City Commission denies Alvadora owners' request to remove emergency gate at 5555 W. 6th St.

On Jan. 7 the Lawrence City Commission voted 5-2 to deny a request from the owners of Alvadora Apartments to remove an emergency-only access gate on the complex's southern access at 5555 West 6th Street.

The vote preserves the gate that had been required by a 2007 final development plan compromise between the original developer and neighborhood homeowners. City staff had brought the amended final development plan to the commission because removing the gate was deemed a significant change to an approved plan.

Terry Leibold, an attorney speaking on behalf of the applicant, said the current owners were not party to the 2007 agreement and that tenants—some of them elderly—had asked the owner to seek removal. “They feel very strongly that there are some really good reasons as to why they are asking for the gate to be removed,” Leibold said, adding that many tenants use the southern access during temporary closures of the main entrance.

Rona Bettencourt, who identified herself as the on-site property manager and a resident of Alvadora, told commissioners she spoke for “a demographic of those of us over 50” and described weather-related and medical-access problems when the main Stoneridge entrance is difficult to use. “Everyone needs to have access to health care or to emergency medical services or even just to come and go in their daily lives,” Bettencourt said, describing icy conditions on Stoneridge Drive and saying the rear access to Stone Creek provides a shorter, safer route to 6th Street in some conditions.

Homeowners who live on Stone Creek Drive urged the commission to keep the gate. Tyler Cummins, whose house is adjacent to the gate, said he and neighbors had seen “a significant increase in traffic” when the rear access was opened during repaving. “For me, a fair compromise is just to honor the agreement set back in 2007,” Cummins said, urging a mechanical gate with an emergency quick-release. Kevin Loos, one of the original homeowners who helped negotiate the 2007 compromise, said the gate was part of a trade that allowed more units on the site and that nothing brought to the commission in January materially changed his view that the gate should remain.

Corby Rust of Land Plan Engineering, who participated in the original application, noted that a traffic-impact study did not show a material change on surrounding streets and called the overall effect “very minimal.” Several nearby residents and homeowners described increased delivery and younger-driver traffic when the rear access was temporarily used, and urged measures to limit cut-through traffic if the commission considered any change.

Commissioners and staff discussed several compromise options raised by the applicant at the hearing, including making the rear access exit-only or installing traffic calming measures on Stone Creek. City staff told the commission that fire and emergency services had no formal preference and could access the site with a padlock or electronic gate, but staff noted the gate was part of the earlier final development plan and that removing it would be a significant amendment.

After public comment and discussion, a motion to deny the amended final development plan — essentially denying the applicant’s request to remove the gate — carried on a 5-2 vote. The denial means the previously approved final development plan, which required gated emergency access at the southern entrance, remains in place.

Following the vote, several commissioners urged neighbors and the property owner to continue discussions on practical measures such as ensuring reliable gate maintenance, fail-open or quick-release mechanisms for emergency access, and communication protocols when maintenance requires temporary closures. No additional formal directives or conditions were adopted by the commission during the vote; the motion before the body was to deny the revision request.