conditions in the economy, including rising prices and supply chain issues.

  “If I look at it through fresh eyes, I can see why they see it as a bait and switch,” he said.

Van den Broek said that the changes to the plan were prompted by not only the changing economic conditions and financial restrictions but also some functional challenges — reducing the size of the windows from 8 feet to about 6 feet, 6 inches in the office area of the building, for example, so conduit and wires that must be strung won’t be visible from the outside.

Other proposed changes in the design included installing a peaked roof on the east side of the building rather than a flat roof — something driven by the fact the building will have a geothermal system and eventually install solar panels — the addition of egress doors on the west side and the removal of an overhang on the north side of the structure.

Van den Broek said they felt comfortable with eliminating the overhang because the lighting, signs, window treatments and planters planned for around the building will make the structure look interesting without the overhang.

Translucent panels on the second floor of the west elevation have been eliminated, and a transformer moved to the building’s southwest side.

And because the height of the first floor is being reduced by 18 inches, van den Broek said, they are able to build the structure using wooden studs, which are more widely available and less expensive, rather than metal ones.

“We’re not presenting this because we think it’s a lesser building,” van den Broek told the commission. “We’re not presenting this because we think it’s a compromise. It’s a better building. It’s a good, solid design worthy of Port Washington, worthy of this location.”

Although the commission disagreed with that assessment, Neitzke told van den Broek and Draeger they could apply for an early start permit from the state that would allow them to move ahead with work on the footings and foundation before a revised plan is approved.

That’s not practical, van den Broek said.

Neither the constructor nor the bank would allow construction without a final approved plan, he said.

“We’re stuck in a hold pattern until we get approval from the Plan Commission,” Draeger said. “Our hands are tied.”