Community Notice – Feedback Requested

Chemistry Nightclub Requests Variance

The owner of the Chemistry nightclub at 2901 Spring Garden Street would like to turn the adjacent house at 2907 Spring Garden Street into a bar as well.  Because the house at 2907 is less than 200 feet from the apartments next door and from other residences on Spring Garden Street, this violates the part of the city’s development ordinance that requires a separation between bars or nightclubs and residential property.  To remedy this, the owner has requested a Variance from the ordinance requirements from the Board of Adjustment.

The owner has stated that he plans to renovate the interior of the house, but leave the exterior largely as it is. Entrance to the bar will be from the rear of the house.  He has already enlarged the gravel parking lot.  Any changes to the site or exterior of the building must be made in compliance with the Spring Garden Pedestrian Overlay.

The part of the ordinance he is seeking a variance from is Section 30-8-10.4 (F) and reads :

Property Separation: Establishments on Tracts of 5 Acres or Less
No bar, nightclub or brewpub establishment located on a tract of 5 acres or less in area may be located within 200 feet of a place of religious assembly use, elementary or secondary school, public park or residentially zoned property.

Your Feedback Wanted

We would like to hear from residents, especially those who live near the bar, as to your thoughts about whether the neighborhood should back or oppose this variance.  The Board of Adjustment will hear the request at their meeting on July 29Please  let us know your thoughts by July 28  by leaving a public comment below, or email us at contact(at)

Public comments are now closed. If you would like to provide additional feedback, please contact us at the email address above. 

Posted in Uncategorized.


  1. It’s right next door to apartments and across the street from a residence. This would be very annoying to me if I were that close to it so I would like to support our residential neighbors in opposing this variance.

  2. I, too, would oppose allowing this variance For the obvious reasons that it’s too close to the residence as well. I would also be concerned that allowing this to pass would set a precedent for other similar establishments to do the same.

  3. I oppose the variance, unless the city is also willing to put another light at the Lindell/Spring Garden intersection to slow down traffic in that area.

  4. I would be in favor of the variance. It seems to me the Chemistry Nightclub owner has been a good neighbor, willing to work with area residents as he develops his business. I would think he’d be willing to work with neighbors in this instance as well to make it palatable to him as owner as well as to locals. And wouldn’t it be nice to see something productive happening to that vacant and declining property?

  5. I do not agree that a variance from the city ordinance Section 30-8-10.4 (F) be granted to the person who wants to establish a bar at 2907 Spring Garden Street. The ordinance as it is written should remain law. Allowing a bar to be established there is not in accordance with a residential neighborhood so close by.. The surrounding residents and homeowners who pay plenty in property taxes would agree with me I am sure.

  6. I oppose granting the variance. The bar has a reputation for being disruptive as it is. Closer proximity to residential units would lower the desirability of the units, which would likely result in lower rents and result in a lower margin of reserve for owner maintenance and upkeep. It begins a downward spiral that can be impossible to stop. The residential property owner’s investment is based on the initial requirements and should be respected in this situation.

  7. I am in favor of the variance. I live fairly close to Chemistry (Collier and Spring Garden) and feel that the owner of Chemistry has been a courteous neighbor. I would rather see someone who has already proved he can run a business take it over than continue to watch a slow decline of the building.

  8. I happen to be friends with the current renter of that house. He intends to move soon due to the outrageous cost of running the HVAC system. It is my understanding from him that he owner of the property would rather demolish the house and put up another strip mall. Having a current business owner re-invest in the area and keeping the look of a house seems a lot better than having yet another strip mall. The lot is already zoned for business as well.

  9. Tried to leave a comment, but it has not shown up. I learned from the occupant of the house that the owner of the property would like to put in another strip mall. The property owner also owns the vacant lot between Chemistry and the house. I would rather see Chemistry manage the property than have another strip mall there. The property is already zoned for business now.

Comments are closed.