Spatial debate: Neighbors are against housing project planned for park | News, sports, jobs

By the end of last week, 578 people had signed the petition to halt the proposed construction of market-rate single-family homes on Orchard Park’s seven lots, which covers all but two of the lots on the east side of the 200 block of Beech Avenue. , said petition starter Damian Spallone, who lives opposite the park.

“It’s a crucial green space that we can preserve for children and future generations,” Spallone said. “Why do they have to take a park?”

The authority has published a request for proposals for the project, which calls not only for the construction of several housing units, but also for the construction of a small pavilion and “a playground facility.”

The proposals must be submitted by Dec. 2, the day of the next City Council meeting, where Spallone said neighbors want to voice their opposition.

An overhead view shows Orchard Park, located on the 200 block of Beech Avenue, a few blocks from UPMC Altoona. Mirror photo by Patrick Waksmunski

The City Council passed an ordinance in July transferring the city’s park property to the government. This forms the basis for the project, said Diana White, director of the city’s Community Development Department.

Prior to the transfer, a city employee consulted with the Central Blair Recreation and Park Commission, which maintains city-owned parks, about the possibility of the transfer and found the commission management agreeable, White said.

According to White, the commission did not consider the park to be a high-priority park, as she understands it.

The role of Commission management is to “maintain and program properties as they tell me,” and not to oppose a city plan to put City property to another use, Commission Executive Director Mike Hofer said at the time he was asked about that meeting.

When he started working for the commission in 1998, the Beech Avenue stretch was a designated park, although it was just a green space, Hofer said.

About four or five years ago, the city installed the playground equipment that is currently the only facility on the property, which also has several medium-sized — but mature — trees, Hofer said.

As far as he knows, use of the playground equipment has been “minimal,” Hofer said.

“But I’ve seen it used,” he added.

Still, it’s not like one of the “more active” parks like Prospect, Memorial at Juniata or Fairview, Hofer said.

Before installing the playground equipment, he wasn’t aware that the green space was heavily used, Hofer says.

“Not that I’ve been watching it all the time,” he said.

Actually, according to Spallone, the park had “a lot more stuff.”

That includes a series of swings and a seesaw, he said.

There was also a pavilion, White said, citing a former city employee familiar with the park.

He’s seen kids playing ball on the property and kids riding a sled up the hill on one side, Spallone said.

There are photos of such activities on a Facebook page dedicated to saving the park.

Walter and Melissa Wertz moved to a house on Beech next to the park in 2003 and bought it because of the park, which more than made up for their small yard.

The park was not well cared for, but their children could play there, Melissa said.

A neighbor at the time talked about his previous attempts to purchase the park and close it off so residents could better care for and use it. was gifted – apparently to the city, Melissa said.

Walter grew up in the area and remembers a basketball court and sliding boards there in the 1970s, Melissa said.

Until about five years ago, there were pull-up bars next to their property, she said.

She doesn’t want the city to build houses there.

“Some of the benefits of our home are being lost,” she said, adding that she wants the park to remain available for their grandchildren.

Spallone loves the green space.

“It’s comforting to watch,” he said.

The recreation component called for in the RFP is nothing more than a “tot lot” – completely inadequate, Spallone said.

The city should look elsewhere for places to build homes, he said.

Instead of eliminating Orchard Park, the city should expand it again with a pavilion, along with picnic tables and perhaps fruit trees and a flower garden, Spallone said.

The comprehensive plan calls for investments in recreation — and that has happened, said Councilman Dave Ellis, who cited recent initiatives including a full-service park in Garden Heights, a dedicated basketball court on Sixth Avenue, improvements at Hamilton Park, Fairview Park, Highland Park and Geesey Park, a proposal for a variety of improvements at Garfield Park and lighting for the Juniata Gap Road sidewalk, which is considered a walking trail.

Conversely, the city is in “desperate need for housing,” Ellis said.

And for that, open space is “extremely limited,” he said.

“That means sometimes we have to make tough decisions about where we’re going to do these things,” Ellis said.

The authority’s inclusion of recreation as part of the project signals that the city wants to honor both the need for housing and the need for parks, both of which were pillars of the comp plan, said co-author Peter Lombardi of the consulting firm czb . .

Recreation is a valuable public amenity, but additional housing of a type that appeals to modern tastes is a crucial means of enriching the tax base so the city can afford the facilities to accommodate that recreation, Lombardi said.

The city needs to strengthen its tax base so it can afford to pay its employees to do what needs to be done, said Ron Beatty, a member of both the authority and the City Council.

It behooves both parties to wait until the proposals for the project are released to see how the issues are handled by potential developers, Lombardi said.

No proposals have been made so far, White said.

According to President Shasta Langenbacher, Booker T. Washington Revitalization Corp. entered the battle on the side of the neighbors.

“I understand the need to increase the tax base, but at the same time, removing green spaces that people of all ages enjoy in that neighborhood” is not the way to do that, Langenbacher said.

Removing a city park is “a big deal,” she said.

The city has tried, but so far has not uncovered the full history of the Beech Avenue property, according to White and interim City Manager Nate Kissell.

There are sewer side channels that connect to a main in the alley behind the properties, indicating that there were homes on the lots — or a development plan that didn’t come to fruition, Kissell said.

The city is trying to “achieve a balance between housing and open space,” Kissell said.

It’s trying to “thread the needle,” Langenbacher acknowledged.

“I just hope they will consider other options,” Spallone said.

Mirror Staff Writer William Kibler is at 814-949-7038.