Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Page 2 .- · August 25, 1999 z.g, Adult Entertainment -- Spa converts to private club to circumvent nude entertainment law COLORADO (7/22/99) -- Francisco and others (owners) ran the Hide-A-Way Spa in Adams County. The spa was a bathhouse where nude female attendants provided services to adult male customers, including "finger-tip powder" rubs, saunas, and shared bubble bath or hot tub treatments. The state sued the owners, claiming the spa was a p. ublic nuisance and violated county zoning regulations governing nude entertainment. The ordi- nance applied to "any establishment open to the public in which persons ap- pear in a state of nudity for the purpose of entertaining the patrons." The court determined the spa violated the county zoning ordinance and also constituted a public nuisance. It prohibited the owners from operating the spa in violation of the zoning ordinance. About a month later, the state asked the court to enforce its cease and desist order, claiming the owners continued to operate the spa in violation of the zoning ordinance. The owners claimed the spa -- now called the Phoenix Club -- no longer violated the zoning ordinance because it was now a private club. They claimed it wasn't governed by the nude entertainment regulations because those regu- lations applied only to businesses "open to the public." A detective testified for the state. He said he posed as a customer of the spa and nothing on the exterior indicated it was a private club. He said that when he went in he was asked if he was a member of the club. When he said no, an attendant escorted him to another room and told him about the membership services and that he had to join the club ~ simply by initiating a membership application -- to enter the spa. The attendant never asked him for identifica- tion or his name, and gave him ~ membership card after he paid a $5 fee. The owners explained the club required a $5 monthly fee or a $60 annual fee. The owners said the spa's services and prices had not changed. When asked whether the members were charged for the services, an owner admitted they were but said it was the same as a private country club charging its mem- bers to play golf. The court found the spa was still open to the public and therefore still vio- lated the county's nude entertainment regulations. It said anyone who had the $5 to pay the membership was entitled to join and that no one even had to sign the application form. The court said the club didn't keep an active roll of its members and there were no membership meetings or club activities other than those involving nude female entertainment. The owners appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The owners' attempt to pass the spa off as a private club was a sham. The spa was still "open to the public" so it still violated the county zoning ordinance. Whether a club was private or pubic'depended on several factors, including genuine selectivity in admission, the members' control over club operations, the use of facilities by nonmembers, the purpose of the club, whether the club