As of late last week, 578 people had signed the petition to halt the proposed construction of market-rate single-family homes on the seven lots comprising Orchard Park, which occupies all but two lots on the east side of the 200 block of Beech Avenue, according to petition starter Damian Spallone, who lives across from the park.

“It’s vital green space we can save for kids and future generations,” Spallone said. “Why do they have to take a park?”

The authority has advertised a request for proposals for the project, which calls for construction not only of several homes but also for a small pavilion and “a playground amenity.”

Proposals are due Dec. 2, the day of the next City Council meeting, which the neighbors plan to attend to express their opposition, according to Spallone.

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

City Council in July adopted an ordinance transferring the park property from the city to the authority, setting the stage for the project, according to Diana White, director of the city’s Community Development Department.

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

The commission didn’t consider it a high-priority park, as she understands it, according to White.

Commission management’s role is to “maintain and program properties as they tell me,” not to oppose a city plan to turn city property to some other use, said commission Executive Director Mike Hofer when asked about that consultation.

The Beech Avenue tract was a designated park, although it was just green space, when he started working at the commission in 1998, Hofer said.

About four or five years ago, the city installed the playground equipment that is currently the only amenity on the property, which also contains several medium-size — but mature — trees, according to Hofer.

As far as he can tell, usage 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 in Juniata or Fairview, Hofer said.

Prior to installation of the playground equipment, he wasn’t aware of the green space being used much, Hofer said.

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

Actually, the park used to have “a lot more stuff on it,” according to Spallone.

That includes a set of swings and a teeter-totter, he said.

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

He’s seen kids playing ball on the property and kids sled riding on the hill at one end, Spallone said.

There are pictures 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, buying it because of the park, which more than made up for their small yard.

The park wasn’t well taken care of, but their kids could play there, Melissa said.

A neighbor at the time told of his prior effort to buy the park and gate it, so area residents could take care of it better and use it, but he was told it couldn’t be sold, due to deed restrictions stemming from when it was gifted — apparently to the city, Melissa said.

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

There were chin-up bars next to their property until about five years ago, she said.

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

“Part of the benefit of our home is going to be gone,” she said, adding that she wants the park to be available for their grandchildren.

Spallone likes the green space.

“It’s comforting to look at,” he stated.

The recreation component called for in the RFP is nothing more than a “tot lot” — wholly insufficient, according to Spallone.

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

Rather than eliminate Orchard Park, the city should enhance it with a pavilion again, 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 been happening, said City Councilman Dave Ellis, who cited recent initiatives, including an all-abilities park in Garden Heights, a specialty 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 has a “desperate need for housing,” Ellis said.

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

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

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

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

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

It behooves both sides to wait until proposals for the project are unsealed, to see how the issues are handled by prospective developers, Lombardi said.

There have been no proposals so far, White said.

The Booker T. Washington Revitalization Corp. has entered the fray on the side of the neighbors, according to corporation President Shasta Langenbacher.

“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” isn’t the way to do it, Langenbacher said.

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

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

There are sewer laterals connecting to a main in the alley behind the properties, which indicates 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’ll consider other options,” Spallone said.

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