No Pain, No Gain

At a plastic-covered table in a corner, a latex-gloved woman removes small needles from a surgical toolbox and slowly pierces another woman's alcohol-swabbed back. The recipient begins to weep, and her partner hugs her, kissing her face and rocking her back and forth.

Michael and Deb watch it all, pleased. This is the largest play party they've had in months. "This is how the building is supposed to look," says Michael. "If the city had not dicked with us, this would be an average night."

The dicking began in 2004, when the couple received a letter from Neighborhood Services Inspector Orphie Sitkoski, stating that their SOB license application had been denied because their property was allegedly within a thousand feet of an "Urban Renewal District," a violation of the city's adult-entertainment regulations. But that didn't make sense. Before purchasing the warehouse, Michael and Deb had asked city officials if there would be any problem going for an SOB license, and no one had mentioned any such district. The only land the letter could possibly be referring to was a fenced-off area down the street, a former Superfund site posted with signs reading, "Warning: hazardous contaminants, do not enter." And even if this area was slated for redevelopment, that shouldn't have mattered: A close reading of city code revealed that adult-entertainment facilities could be within a thousand feet of Urban Renewal Districts. They just couldn't be located inside them.

The couple appealed the denial, and at a hearing on their case, Commerce City officials agreed that the Urban Renewal District statement had been incorrect. But they still weren't getting an SOB license. The city had double-checked, and it turned out the Enclave was located next door to a house -- which would also prohibit an SOB license.

"I presided over that hearing," says Councilwoman Reba Drotar. "That was an absolutely fair hearing."

Councilman Tony Johnson agrees: "Personally, I dislike that type of business, but there is a place for it, and they don't meet that criteria."

But Michael and Deb had known about the house before they bought the property and had asked planning officials if it would be a problem. They say Sitkoski had told them not to worry, that the home's owner ran businesses on the property, and according to city code, once a residence in an industrial zone is used for businesses that are normally allowed in that zone, its residential status is terminated.

Commerce City Assistant City Attorney Tom Merrigan disagrees with that interpretation. "We don't use our zoning to drive them out of town, but we also don't want them in an average subdivision. Right next door to the Enclave is a house. And that, of course, sends up a big red flag," he says. "Based on what I've heard, it sounds like [the businesses on the property] could well be something you have in a residential use."

That comes as news to Mel Summers, longtime owner of the property in question. "We are zoned industrial," he says. "They are going to have difficulty calling it a residence, because when I tried to refinance the house as a residence, they said, 'No, it's industrial, and we want to keep it that way.'" That's why, twelve years ago, he registered the lost-luggage delivery service he ran out of the property as a business, not a home occupation, and that's why he recently did the same for the new business venture located there, a company that provides armed security guards and installs security cameras.

Commerce City has no record of the luggage-delivery business license; it may have been lost to time, officials say. They're currently processing Summers's license application for his new business.

In the years since the Enclave has been open, Summers has had no problem with the club. "They are a good neighbor," he says. "They only occupy the place a couple of times a week. They don't park on my yard, they don't throw beer cans, I don't hear yelling and screaming. They are a very quiet bunch."

That didn't matter when Michael and Deb appealed Commerce City's SOB license denial to Adams County District Court. In November 2005, the court found that the city could consider the house next door as part of the license-denial appeal process. But Michael and Deb didn't think the judges had given adequate consideration to whether the nearby house was an appropriate justification for a denial. So they appealed again, this time to the Colorado Court of Appeals.